HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-22-2015 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION AGENDAerr r
o
WASH I NGIUN
CALL TO ORDER
A. Roll Call
City Council Study Session
June 22, 2015 - 5:30 PM
Auburn City Hall
AGENDA
Watch the meeti ng LIVE!
Watch the meeting video
M eeti ng vi deos are not avai I abl e unti 172
hours after the meeti ng has concl uded.
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS, REPORTS, AND PRESENTATIONS
III. AGENDA ITEMS FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION
A. Veterans Services Presentation (Hursh)
B. Resolution No. 5143* (Hursh)
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Auburn, Washington, authorizing
the City of Auburn to adopt the Intergovernmental Agreement for EMAC and
PNEMA assistance between the Washington Military Department and the City of
Auburn
C. 2014 Save Our Streets Year End Report* (Snyder)
IV. OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS
V. ADJOURNMENT
Agendas and minutes are available to the public at the City Clerk's Office, on the City
website (http: / /www.auburnwa.gov), and via e -mail. Complete agenda packets are
available for review at the City Clerk's Office.
*Denotes attachments included in the agenda packet.
Page 1 of 20
C -M OF
AUBURN AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
WASH I NG1'( -)N
Agenda Subject: Date:
Resolution No. 5143 May 29, 2015
Department: Attachments: Budget Impact:
Administration Resdutim Na 5143 $0
Agreement
Administrative Recommendation:
City Council adopt Resolution No. 5143.
Background Summary:
The City of Auburn participates in several mutual aid agreements related to
emergency and disaster response. This ILA allows the City to continue participating in
the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC), which covers all fifty
states, the District of Columbia and several US territories, and the regional Pacific
Northwest Emergency Management Arrangement ( PNEMA) which includes Oregon,
Washington, Idaho, Alaska, British Columbia and the Yukon Territory. The ILA allows
the City of Auburn to deploy resources as requested to jurisdictions covered by EMAC
and PNEMA and to be fully reimbursed for those resources by the requesting
jurisdiction.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember: Staff: Hursh
Meeting Date: June 22, 2015 Item Number: DI.B
DI.B AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Page 2 of 20
RESOLUTION NO. 5 14 3
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AUBURN, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF
AUBURN TO ADOPT THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT FOR EMAC AND PNEMA ASSISTANCE BETWEEN
THE WASHINGTON MILITARY DEPARTMENT AND THE CITY
OF AUBURN
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn has prepared to respond to emergencies
and disasters, whether natural or man -made, will respond to such events
occurring within its City Limits and will endeavor to respond to such events
occurring in other jurisdictions as requested; and
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn desires to provide mutual aid to and
receive mutual aid from other jurisdictions and governmental entities during
emergencies and disasters as resources permit; and
WHEREAS, it is desirable for the City of Auburn to be fully compensated
when providing mutual aid to other jurisdictions and governmental entities; and
WHEREAS, the state has proposed an intergovernmental agreement
between the Washington Military Department and the City of Auburn pursuant to
the Emergency Management Assistance Compact ( "EMAC ") (Chapter 38.10
RCW), the Interlocal Cooperation Act (Chapter 39.34 RCW), the Emergency
Management Act (Chapter 38.52 RCW) and Pacific Northwest Emergency
Management Arrangement ( "PNEMA ") (hereafter, the "Intergovernmental
Agreement for EMAC and PNEMA Assistance "), attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for the City of Auburn to enter into
the Intergovernmental Agreement for EMAC and PNEMA Assistance.
Resolution No.5143
May 22, 2015
D1.13 Page 1
Page 3 of 20
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Purpose. The City Council of the City of Auburn hereby
approves the adoption of the Intergovernmental Agreement for EMAC and
PNEMA Assistance between the Washington Military Department and the City of
Auburn.
Section 2, Implementation. The Mayor of the City of Auburn is hereby
authorized to execute the Intergovernmental Agreement for EMAC and PNEMA
Assistance and to implement such administrative procedures as may be
necessary to carry out the directions of this resolution.
Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect
upon passage and signatures hereon.
SIGNED and DATED this day of June 2015.
