Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/08/07 Item 17 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT 8/7/07,Itern 17" SUBMITTED BY: RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE STAFF TO UNDERTAKE A PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT ON ALPINE-MINOT STREET BETWEEN E STREET AND F STREET AND TRANSFER $27,560 FROM THE TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX APPROPRIATION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT STL335, PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FY 2007-08 TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT STL329, PAVEMENT REHABILITATION ON ALPINE-MINOT STREET BETWEEN E STREET AND F STREET. -.-- ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/CITY ENGINEER S / DIRECTOR OF GENERAL SERVICES ;4.J+ ;j/ DIRECTOR OF PUBL~C :\O)S OPERATIONS CITY MANAGER ~~ 4/5THS VOTE: YES ~ NO o ITEM TITLE: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND The City of Chula Vista has developed a comprehensive pavement management system that will guide the City on its decisions in the future as to when and what pavement management treatment streets will receive. This system analyzes the entire City's pavement inventory and, based upon the physical condition of the streets, the pavement condition index and the funding available, lists will be developed that will form the basis for the contracting of future pavement rehabilitation projects. In 2005, the City received inquiries from residents of Alpine-Minot Street between E and F Streets. The residents indicated that they believed that their street should be resurfaced and that improvements to the sidewalks should be made. City staff undertook site meetings and inspections as well as met with residents over the past two years. In addition, the City made significant repairs to sidewalk panels on the street and resurfaced the street through a combination of Asphalt Rubber Aggregate Membrane (ARAM) and a sand seal. Residents have re-contacted the City indicating that additional pavement treatments are needed. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the Californi~ Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project qualifies for a Class I Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the State CEQA Guidelines because the proposed project consists of minor alterations to an existing public facility involving no expansion of the facility's current use. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary. 17-1 8/7/07,Itern~ Page 2 of 3 RECOMMENDATION Council not approve the resolution and that future pavement treatments on the street be undertaken within the context of the City's comprehensive pavement management program. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. DISCUSSION The City has received inquiries with respect to the pavement surface of Alpine-Minot Street between E and F Streets. The City inspected the street as a result of these inquiries and has undertaken two surface treatments on the street in the past year. The first treatment involved use of the ARAM product on the portions of the street between E Street and the circle and between F Street and the circle. The circle portion of the street received a sand seal application. Both of these treatments served their purposes of providing a seal treatment to the street surface. In both efforts, areas of greater degradation were "dug-out" as is typical of sealing projects. From an engineering perspective, the treatments utilized on this street have been effective and served the purposes for which they were intended. While the discussions and actions discussed above were occurring, the City has been engaged in developing a comprehensive pavement management system. The goal of such a system is to put in place an objective, street condition driven methodology of developing a condition assessment of all City streets. Then, based on those conditions and available funding, staff would develop the most cost efficient pavement management strategy to preserve and improve the City's streets. The development of this system was completed earlier this year and was presented to the City Council in a Workshop meeting on April 5,2007. At this workshop meeting the City Council approved the methodology recommended by staff to deliver future pavement rehabilitation programs as part of this comprehensive system. Such a system, while analyzing each and every street segment in the City, can only be effectively managed if streets and street segments are allowed to fall where they do based on the rating criteria contained within the system. That criteria takes into account citizen inquiries, traffic volumes, truck traffic loads and, most importantly, visual inspection of the street. After all of these criteria are considered, a Pavement Condition Index (PCl) is assigned. This is a value between 0 and 100 with 100 being the highest. The goal of the system as staff presented it and, as Council approved, was to fmd ways to get the City's overall PCI average as high as possible within current funding levels and to investigate additional funding sources that would enable the City to maintain or even increase its average PCI over the long term. Since the City is attempting to implement this system comprehensively, in order to receive the highest overall PCI possible given funding levels, a variety of treatments would be applied to streets with varying conditions. The treatments discussed above on Alpine-Minot were treatments that would be consistent for a street in the condition Alpine-Minot was in (i.e. minor cracking, utility trenching and minor oxidation). Therefore, it is staff s recommendation that this portion of Alpine-Minot continue to be evaluated as part of the City's comprehensive pavement management system. The estimated costs to undertake a Type II slurry on the street is $27,560. There are no dig-outs required as those were completed with the previously completed ARAM and sand seal treatments. The cost estimate is included as Attachment I. Photographs of the current condition of the street from a number of locations are included as a packet labeled Attachment 2. 17-2 8/7/07, ItemJL Page 3 of 3 There have been a number of memorandums and Council Information Items provided with respect to this issue over the past two years. The most recent Council Information Item, dated January 19, 2007, attempted to summarize the history of the matter. That document and its attachments are attached for further information on this matter and labeled as Attachment 3. