2019, 04-02 Study Session AGENDA
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION FORMAT
Tuesday,April 2,2019 6:00 p.m.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
10210 E Sprague Avenue
(Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting)
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Motion Consideration: Bid Award,Mission Avenue Sidewalk—Bill Helbig [public comment]
2. Motion Consideration Interlocal Agreement,Model Irrigation,University Road Preservation Project—
Bill Helbig [public comment]
3. Motion Consideration: Bid Award,University Road Preservation Project—Bill Helbig
[public comment]
NON-ACTION ITEMS:
DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY GOAL
4. Adam Jackson,Bill Helbig, Pavement Preservation Discussion/Information
John Hohman; Linda Pierce with NCE
5.Mike Basinger Proposed Street Vacation,2019-0001 Discussion/Information
NE Industrial Area
6.Jenny Nickerson, Electrical Inspections Discussion/Information
John Hohman
7.Mayor Higgins Advance Agenda Discussion/Information
8.Mayor Higgins Council Check in Discussion/Information
9.Mark Calhoun City Manager Comments Discussion/Information
ADJOURN
Study Session Agenda,April 2,2019 Page 1 of 1
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: April 2, 2019 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. Report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Bid Award: Mission Avenue Sidewalk and
Preservation Project — University to Union
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 3.35.10 — Contract Authority
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
• 7/18/2017: Admin Report for potential Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Grants,
which included this project
• 7/25/2017: Motion passed authorizing the City Manager to apply for potential TIB Grants
for this project
• 3/6/2018: Admin report for amending the 2018 TIP, which included this project
• 5/15/2018: Admin report for 2019-2024 Six Year TIP
• 06/5/18: Council passed Resolution 18-003, adopting the 2019-2024 Six Year TIP
• 02/5/19: Project Admin Report
BACKGROUND:
In 2017, the City submitted a grant application and was awarded TIB funds to construct a sidewalk
on Mission Avenue between Bowdish Road and the existing sidewalk located approximately 160
feet east of Union Road.
In 2018, City staff identified the pavement on Mission Avenue from University Road to Union Road
as warranting resurfacing through a street preservation project. The sidewalk and the
preservation projects were combined due to their proximity, to reduce project costs and minimize
the impact to the public. This project will patch defective asphalt, grind and inlay two inches of
hot mix asphalt, update some pedestrian ramps, and install stormwater improvements.
The project budget is shown below:
City Fund 301 $ 124,386
City Fund 311 $ 1,483,793
City Fund 402 $ 70,407
City Fund 403 $ 76,886
TIB Grant $ 388,800
Total estimated costs $ 2,144,272
The project was designed in house and advertised on March 1, 2019. Three bids were received
and opened on March 22, 2019. The lowest, responsive, responsible bidder was Inland Asphalt
Company with a bid of$1,194,194. The Engineer's estimate was $1,539,212. Poe Asphalt and
Shamrock Paving, Inc. submitted a bids of$1,385,031.8 and $1,420,003 respectively.
OPTIONS: Award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder or take other
appropriate action.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to award the Mission Avenue Sidewalk &
Preservation Project — University to Union, CIP 0267 to Inland Asphalt Company, in the amount
of$1,194,194 and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the construction contract.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The total project budget is $2,144,272. There are sufficient
funds to cover the cost for this project.
STAFF CONTACT: William Helbig, PE, City Engineer
ATTACHMENTS: Bid Tabulation
Spiikan' c
BID TABULATION Walley
Mission Avenue Sidewalk&Preservation Project
Project CIP No.0267-Bid Opening Date 03/22/2019
Engineers Estimate Inland Asphalt Co. Poe Asphalt Paving Shamrock Paving,Inc.
WSDOT# Item# Units quantity Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost Unit Price Total Cost
Sched A-Street Preservation Work.
0002 100 MOBILIZATION L.S. 1 $100,000.00_ $100,000.00 $111,610.65 $111,610.65 $145,000.00 $145,000.00 $140,000.00 $140,000.00
101 CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING L.S. 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $7,650.00 $7,650.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $8,000.00 $3,000.00
7736 102 SPCC PLAN L.S. 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $700.00 $700.00 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00
103 PUBLIC LIAISION REPRESENTATIVE L.S. 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $9,475.00 $9,475.00 $32,650.00 $32,650.00 $26,000.00 $26,000.00
6971 104 PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL L.S. 1 $80,000.00 $80,000.00 $103,250.00 $103,250.00 $192,000.00 $192,000.00 $164,930.00 $164,930.00
6993 105 PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN HR. 3400 $5.00 $17,000.00 $3.11 $10,574.00 $3.15 $10,710.00 $5.00 $17,000.00
106 EROSION CONTROL L.S. 1 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $3,200.00 $3,200.00 $3,300.00 $3,200.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00
107 DOCUMENTATION COMPLIANCE EST. 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $1.0,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00
7728 108 MINOR CHANGE EST. 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00
0120 109 REMOVE ASPHALT PAVEMENT S.Y. 11200 $14.00 $156,800.00 $4.70 $52,640.00 $11.40 $127,680.00 $6.00 $67,200.00
0110 110 REMOVE CEMENT CONCRETE CURB j L.F. 270 $10.00 $2,700.00 $20.60 $5,562.00 $18.20 $4,914.00 $12.00 $3,240.00
0100 111 REMOVE CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK/DRIVEWAY APPROACH S.Y. 200 $12.00 $2,400.00 $41.65 $8,330.00 $38.80 $7,760.00 $13.00 $2,600.00
112 REMOVE FENCE L.F. 9 $40.00 $360.00 $51.00 $459.00 $51.30 $461.70 $20.00 $180.00
0310 113 ROADWAY EXCAV.INCL.HAUL C.Y. 1 $45.00 $45.00 $22.60 $22.60 $22.80 $22.80 $300.00 $300.00
114 _GRADING S.Y. j 11200 $2.00 $22,400.00 j $2.00 $22,400.00 $1.75 $19,600.00 $5.00 $56,000.00
5120 115 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE TON 425 $120.00 $51,000.00 $17.65 $7,501.25 $40.00 $17,000.00 $55.00 $23,375.00
5711 116 PLANING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT,2 IN.DEPTH S.Y. 6700 $5.00 $33,500.00 $4.50 $30,150.00 $2.00 $13,400.00 $5.00 $33,500.00
117 HMA CL.3/8"PG 64H-28 0.17 FT.DEPTH S.Y. 6700 $14.00 $93,800.00 $10.15 $68,005.00 $9.75 $65,325.00 $12.00 $80,400.00
118 HMA CL.3/8"PG 64H-28 MISCELLANEOUS AREAS S.Y. 7 $60.00 j $420.00 $362.00 $2,534.00 $290.00 $2,030.00 $90.00 $630.00
119 HMA CL.3/8"PG 64H-28 0.33 FT.DEPTH S.Y. 11200 $28.00 $313,600.00 $20.15 $225,680.00 $17.50 $196,000.00 $23.00 $257,600.00
5830 120 JOB MIX COMPLIANCE PRICE ADJUSTMENT CALC 1 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00
5835 121 COMPACTION PRICE ADJUSTMENT CALC 1 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00
6701 122 CEMENT CONCRETE TRAFFIC CURB L.F. 230 $25.00 $5,750.00 $20.20 $4,646.00 $37.50 $8,625.00 $16.00 $3,680.00
6707 123 CEMENT CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN CURB L.F. 125 $30.00 $3,750.00 $23.75 $2,968.75 $29.40 $3,675.00 $18.00 $2,250.00
7055 124 CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK S.Y. 80 $60.00 $4,800.00 $56.20 $4,496.00 $45.60 $3,648.00 $44.00 $3,520.00
7059 125 CEMENT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY APPROACH S.Y. 9 $75.00 $675.00 $103.00, $927.00 $69.00 $621.00 $75.00 $675.00
7058 126 CEMENT CONCRETE CURB RAMP TYPE PARALLEL A EACH 5 $2,500.00 $12,500.00 $2,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,600.00 $8,000.00 $2,650.00 $13,250.00
7058 127 _CEMENT CONCRETE CURB RAMP TYPE PARALLEL B EACH 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,600.00 $1,600.00 $2,650.00 $2,650.00
7058 128 CEMENT CONCRETE CURB RAMP TYPE CUSTOM SINGLE DIRECTION A EACH 3 $2,200.00 $6,600.00 $2,000.00 $6,000.00 $1,600.00 $4,800.00 $2,650.00 $7,950.00
129 ADJUST EXISTING WATER VALVE EACH 17 $800.00 $13,600.00 $900.00 $15,300.00 $885.00 $15,045.00 $700.00 $11,900.00
130 ADJUST EXISTING GAS VALVE EACH 3 $900.00 $2,700.00 $900.00 $2,700.00 $885.00 $2,655.00 $700.00 $2,100.00
131 ADJUST EXISTING CATCH BASIN OR DRYWELL EACH 13 $1,200.00 $15,600.00 $1,200.00 $15,600.00 $1,200.00 $15,600.00 $900.00 $11,700.00
132 ADJUST EXISTING MANHOLE EACH 11. $1,200.00 $13,200.00 $1,200.00 $13,200.00 $1,200.00 $13,200.00 $900.00 $9,900.00
133 UTILITY CASTING DEPTH COMPLIANCE j CALC 1 $1.00 $1.00 j $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00
6555 134 SOD INSTALLATION S.Y. 30 $45.00 $1,350.00 $20.50 $615.00 $1.00 $30.00 $25.00 $750.00
135 TOPSOIL,TYPE C S.Y. 40 $35.00 $1,400.00 $10.00 $400.00 $10.30 $412.00 $15.00 $600.00
136 IRRIGATION SYSTEM REVISION EACH 2 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $1,350.00 $2,700.00 $1,400.00 $2,800.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00
137 PLASTIC LINE-TYPE Cl L.F. 17200 $2.00 $34,400.00 $1.90 $32,680.00 $2.30 $39,560.00 $3.00 $51,600.00
138 PLASTIC WIDE LANE LINE-TYPE Cl L.F. 8100 $5.00 $40,500.00 $4.30 $34,830.00 $4.30 $34,830.00 $5.00 $40,500.00