CITY OF AUBURN
NANCY BACKUS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
Danielle Daskam,
City Clerk
APP ED TO FORM:
Da el B. Reid,
City Attorney
Resolution No.5143
May 22, 2015
DI.B Page 2
Page 4 of 20
Military Department IGA #E15 -195
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
FOR EMAC AND PNEMA ASSISTANCE BETWEEN
Washington Military Department AND City of Auburn
Bldg #20, M.S.TA -20 25 W Main Street
Camp Murray, Washington 98430 -5122 Auburn, Washington 98001 -4916
253.512.7055 FAX: 253.512.7203
Contact Person: Mark Douglas
Email: Mark. Douglas @mil.wa.gov
Start Date: Upon Signature
1. INTRODUCTION:
253.876.1925 FAX: 253.939.7769
Contact Person: Sarah K. Miller
Email: skmiller @auburnwa.gov
TIN: 91- 6001228
UBI: 171000010
End Date: January 31, 2020
This Intergovernmental Agreement (Agreement), pursuant to Ch. 38.10 RCW (Emergency Management
Assistance Compact (EMAC)), ch. 39.34 RCW (Interlocal Cooperation Act), ch. 38.52 RCW (Emergency
Management Act), and the Pacific Northwest Emergency Management Arrangement (PNEMA), is made
and entered into by and between the Washington State Military Department through its Emergency
Management Division (EMD), and the local jurisdiction within the State of Washington identified above,
hereinafter referred to as "Jurisdiction ". EMD, through these authorities, coordinates interstate mutual
aid according to the model presented in the National Strategy for Homeland Security. EMAC, Chapter
38.10 RCW, and Public Law 104 -321, authorize and direct the deployment of certain necessary mutual
aid between the EMAC participants, who are currently all fifty states, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, and the District of Columbia. PNEMA and Public Law 105 -381 authorize and direct the
deployment of certain necessary mutual aid between the PNEMA participants, who are currently the
States of Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, the Canadian Province of British Columbia, and the
Yukon Territory. This Agreement provides for the use of authorized resources (including employees and
equipment) of the Jurisdiction in responding to requests for EMAC or PNEMA assistance from a
participating party in which EMD has identified authorized resources of the Jurisdiction that are qualified
and immediately available to deploy and perform the requested EMAC or PNEMA assistance in a
requesting participating party.
2. SCOPE:
Pursuant to this Agreement, the authorized resources of the Jurisdiction will be deployed to provide
EMAC or PNEMA assistance. When the deployed authorized resources of the Jurisdiction are
employees of the Jurisdiction, those Jurisdiction employees will be treated as state employees for
purposes of EMAC or PNEMA deployment only and will be entitled to the rights and benefits under
EMAC or PNEMA available to state officers and employees, but not for any other purpose. The
Jurisdiction will be reimbursed for authorized costs incurred as a result of authorized resource
deployment as provided in this Agreement.
3. Authorization and Deployment of Resources
a. This Agreement is not an authorization to deploy. EMAC and PNEMA deployment of the
Jurisdiction's resources under this Agreement shall only be authorized as provided in a
completed amendment to this Agreement in the form of "Attachment A" that has been mutually
executed by the parties. The Jurisdiction shall not deploy any resources under this
Agreement except in compliance with such authorization. No reimbursement will be
provided for resources deployed inconsistent with such authorization.
YNRC & PNEMA IGA Page 1 of 4 City of Auburn, E15'19 Of 20
Military Department IGA #E15 -195
b. Jurisdiction resources authorized for deployment under this Agreement (the "authorized
resources ") are only those listed on mutually executed amendments in the form of "Attachment
A" that reference this Agreement by number and include the authorized charge code, EMAC or
PNEMA mission number and disaster name, identification of the authorized resource
(employee /equipment), description of the anticipated EMAC or PNEMA duties, maximum
reimbursement, estimated duration of deployment, reporting location, point of contact at the
destination, and completed verification of credentials.