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site specific and consequently the 500 foot rule found in California Code of Regulations section l8704.2(a)(1) is not applicable to this decision. FISCAL IMPACT Neither the approval or the rejection of this resolution will have any impact on the General Fund. The cost of the project would be borne by the Transportation Sales Tax fund which funds the majority of the City's pavement rehabilitation activities. A transfer of $27,560 from existing Capital Improvement Project STL335, Pavement Rehabilitation FY 2007-08 to Capital Improvement Project STL329, Pavement Rehabilitation on Alpine-Minot Street between E Street and F Street, will be necessary. This transfer will reduce by $27,560 the amount the City has for its overall Pavement Rehabilitation Program. ATTACHMENTS I. Project Cost Estimate 2. Photos of Project Area 3. January 19,2007 Council Information Item and Attaclunents Prepared by: Jack Griffin, Director of General Services, General Services Department Citywide Home:\General Services\GS Adrninistration\Council Agenda\Alpine Minot Funding Agenda Statement 7.24.07.doc 17-3 A+!-achIYlUl! I CITY OF CHULA VISTA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT \ ENGINEERING DIVISION COST ESTIMATE PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT TITLE: ALPINE-MINOT (CIRCLE) DATE: PREPARED BY: CHECKED BY: STL -340 JULY 24, 2007 MONEDA No. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT i AMOUNT PRICE ~. 1 TYPE II SLURRY 85000 SF $0.22 $18,700.00 2 3 SOIL TESTING I LUMP $1,000.00 $1,000.00 . TRAFFIC CONTROL I LUMP $1,000.00 $1,000.00 5 STRIPING I LUMP $500.00 $500.00 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ,. 15 16 17 18 19 20 . 21 22 23 2. % SUBTOT AL: $ 21,200. % $ 21,200.00 . $ 2,120.00 SUBTOTAL: rr-~:}3:E<L9]] $ 21,200.00' $ 2,120.00 iF"'_%""''''m,"""""",~'4= SUBTOTAL: U__~440~lLqJ $ 21,200.00 $ 2,120.00 I TOTAL: $ 27,560.00 I CONTINGENCIES STAFF COSTS (CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION) STAFF COSTS (DESIGN) 10.0 NOTES: 08/0112007 17-4 Alpine-Minot CIRCLE SLURRY ~ ...... I (11 Attachment 2 Alpine-Minot Street Photographs July 25, 2007 Alpine Looking North Alpine Close-Up at 268 Alpine-Minot Street Photographs July 25, 2007 ~ -.J I Cl Alpine Looking Southwest Alpine-Minot North to E Street ~ ...... I ...... Alpine- Minot Street Photographs July 25, 2007 Minot Looking South Alpine- Minot South to F Street ATTACHMENT :.3 COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEM January 19,2007 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City coun~ Jim Thomson, Interim City Manager .;1,.... . . d Dana M. Smith, Assistant City Manage~ Jack GriffIn, Director of General Service$ VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: Council Referral #295 - Alpine Minot Street Work Please find attached a memorandum from staff providing a detailed history of the above referenced matter along with a number of supporting documents. Staffs recommendation is to not conduct any further pavement treatments on Alpine Minot and follow the recommendations forthcoming from the new pavement management system. This issue has consumed an inordinate amount of staff time and resources and is illustrative of the larger problem of pavement management and resource limitations. The City's pavement (mostly streets) is its single largest capita! asset of all the City's infrastructure facilities. As Councilrnembers are aware, staff and council offices receive many requests for road repair work and other public works services - which are routinely forwarded to the appropriate department. Staff has struggled over the past years to maintain our streets and roads even as need exceeds resources. Chula Vista's public works staff is appropriately trying to rehabilitate and preserve the most highly traveled roads first. Staff also makes good faith attempts to respond to individual citizen requests, especially when health and safety issues are identified. However, individual requests often test staff who try to make decisions based on need and the fair distribution of scarce resources. This issue is especially true of pavement rehabilitation - because everyone drives on the roads and views service needs from their own particular perspective. In this instance, the general condition of the Alpine Minot road is considered to be good and it received improved conditioning and cosmetic benefit from the sand seal coat applied in December. The sequence of events relating to Alpine Minot has been confusing and frustrating for the citizens, our Councilrnembers, and staff. We appreciate how citizens must feel trying to navigate the government bureacracy to "simply" have a road repaved. As you will see in the attached description of work performed, however, road construction work is substantially more complex than most people realize. The frustration and effort associated with the request by residents of Alpine Minot for treatment of their street provides a good example as to why the City needs to complete and implement its comprehensive pavement management system that will provide to the public, the Council, and 17-8 Council Referral #295 - Alpine Minot Street Work. Page 2 staff clear criteria to allow a ranking for road rehabilitation proj ects. For many years, the lack of a data driven management system has hindered the City's programming of its limited funds for street repair and rehabilitation. The effort to bring that new system to Council is nearing completion. Every street in the City has been inspected, analyzed and rated. Staff is very close to being able to present the system to Council. With the completion of the data gathering and rating process, staff is also developing a number of funding options for Council to consider. The importance of this system cannot be overstated. Properly implemented, it will provide an objective and engineering focused methodology to plan, in a multi-year fashion, the City's pavement management activities. ? 