6833 139 PLASTIC TRAFFIC ARROW EACH 20 $250.00 $5,000.00 $116.00 $2,320.00 $115.00 $2,300.00 $115.00 $2,300.00
6857 140 PLASTIC CROSSWALK LINE S.F. 120 $10.00 $1,200.00 $10.00 $1,200.00 $10.00 $1,200.00 $10.00 $1,200.00
6867 141 PLASTIC BICYCLE LANE SYMBOL EACH 10 $350.00 $3,500.00 $175.00 $1,750.00 $175.00 $1,750.00 $200.00 $2,000.00
6890 142 PERMANENT SIGNING L.S. 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,100.00 $3,100.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00
Total Sched A-Street Preservation Work $1,116,053.00 $852,079.25 $1,032,457.50 $1,087,483.00
Sched B-Sidewalk Work
7728 200 MINOR CHANGE EST. 1 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $7,500.00
201 CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING L.S. 1 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00
0025 202 CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACRE 0.43 $12,000.00 $5,160.00 $8,500.00 $3,655.00 $8,550.00 $3,676.50 $20,000.00 $8,600.00
0050 203 REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES AND OBSTRUCTIONS L.S. 1 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $3,400.00 $3,400.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
0310 204 ROADWAY EXCAV.INCL.HAUL C.Y. 105 $45.00 $4,725.00 $52.00 $5,460.00 $54.00 $5,670.00 $65.00 $6,825.00
0470 205 EMBANKMENT COMPACTION C.Y. 130 $45.00 $5,850.00 $16.00 $2,080.00 $16.00 $2,080.00 $42.00 $5,460.00
0120 206 REMOVE ASPHALT PAVEMENT S.Y. 1000 $14.00 $14,000.00 $18.00 $18,000.00 $17.10 $17,100.00 $12.00 $12,000.00
0110 207 REMOVE CEMENT CONCRETE CURB L.F. 140 $10.00 $1,400.00 $17.00 $2,380.00 $18.20 $2,548.00 $11.00 $1,540.00
0100 208 REMOVE CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK/DRIVEWAY APPROACH S.Y. 140 $18.00 $2,520.00 $34.00 $4,760.00 $38.80- $5,432.00 $13.00 $1,820.00
209 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE,3 IN.DEPTH S.Y. 430 $6.00 $2,580.00 $7.00 $3,010.00 $10.00 $4,300.00 $9.00 $3,870.00
210 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE,6 IN.DEPTH S.Y. 615 $26.00 $15,990.00 $12.25 $7,533.75 $16.50 $10,147.50 $18.00 $11,070.00
211 HMA CL.3/8"PG 64H-28 0.33 FT.DEPTH PATCH S.Y. 480 $60.00 $28,800.00 $35.00 $16,800.00 $35.00 $16,800.00 $38.00 $18,240.00
212 HMA CL.3/8"PG 64H-28 MISCELLANEOUS AREAS S.Y. 135 $72.00 $9,720.00 $32.00 $4,320.00 $75.00 $10,125.00 $36.00 $4,860.00
5830 213 JOB MIX COMPLIANCE PRICE ADJUSTMENT CALC 1 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00
5835 214 COMPACTION PRICE ADJUSTMENT CALC 1 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00
6701 215 CEMENT CONCRETE TRAFFIC CURB L.F. 1690 $25.00 $42,250.00 $19.75 $33,377.50_ $19.60 $33,124.00_ $17.00 $28,730.00
6707 216 CEMENT CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN CURB L.F. 145 $30.00 $4,350.00 $22.00 $3,190.00 $29.40 $4,263.00 $20.00 $2,900.00
217 CEMENT CONCRETE STAIRS S.F. 16 $40.00 $640.00 $100.00 $1,600.00 $120.00 $1,920.00 $100.00 $1,600.00
7055 218 CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK S.Y. 633 $60.00_ $37,980.00 $56.00 $35,448.00 $54.80 $34,688.40 $50.00 $31,650.00
7059 219 CEMENT CONCRETE DRIVEWAY APPROACH S.Y. 617 $75.00 $46,275.00 $67.00 $41,339.00 $83.80 $51,704.60 $60.00 $37,020.00
7058 220 CEMENT CONCRETE CURB RAMP TYPE SINGLE DIRECTION A EACH 5 $2,200.00 $11,000.00 $2,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,600.00 $8,000.00 $2,650.00 $13,250.00
221 CEMENT CONCRETE CURB RAMP TYPE B EACH 2 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $1,600.00 $3,200.00 $2,650.00 $5,300.00
6555 222 SOD INSTALLATION S.Y. 510 $45.00 $22,950.00 $13.25 $6,757.50 $13.30 $6,783.00 $15.00 $7,650.00
223 TOPSOIL,TYPE S.Y. 510 $35.00 $17,850.00 $4.00 $2,040.00 $3.40 $1,734.00 $4.00 $2,040.00
224 IRRIGATION SYSTEM REVISION EACH 4 $2,000.00 $8,000.00_ $1,300.00 $5,200.00 $1,370.00 $5,480.00 $1,500.00 $6,000.00
225 MAILBOX SUPPORT,TYPE 1 EACH 11 $500.00 $5,500.00 $400.00 $4,400.00_ $395.00 $4,345.00 $400.00 $4,400.00
226 SEGMENTAL CONCRETE RETAINING WALL S.F. 130 $70.00 $9,100.00 $52.00 $6,760.00 $52.50 $6,825.00 $100.00 $13,000.00
Total Sched B-Sidewalk Work $320,642.00 $240,612.75 $254,348.00 $244,327.00
Sched C-Stormwater Work
`
7728 300 MINOR CHANGE EST. 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00
301 CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING L.S. 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00
302 TRENCH EXCAVATION SAFETY SYSTEM L.S. 1 $750.00 $750.00 $700.00 $700.00 $570.00 $570.00 $5,500.00 $5,500.00
0025 303 CLEARING AND GRUBBING ACRE 0.05 $12,000.00 $600.00 $8,500.00 $425.00 $8,550.00 $427.50 $20,000.00 $1,000.00
0050 304 REMOVAL OF STRUCTURES AND OBSTRUCTIONS L.S. 1 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $2,850.00 $2,850.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00
306 STORMWATER PATCH REMOVAL S.Y. 130 $14.00 $1,820.00 $16.75 $2,177.50 $17.10 $2,223.00 $38.00 $4,940.00
307 REMOVE EXISTING CATCH BASIN EACH 4 5880.00 $3,520.00 $450.00 51,800.00 $455.00 $1,820.00 $400.00 $1,600.00
308 SWALE EXCAVATION INCL.HAUL C.Y. 133 $45.00 $5,985.00 $40.00 55,320.00 $42.80 $5,692.40 $55.00 $7,315.00
0310 309 ROADWAY EXCAV.INCL.HAUL C.Y. 18 $45.00 $810.00 $40.00 $720.00 $42.80 $770.40 $55.00 $990.00
310 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE,6.IN.DEPTH S.Y. 130 $26.00 $3,380.00 $12.25 $1,592.50 $13.80 $1,794.00 $18.00 $2,340.00
311 PERMEABLE BALLAST S.V. 170 $16.00 $2,720.00 $25.00 $4,250.00 $24.50 $4,165.00 $17.00 $2,890.00
312 HMA CL.3/8"PG 6411-28 0.33 FT.DEPTH PATCH S.Y. 130 $60.00 $7,800.00 $44.00 $5,720.00 $40.00- $5,200.00 $36.00 $4,680.00
5830 313 JOB MIX COMPLIANCE PRICE ADJUSTMENT CALC 1 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00
5835 314 COMPACTION PRICEADJUSTMENT CALC 1 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00
315 CONCRETE INLET TYPE 1. EACH 2 $1,900.00 $3,800.00 $1,810.00 $3,620.00 $1,820.00 $3,640.00 $250.00 $500.00
316 CATCH BASIN TYPE 1 EACH 4 $2,500.00 $10,000.00 $3,000.00 $12,000.00 $2,960.00- $11,840.00 $1,700.00 $6,800.00
317 BIORETENTION SOIL 18"DEPTH S.Y. 170 $80.00 $13,600.00 $63.00 $10,710.00 $37.60 $6,392.00 $40.00 $6,800.00
6071 318 IRRIGATION SYSTEMLS. 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,350.00 $1,350.00 $1,370.00 $1,370.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00
_
319 PRECAST CONCRETE DRYWELLTYPE A WITH SOLID COVER EACH 1 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $4,750.00 $4,750.00 $4,790.00 $4,790.00 $4,400.00 $4,400.00
320 PRECAST CONCRETE DRYWELLTYPE B WITH SOLID COVER EACH 1_ $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $6,800.00 $6,800.00 $6,840.00 $6,840.00 $6,400.00 $6,400.00
321 CONNECTION TO EXISTING STORM DRAIN PIPE EACH 1 $450.00 $450.00 $900.00 $900.00 $900.00 $900.00 $800.00 $800.00
322 CONNECTION TO EXISTING DRYWELL EACH 3 $1,100.00 $3,300.00 $1,075.00 $3,225.00 $1,080.00 $3,240.00 $800.00 $2,400.00
3773 323 DUCTILE IRON STORM SEWER PIPE 10 IN.DIA. L.F. 28 $65.00 $1,820.00 $100.00 $2,800.00 $100.00 $2,800.00 $80.00 $2,240.00
324 SOLID WALL PVC STORM SEWER PIPE 10 IN.DIA. L.F. 48 $45.00 $2,160.00_ $130.00 $6,240.00 $130.00 $6,240.00 $52.00 $2,496.00
325 SPILL CONTROL SEPARATOR EACH 4 $1,000.00 $4,000.00 $500.00 $2,000.00 $515.00 $2,060.00 $525.00 $2,100.00
326 CONTINUOUS DEFLECTIVE SEPARATION UNIT EACH 1 $18,000.00 $18,000.00 $17,000.00 $17,000.00 $17,100.00 $17,100.00 $14,000.00 $14,000.00
Total Sched C-Stormwater Work $102,517.00 $101,502.00 $98,226.30 $88,193.00
TOTAL(All schedules) $1,539,212.00 $1,194,194.00 $1,385,031.80 $1,420,003.00
CHECKLIST
Addenda Acknowledged YES YES YES
Competitive bids were opened on •1_-t,I/ ✓ ✓ ✓
K QContractor's Administrative
March 22,2019.I hereby certify to „...•,C ,, ,,,,''6,,e r Bidder Qualification Statement ✓ ✓ ✓
the best of my ability that this Is a A;,'„ r./''
true and correct bid tabulation for `Y 7 >I �. Bid Deposit Form ✓ ✓ /
the Mission Avenue Sidewalk and >' 1 1 ✓
Preservation Project,CIP p 0267 , 'O --+ r''', `� Bid Deposit Surety Form
J •P, � ...r.- w ✓ ✓
,aEs?eclgr$nvoGla&'S c Surety Power of Attorney ✓
S/Oy�L�N / �)l Representations and Certifications 1 '� ✓
Contractor Certification-Wage Law Compliance Responsibility Criteria ✓ 1 ✓
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: April 2, 2019 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. Report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Interlocal Agreement with Model Irrigation
District No. 18 for the University Road Pavement Preservation Project.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 3.35.10 — Contract Authority
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
• 2/28/2017: Adoption of Resolution 17-006 amending the adopted 2017 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP), which included University Road (16th to 24th and also 24th
to Dishman-Mica)
• 7/25/2017: Motion passed to authorize the City Manager to apply from the
Transportation Improvement Board (TIB)
• 6/5/2018: Adoption of Resolution 18-003 adopting the 2019-2024 Six-Year TIP
• 7/10/2018: Information RCA on upcoming TIB Grant Opportunities
• 7/24/2018: Motion passed to authorize the City Manager to apply funding from TIB,
including University Road Preservation
• 1/29/2019: Council passed Resolution 19-002, amending the 2019 TIP, which included
this project.