4. Financial Management and Reimbursement
a. The Military Department will reimburse the Jurisdiction for the expenses of authorized resources
deployed under this Agreement up to the maximum amount provided for herein to the extent
supported by proper documentation establishing the expenses were actually incurred pursuant
to authorized deployment under the Agreement. No reimbursement will be provided for
resources deployed inconsistent with the authorization contained in a completed amendment
to this Agreement in the form of "Attachment A" that has been mutually executed by the parties.
b. The authorized resource expenses that may be reimbursed are only those contained in a
completed amendment to this Agreement in the form of "Attachment A" that has been mutually
executed by the parties, and include employee salary, benefits, overtime, air and land travel
expenses, lodging, and per diem; and equipment use and operation costs. Unless this
Agreement is amended by Attachment A to provide otherwise, lodging and per diem shall only
be reimbursed in accordance with the Federal General Services Administration (GSA) rates for
the applicable deployment location existing at the time of deployment under this Agreement,
which are located at http: / /www.asa.aov /portal /category /21287.
c. The maximum amount of reimbursement for Fire District and Fire Department authorized
resources shall be based on the State Fire Chiefs Rate Schedule in effect at the time of
deployment, which is incorporated herein by reference. For all other Jurisdictions, the maximum
amount of reimbursement for authorized employee expenses under this Agreement shall be the
lesser of (1) the maximum amount identified in the mutually executed Attachment A to this
Agreement and amendments thereto, or (2) the amount that the employee would have received
in the absence of this Agreement. In no case will reimbursement for authorized resources of any
Jurisdiction (including Fire Districts and Fire Departments) exceed the maximum estimated total
resource cost identified in the mutually executed Attachment A or a subsequent mutally
executed written amendment thereto in the same form.
The Jurisdiction shall maintain books, records, documents, receipts and other evidence which
sufficiently and properly support and reflect all costs and expenditures authorized by this
Agreement. These records shall be subject to inspection, review or audit during normal business
hours by authorized Department personnel or its designee(s), the Office of the State Auditor, and
federal officials so authorized by law. Such books, records, documents, receipts and other
material relevant to this Agreement shall be retained for six (6) years after expiration.
e. The Jurisdiction will submit a final state invoice voucher identifying this Agreement and the
appropriate charge code to the Military Department within 45 days after return by the deployed
authorized resource, and must include documentation and receipts supporting all claimed
reimbursement. The Jurisdiction agrees to immediately comply with any request by EMD for
additional supporting documentation or receipts.
5. Resource Management
a. The Jurisdiction agrees that it will only deploy employees as authorized resources under this
Agreement who are fully qualified and capable of performing the duties described in the
completed and mutually executed Attachment A and under the conditions described therein. The
Jurisdiction agrees that if any of its employees deployed as an authorized resource under this
Agreement are determined by the EMAC or PNEMA requesting participant, in its sole discretion,
YNTAC & PNEMA IGA Page 2 of 4 City of Auburn, E1 �'19P Of 20
Military Department IGA #E15 -195
to not meet this requirement, those employees may in the sole discretion of the EMAC or
PNEMA requesting participant be returned to the Jurisdiction from which they deployed at the
sole cost and expense of the Jurisdiction, and the cost and expense of deploying and returning
the employee(s) will not be reimbursed under this Agreement. Such qualifications and
capabilities shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
1) Has completed training for ICS 100, 700 and 800;
2) Has received training customary or required for the position for which they are being
deployed;
3) Currently possesses all certifications and licenses required in the state of Washington to
perform the duties for which they are being deployed;
4) Has past experience operating in the position for which they are being deployed; and
5) Has the ability to fully and effectively perform all duties of the position for which they are
being deployed.
b. The Jurisdiction agrees that if any of its employees deployed as an authorized resource under
this Agreement exhibit behavior, conduct or other condition that, in the sole discretion of the
EMAC or PNEMA requesting participant, interferes with the employee's ability to perform the
duties for which they are deployed, that employee may, in the sole discretion of the EMAC or
PNEMA requesting participant, be returned to the Jurisdiction from which they deployed at the
sole cost and expense of the Jurisdiction, and such cost and expense will not be reimbursed
under this Agreement.
c. The Jurisdiction agrees that it will only deploy equipment as an authorized resource under this
Agreement that is in good working order and condition when deployed. Any such equipment
determined by the EMAC or PNEMA requesting participant in its sole discretion not to have been
in good working order or condition at the time of deployment may, in the EMAC or PNEMA
requesting participant's sole discretion, be returned to the Jurisdiction from which it was
deployed at the sole cost and expense of the Jurisdiction, and the cost and expense of deploying
and returning the equipment will not be reimbursed under this Agreement.
d. The Jurisdiction agrees that its employees deployed under this Agreement will be required by the
Jurisdiction to conduct themselves in a professional and ethical manner throughout the period of
deployment, consistent with all laws, regulations and policies applicable to the Jurisdiction and
its employees.
e. Hold Harmless. To the extent allowed by law, each party shall defend, protect and hold harmless
the other party from and against any claims, suits, and /or actions arising from any negligent act
or omission of that party's employees, agents and or authorized representatives while performing
under this Agreement.