1 T-9 MEMORANDUM January 19, 2007 TO: Jim Thomson, Interim City Manager J Dana Smith, Assistant City Manager~ Jack Griffin, Director of General ServicesjIt VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: Council Referral #295 - Alpine Minot Street Work Please find below a summary of the events related to this project. For ease of understanding, we have broken it into pre-contract and post-contract phases: PRE-CONTRACT PHASE · January 12,2006 - Staff provided a Council Information Item (copy attached) which indicates that the entrance portions of the street will be included in the next Asphalt Rubber Aggregate Membrane (ARAM) project. With respect to the circle part of the street, staff stated that it was in good condition and that the street would be analyzed in conjunction with the rest of the City's streets in the new pavement management system. · February 14, 2006 - General Services staff notifies the City Manager's office (memo attached) that it was "staffs intent to bring forward the next group of pavement rehabilitation projects, including a seal coat contract, in approximately six to eight months". This timeframe coincided with the estimates at that time as to when the City's pavement management system would be completed. The City Manager forwarded the memo to "Steve/John", presumably Mayor Padilla and Councilmember McCann with a handwritten note that said, "Alpine will be seal coated within 6 - 8 months". · Spring of 2006 (date uncertain), a meeting was held and attended by Councilmember McCann, Councilmember Chavez, Zaneta Encarnacion, Dave Rowlands, Dave Byers, myself, Mary Bixby (resident) and Gary Stenson (resident). Mrs. Bixby was quite clear at the meeting that she did not wish to address nor hear from staff and was only interested in what the Councilmembers had to say. Despite this, staff was able to indicate with accuracy the timeframe of the ARAM work and the sidewalk work that was planned. We were clear that we were not as certain on any other work as we were working toward completing the pavement management system and we hoped to have that completed in the late summer/early fall. Mrs. Bixby repeatedly said that the work (she meant the actual slurry seal) would be done by summer and I personally attempted to clarify that 17-10 Council Referral #295 - Alpine Minot Street Work Page 2 we were hoping to generate the next list of projects in the late summer/early fall timeframe. · Subsequent to this meeting, there was a meeting on a Saturday on the street with a number of residents. Public Works Operations Director Dave Byers attended this meeting. · In May of2006, the entrance portions of the street were resurfaced with the ARAM product. · During the course of the summer we continued to work on the pavement management system. · On August 3,2006 General Services was directed by the City Manager's office to move forward on an individual contract for a slurry seal project on Alpine-Minot. · Staff infol1jlled the City Manager's office that it was likely that we will pay a significantly higher amount to do this single street as opposed to including it in a much larger list of streets. · On August 15, 2006, General Services informed the City Manager's Office (memo attached) that prices had been solicited from qualified contractors and the low bid was in the amount of $83,050. Staff estimated the cost of the project at $46,700. Staff found that the price for dig-outs made up 96% of the difference and this was directly attributable to the fact that we were doing only one street. Due to the price exceeding $50,000, under the City Charter, the project would need to be formally bid and staff sought guidance as to whether to undertake that bidding process. . On August 30, 2006, staff provided a detailed list of options to the City Manager's Office (memo attached) for resurfacing the street. We were tasked with developing an option that could be done quickly and at a lower cost than the bids received on August 14,2006. Each option was analyzed. Staff provided a recommendation, based purely from an engineering perspective, that no work be carried out on the street at this time. If it was determined that work should progress, a sand seal coat should be undertaken. It was expected that this sort of work could be completed under $25,000 and could be completed in the fall. . September 7,2006 - Staff was directed to proceed with the sand seal project. POST-CONTRACT PHASE · September 15,2006 - Staff advertised the contract to perform the sand seal of the Alpine - Minot Circle (This contract did not include the portions from E Street to the circle and from F Street to the circle as these segments were resurfaced as part of the citywide ARAM rubberized treatment program in the spring of2006). . September 22, 2006 - Bids were opened, Ramona Grading and Paving was the apparent low bidder . Late September, 2006 - Over the course of several days, Public Works Operations crews performed digout and patching operations in advance of the contractor's work. . October 10, 2006 - The pre-construction meeting was held. · October 31, 2006 - City executed the contract for the sand seal. 17-11 Council Referral #295 - Alpine Minot Street Work Page 3 · November 6, 2006 - Contractor performs work that is unfortunately not in compliance with the specifications called out in the bid documents. · November 8, 2006 - Contractor does clean-up and sweeps project area. City informs contractor that the work was not in compliance with the project requirements. · November 9, 2006 - The oil supplier confirmed that a faster setting "SS-ih" asphalt emulsion was used instead of a heavier and slower-setting asphalt emulsion that is typically used in sand seal projects. The faster setting emulsion "broke" too soon and the sand that was placed on it did not "stick" as the City desired. City faxed and mailed a letter of rejection to the contractor. · December II, 2006 - New material submittals are made by the contractor and approved by the City. Contractor directed to attempt the work on December IS, 2006 which looked like a good weather window. · December 12, 2006 - Contractor notifies the City that a required piece of equipment will not be available by December 15th. · December 13, 2006 - City discusses the matter with contractor and targets December 20, 2006 for the work. · December IS, 2006 - Contractor informs the City that its subcontractor is withdrawing from the project citing past bad experiences on similar work. · December 21, 2006 - The City sends a letter to the contractor stating that the work would be rescheduled for a later date when weather conditions are more favorable and instructs the contractor to restore all pavement markings. · January 2, 2007 - City requests confirmation of the contractors receipt of the December 21, 2006 letter. This brings us to the present as it relates to the contract. Staff