• 02/5/19: Project Administrative Report
BACKGROUND:
The road preservation project grinds and provides an asphalt overlay on University Road from
Dishman-Mica Road to 16th Avenue. The project includes installation of ADA curb ramps,
pavement repairs, channelization and signal upgrades for vehicle detection at the three
intersections with Dishman-Mica Rd., 32nd Avenue and 16th Avenue. In 2018, the City was
awarded a grant from TIB that provides a reimbursement of 60% of the street preservation work,
with an amount not to exceed $1,875,000.
Model Irrigation District plans to upgrade the water main within the limits of the City project and
requested that the water main replacement be included as part of the City's project. Their work
is identified as Alternate 1 in the construction documents. To pay for the water main upgrade, an
Interlocal Agreement executed by both parties is necessary. The Final Draft of the Interlocal
Agreement is attached.
According to the Agreement, Model Irrigation will pay for the costs to upgrade the water main,
plus a portion of the costs of mobilization, traffic control, and documentation compliance which
are included in the roadway portion of the project. Additionally, Model Irrigation will pay for a
portion of full pavement replacement bid items included in the Base Bid affected by their work.
These costs would the responsibility of the City if the water main upgrade was not included in the
project.
Model Irrigation's board members have approved their portion of the bid and requested to include
Alternate 1 as part of the total project award. In order to accomplish this, the Interlocal Agreement
is required.
OPTIONS: 1)Authorize staff to finalize and execute the Interlocal Agreement with Model Irrigation
or, 2) Take other appropriate action.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize the City Manager to finalize and
execute the Interlocal Agreement between Model Irrigation District No. 18 and the City for the
University Road Pavement Preservation.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: As per the Interlocal Agreement, the City will be responsible
for the total Construction Contract costs. The Interlocal Agreement requires the Irrigation District
to reimburse the City for Utility Work costs, as well as a percentage of several shared project
costs.
STAFF CONTACT: William Helbig, PE, City Engineer
ATTACHMENTS: Final Draft Interlocal Agreement
FINAL DRAFT
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY AND MODEL IRRIGATION DISTRICT NO. 18
FOR WATERLINE INSTALLATION TO BE INCLUDED IN THE UNIVERSITY ROAD
PRESERVATION PROJECT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 0287
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (hereinafter the "CITY") intends to construct a road
improvement project known as the University Road Preservation Project Capital Improvement Project 0287
(hereinafter the "PROJECT"),within the CITY's jurisdiction; and;
WHEREAS,Model Irrigation District No. 18 (hereinafter the "DISTRICT")owns and operates water
utilities within the CITY's rights-of-way and within the PROJECT's limits; and;
WHEREAS, DISTRICT has requested to replace a portion of its water line within the PROJECT's
limits,prior to the completion of the PROJECT; and
WHEREAS,the CITY and DISTRICT agree to include the replacement of the water line (hereinafter
the "UTILITY WORK") as part of the PROJECT; and;
WHEREAS,DISTRICT is willing to pay for the UTILITY WORK as described herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions set forth herein, it is agreed
between the CITY and DISTRICT as follows:
ARTICLE 1—RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DISTRICT
1.1. Provide design plans,design details, and specifications for the UTILITY WORK.
1.2. Review construction bids provided by the CITY and provide written notice of approval or
disapproval of the Additive Alternate Bid of the UTILITY WORK to the CITY no later than
five business days following opening of bids.
1.3. Promptly review and approve all Source of Materials submittals regarding the UTILITY
WORK.
1.4. DISTRICT shall have the right to inspect the UTILITY WORK with its representatives,
employees,and inspectors to confirm that the UTILITY WORK is in compliance with the terms
of this Agreement. CITY shall allow the DISTRICT and their representatives, employees, and
inspectors reasonable fulltime access to the worksite, so that the UTILITY WORK may be
inspected. DISTRICT shall not direct the CITY's contractor; DISTRICT shall notify the CITY
of any corrections to the construction of the UTILITY WORK and the CITY shall direct the
contractor accordingly.
1.5. DISTRICT shall fund the costs associated with constructing the UTILITY WORK based on the
following:
1.5.1. The DISTRICT shall pay the costs for UTILITY WORK construction items quantified by
unit increments(such as acre,cubic yard,day,each,linear foot)which shall be based upon
the actual quantities installed in the UTILITY WORK and actual CITY contractor's unit
costs for those items.
Interlocal Agreement,Model Irrigation District Page 1 of 4
FINAL DRAFT
1.5.2. The DISTRICT shall pay the costs for full depth pavement replacement(i.e. costs for road
replacement up to the bottom of the overlay) one foot beyond the nominal trench edge
(longitudinally and transversely) of the UTILITY WORK, based on the actual CITY
contractor's price for such work. The DISTRICT shall not be responsible for paying any
road overlay improvement costs (those labor and material costs associated with the top
three inches of the road improvement).
1.5.3. Costs for lump sum items directly related to constructing the UTILITY WORK shall be
prorated based on actual CITY contractor's price for these items using the percentages
below:
Item DISTRICT SHARE
Documentation Compliance 25%
Project temporary traffic control 25%
Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC)Plan 25%
1.5.4. The DISTRICT shall pay any additional costs for UTILITY WORK construction items
quantified by unit increments(such as acre,cubic yard,day,each,linear foot)which shall
be based upon the additional quantities to construct the UTILITY WORK and actual CITY
contractor's unit costs for those items.
1.5.5. Any additional costs associated with change orders and/or valid claims for the UTILITY
WORK shall be the responsibility of the DISTRICT.
1.5.6. The DISTRICT's share of costs for the CITY's construction management,inspection, and
material testing for the UTILITY WORK shall be prorated based on 25%of the total costs
in items 1.5.1, 1.5.2, 1.5.3,and 1.5.4 above.
1.6. The DISTRICT shall reimburse the CITY amounts billed within 45 days following receipt of
the invoice from the CITY.
1.7. Upon completion of the UTILITY WORK by the contractor and a passed final inspection by the
DISTRICT, the DISTRICT shall provide the CITY with written acceptance of the UTILITY
WORK prior to paving of the roadway.
ARTICLE 2—RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY
2.1. Incorporate the DISTRICT design,details,and specifications into the PROJECT's construction
contract. The City's roadway work bid items shall be listed as the Base Bid for the project. The
UTILITY WORK construction bid items shall be listed as an Additive Alternate Bid using a
separate pay schedule within the contract documents.
2.2. Provide a copy of the plans and specifications for the construction project to the DISTRICT for
the review and approval prior to advertisement of the project.
2.3. Upon public opening of the bid documents, the CITY shall promptly provide a copy of the bid
tabulation to the DISTRICT.
Interlocal Agreement,Model Irrigation District Page 2 of 4
FINAL DRAFT
2.4. The CITY shall award the project to the lowest responsible bidder for the Base Bid plus Additive
Alternate Bid(UTILITY WORK)upon approval from the DISTRICT for the Additive Alternate
Bid. In the event that the lowest bidder for the Base Bid plus Alternate Additive Bid does not
have the lowest Base Bid amount, the DISTRICT shall reimburse the CITY the difference
between the Base Bid amount of the awarded low bidder of the combined bids and the Base Bid
amount of the lowest bidder for just the Base Bid,minus the cost sharing amount established in
Section 1.5.3. If the DISTRICT disapproves the Additive Alternate Bid of the low combined
bidder or is not willing to reimburse the differences in Base Bid amounts,the CITY may award
the contract to the lowest bidder for just the Base Bid and the DISTRICT shall have no further
obligation to the CITY under this Interlocal Agreement nor any obligation to the bidder. The
CITY may reject all bids and rebid the project at its discretion.