6. Alterations And Amendments
This Agreement and any of its Attachments may only be altered or amended by mutual agreement of the
parties. Such amendments shall not be binding unless they are in writing and signed by personnel
authorized to bind each of the parties. All other terms and conditions of this Agreement shall remain in
full force and effect and binding upon the parties.
7. Termination
Either party may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days prior written notification to the other
party. If this Agreement is so terminated, the parties shall be liable only for performance rendered or
costs incurred in accordance with the terms of this Agreement prior to the effective date of
termination.
YNTAC & PNEMA IGA Page 3 of 4 City of Auburn, E1 x'195 Of 20
Military Department IGA #E15 -195
8. All Writings Contained Herein
This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. No other
understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be deemed
to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement.
For the Department: For the Jurisdiction:
BY: BY:
Richard A. Woodruff Date Nancy Backus Date
Contracts Administrator Mayor
Washington Military Department City of Auburn
BOILERPLATE APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Brian Buchholz (signature on file) 01/09/2012
Senior Counsel, Assistant Attorney General
YNRC & PNEMA IGA Page 4 of 4 City of Auburn, E15'19 Of 20
C_M OF
AUBURN
WASH I NG1'( -)N
AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
Agenda Subject: Date:
2014 Save Our Streets Year End Report June 15, 2015
Department: Attachments: Budget Impact:
CD & PW Save Our StreetsYear End Report $0
VidnitVMap1 - 2014 SOS Project Streets
V idnity Map 2 - 2015 SOS Project Streets
Vidnity Map 3 -Local Streets Needing Work
V idnity Map 4 -Completed SOS Projects
Administrative Recommendation:
For discussion only.
Background Summary:
Attached for your information you will find the 2014 Year End Report for the Save Our
Streets Program. This report gives a brief history of the Save Our Streets Program,
talks about the pavement condition of local streets, how the city maintains streets,
details the street selection process for the program, and gives an overview of the list
of projects that were completed in 2014 and the projects that are going to be
completed in 2015.
Reviewed by Council Committees:
Councilmember: Staff: Snyder
Meeting Date: June 22, 2015 Item Number: DI.0
DI.0 AUBURN * MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED Page 9 of 20
SAVE OUR STREETS
2014 YEAR END REPORT
24t' Street SE rebuilt as part of the 2014 SOS Program
Contents
SOS Program Background ................ ..............................1
Improving Pavement Condition of Local Streets .............2
Auburn's Pavement Maintenance ..... ..............................3
Auburn's Street Selection Process ... ..............................4
2014 SOS Projects ............................ ..............................5
2015 SOS Projects ............................ ..............................6
Map 1 - 2014 SOS Project Streets ...........................7
Map 2 - 2015 SOS Project Streets ............................8
Map 3 - Local Streets Needing Work ...........................9
Map 4 - Local Streets preservation completed ............
10
DI.0 Page 10 of 20
THE SOS PROGRAM BACKGROUND
The City classifies streets based on the type of traffic they are intended to support. Major
streets that are intended to support a large amount of traffic traveling to neighboring
jurisdictions, to state highways and across the City are typically classified as arterial streets.
Streets that are intended to support a moderate amount of traffic and connect neighborhoods
and industrial /commercial areas to arterial streets or to other neighborhoods and
industrial /commercial areas are generally classified as collector streets. Streets that are
intended to support a low volume of traffic and connect local residences and businesses to an
arterial or collector street are generally classified as local streets.
The City currently maintains 215 centerline miles of streets, of which 117 centerline miles
(more than half the network) are classified as local streets. In 2004 the public was expressing
concern over the condition of these local streets, but funding for local streets had dropped
dramatically in the preceding years (see Figure 1) and the City could not afford to make the
needed improvements.