from the General Services Department and Public Works Operations Department have discussed the situation and our engineering recommendations with respect to moving forward from this point are below. Although the contractor did not meet the precise requirements of the contract specifications, the work completed will perform as intended. Furthermore, the City will withold payment for the full value of the contract due to this non-compliance. Having the contractor go back and redo the work now would actually have negative impacts on the street by placing another oil-based seal on the new oil-based seal. Furthermore, having the contractor wait several months (until spring or early summer) and performing another seal will provide no engineering benefits to the street and will not materially alter the appearance of the street surface. For these reasons, staff recommends terminating the contract at this point in time. During the course of these events, the effort to complete the physical evaluation and rating of every street in the City was completed. With respect to the circle portion of Alpine-Minot between E Street and F Street, the street rating was 80. The overall average rating of streets in the City is 79 and the overall average for northwest Chula Vista is 76. Given the rating of this particular street, it is unlikely that, based on funding levels for pavement rehabilitation in recent years, that this street would have been a candidate for any resurfacing or rehabilitative work for several years. The ratings are based on a 100 point scale and streets are considered to be in good condition with ratings of over 70. It should not be construed that only streets with rankings 17-12 Council Referral #295 - Alpine Minot Street Work Page 4 below 70 should receive attention. In point offact, streets in the 70s are candidates for pavement rehabilitation strategies to avoid having them fall into lower categories that are far more expensive to rehabilitate. Lastly, our recommendation with respect to future pavement treatments would be to update the pavement management system with the work that was undertaken and analyze any future pavement recommendations within the context of the citywide pavement management system. cc: Dana Smith, Assistant City Manager Dave Byers, Director of Public Works Operations Scott Tulloch, Director of Engineering Matt Little, Deputy Director of General Services 17-13 COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL ITEM January 12, 2006 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council VIA: Dave Ro;""'lands, City Manager f ~ V f FROM: Alex Al-Agha, Director of Engineering Jack Griffin, Director of General Services SUBJECT: Alpine - Minot Street At the Nov=ber 1, 2005 City Council meeting, Mayor Padilla requested a report within sixty days . with respect to utility undergrounding and street conditions on Alpine - Minot Street, including possible options for moving forward on improvement projects for the street. Further, the Mayor indicated that in prioritizing projects, staff should take into consideration those efforts made by neighbors to take the initiative on their projects. Parts ofthis referral were responded to in separate components, as described below, resulting in some confusion regarding whether this referral had already been completed. This report is intended to provide a more direct response to the Council referral. Utility Undererounding On Nov=ber 22, 2005 the Engineering Department brought forward a report to Council regarding the history, progress on proj ects given the last priority list and potential next steps for the City's Utility Undergrounding Program. That report indicated the following: The most significant upcoming undergrounding project involves the Bayfront and is anticipated to begin this year. Other priority undergrounding projects as currently scheduled are summarized below. Fourth Avenue from L Street to Oran e Avenue L Street from Monserate Avenue to Nacion Avenue includes Nolan Way L Street from Broadwa to Third Avenue J Street from Broadwa to Hillto Drive J Street from Hillto Drive to Lori Lane Total Estimated Cost (2005 Dollars) 2013 2014 2015 $2,009,000 $2,038,259 $1,553,320 $10,221,579 17-14 This list was created according to Council approved criteria which includes such things as traffic volume, visibility (entrance to the City), aesthetic benefits, relationship to other undergrounding efforts, other associated construction scheduled, and property owner funding. It is also impacted by the requirements related to Rule 20A of the Public Utilities ~ommission, as well as being dependent on allocation of funding by SDG&E and the design and construction schedules of SDG&E. The November 22nd report indicated that it does not appear that Alpine-Minot Streets would have a high enough ranking based on the City's existing criteria and the Rule 20A regulations to qualify for utility undergrounding. However, the report also. reco=ended that, given this neighborhood request, continuing competing priorities and the fact that the proj ect priority list has not been updated since 1998, staff return to Council in 2006 so that Council could have an opportunity to: 1. Consider the current big picture regarding rem .i"i" g overhead utilities; 2. Discuss funding options; 3. Revisit rating criteria in consideration of current council priorities; and 4. Create an updated citywide priority list for utility undergrounding proj ects. It is anticipated that this topic will be scheduled for a Council Workshop at the end of March 2006. Street Condition With respect to existing street conditions, the following actions have occurred. On November 22, 2005, the City Council awarded a contract for a seal coat treatment to be utilized on various City streets. This seal coat, Asphalt Rubber Aggregate Membrane (ARAM), will be undertaken on the entrance portions of Alpine - Minot Street from F Street to the circle and from E Street to the circle. Public Works staff has already performed the necessary dig-out and patching efforts on the entrance portions. A pre-construction meeting will occur next week with work co=encing on the project within two weeks of the meeting. The schedule and plan for the order iD. which the various streets will receive the treatment will be provided at the pre-construction meeting or shortly thereafter. There are a total of 21 streets or street segments that will be part of the ARAM proj ect. Based on site assessments of the