2.5. Provide copies of all Source of Materials submittals for the UTILITY WORK to the DISTRICT
for its review and approval before use of the materials on the project.
2.6. Provide field inspection and material testing of trench excavation, trench backfilling, and
pavement repair required for the UTILITY WORK.
2.7. Provide construction management and control surveying for the UTILITY WORK.
2.8. Make progress payments to the contractor.
2.9. Provide a monthly statement of progress payments made to the Contractor for the UTILITY
WORK, and a bill requesting reimbursement for those costs to the DISTRICT. Provide the
DISTRICT with copies of invoices submitted by the Contractor to the CITY.
2.10. Provide a report of final costs for the UTILITY WORK to the DISTRICT following completion
of the construction contract. The report shall include a breakdown of costs incurred by the
CITY.
ARTICLE 3—DURATION
This Interlocal Agreement shall terminate upon the completion of the construction project provided for
hereunder and completion of payments under the prevailing wage laws,provided that any warranties from
the contractor to the CITY or DISTRICT shall continue in full force and effect.
ARTICLE 4—PROJECT& UTILITY WORK LIMITS
The PROJECT limits include the following street segment: the south side of the intersection of University
Road and 16th Avenue to the north side of the intersection of University Road and Dishman-Mica Road.
The UTILITY WORK limits include the waterline underneath the following street segment: the south side
of the intersection of University Road and 16th Avenue to the north side of the intersection of University
Road and 33rd Avenue.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY:
By: Date:
City Manager
Interlocal Agreement,Model Irrigation District Page 3 of 4
FINAL DRAFT
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: Date:
Office of the City Attorney
MODEL IRRIGATION DISTRICT NO. 18:
By: Date:
[NAME]:
[TITLE]:
Interlocal Agreement,Model Irrigation District Page 4 of 4
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: April 2, 2019 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. Report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Bid Award: University Road Preservation
Project— Dishman-Mica Rd to 16th Ave.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 3.35.10 — Contract Authority
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
• 2/28/2017: Adoption of Resolution 17-006 amending the adopted 2017 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP), which included University Road (16th to 24th and also 24th
to Dishman-Mica)
• 7/25/2017: Motion passed to authorize the City Manager to apply from the
Transportation Improvement Board (TIB)
• 6/5/2018: Adoption of Resolution 18-003 adopting the 2019-2024 Six-Year TIP
• 7/10/2018: Information RCA on upcoming TIB Grant Opportunities
• 7/24/2018: Motion passed to authorize the City Manager to apply funding from TIB,
including University Road Preservation
• 1/29/2019: Council passed Resolution 19-002, amending the 2019 TIP, which included
this project.
• 02/5/19: Project Administrative Report
BACKGROUND:
The road preservation project grinds and provides an asphalt overlay on University Road from
Dishman-Mica Road to 16th Avenue. The project includes installation of ADA curb ramps,
pavement repairs, channelization and signal upgrades for vehicle detection at the three
intersections with Dishman-Mica Rd., 32nd Avenue and 16th Avenue. In 2018, the City was
awarded a grant from TIB that provides a reimbursement of 60% of the street preservation work,
with an amount not to exceed $1,875,000.
The City's project budget is shown below:
City Fund 301 $ 1,347,874
City Fund 402 $ 3,126
TIB Grant $ 1,875,000
Initial Project Budget $ 3,226,000
Model Irrigation plans to upgrade the water main with the limits of the City's roadway project and
requested that the water main replacement be included as part of the City's project. Their work
is identified as Alternate 1 (Schedule C in Bid Tabulation) in the construction documents. To pay
for the water main upgrade, an Interlocal Agreement will be executed between the City and Model
Irrigation.
The City's project was designed in house and Model Irrigation designed their portion of the work.
The project was advertised on March 1, 2019. Six bids were received and opened on March 22,
2019. The lowest, responsive bidder for all work, was N.A. Degerstrom, Inc. with a bid of
$3,200,547.81, including sales tax. The Engineer's Estimate was $3,727,834.92.
The Engineer's Estimate and bid results for the three lowest bidders are shown below.
Engineer's N.A. Inland Red Diamond
Estimate Degerstrom Asphalt Construction
Base Bid $2,620,017.00 $2,231,542.00 $2,114,930.00 $2,335,877.00
Alternate 1 (w/tax) $1,107,817.92 $969,005.81 $1,179,648.36 $1,033,266.07
Total $3,727,834.92 $3,200,547.81 $3,299,328.36 $3,374.443.07
Model Irrigation will pay for 100% of Alternate 1, plus a portion of the costs of mobilization, traffic
control, and documentation compliance which are included in the Base Bid (Schedule A and B).
Their share of these items are estimated to be $21,375. In addition, Model Irrigation will pay for
a portion of full pavement replacement bid items included in the Base Bid, which are estimated at
$122,980. These costs would the responsibility of City if the water main upgrade was not included
in the project. Inland Asphalt, the second lowest bidder, proposed the lowest Base Bid, which is
$116,612 lower than the Base Bid for N.A. However, Model Irrigation will cover approximately
$144,355 of the Base Bid.
Model Irrigation's board members have approved their portion of the bid and requested to include
Alternate 1 as part of the total project award.
The revised project budget is shown below:
City Fund 301 $ 1,347,874
City Fund 402 $ 3,126
TIB Grant $ 1,875,000
Model District $ 1,115,000
Initial Project Budget $ 4,341,000
OPTIONS: Award the contract to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for the Base Bid
plus Alternate 1.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to award the University Road Preservation
Project Number 0287 to N.A. Degerstrom, Inc. for the Base and Alternate Bids in the amount of
$3,121,354.50 plus applicable sales tax, and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute
the construction contract.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The total project budget is $4,341,000. There are sufficient
funds to cover the cost for this project.
STAFF CONTACT: William Helbig, PE, City Engineer
ATTACHMENTS: Bid Tabulation
BID TABULATIONsp,,,;
University Road Preservation Project j UJI ley
Project CIP No.0287
ENGINEERS ESTIMATE N.A.Degerstrom Inc. Inland Asphalt Company Red Diamond Construction,Inc. LaRiviere,Inc. Murphy Bros Poe Asphalt Paving,Inc.
ITEM a DESCRPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE I TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE I TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE I TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE I TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE I TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE I TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE I TOTAL COST
SCHEDULE A-ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
100 MOBILIZATION L.S. 1 $195,000.00 $195,000.00 $215,000.00 $215,000.00 $196,982.00 $196,982.00 $330,475.00 $330,475.00 $190,000.00 $190,000.00 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $185,000.00 $185,000.00
101 DOCUMENTATION COMPLIANCE EST. 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00
102 REMOVE CEMENT CONC.CURB L.F. 1,660 $10.00 $16,600.00 $5.00 $8,300.00 $10.90 $18,094.00 $15.00 $24,900.00 $8.00 $13,280.00 $15.00 $24,900.00 $8.70 $14,442.00
103 REMOVE CEMENT CONC.SIDEWALK S.Y. 1310 $20.00 $26,200.00 $10.00 $13,100.00 $21.00 $27,510.00 $12.00 $15,720.00 $9.00 $11,790.00 $10.00 $13,100.00 $16.90 $22,139.00
104 REMOVE CEMENT CONC.ISLAND S.Y. 90 $50.00 $4,500.00 $6.50 $585.00 $8.40 $756.00 $15.00 $1,350.00 $17.00 $1,530.00 $10.00 $900.00 $15.40 $1,386.00
105 SAWCUT PAVEMENT FOR PAVEMENT REPAIR L.F. 13,000 $3.00 $39,000.00 $1.50 $19500.00 $1.70 $22,100.00 $0.80 $1(3400.00 $1.80 $23,400.00 $2.00 $26,000.00 $1.15 $14,950.00
106 PAVEMENT REPAIR EXCAVATION INCL.HAUL S.Y. 14,600 $20.00 $292,000.00 $11.50 $167,900.00 $9.25 $135,050.00 $12.25 $178,850.00 $12.00 $175,200.00 $11.00 $160,600.00 $11.60 $169360.00