In response to the situation, the City proposed a funding measure which was approved by
Auburn citizens in the November 2004 General Election. The original funding measure allowed
the City's property tax levy to generate additional revenue for a dedicated local street fund
which is used solely to fund a local street preservation and improvement program, called the
Save Our Streets (SOS) Program. At the end of 2012, the practice of funding the SOS
Program from property taxes ended. In 2013, the City Council earmarked sales taxes from new
construction to be dedicated to the SOS Program, and all property taxes were retained in the
General Fund.
2000: Loss of Motor
Vehicle Excise Tax
(In .1— 695)
$1.07M
2005 SOS
Established
21M
2003 Loss of $15 S1.8M
Local Option Vehicle
Excise Tax
(Ind,.t a ns)
$652K
$550K $560K
S1.2M
$150K $150
n� rr t - -- --
S2 6M
$2.2M
$2.OM
S1 5M
$2.OM
S2.5M
S1.8M
S2.4M
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Figure 1: Local Street Funding through the years
CITY OF +
ADBURN
DI.0 WASHINGTON
Page 11 of 20
In 2005, the City had approximately 59 miles of local streets that were in need of repair (this
mileage includes streets that were later annexed into the City in 2008). Since 2005, the SOS
Program has improved the condition of 48 miles of those City streets, however as time passes
other streets in our network age and their condition continues to deteriorate. In the next few
years, additional streets will need to be maintained and /or rebuilt to keep the street system
healthy. See Map 3 and Map 4 for the current local streets needing work and the roadways that
have had preservation work completed throughout the programs life.
During the initial years of the SOS Program, the City focused mainly on preserving streets in
fair to poor condition. The reasons for this were twofold: it addressed streets in need of repair,
and it prevented those streets from deteriorating to the point that a far more expensive
treatment (such as a total rebuild) would be needed. In 2009, many streets in fair to poor
condition were preserved and the City also began to rebuild streets that were in very poor
condition.
IMPROVING PAVEMENT CONDITION OF LOCAL STREETS
The City of Auburn, like most cities, uses a Pavement Management Database to track
pavement condition, make projections of budget needs, make projections of future pavement
conditions, and manage the street system on a citywide basis. Figure 2 below shows how local
street conditions have changed since the SOS program was created. The chart shows that the
general trend in pavement condition has been increasing since the inception of the SOS
program. The pavement ratings shown were based on pavement surveys that were done in
2006 for most of the city, and in 2008 for the annexed areas of Lea Hill and the West Hill. In
2013, the City upgraded the Pavement Management Software used to track pavement
conditions and conducted a new pavement condition survey. In 2014 the new system was
brought on -line and this more current data is shown on Figure 2 in the 2014 column. As you
can see on the graph, the condition rating for the City's Local Streets took a down turn.
Figure 2: History of Local Street Pavement Condition
100%
90%
80%
J i 70%
m 3 60%
Z 50%
c +, 40%
30%
N 20%
a 10%
nni
v io
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Good (PCI 100 -70)
52%
56%
62%
68%
75%
77%
76%
78%
79%
82%
66%
Fair (PCI 70 -50)
20%
17%
13%
10%
12%
10%
11%
10%
10%
8%
8%
Poor (PCI 50 -25)
15%
15%
14%
10%
5%
5%
5%
5%
4%
5%
18%
Very Poor (PCI 25 -0)
12%
13%
11%
12%
7%
8%
9%
8%
7%
5%
7%
CITY OF *_!
AUBURN
DI.0 WASHINGTON
Page 12 of 20
2
How could this happen? City staff evaluated the data, and have determined that there are
several reasons for the downward movement in pavement conditions. The previous pavement
management software that the City employed used the 2006/2008 pavement rating survey data
to forecast pavement conditions in subsequent years, and with only one data point in the system
it did not do an adequate job of predicting the actual rate of decline for each street over the
years since 2006/2008. Additionally, the pavement rating data collected in 2013 was far more
comprehensive than previous surveys. In the 2006/2008 survey, a typical street was rated on
the condition of an approximate 1,000 square foot area, and then that rating was applied to the
entire length of a street segment. Because of the advancements in the technology available for
this type of work, the 2013 pavement condition rating survey used a more automated process
for collecting the pavement conditions over the entire length of the street segment.
Additionally, the 2013 survey rated several miles of streets that had not been rated previously.