condition of the pavement on the circle portion of the street, staff did not reco=end including that portion as the pavement is in fairly good condition. Alpine- Minot, like all City streets will be reviewed as part of the inventory and ranking phases of the new pavement manag=ent program, the contract for which Council approved on January 10, 2006. Once the required baseline data is collected and processed through the management syst=, the final analyses and reco=endations for future pav=ent rehabilitation proj ects will be presented to Counci1.Those projects, as they have in the past, will likely range from slurry seal work, additional ARAM, assuming the City is happy with the result of the impending project, and full pav=ent overlay work. Visual inspection indicates that Alpine - Minot is in fairly good condition, we would not expect it to require full pavement overlay work in the near to medium future. Attached to this report are cost estimates for both a slurry seal treatment as well as an ARAM treatment. Those estimates are based on current unit prices. 1/2:1 b In addition to the ARAM treatment on the entrances, staff will be recOlrmlending including some portions of the sidewalk in need of repair on Alpine ~ Minot in the upcoming annual sidewalk rehabilitation proj ecL We hope this memorandum is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact us if further information is required. cc: Dave Byers, Director of Public Works Operations Alex Al-Agha, Director of Engineering Jack Griffin, Director of General Services Leah Browder, Assistant Director of Engineering Matt Little, Deputy Director of General Services 17s-16 CITY OF CHULA VISTA PUBLIC WORKS OEPARTMENT , ENGINEERING DIVISION COST ESTIMAT~ PROJECT NUMBER: PROJECT TITLE: ALPINE-MINOT (CIRCLE) DA TE: PREPARED BY: CHECKED BY: STL-310 SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 MONEDA INo.l ! I I DeSCRIPTION I QUANTITY UNIT I UNIT AMOUNT , i , PRice I , ~ , TYPE II SLURRY 85000 SF $0.25 $21,25000 i , ! 2 ASPHAL T CONCRETE R5R (DIG-OUTS) 500 TONS $75.00 $37,500.00 i , I 3 SOIL TESTING I LUMP $5,000.00 $2,000.00 ! , . I i 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 , 8 . i I 9 ! 10 i i 11 ! 12 ! 13 . ! 14 I 15 ! 16 " ! 17 I 18 I I 19 I 20 I 21 i 22 I 23 I r 24 % SUB TOTAL: $ 60,750.00 CONTINGENCIES 10.01 $ 60.75000 I $ SUBTOTAL: 1$ $ 60,750.00 : $ SUBTOTAL: 1$ $ 60,750.00 i $ TOTAL: $ 6,075.00 66,825.00 I 6,075.00 72,900.00 I 6,07500 78,975.00 I STAFF COSTS (CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION) % 100! % STAFF COSTS (DESIGN) 10.01 NOTES: 09/20/2005 AIPine-Mint;tiR~L1 SLURRY CITY OF CHULA VISTA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT \ ENGINEERING DIVISION COST ESTIMATE' PRO..!ECT NUMBER: PROJECT TITLE: ALPINE-MINOT (CIRCLE) DATE: PREPARED BY: CHECKED BY: STL-310 SEPTEMBER 15, 2005 MONEOA I No. i DeSCRIPTION QUANTITY I UNIT UNIT I AMOUNT I I ! PRice I 11ARAM AGGREGATE MEMBRANE INTERLAYER 85000 SF $0.55 $46,750 00 21ASPHAL T CONCRETE R8.R (DIG-OUTS) 500 TONS $ 75. 00 $37,500.00 . 3 SOIL TESTING I LUMP $5,000.00 $5,000.00 4 5 5 7 5 . . 10 11 ! 12 . . 13 '4 15 15 17 18 - 1. I 20 21 22 1 . I 23 24 I % SUBTOTAL: $ 89250.00 % I i $ 89.250.00 I $ ISUBTOTAl: 1$ I $ 89,25000 I $ SUBTOTAL: I $ i $ 89.25000 ! $ I TOTAL: $ 8,925.00 98,175.00 I 8.925.00 107,.100.00 I 8.525.00 116,025.00 I CONTINGENCIES 10.0: % 10.0' STAFF COSTS (CONSTRUCTION INspeCTION) STAFF COSTS (Des I GN) 10.0' NOTES: 09/20/2005 AIPil1e.Minlt1iRa~ARAM III' ellY OF (HULA VISTA General Services Department Memorandum DATE: February 14, 2006 TO: Dave Rowlands, City Manager FROM: Jack Griffin, Director (j~_ SUBJECT: Schedule For Next Seal Coat Contract Per your request, please be advised that it is staff's intent to bring forward the next group of pavement rehabilitation projects, including a seal coat contract, in approximately six to eight months', It is our understanding that it will be early fall of this year when the new pavement management system will be completed and operational and at that point street priority lists will be created, Please let me know if you require any additional information Cc: Matt Little, Deputy Director of General Services Leah Browder, Interim Director of Engineering "2-//~(()t: 5' {-< ~~ ( J6t;~ ff~,t'-t f..,,), II P< ~~:;.;"..-- C <I7'--(-?c{ tv - f u.... d '" ,-(Z...~, '-/4'-12 ~ ~ 17-19 J:\G~l'erJ: .S(:rviC'~.<:\FI11-rn5\8&PC_(1(13 (Mern')n:~ldilm)_df;C ~\I{t.- -If General Services Department Memorandum em OF CHUlA VISTA DATE: August 4, 2006 TO: Dana Smith, Assistant City Manager FROM: Jack Griffin, Director of General Services ~ ~ . SUBJECT: Alpine - Minot ResurfacinglStaffDelivery of Projects In accordance with your email dated August 3, 2006, the General Services Department has established a new capital improvement project, Alpine - Minot Resurfacing Between E and F Streets (STL-329). The following is our anticipated schedule for the project: August 9, 2006 - Advertise Project August 24, 2006 - Receive Bids September 19, 2006 - Recommend Award of Contract by Council (this is the first available Council date) October 2006 - Construction Start - Actual Date is dependent on the posting of necessary bonds and insurance by the contractor. Construction duration should be no more than a few days at the most. I would also note that we are concerned that if we simply bid the job with the REAS slurry seal, which has been our standard slurry seal treatment, that we may not get any bids as there are only a few contractors who do that work and the quantity of material may not be worth it for them. Weare therefore going to bid a less specialized slurry as the base bid with an additive alternative for the preferred REAS slurry seal. Please let me know if you require any additional information. Cc: Dave Byers, Director of Public Works Operations Leah Browder, Acting Director of Engineering Matt Little, Deputy Director of General Services JeffMoneda, Sr. Civil Engineer 17-20 C:\DQcuments llllrl Settil'gs\J<lckGr\Desk~{1p\alpine rninot test menm.doc ~!f? ---r- General Services Department Memorandum 01Y Of CHULA VISIA DATE: August 15, 2006 TO: Dana Smith, Assistant City Manager FROM: Jack Griffin, Director of General Services SUBJECT: Alpine - Minot Resurfacing - Update Following up on my memo of August 4,2006, please be advised of the following developments. General Services solicited bids from four contractors for this project on August 9,2006. We required informal bid proposals be submitted by August 