107 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE,6IN.DEPTH S.Y. 1,900 $12.00 $22,800.00 $14.50 $27550.00 $9.25 $17,575.00 $13.00 $24,700.00 $21.00 $39,900.00 $12.00 $22,800.00 $13.20 $25,080.00
108 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE,8IN.DEPTH S.Y. 12,700 $15.00 $190,500.00 $14.00 $177,800.00 $11.25 $142,875.00 $14.00 $177,800.00 $16.00 $203,200.00 $12.00 $152,400.00 $11.90 $151,130.00
109 PLANING BITUMINOUR PAVEMENT S.Y. 43,100 $3.00 $129,300.00 $1.35 $58,185.00 $2.10 $90,510.00 $3.78 $162,918.00 $2.00 $86,200.00 $3.00 $129,300.00 $2.25 $96,975.00
110 HMA PAVEMENT MAT S.Y. 43,100 $5.00 $215,500.00 $4.50 $193,950.00 $4.70 $202,570.00 $5.00 $215,500.00 $5.00 $215,500.00 $6.00 $258,600.00 $5.75 $247,825.00
111 HMA CL.3/8IN.PG 64H-28,2.5 IN.DEPTH S.Y. 43,100 $14.00 $603,400.00 $11.50 $495,650.00 $11.10 $478,410.00 $11.00 $474,100.00 $13.00 $560,300.00 $12.50 $538,750.00 $11.65 $502,115.00
112 HMA CL.3/8IN.PG 64H-28,3.0 IN.DEPTH S.Y. 1,900 $18.00 $34,200.00 $19.00 $36,100.00 $18.00 $34,200.00 $19.00 $36,100.00 $21.00 $39,900.00 $21.00 $39,900.00 $16.40 $31,160.00
113 HMA FOR PAVEMENT REPAIR CL.3/8 IN.PG 64H-28,3 IN.DEPTH S.Y. 12,700 $20.00 $254,000.00 $16.50 $209550.00 $16.25 $206,375.00 $16.00 $203,200.00 $19.00 $241,300.00 $17.00 $215,900.00 $17.75 $225,425.00
114 UTILITY CASTING DEPTH COMPLIANCE CALC 1 -$1.00 -$1.00 -$1.00 -$1.00 -$1.00 -$1.00 -$1.00
115 JOB MIX COMPLIANCE PRICE ADJUSTMENT CALC 1 -$1.00 -$1.00 -$1.00 -$1.00 -$1.00 -$1.00 -$1.00
116 COMPACTION PRICE ADJUSTMENT CALC 1 -$1.00 -$1.00 -$1.00 -$1.00 -$1.00 -$1.00 -$1.00
117 EROSION CONTROL AND WATER POLLUTION L.S. 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $4,880.00 $4,880.00 $4,840.00 $4,840.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $27,000.00 $27,000.00 $7,620.00 $7,620.00
118 IRRIGATION SYSTEM REVISION EST. 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00
119 CEMENT CONC.TRAFFIC CURB AND GUTTER L.F. 1,240 $25.00 $31,000.00 $40.00 $49,600.00 $35.75 $44,330.00 $29.00 $35,960.00 $34.00 $42,160.00 $70.00 $86,800.00 $50.00 $62,000.00
120 CEMENT CONC.TRAFFIC CURB L.F. 420 $25.00 $10,500.00 $35.00 $14,700.00 $30.15 $12,663.00 $31.00 $13,020.00 $35.00 $14,700.00 $60.00 $25,200.00 $50.00 $21,000.00
121 CEMENT CONC.PEDESTRIAN CURB L.F. 600 $25.00 $15,000.00 $25.00 $15,000.00 $17.75 $10,650.00 $35.00 $21,000.00 $40.00 $24,000.00 $35.00 $21,000.00 $35.00 $21,000.00
122 CEMENT CONCRETE TRAFFIC ISLAND,24 IN.WIDE L.F. 90 $100.00 $9,000.00 $42.00 $3,780.00 $45.00 $4,050.00 $79.00 $7,110.00 $92.00 $8,280.00 $90.00 $8,100.00 $80.00 $7,200.00
123 PLASTIC LINE L.F. 23,500 $2.00 $47,000.00 $1.50 $35,250.00 $1.75 $41,125.00 $2.00 $47,000.00 $1.80 $42,300.00 $2.00 $47,000.00 $2.00 $47,000.00
124 PLASTIC WIDE LANE LINE L.F. 11,040 $5.00 $55,200.00 $4.00 $44,160.00 $4.30 $47,472.00 $4.00 $44,160.00 $4.60 $50,784.00 $5.00 $55,200.00 $4.00 $44,160.00
125 PLASTIC STOP LINE L.F. 200 $12.00 $2,400.00 $14.00 $2,800.00 $15.00 $3,000.00 $14.00 $2,800.00 $16.00 $3,200.00 $15.00 $3,000.00 $14.00 $2,800.00
126 PLASTIC CROSSWALK LINE S.F. 840 $8.00 $6,720.00 $8.50 $7,140.00 $9.00 $7,560.00 $8.00 $6,720.00 $9.60 $8,064.00 $9.00 $7,560.00 $8.50 $7,140.00
127 PLASTIC BICYCLE LANE SYMBOL EACH 27 $300.00 $8,100.00 $160.00 $4320.00 $175.00 $4,725.00 $155.00 $4,185.00 $180.00 $4,860.00 $165.00 $4,455.00 $160.00 $4320.00
128 PLASTIC TRAFFIC ARROW EACH 13 $150.00 $1,950.00 $120.00 $1,560.00 $130.00 $1,690.00 $115.00 $1,495.00 $130.00 $1,690.00 $125.00 $1,625.00 $120.00 $1,560.00
129 PLASTIC TRAFFIC LETTER EACH 4 $250.00 $1,000.00 $95.00 $380.00 $100.00 $400.00 $90.00 $360.00 $110.00 $440.00 $100.00 $400.00 $93.00 $372.00
130 BULLNOSE MARKER EACH 1 $350.00 $350.00 $410.00 $410.00 $450.00 $450.00 $405.00 $405.00 $480.00 $480.00 $450.00 $450.00 $420.00 $420.00
131 DELINEATOR AND CORE HOLE EACH 1 $100.00 $100.00 $110.00 $110.00 $120.00 $120.00 $105.00 $105.00 $120.00 $120.00 $112.00 $112.00 $110.00 $110.00
132 RAISED PAVEMENT MARKER TYPE 2 EACH 8 $25.00 $200.00 $30.00 $240.00 $32.00 $256.00 $29.00 $232.00 $33.00 $264.00 $31.00 $248.00 $29.00 $232.00
133 PROJECT TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL L.S. 1 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $75,000.00 $75,000.00 $97,750.00 $97,750.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $65,000.00 $65,000.00 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $315,000.00 $315,000.00
134 TRAFFIC SIGNALSYSTEM-DISHMAN-MICA RD.MODIFICATIONS L.S. 1 $12500.00 $12,500.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $9,050.00 $9,050.00 $8,100.00 $8,100.00 $9,500.00 $9,500.00 $8,600.00 $8,600.00 $9,140.00 $9,140.00
135 TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM-32ND AVE.MODIFICATIONS L.S. 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $7,700.00 $7,700.00 $6,900.00 $6,900.00 $8,100.00 $8,100.00 $7,400.00 $7,400.00 $8,160.00 $8,160.00
136 TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM-16TH AVE.MODIFICATIONS L.S. 1 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $7,950.00 $7,950.00 $7,100.00 $7,100.00 $8,300.00 $8,300.00 $7,600.00 $7,600.00 $7,730.00 $7,730.00
137 PERMANENT SIGNING L.S. 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $12,600.00 $12,600.00 $11350.00 $11,350.00 $13,000.00 $13,000.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $12,350.00 $12,350.00
138 ADJUST EXISTING WATER VALVE EACH 44 $500.00 $22,000.00 $500.00 $22,000.00 $415.00 $18,260.00 $650.00 $28,600.00 $630.00 $27,720.00 $600.00 $26,400.00 $840.00 $36,960.00
139 CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING L.S. 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $45,000.00 $45,000.00 $29,000.00 $29,000.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $21,000.00 $21,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $26,500.00 $26,500.00
140 SPCC PLAN L.S. 1 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $930.00 $930.00 $700.00 $700.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $500.00 $500.00 $1,100.00 $1,100.00
141 ADJUST EXISTING GAS VALVE EACH 11 $500.00 $5,500.00 $350.00 $3,850.00 $415.00 $4,565.00 $525.00 $5,775.00 $810.00 $8,910.00 $600.00 $6,600.00 $820.00 $9,020.00
142 ADJUST EXISTING CATCH BASIN OR DRYWELL EACH 6 $500.00 $3,000.00 $650.00 $3,900.00 $680.00 $4,080.00 $800.00 $4,800.00 $950.00 $5,700.00 $800.00 $4,800.00 $1,140.00 $6,840.00
143 ADJUST EXISTING MANHOLE EACH 24 $600.00 $14,400.00 $650.00 $15,600.00 $680.00 $16,320.00 $800.00 $19,200.00 $950.00 $22,800.00 $800.00 $19,200.00 $1,140.00 $27360.00
144 CEMENT CONC.SIDEWALK S.Y. 410 $60.00 $24,600.00 $60.00 $24,600.00 $50.00 $20,500.00 $50.00 $20,500.00 $59.00 $24,190.00 $100.00 $41,000.00 $95.00 $38,950.00
145 CEMENT CONC.CURB RAMP TYPE PARALLEL A EACH 30 $2,000.00 $60,000.00 $2,500.00 $75,000.00 $1,650.00 $49,500.00 $1,475.00 $44,250.00 $1,700.00 $51,000.00 $3,200.00 $96,000.00 $3,200.00 $96,000.00
146 CEMENT CONC.CURB RAMP TYPE PARALLEL B EACH 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $1,550.00 $1,550.00 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $2,900.00 $2,900.00
147 CEMENT CONC.CURB RAMP TYPE PERPENDICULAR A EACH 26 $2,000.00 $52,000.00 $2,000.00 $52,000.00 $1,300.00 $33,800.00 $1,325.00 $34,450.00 $1,600.00 $41,600.00 $2,500.00 $65,000.00 $3,000.00 $78,000.00
148 MINOR CHANGE CALC. 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00
SCHEDULE A-TOTAL $2,615,517.00 $2,224,567.00 $2,114,930.00 $2,335,877.00 $2,358,659.00 $2,544,897.00 $2,634,928.00
SCHEDULE B-STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS
200 METAL GRATE,FRAME AND HOOD EACH 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,685.00 $1,685.00 $1,150.00 $1,150.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $670.00 $670.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,150.00 $1,150.00
201 METAL SOLID LID AND FRAME,TYPE 4 EACH 2 $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,395.00 $2,790.00 $550.00 $1,100.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $670.00 $1,340.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,030.00 $2,060.00
202 MINOR CHANGE CALC. 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00
SCHEDULE B-TOTAL $4,500.00 $6,975.00 $4,750.00 $5,300.00 $4,510.00 $5,500.00 $5,710.00
cote
BID TABULATIONsp,,,;
University Road Preservation Project j UJI ley
Project CIP No.0287
ENGINEERS ESTIMATE N.A.Degerstrom Inc. Inland Asphalt Company Red Diamond Construction,Inc. LaRiviere,Inc. Murphy Bros Poe Asphalt Paving,Inc.