So the amount of pavement that was surveyed was greater on each street, and several miles of
additional streets were rated and added to the database as well. Some other factors that play a
role in pavement degradation are pavement age, thickness, base materials, and traffic loading.
Given the advancement in technology and the reduced cost to be able to collect pavement
condition information the intent of the program moving forward is to survey the City's pavement
condition on a 2 to 3 year basis. Having this more accurate information allows the Pavement
Management Software to make better projections of future conditions and budget needs for long
range planning. This will provide City Staff the best information about how well the system is
truly performing, and allow better decisions on how and where to invest the available funds in
the future.
AUBURN'S PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE
The City measures pavement condition using the Pavement Condition Index (or PCI). As
shown in Figure 3, PCI values represent pavement condition based on a scale from 0 to 100
with 100 being newly constructed pavement and 0 indicating the pavement has completely
failed. The City's goal is to maintain local streets so that their PCI values are at or above 70.
VERYPOOR POOR FAIR GOOD
Failed 25 50 70 90 New
0 100
Figure 3: Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Scale
PCI values generally indicate the optimal time to repair the pavement. The most cost
effective time to preserve pavements is when the PCI ratings are in the 50 -70 range, because
the pavement repair typically requires relatively inexpensive treatments that simply preserve the
existing pavement. Additionally pavement condition tends to diminish at an accelerated rate
after they have reached a PCI range of 50 -70. Pavements with moderate to low PCI values
usually require more expensive rehabilitative treatments. Pavements with very low PCI values
are often unsalvageable and have to undergo a very expensive rebuild. Figure 4 shows the
various treatments for pavement restoration for different PCI ranges, and the typical life span
and cost of each treatment.
CITY CIF
AUBURN p
WASHINGTON
Page 13 of 20
3
Figure 4: Pavement Restoration Decision Matrix for Local Streets
Pavement
Condition
Typical Treatment
Typical
Life of
Treatment*
Typical
Cost
PCI 90 - 100
$25 to $35
_ike -New
No Treatment Needed
N/A
N/A
Condition
........ .........
._ .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...............................
years
......................................... ...............................
PCI 70 - 89
Seal Cracks — Cracks are sealed with liquid asphalt to
3 - 5
$0.75
Good
prevent water from penetrating the pavement and weakening
per square
Condition
the base material that forms the foundation for the pavement.
years
yard
Condition
Patching and Thin Overlay — Broken pavement is replaced
$7,50 -$10
(patched) to renew the load carrying ability of the existing
10-15
$15 to $23
pavement. Then the road is overlaid with a thin layer of
Years
per square
PCI 50 - 69
, t (1 /2 inch or less in depth) to preserve the existing
pavement
Years
yard
Fair
pavement and provide a smooth driving surface.
Condition
Chip Seal — A thin layer of liquid asphalt is sprayed over the
20+
$5 to $7
Very Poor
Condition
entire pavement surface and then covered with a thin layer of
3-10
per square
aggregate. Chip seals typically do not last as long as a thin
years
yard
overlay nor do they provide as smooth of a driving surface.
'Life of treatment will vary based on the traffic volume and type of vehicles that use the street, the strength of the pavement and
underlying soil, the age of the existing pavement, and the amount of vehicle turning /stopping movements on the street.
AUBURN'S STREET SELECTION PROCESS
The City surveys Auburn's street system and rates each street segment by calculating a PCI
value for each one. With the help of the Pavement Management Database, the City can use the
PCI values from the pavement condition surveys and the treatment costs from the decision
matrix (Figure 4 above) to determine the approximate funding needs for any project for the
entire local street system. Since the repair costs for the overall system exceed what the City
can fund in any given year, the City then prioritizes, narrows and selects a limited number of
streets for each year's SOS program.
AUBURN
DI.0 WASHINGTON
Page 14 of 20
2
Extensive Patching and Thin Overlay — Same treatment
$25 to $35
as above only more extensive patching is typically required.
10-15
(Some streets in this condition require a thicker overlay of 2 =
years
per square
yard
inches or greater).
PCI 25 - 49
Poor
Double Chip Seal — A thin layer of liquid asphalt is sprayed
Condition
over the entire pavement surface and then covered with a thin
$7,50 -$10
layer of aggregate, then this process is repeated a second time.