14, 2006. The bids included the following line items: Type I REAS Slurry R&R of AC Pavement (Dig-Outs) Traffic Control Stop Legend (thermoplastic) Limit Line (thermoplastic) Dip Legend (thermoplastic) Type II REAS Slurry Additive Alternate. As my memo of August 4th indicated, oUr typical slurry treatment is the Type II REAS slurry. We 'were concerned given the small quantity of this job that we may not get bids for only the Type II as it is more specialized. We received one bid package back from the four solicited contractors. The amount of the bid with the preferred Type II REAS slurry was $83,050. Use of the Type I REAS Slurry would lower the costs by approximately $8,000. Our estimated cost of the job was $46,700. All of our estimated costs were close to the bidded items with the exception of the Dig-Outs. The difference in our estimate and the actual bids on that item was $35,100, which makes up over 96% of the difference. Our estimate was based on costs we had received for similar work in the past and we believe the low quantity of material in combination with the quickly rising price of asphalt is the reason for this discrepancy. We did not receive bids from the other three contractors. 17-21 C\Documents and Settings\JackGr\Desktop\alpine minot update 3 I5.doc Since the costs exceed the $50,000 limit on informal vs. formal bids, in order to move forward we would need to prepare a formalized bid package. This cost of $83,050 does not include staff time, which now will escalate due to the need to proceed with a formal bid package. Please advise as to whether you want us to move forward with a formal bid process. It is unclear whether we will be able to make the September 19, 2006 City Council meeting for a contract award at this point but will do our best to do so. Cc: . Dave Byers, Director of Public Works Operations Leah Browder, Acting Director of Engineering Matt Little, Deputy Director of General Services JeffMoneda, Sr. Civil Engineer 17-22 C:\Documems and SettingsIJackGr\Desktop\aJpine minf)t update 3 15.cQC CITY OF CHULA VlsrA MEMORANDUM August 15,2006 File: STL-329 TO: Jack Griffin, Director of General Services FROM: JeffMoneda, Senior Civil Engineer, Project Design ~ . SUBJECT: INFORMAL BID UPDATE, ALPINE-MINOT CIRCLE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION (STL-329) On August 9, 2006, the City of Chula Vista solicited bids from four contractors for the Alpine- Minot Circle Pavement Rehabilitation project (STL-329). Work for this project includes the following: Asphalt Concrete removal and replacement, placement of Type II REAS Slurry Seal, and the placement of thermoplastic pavement markings. We received only one bid package on the due date of August 14, 2006. The following are the bid results as compared to the Engineer's Estimated Costs for the project. Item Quantitv Unit Price Bid Amount En"ineer's Estimated Cost Tvne II REAS Slurrv 80,000 sf $0.35 $28,000.00 $24,000.00 R & R of AC Pavement 130 tons $400.00 $52,000.00 $16,900.00 Traffic Control I Lume Sum $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $5,000.00 Stop Legend 2 each $750.00 $1,500.00 $300.00 (Thermo elastic) Limit Line 40 If $10.00 $400.00 $400.00 (Thermoe!ast!c) Dip Legend . (Thermonla.tic) 2 each $75.00 $150.00 $100.00 Totals . . $83,050.00 $46,700.00 Per the requirements of the City Charter, projects greater than $50,000 in contract cost must be advertised through the formal bidding process. City staff is currently working on the formal contract and will readvertise the project by August 18, 2006. M:\General Services\Design\STI329\Informal Contract Memo Aug 2006.jcm.doc 17-23 ~\lf?. --- - General Services Department Memorandum CITY OF CHUIA VISlA DATE: August 30, 2006 TO: Dana Smith, Assistant City Manager FROM: Jack Griffin, Director of General Services Dave By~s, Director of Public Works Operations Leah Browder! Acting Director of Engineering SUBJECT: Alpine - Minot Resurfacing - Scenarios In accordance with your direction of August 30, 2006, please find below three basic scenarios for moving forward on resurfacing Alpine-Minot Street between E and F Street. Prior to getting into the scenarios, it should be noted that based on visual inspection and comparison to other streets in the neighborhood and throughout the City, the street does not appear in need of a resurfacing treatment at this time. Circumstances which mitigate that strictly objective engineering view include the significant number of sewer laterals that have been cut in the street in recent months/years, significant neighborhood pressure to resurface the street and the City's verbal commitment to resurface the street. Scenario I: Undertake the resurfacing of the street as a stand-alone project. In both of the following two options, the ability of the City doing the work is temperature dependent; therefore the sooner we move forward, the less chance of having weather related delays. lA. Utilize the City's typical REAS Type I or Type II Slurry material Pros: 1. Is consistent with slurry seal treatment City is utilizing on streets that require treatment but do not rise to the level of needing an ARAM or pavement overlay treatment. Cons: 1. Cost of work is estimated at approximately $80,000. This amount requires formal bidding based on City regulations. The timefrarne for such a process would be: a. Advertise for bids on September 5, 2006 b. Allow minimum of two weeks for bids to be submitted c. Open bids on September 19, 2006 d. Assuming proper bids are received, bring a contract forward to Council on September 26, 2006 17-24 e. Ass=ing proper bonding and insurance is put in place by successful bidder, issue a notice to proceed during the first week of October with completion specified within two weeks. (All of these abbreviated timeframes will need to be included in the bid documents which could result in higher bids or fewer bidders based on their existing work). 2. The cost of the work for this street will be higher than ifit were included in a larger project as we typically do. The informal bids that we solicited showed significantly higher costs for dig-outs than we typically see. This is most likely due to the small quantity of actual dig-outs that need to be done on this lone street. The mobilization costs for bringing equipment and material to this street are not spread over a larger group of streets. IE. Undertake a less structurally significant seal coat treatment (Sand Seal Coat) Pros: 1. Given the relatively good condition of the street, a less structurally significant seal coat treatment would tend to rejuvenate the pavement surface and provide a uniform color appearance. 