ITEM a DESCRPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE I TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE I TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE I TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE I TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE I TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE I TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE I TOTAL COST
SCHEDULE C-WATER IMPROVEMENTS
300 MOBILIZATION L.S. 1 $65,000.00 $65,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $21,000.00 $21,000.00 $66,417.00 $66,417.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $144,880.00 $144,880.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00
301 FURNISH IMPORTED 4"-18"PIPE BEDDING L.F. 6,250 $4.00 $25,000.00 $8.50 $53,125.00 $0.11 $687.50 $0.90 $5,625.00 $9.00 $56,250.00 $12.00 $75,000.00 $13.60 $85,000.00
302 FURNISH IMPORTED 1"PIPE BEDDING L.F. 120 $3.00 $360.00 $10.00 $1,200.00 $0.20 $24.00 $0.90 $108.00 $6.00 $720.00 $7.00 $840.00 $3.25 $390.00
303 18"WATER PIPE(RESTRAINED) L.F. 5,900 $100.00 $590,000.00 $84.50 $498,550.00 $115.00 $678,500.00 $74.17 $437,603.00 $86.00 $507,400.00 $82.00 $483,800.00 $90.00 $531,000.00
304 6"WATER PIPE L.F. 260 $37.00 $9,620.00 $23.50 $6,110.00 $27.00 $7,020.00 $48.00 $12,480.00 $39.00 $10,140.00 $33.00 $8,580.00 $75.00 $19500.00
305 4"WATER PIPE L.F. 90 $37.00 $3,330.00 $21.00 $1,890.00 $20.00 $1,800.00 $45.00 $4,050.00 $37.00 $3,330.00 $31.00 $2,790.00 $65.00 $5,850.00
306 WATER PIPE CONN.DETAIL NO.1 EACH 1 $12,405.00 $12,405.00 $11500.00 $11500.00 $21,000.00 $21,000.00 $20,800.00 $20,800.00 $17,000.00 $17,000.00 $17,000.00 $17,000.00 $22,850.00 $22,850.00
307 WATER PIPE CONN.DETAIL NO.2 EACH 1 $6,180.00 $6,180.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4350.00 $4,350.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 $3,300.00 $3,300.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $6,530.00 $6,530.00
308 WATER PIPE CONN.DETAIL NO.3 EACH 1 $15,985.00 $15,985.00 $13,800.00 $13,800.00 $16,750.00 $16,750.00 $23,000.00 $23,000.00 $18,000.00 $18,000.00 $18,000.00 $18,000.00 $21,770.00 $21,770.00
309 WATER PIPE CONN.DETAIL NOS.4 THROUGH 14,EVEN EACH 6 $3,780.00 $22,680.00 $5,000.00 $30,000.00 $6,100.00 $36,600.00 $7,100.00 $42,600.00 $6,100.00 $36,600.00 $6,000.00 $36,000.00 $7,620.00 $45,720.00
310 WATER PIPE CONN.DETAIL NOS.5 THROUGH 13,ODD EACH 5 $9,880.00 $49,400.00 $8,700.00 $43500.00 $11500.00 $57,500.00 $18,000.00 $90,000.00 $12,000.00 $60,000.00 $11,000.00 $55,000.00 $15,500.00 $77500.00
311 WATER PIPE CONN.DETAIL NOS.15 AND 17 EACH 2 $9,780.00 $19,560.00 $8,000.00 $16,000.00 $12,500.00 $25,000.00 $15,000.00 $30,000.00 $12,000.00 $24,000.00 $10,000.00 $20,000.00 $15,450.00 $30,900.00
312 WATER PIPE CONN.DETAIL NO.16 EACH 1 $6330.00 $6,330.00 $4,600.00 $4,600.00 $6500.00 $6,500.00 $5,966.00 $5,966.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00
313 WATER PIPE CONN.DETAIL NO.18 EACH 1 $7,730.00 $7,730.00 $7,600.00 $7,600.00 $11500.00 $11500.00 $13,000.00 $13,000.00 $9,600.00 $9,600.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $13,900.00 $13,900.00
314 WATER PIPE CONN.DETAIL NO.19 EACH 1 $5,790.00 $5,790.00 $6,600.00 $6,600.00 $7,750.00 $7,750.00 $8,900.00 $8,900.00 $8,200.00 $8,200.00 $9,500.00 $9,500.00 $13600.00 $13600.00
315 18"LOWERING ASSEMBLY AND RESTRAINT EACH 2 $8,680.00 $17,360.00 $7,500.00 $15,000.00 $6,000.00 $12,000.00 $8,700.00 $17,400.00 $6,800.00 $13,600.00 $3,500.00 $7,000.00 $10,800.00 $21,600.00
316 18"DI FITTINGS(ADDITIONAL FITTINGS NOT INCLUDED IN DETAILS) EACH 4 $1,250.00 $5,000.00 $1,635.00 $6540.00 $315.00 $1,260.00 $2,800.00 $13200.00 $1,500.00 $6,000.00 $1,500.00 $6,000.00 $2,150.00 $8,600.00
317 1"SERVICE CONNECTIONS EACH 4 $800.00 $3,200.00 $975.00 $3,900.00 $625.00 $2,500.00 $900.00 $3,600.00 $1,200.00 $4,800.00 $1,500.00 $6,000.00 $1,500.00 $6,000.00
318 1"SERVICE PIPE L.F. 120 $10.00 $1,200.00 $16.25 $1,950.00 $25.00 $3,000.00 $30.00 $3,600.00 $23.00 $2,760.00 $23.00 $2,760.00 $26.00 $3,120.00
319 4"EXTERNAL BLOWOFF ASSEMBLY AND CONNECT TO DRYWELL EACH 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $4,150.00 $4,150.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $9,600.00 $9,600.00 $11,000.00 $11,000.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $4,570.00 $4570.00
320 1"METER SERVICE EACH 4 $1,300.00 $5,200.00 $915.00 $3,660.00 $800.00 $3,200.00 $1,093.00 $4,372.00 $2,500.00 $10,000.00 $1,500.00 $6,000.00 $1,400.00 $5,600.00
321 CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE,8 IN.DEPTH S.Y. 3,650 $15.00 $54,750.00 $12.75 $46,537.50 $14.39 $52,523.50 $14.00 $51,100.00 $18.00 $65,700.00 $13.00 $47,450.00 $14.00 $51,100.00
322 HMA FOR PAVEMENT REPAIR CL.3/8 IN.PG 64H-28,3 IN.DEPTH S.Y. 3,650 $20.00 $73,000.00 $19.00 $69350.00 $25.50 $93,075.00 $18.00 $65,700.00 $21.00 $76,650.00 $17.00 $62,050.00 $21.30 $77,745.00
323 CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING L.S. 1 $10,200.00 $1(3200.00 $6,750.00 $6,750.00 $11,000.00 $11,000.00 $9,000.00 $9,000.00 $5,900.00 $5,900.00 $11,000.00 $11,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00
324 TRENCH EXCAVATION SAFETY SYSTEM L.S. 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $4,800.00 $4,800.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $700.00 $700.00
325 MINOR CHANGE CALC. 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00
SCHEDULE[-SUBTOTAL $1,017,280.00 $889,812.50 $1,083,240.00 $948,821.00 $1,016,450.00 $1,055,650.00 $1,082,045.00
SCHEDULE C-SALES TAX @8.9% $90,537.92 $79,193.31 $96,408.36 $84,445.07 $90,464.05 $93,952.85 $96,302.01
SCHEDULE C-TOTAL $1,107,817.92 $969,005.81 $1,179,648.36 $1,033,266.07 $1,106,914.05 $1,149,602.85 $1,178,347.01
IB ASE BID TOTAL(SCH.A+SCH.B) I $2,620,017.001 $2,231,542.001 $2,119,680.001 $2,341,177.001 $2,363,169.001 $2,550,397.001 $2,640,638.001
(BASE BID&ALTERNALTE I TOTAL(SCH.,SCH.B+SCH.C) I $3,727,834.921 $3,200,547.811 $3,299,328.361 $3,374,443.071 $3,470,083.051 $3,699,999.851 $3,818,985.011
CHECKLIST
Addendum Acknowledged YES YES YES YES YES YES
No.1 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Nn2 ✓
Contactor Certification Wage law Compliance ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Contractor's Adminirtative Information ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Bidder Qualification Statement V V V V V V
Subcontractor's Lirt ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Bid Deposit Form ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Bid Deposit Surety Form V V V V V V
Surety Power of Attorney ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Representations and Certifications ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
1 Highlighted amounts have been come,tl
2 oft
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: April 2, 2019 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Pavement Preservation — Program Evaluation Report by NCE
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Pavement Management Plan (PMP); Update 2011, adopted by
Council March 27, 2012; Resolution 18-003, adopted June 5, 2018.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: The topics of Street O&M and pavement preservation
have been a topic of discussion for Councils since shortly after the City's incorporation including
the following:
• In 2004 Council proposed a utility tax ordinance that did not advance to a second reading.
• In 2008 Council approved a 6% telephone utility tax ordinance that went into effect in 2009.
Proceeds of this tax support Street O&M Fund #101.
• In 2011 Council approved a one-time transfer of$585,000 from the General Fund to
Pavement Preservation Fund #311.
• In 2012 Council approved a one-time transfer of$2.05 million from the General Fund to
Pavement Preservation Fund #311.
• Beginning in 2013 Council approved recurring budgetary General Fund transfers to the
Pavement Preservation Fund. Between 2013 and 2019 these transfers total $6.5 million.
• The March 2016 Winter Workshop included a presentation on this topic
• In 2016 Council and the Finance Committee held multiple discussions related to pursuing
ongoing financial support of Street O&M Fund #101 and Pavement Preservation Fund #311
including discussions on the imposition of utility taxes.
• The February 2017 Winter Workshop included a presentation on this topic.
• In 2017 Staff re-evaluated the condition of streets and worked on revising estimates of
funding needs for the City's transportation and infrastructure program.
• In January 2018 Council adopted a Solid Waste Collection Street-Wear Fee that is
anticipated to generate approximately $1.5 million annually, the proceeds of which will be
applied to maintenance and preservation of streets impacted by solid waste services.