3-10
Based on experience, the City has found that double chip seals
Years
per square
yard
typically last longer than single chip seals, especially when the
existing pavement is in poor condition.
PCI 0 - 24
Rebuild Pavement — Existing pavement is completely
20+
$150 to $200
Very Poor
Condition
removed and a new road is constructed.
years
per square
yard
'Life of treatment will vary based on the traffic volume and type of vehicles that use the street, the strength of the pavement and
underlying soil, the age of the existing pavement, and the amount of vehicle turning /stopping movements on the street.
AUBURN'S STREET SELECTION PROCESS
The City surveys Auburn's street system and rates each street segment by calculating a PCI
value for each one. With the help of the Pavement Management Database, the City can use the
PCI values from the pavement condition surveys and the treatment costs from the decision
matrix (Figure 4 above) to determine the approximate funding needs for any project for the
entire local street system. Since the repair costs for the overall system exceed what the City
can fund in any given year, the City then prioritizes, narrows and selects a limited number of
streets for each year's SOS program.
AUBURN
DI.0 WASHINGTON
Page 14 of 20
2
There are many factors the City must consider when determining which streets to rebuild
and or rehabilitate each year. One of the most important factors the City considers when
choosing which streets to rebuild is the availability of utility funds to pay for any needed utility
replacement work. Many of the water, sewer and storm drainage utility mains that exist under
the streets need to be replaced due to damage, age of pipes, pipe material type, or there may
be a need for a system upgrade. Replacing the utility mains at the same time as street
restoration is more economical and disturbs the neighboring residences only once. Additionally,
it prevents a newly restored or treated surface from being damaged by trenching that's needed
to replace underground utilities following new roadway construction.
Consultation with the City's maintenance staff is also done when selecting streets to
rehabilitate or rebuild to identify streets that are beyond what they can adequately repair
themselves or where excessive staff time is being spent on temporary repairs. Streets that
require more attention by staff are given a higher priority. Streets with significant drainage
problems, significant bumps and dips, and poor ride quality are also given a high priority.
Additionally City staff consider the number of residents being served by the street; coordination
with third party utility companies; and coordination with private property developments when
selecting streets to rebuild each year.
2014 SOS PROJECTS
The 2014 SOS Program completed improvements to the roads shown on MAP 1 as part of the
two projects below:
2014 CITYWIDE PAVEMENT PATCHING, AND OVERLAY PROJECT — This project was
delayed to early 2015 and included 0.49 miles of asphalt overlay. The contract was awarded in
February 2015, and Construction began in mid -March 2015 at a total bid amount of $267K for
the local street fund work.
2014 LOCAL STREET PAVEMENT RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT — This project rebuilt the
pavement on 0.72 miles of local streets throughout the City. The project also replaced 3,977
linear feet of storm drainage pipes; upgraded 2,521 linear feet of undersized or old water main
lines and replaced 68 water meter service connections; and installed 595 linear feet of sanitary
sewer line using utility funds. Construction began in July 2014 and was completed in December
of 2014 at a total cost to the local street fund of $1.67M.
K St NE Before Rebuild
fi
CITY OF
AUBURN
WASHINGTON
K St NE After Rebuild
Page 15 of 20
k,
2015 SOS PROJECTS
Approximately $2,475,000 has been budgeted for the 2015 SOS Program to complete
improvements to the roads shown on MAP 2 as part of the two projects below:
2015 CITYWIDE PAVEMENT PATCHING, AND OVERLAY PROJECT — This project will
preserve streets in fair to poor condition by overlaying 0.83 miles of roadways.
2015 LOCAL STREET PAVEMENT RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT — This project will rebuild
0.88 miles of roadway throughout the City.