2. The cost for such a treatment would be significantly less and this type of treatment will be added to the menu of pavement management options with implementation of the new system, particularly on newer streets. 3. Ass=ing that City crews could perform the dig-out work, the cost to an outside contractor would likely be less than $25,000, thus eliminating the need to go through the time consuming elements of a formal bid process. If the price is less than $25,000, the City Manager is authorized to award such work. It would be expected that the work could be completed by September/October. Cons: 1. This type of treatment adds no structural integrity to the street and will not significantly affect the long t= treatment needs of the street. 2. While improving the appearance of the street, it will not make significant improvements in the actual driving surface. 3. These types of treatments are typically utilized on newer streets (approximately 5 years old) as a way to preserve and extend the life of a recently constructed/paved street. Its use and effectiveness on an older street that has not been repaved for quite a few years is questionable. 4. The use of this strategy will likely be noticed by residents both initially and over time as the seal coat wears down more quickly than with a typical REAS slurry treatment. We would expect this type of treatment to be useful for a two-year period. 17-25 5. City crews will be redirected from ongoing work requests. This would add to the list of backlog that the Public Works Operations Department has with respect to street repairs and improvements. Scenario 2: Include the street in a larger list ofREAS slurry seal streets. Like Scenario 1, this scenario is also temperature dependent. Pros: 1. Including the street on a larger list (say $1,000,000 worth of work) will result in a lower cost for the street due to its inclusion in a much larger proj ect. Cons: 1. The development ofa larger project will require additional time. We would estimate a project schedule as follows: a. Creation of a list of streets to undertake by September 8th. b. Field verify all of the dig-out quantities which will likely take four weeks from list creation (complete in early October) c. Advertise for bids in the first three weeks of October. d. Assuming proper bids are received, bring a contract to Council in early to mid November. e. Assuming proper bonding and insurance are put in place, issue a notice to proceed in mid to late November. In order to insure that Alpine-Minot is completed as early as possible, we would stipulate in the bid and contract documents that it be completed first in an attempt to avoid any weather issues. (Including this in the bid documents could result in higher bids due to altering the most efficient order of work planned by the contractor). 2. Given the timeframe for bidding this work, we could run into weather related issues (both rain and temperature). 3. This list would be generated not very far in advance of the finalization and presentation of the City's new pavement management system. It is quite possible that streets on this list would not be included on a list based on the final results of the pavement management system. Scenario 3: Wait until the pavement management system is complete and approved by the City Council Pros: 1. By waiting until the system is approved and operational, the City, for the first time, will have a comprehensive, purely engineering/technical foundation on which to move forward with pavement rehabilitation strategies and reco=endations. 17-26 Cons: 1. Given the sweeping nature of this project and the need to develop funding strategies as well as just identifying lists of streets to be done, it is not likely that the system could be presented to C01,lnci1 until late September at best and more likely late October. The technical information will likely be available by late September, however, the significant fiscal issues will likely require additional time to be addressed. 2. It seems quite likely that Alpine-Minot would not be particularly high up on the priority list for any pavement rehabilitation strategies in the near future, certainly not this year. Reco=endation: From a purely objective/engineering viewpoint, we would reco=end that the City not embark on any pavement rehabilitation efforts until after the pavement management system has been completed and approved. However, we do recognize that certain commitments have been made and that for non-engineering reasons it may make sense to proceed forward on Alpine-Minot. In light of that we would reco=end Scenario lB as the way to go in this case despite the diversion from typical City practices. We think in this limited case, despite the age of the street, the seal coat treatment will provide some limited benefits to the pavement surface and will improve the aesthetics of the street surface. Lastly, you requested that we provided information on street rehabiliation work that has been undertaken in recent years as well as the value of work expected in the current CIP budget. On May 23,2006, I wrote a memo to Zaneta Encarnacion, Constituent Services Manager and described the level of effort since 2002. I've attached a copy of that memorandum, but its worth pointing out that out of the $12.2 million of rehabilitation related street improvements since 2002, that $10.1 million has occurred in western Chula Vista Within the current CIP program, we have $4.6 million of funds already appropriated for pavement rehabilitation and will also be seeking appropriation of additional AB2829 funds for both pavement and drainage improvements within existing streets later this year, Cc: Matt Little, Deputy Director of General Services Rick Hopkins, Assistant Director of Public Works Operations 17-27 MAYOR AND COUNCIL OFFICE STAFF INFORMATIONAL ITEM , May 23, 2006 TO: Zaneta Encarnacion, Constituent Services Manager VIA: FROM: Jack Griffin, Director of General Services SUBJECT: Constituent Case No. 00942M: Streets In response to your email dated May 22, 2006 regarding the above referenced Constituent Case, please find answers to the questions that you asked: 1) Question - Amount of money spent on street improvements since 2002? Answer - The City has spent a $12,200,809.85 on street improvements since 2002. This amount only pertains to work that the City has contracted out and does not include the amount of money the City has spent on the maintenance of streets and does not include sidewalk rehabilitation projects nor does it include any funds spent by private interests such as developers and builders. 