• The February 2018 Winter Workshop included a presentation on this topic.
• In May 2018 staff presented an Admin Report on pavement management that addressed
levels of service and financial challenges.
• This has been a budgetary development discussion each year from 2011 through 2019.
BACKGROUND: In July 2018, City staff issued a Request for Qualifications and selected
Nichols Consulting Engineers (NCE) as its engineering consultant to perform an assessment,
review, and evaluation of the City's existing pavement management program as well as provide
findings and recommendations for program improvements and strategies. NCE's final report is
complete and this presentation will share NCE's findings.
About NCE:
NCE is a nationally recognized pavement specialty firm with broad capabilities in pavement
management programming, system implementation, system training, and knowledge of funding
implications on pavement maintenance. NCE's experience enables them to provide the City
with cost-effective, innovative, and sustainable recommendations for maintenance and
rehabilitation strategies.
Linda Pierce, PhD, PE, has 30 years of civil engineering experience in pavement evaluation,
pavement management, performance prediction and modeling, thickness design, preservation
and rehabilitations, pavement type selection, and life-cycles cost analysis. She has over 20
years' experience at the Washington State Department of Transportation where she has served
as the State Pavement Management Engineer, State Pavement Design Engineer, and State
Pavement Engineer. With her time at NCE, Dr. Pierce has represented agencies across the
United States that are faced with the similar challenges as Spokane Valley, where she has
provided independent analysis and review, development and implementation of pavement
management programs, and pavement network condition assessments.
OPTIONS: Discussion.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Currently, the City expends approximately $5 million per year
on its street network. This evaluation has shown that additional revenues are needed to attain
pavement condition targets and goals.
STAFF CONTACT: Adam Jackson, Planning & Grants Engineer
Bill Helbig, City Engineer
John Hohman, Deputy City Manager
Linda Pierce, Principal at NCE
ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation
Final Report: Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
Evaluation of Pavement
Management Program
City of Spokane Valley
April 2 , 2019
NC
Outline
,,,
._
_:,
Background1
Art n 1
StudyObective » ,,.....,4m,.
-'
Evaluation Process k, _ \
Budget Analysis Final Report
Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
March 20.2019
Findings ;.,NCE
Raw,MJ
ar MSS.Mlnlbn Ave..Bute 111
Rena,RV895
Recommendations -
4 Next Steps
i z City of Spokane Valley
Ili,am E 50.8.A...
Spnl®n.Valary,WA 99206
! NCE 2
Background
1. Pavement Management Program
City
Objectives,
Policies &
ti)r- Budgets
Balanced
Priorities, Approach
Analysis
Techniques
& Understanding
Reporting of Condition
1160
•q."
` ' NCE 3
Background
1 Why Pavement Management?
- Cost Effective
- Maximize Resources
A 40%of pavement life Pavement Life Cycle Curve
Excellent
has a 15%drop in quality
Very Good 15%of pavement life
To Good $1 spent now 1 = Target Zone for Pavement Rehabi{itation
a has a40%drop in quality O
a y `•,Increased Pavement Life'•.
Fair
> 1- w
•
J ,
a m ••.
Poor Costs$8 if delayed a
'Oev ••••.,�n'rehabititated ••
Very Poor emec�ve mance PavernentPerformancs
Time Time
`1" 4
Background
Understanding the Pavement Condition Index
PCI Range Description Relative Remaining Life Recommended Treatment
Excellent
Like new condition - little to no maintenance
86 - 100 15 to 25 Years required when new; routine maintenance such
as crack and joint sealing.
Routine maintenance such as patching and
71 - 85 12 to 20 Years crack sealing with surface treatments such as
seal coats or slurries.
61 - 70 10 to 15 Years Heavier surface treatments and thin
Good overlays.
41 - 60 Fair 7 to 12 Years Heavy surface-based inlays or overlays with
localized repairs.
Sections will require very thick overlays, surface
26- 40 5 to 10 Years replacement, base reconstruction, and possible
subgrade stabilization.
0 - 25 0 to 5 Years High percentage of full reconstruction.
NV AO
LikANCE 5
•
Study Objective
Evaluate Pavement Management Process
Recommend Enhancements ,, ________
11 Level of Service Budgeting
Good
= i
, . . .
Go&
.D.14170 a MEM °J
' Ill
(
, ',. -. 1' '' . ,i,"1--- .01-'1":' . 1 -''''' #•;-.
. • ,!:r.1,.',, -if' E;g'.•'
r-- —
AMINE - , ' 7,.•- A_ •
q ...•
.... --.%,-'1--..! ,..„?5F-.; ,f-. tg., ...,__..L1.,-' Fair
, -., -. .40„0 :, , , , _ez ... =ia 4
ki..401,_
__.----
- ._.,.b .. ..__
r ' W
or --,--r----.-,-- - — ,ta __ - ,-,--,-4:-.4,,r,;,, ,-, ' l'
— ---;'-',,, -.YF .117-if
F. ,,,F-7,-"N;1,,,,,t,..-N,,,,-_____„---------- - , -- -?'2,':.-L',..'- ' '7,- ::,!,„,
1901 Poo r
150b4-
- ,
W .
-,,,,:zi.1,r-,4•!--., ,_#.--- ,.,,,,- .- ,_ , _
6
! NCE
,,re
Eva I ua tion Process
o. Review City Documents Major
Arterial,
10%
t Review and Assess
Minor Arte
- Pavement Management
Software
Local,68% Collector,7%
- Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Activities
Functional Area pCII Backlog'
- Budget Scenarios lass Cyd ,
Major Arterial 993,200 71 1.2
Minor Arterial 1,465,800 67 0.5
it Recommend Collector 669,700 68 0.4
Local 6,473,400 70 5.1
Network 9,50
- Public Outreach Activities 1 Values69 7.3
taken from IMS's 20177 suns survey data and aged to
January 1,2019 using Easy Street.
- Tools and Training for City Staff
`! NCE 7
Findings
1 Pavement Condition
Condition PCI PCI Examples
Assessment 100iijk.n.16LiPCI'100 i. - -- -. Pa.90
Excellent
- State-of-the-Practice 85 s '-
Very Good
- Survey Frequency is 10 PCI_75 . Pa-
60
Good
Less than Ideal 50
• Every 2 Years : Fa;r
• 50% Arterials 40 Pa-40 PCI5
Poor
• 33% Locals 25
• Recommend Increasing Very Poor
Frequency: °
• 100% Every 3 Years
io
'! NCE 8
Findings (continued)
11
Pavement Management Software
- Meets Pavement Management Principles
- Needs Functional Enhancements
- Not User- Friendly
• Excel Spreadsheet, No Interface
..................... ................. m.„..,.
.,
; 1 8 ila ji ila i1,5. 118 Ile
i I 11 hi d id li1111 hi li i ' 1'
, ,L,..s......,1
,,,0 , ,,,,,.,00 0 15.950,5 1 0 0 10.905.700 0 2 7.0.91111.4•11 2020 11i 10129.921 10.799 957 II Run LOY Profile I Ple.Prore
ROM 1 10.00C COO 0 101000 1 0 0 10000[00 '0 : '4.0:::::••••11 0021 150 10,s&n7 loess iSi 7 35 70
2122 a amocsoo 0 15.950,5 1 0 0 10.905.700 2022 121 10199.. 10.799.
X. 5 .01 000 0 153,005 0 0 0 10,5.100 0 5 .13.353.503 2021 15/ 10 593379 1039.9 0 55 70 3 3
Rotel.: 752 5.4.....2. 5.1.4.4.291 • R5.2
P51 COM.
b ''''' Fl''''"El''''''I"'"'"''''''"''''''''''"'"""'".'''''"'
1 1 1 I Owe!,Lon2rol
t E
I 5' 1 1 ii Iii 5 1 1 g 1 I 1 li I
5 1 i 1 I i' h i i 1 1 1 ! i 1 Ts,.eel
0--, II-IF-II-11-11H I- T-1 i 1-1 1-1 i 1-1 1-1 1-1 1 1-1 1-1 ik L-1 1 - .1 -i- ---" 1
II 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 rsil Ts,.rsz o as sois
i I ' o o o o oo o oo o o o o o o 2 0 o ras rsas raz o o SI EC,
..
Aleir,11.
,..., NCE
NNia
Findingscontinued(continued)
41 Pavement Management Program
- PCI targets are Reasonable
- Rehabilitation strategies currently exclude Alternative
Preservation Treatments such as Chip Seals, Slurry
Seals, or M icrosu rfaci ng .
- Previous Treatment Costs provided by IMS were NOT
Inclusive of Design, Mobilization, Inspection
a Comparison of Jurisdictions TARGET
- Condition Targets
10
,. NCE _ _
Findingscontinued(continued)
5-Year Budget Scenario Evaluations
1 . Total Network - Existing Budget Evaluation
2. Split Network - Target Driven Evaluation
• Arterials & Collectors - Target Good (PCI 70)
• Local Access - Target Good (PCI 65)
3 . Local Access Only - Existing Budget Evaluation
4. Local Access Only - Target Driven Evaluation - Good (PCI 65)
INCE 11
Findingscontinued(continued)
s Example : Total Network - Target Good (PCI 70)
Arterials/Collectors Local Access I Total
Target Condition Good (PCI 70) Good (PCI 70) Good (PCI 70)
Target Budget $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 10,000,000
Existing Revenue Sources (Estimated from Applicable City Funds)
General Fund (311) 1,000,000 _ -
Street Wear Fee (106) - 1,500,000
Street O&M (101) 1,000,000 -
Estimated Grants (303 & 311) 1,500,000 -
REET Matching Funds (303 & 311) 300,000 -
Total Existing Revenue $ 3,800,000 _ $ 1,500,000 $ 5,300,000
Needed Revenue to
Meet Target Conditions $ 1,200,000 $ 3,500,000 $4,700,000
INV AO
• NCEfra12
Findingscontinued(continued)
4.1 Example : Split Network
- Arterials/Collectors - Target Good (PCI 70)
- Locals Access - Target Good (PCI 65)
Arterials/Collectors Local Access Total
Target Condition Good (PCI 70) Good (PCI 65) Good
Target Budget _ $ 5,000,000 $ 1,900,000 $ 6,900,000
Existing Revenue Sources (Estimated from Applicable City Funds)
General Fund (311) 1,000,000 -
Street Wear Fee (106) 1,500,000
Street O&M (101) 1,000,000 -
Estimated Grants (303 & 311) 1,500,000 -
REET Matching Funds (303 & 311) 300,000 -
Total Existing Revenue $ 3,800,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 5,300,000
Needed Revenue to
Meet Target Conditions 1,200,000 400,000* $1,600,000
*Note: This budget amount allows the local access conditions to decrease to a target of 65.