CITY OF
ADBURN p
WASHINGTON
Page 16 of 20
p
.. 6g0 ,p0 9g0
SCALE: 1 INCH = 3,300 FEET
NEWS
M
40th St NE
Auburn Way N to I St NE
Work:
Thin Overlay
Length of street
1 Block - 664 feet
9
�9
KStNE
East Main St to 4th St NE
Work:
Rebuild Street and Improve
Drainage
Improve Water Line
Improve Sewer
Length of Street Reconstruction
4 Blocks - 1126 feet
au�s�evu.
t
d
HStSE&
19th St SE
21st St SE to 17th St SE
Work:
Rebuild Street and Improve
Drainage
Improve Water Services
9
Length of Reconstruction
4 Blocks - 1254 feet
PM1�
a
n
n
n
e
24th St SE
M St SE to R St SE
Work:
Rebuild Street and Improve
Drainage
Improve Water Line
Length of Reconstruction
4 Blocks - 1284 feet
54th St SE
Mill Pond Dr to Lakeland
way
Work
57th St SE
�t
Thin Overlay
i■■
I
Length of Overlay
H Work:
3 Blocks - 1340 feet
Thin Overlay
Length of Overlay
11�11
.e
4 � �
Ikw /�I
MAP 1: 2014 SOS PROJECT STREETS
2014 LOCAL STREET PAVEMENT
s
RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
2014 CITYWIDE PAVEMENT PATCHING
AND OVERLAY PROJECT
DI.0 Page 17 of 20
May 27, 2015 LOCATION: \\AUburn11 \eng_1l,,s\]al \Local Street Preservation Program \End Of Year Reports \2014 Year End Report\Back lip flies \2014 SOS PROJECT Map.dwg
. I-
D STREET SE
Auburn Way S to 12th St SE
Work:
Rebuild Street
Improve Drainage
Improve Water Line
Length of Reconstruction
3 Blocks - 1107 feet
I
l
7TH STREET SE
A St SE to Auburn Way S
Work:
Rebuild Street
J° a
Improve Drainage
17th St SE to 21st St SE
Water Line Improvement
Length of Reconstruction
2 Blocks - 907 feet
. I-
D STREET SE
Auburn Way S to 12th St SE
Work:
Rebuild Street
Improve Drainage
Improve Water Line
Length of Reconstruction
3 Blocks - 1107 feet
I
l
I 4
1 r .
3,300 FEET
316TH,315TH,
113TH & 114TH
Work: THIN
OVERLAY
13r' /I
MAP 2: 2015 SOS PROJECT STREETS
CP1414 - LOCAL STREET PAVEMENT
RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
CP1506 - 2015 PAVEMENT PATCHING
AND OVERLAY PROJECT
DI.0 Page 18 of 20
lay 27, 2015 LOCATION: \\AUburu11 \eng_1les\]al \Loca1 Street Preservation Program \End Of Year Reports \2014 Year End Report\Back lip flies \2015 SOS PROIECT Map.dwg
K STREET SE
N
17th St SE to 21st St SE
N
Work:
Rebuild Half Street
Improve Sewer
Improve Water Line
Length of Reconstruction
pill,
1!
N
N
D STREET SE
37th St SE to 41st St SE
Work:
�m'll
Rebuild Street
NO
I 4
1 r .
3,300 FEET
316TH,315TH,
113TH & 114TH
Work: THIN
OVERLAY
13r' /I
MAP 2: 2015 SOS PROJECT STREETS
CP1414 - LOCAL STREET PAVEMENT
RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
CP1506 - 2015 PAVEMENT PATCHING
AND OVERLAY PROJECT
DI.0 Page 18 of 20
lay 27, 2015 LOCATION: \\AUburu11 \eng_1les\]al \Loca1 Street Preservation Program \End Of Year Reports \2014 Year End Report\Back lip flies \2015 SOS PROIECT Map.dwg
K STREET SE
N
17th St SE to 21st St SE
N
Work:
Rebuild Half Street
Improve Sewer
Improve Water Line
Length of Reconstruction
4 Blocks - 1322 feet
1!
N
N
D STREET SE
37th St SE to 41st St SE
Work:
Rebuild Street
Improve Drainage
N N
Improve Sewer
g
Length of Reconstruction
4 Blocks - 1340 feet
I 4
1 r .
3,300 FEET
316TH,315TH,
113TH & 114TH
Work: THIN
OVERLAY
13r' /I
MAP 2: 2015 SOS PROJECT STREETS
CP1414 - LOCAL STREET PAVEMENT
RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
CP1506 - 2015 PAVEMENT PATCHING
AND OVERLAY PROJECT
DI.0 Page 18 of 20
lay 27, 2015 LOCATION: \\AUburu11 \eng_1les\]al \Loca1 Street Preservation Program \End Of Year Reports \2014 Year End Report\Back lip flies \2015 SOS PROIECT Map.dwg