2) Question - How many miles re-pavement since 2002? Answer - We do not look at miles as a significant measurement. We monitor the amount of work by square feet and the amount was 15,004,825 square feet. 3) Question - Breakdown of street repairs between east and west? Answer - The amount of square footage is broken down as follows: East (east ofI-805) - 9,382,362.50 square feet West (west ofI-805) - 5,622,462.50 square feet The cost breakdown is as follows: East (east ofI-805) - $2,147,794.30 West (west ofI-805) - $10,053,015.55 As I indicated in my email dated May 22, 2006, the quantity of pavement surface is an apples to oranges comparison with the cost. The western portion of the City has received 82% of the City's pavement investment from a cost perspective. Again, this only includes work the City has contracted for and does not include day-to-day maintenance activities 17-28 4) Question - Are there any projects planned around Hilltop Drive, L Street, Naples or Telegraph Canyon Road? ' Answer - All of these are fairly long streets, so it would be helpful to know if there were specific segments in mind. There is a project planned for L Street between Monserate and Nacion as part of a utility under-grounding project. With respect to future pavement rehabilitation projects, we hope to have our comprehensive pavement manag=ent system completed this summer. Once complete, it will be utilized by staff to prioritize our pavement needs and enable staff to make funding reco=endations to City Council based on objective data. I hope that this memorandum provides the information you requested. Cc: Dave Rowlands, City Manager Tom Oriola, Chief of Staff Dana Smith, Assistant City Manager Leah Browder, Acting Director of Engineering Dave Byers, Director of Public Works Operations Matt Little, Deputy Director of General ServiceslInterim City Engineer JeffMoneda, Sr. Civil Engineer 1 7z-2 9 Pavement Rehabilitation FY 2002/2003 through FY 2005/06 Eastern Chula Vista Fiscal Year Project Number Type of Pavement Area of Pavement Treatment Rehabilitated (sq. ft.) ..... 2002103 STL 284 Flex Seal 2,500,000.00 2002103 STL 277 Chi Seal 1,522,362.00 2003/04 STL 300 Flex Seal 360,000.00 2005/06 STL 310 Flex Seal 5,000,000.00 Cost .'~.. $285,770 $374,408 $114,566 $1,373,050 Totals 9,382,362.00 $2,147,794 Western Chula Vista . .. 1,522,362.00 1,261,100.00 77,000.00 2003/04 STL 293 Overla 1,600,000.00 $2,053,404 2003/04 STL 293 Overlay 90,000.00 $134,900 2004/05 STL 287 Reconstruction 24,000.00 $464,910 2004/05 STL 313 Overla 538,000.00 $1,196,225 2005/06 STL 301 Reconstruction 45,000.00 $666,910 2005/06 STL 302 Reconstruction 45,000.00 $574,434 2005/06 STL 310 ARAM 420,000.00 $519,452 Totals 5,622,462.00 $10,053,015 Percentage Splits Location Pecent ofT otal Percent of Total 17-30 RESOLUTION NO. 2007- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DIRECTING THE STAFF TO UNDERTAKE A PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT ON ALPINE- MINOT STREET BETWEEN E STREET AND F STREET AND TRANSFER $27,560 FROM THE TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX APPROPRIATION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT STL335, PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FY 2007- 08 TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT STL329, PAVEMENT REHABILITATION ON ALPINE-MINOT STREET BETWEEN E STREET AND F STREET WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has developed a comprehensive pavement management system that will guide the City on its decisions in the future as to when and what pavement management treatment streets will receive; and WHEREAS, this system analyzes the entire City's pavement inventory and, based upon the physical condition of the streets, the pavement condition index and the funding available, lists will be developed that will form the basis for the contracting of future pavement rehabilitation projects; and WHEREAS, the residents on Alpine Minot indicated they believed their street should be resurfaced and that improvements to the sidewalks should be made; and WHEREAS, City staff undertook site meetings, site inspections and met with residents over the past two years whereby the City made significant repairs to sidewalk panels on the street and resurfaced the street through a combination of Asphalt Rubber Aggregate Membrane (ARAM) and a sand seal; and WHEREAS, residents have re-contacted the City indicating that additional pavement treatments are needed; and WHEREAS, Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project qualifies for a Class I Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the State CEQA Guidelines because the proposed project consists of minor alterations to an existing public facility involving no expansion of the facility's current use. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary; and WHEREAS, the treatments discussed above on Alpine-Minot were treatments that would be consistent for a street in the condition Alpine-Minot was in (i.e. minor cracking, utility trenching and minor oxidation); and 17-31 WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action; and WHEREAS, the cost of the project would be borne by the Transportation Sales Tax fund which funds the majority of the City's pavement rehabilitation activities; and WHEREAS, a transfer of $27,560 from existing Capital Improvement Project STL335, Pavement Rehabilitation FY 2007-08 to Capital Improvement Project STL329, Pavement Rehabilitation on Alpine-Minot Street between E Street and F Street, will be necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby direct staff to undertake a Pavement Rehabilitation Project on Alpine-Minot Street between E Street and F Street and transfer $27,560 from the Transportation Sales Tax appropriation of Capital Improvement Project STL335, Pavement Rehabilitation FY 2007-08 to Capital Improvement Project STL329, Pavement Rehabilitation on Alpine-Minot Street between E Street and F Street. Presented by Approved as to form by Jack Griffin Director of General Services ~~C1'l\}\ \' \\:\.'(~~}\ Ann Moore City Attorney J:\General Services\GS Administration\Council Agenda\Alpine Minot\Alpine Minot Reso for 080707.doc 17-32