Beyond the 5-ear horizon, it is expected that an increased annual budget will be needed to
maintain the PCI targets. Generally, the annual cost to maintain a given condition
increases as the pavement condition rating decreases.
;! NCE 13
Recommendations
:e Identify Level of Service Targets
- (Good , Fair, Poor)
:e Use All - inclusive Treatment Costs
Consider Alternative Surface Treatments
v.,
Obtain a More User-friendly Software
Package
Identify Alternative Revenue Sources
Needed to Meet Level of Service Targets
" NCE 14
Next Steps
Condition PCI
.� Incorporate Findings & 1�.r
Excellent
Implement Recommendations
n Public Outreach Very Good
- Input on Acceptable Good '`
bo
Level of Service
Fair
Future Council Policy Decision
4C)
- Level of Service Targets Poor
- Potential Revenue Options 25
Very Poor
! NCE 15
Linda Pierce, Ph . D ., P. E .
Principle Engineer
Ipierce@ncenet. com
505 . 603 . 7993
:! NCE 16
y
* . ' - ._. __ ., -1
,.,, ,,,,,....-„,,_- „Ay r
01-4 - i
_ _ „____ „
._.... __
4_ ,
4
,,,,,, ,,,,, . . _,
,„„,.. .:„
...
,,,,,, ,, ,
,„
. ..._, , ......
,,, .
.., ,...,, ,
.„.4,...., .,,4. ,. , ,,.. „ ...„, _ _ , , , _„-- .„,, ,,,,,„. „ „,
»
... . ,,,,,..,.....,.:4741h-a,iikii.%**4.\,,T,.1V,,N.::\''''l - '" ' N---'
Final Report
Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
March 28, 2019
,v.
ex
Reno,NV
1885 S.Arlington Ave.,Suite 111
' Reno,NV 89509
_ ry
a
5s
f
.. Cityof Spokane Valley1 ,
,. _
.., . 10210 E.Sprague Avenue
Spokane Valley,WA 99206
41:411
Collaboration. Commitment. Confi fence u
FINAL REPORT
EVALUATION OF PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Prepared for:
City of Spokane Valley
10210 East Sprague Avenue
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Prepared by:
Linda Pierce, Ph.D., P.E.
Sarah Stolte
Sharlan Dunn, Ph.D.
Linda M. Pierce, PhD, PE
Principal Engineer
NCE
1885 S, Arlington Avenue, Suite 111
Reno, NV 89509
Engineering&Environmental Services
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
Table of Contents
Executive Summary iii
Background 1
Objective 1
Task 1. Kick-off Meeting 3
Task 2. Records Review 5
Task 3. Easy Street Functionality 8
Task 4. Define Network Targets 15
Task 5. Maintenance and Rehabilitation Strategies 19
Task 6. Budget Analysis 23
Task 7. Recommended Tools and Training 31
Task 8. Public Outreach 35
Task 9. Implementation Activities 41
Task 11. Pavement Condition Survey Quality Control 47
Summary of Recommendations 55
Appendix A: Scenario 1: Budget-Driven Analysis, $5M Annual Budget 59
;1NIC`E
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
List of Figures
Figure 1. Network area breakdown by functional class. 3
Figure 2. Pavement condition categories. 4
Figure 3. Example 3D image (courtesy of New Mexico DOT). 6
Figure 4. Costs of maintaining pavements over time. 7
Figure 5. Example of a macro-driven spreadsheet application. 13
Figure 6. Asphalt pavement decision tree. 24
Figure 7. Concrete pavement decision tree. 25
Figure 8. Performance measures for the San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 37
Figure 9. Performance measures for the City of Kirkland, WA. 38
Figure 10. Performance measures for the City of Spokane, WA. 38
Figure 11. 2018 QC survey locations 48
Figure 12. Predicted PCI vs. QC survey determined PCI. 51
Figure 13. Predicted vs. QC survey (2013 IMS data). 51
Figure 14. Predicted vs. QC survey (2015 IMS data). 51
List of Tables
Table 1. Summary Statistics for Pavement Network 3
Table 2. Extent of Data Collection (every 2 years) 7
Table 3. Rehabilitation Codes and Corresponding PCI Values 9
Table 4. Sequence Priority Factor Based on Rehab and Strength Code 10
Table 5. Respondent Contact Information 15
Table 6. Method for Assessing Pavement Condition 15
Table 7. Pavement Condition Targets by Functional Class 16
Table 8. Number of Lane Miles by Functional Class 16
Table 9. PCI Targets by Functional Class 18
Table 10. Meeting Pavement Condition Targets 18
Table 11. Easy Street Treatment Timing and Costs 19
Table 12. Estimate for Inclusive Treatment Costs 21
Table 13. Estimated All Inclusive Treatment Costs 22
Table 14. Scenario 1 Results 26
Table 15. Scenario 1 Budget Breakdown by Year and Functional Class 26
Table 16. Scenario 2 Results 27
Table 17. Scenario 3 Results 27
Table 18. Scenario 4 Results 28
Table 19. Scenario Comparison 29
Table 20. Assessment of Budget Analysis Input Parameters 29
Table 21. Easy Street Components 32
Table 22. Summary of Desirable Functions of Pavement Management Software 33
Table 23. Recommended Training 34
Table 24. Summary of Pavement Segment Sample Distribution 47
Table 25. Comparison of Distress Types, Count, and Quantity 49
Table 26. Summary of IMS Survey Year and Number of QC Samples 50
Table 27. F-test Results 52
Table 28. t-test Results 53
Table 29. Paired t-test Results 53
NICE ii
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Spokane Valley (City) has contracted with Infrastructure Management Systems (IMS) from
2010 to present to provide pavement management services, which include a pavement management
software application and pavement condition surveys on approximately a 2-year cycle. To date, IMS
has conducted automated pavement condition surveys of the City's street network in 2010, 2013,
2015, and 2017. The IMS Easy Street Excel spreadsheet (Easy Street) is used to analyze pavement
condition data, identify and prioritize rehabilitation projects, and estimate budget needs.
The objective of this project was to evaluate and assess the City's pavement management process
and, if needed, to provide recommended enhancements. The project objectives were accomplished
based on the following tasks:
Task 1. Kick-Off Meeting: discuss administrative and project details.
Task 2. Records Review: review agency documentation related to pavement management.
Task 3. Review Function of Easy Street Analysis: review Easy Street parameters and
outputs, and assess possible deficiencies.
Task 4. Define Network Targets: determine if the City's network pavement condition targets
are reasonable and achievable under the current funding source; determine local
agency target values and compare with the City targets.
Task 5. Recommended Maintenance and Rehabilitation Strategies: review current
maintenance and rehabilitation strategies, recommended appropriate treatments and
timing, and update treatment costs as needed.
Task 6. Conduct Budget Analysis: evaluate the City's current budget needs analysis and
recommend revisions or additional budget scenarios.
Task 7. Recommended Tools and Training: provide recommendations on pavement
management training needs and software tools.
Task 8. Provide Suggestions for Public Outreach: provide public outreach
recommendations to the City.
Task 9. Identify Implementation Requirements: evaluate and identify implementation
activities requiring refinement or needs to be addressed.
Task 10. Prepare a Final Report: document the efforts, findings, and recommendations of this
project.
Task 11. Conduct Quality Control of Pavement Condition Survey: Conduct a pavement
condition survey on a 5 percent sample of the City's pavement network and compare
with the results of the IMS pavement condition survey.
In general, the City's current procedures meet the primary components (and processes) of a
pavement management system. Based on the results of this study, the following provides a list of key
recommendations:
Pavement Condition Survey
• Increase the frequency of the pavement condition survey.
• Develop and implement a data quality management plan.
• Continue to utilize automated pavement condition survey methods.
Easy Street
• Confirm the accuracy of the performance prediction models.
• Obtain user manual.
• Address functionality issues.
• Request the addition of detailed pavement condition survey results and City-provided work
activities.
;1NIC`E iii
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
Maintenance and Rehabilitation Strategies
• Increase treatment costs to reflect recent contract bid awards and inclusive costs.
• Consider incorporating pavement preservation into the City's work activities.
Budget Analysis
• Consider dedicating a portion of the annual budget to preventive maintenance.
• Pursue additional funding sources to ensure target-driven scenarios are feasible.
• Consider increasing overall pavement condition target to a PCI greater than 70.
Tools and Training
• Develop a "desk manual"that documents the City's pavement management process.
• Assess report recommendations and consider need to evaluate other pavement management
programs.
Public Outreach
• Develop a public outreach program/schedule that promotes and develops the City's pavement
management program.
;NCE iv
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
BACKGROUND
Over the last 8 years, the City of Spokane Valley (City) has contracted with Infrastructure
Management Systems (IMS) to provide pavement management services. During this time period, IMS
has conducted automated pavement condition surveys of the City's street network in 2010, 2013,
2015, and 2017. The IMS Easy Street Excel spreadsheet (Easy Street) is used to analyze pavement
condition data, identify and prioritize rehabilitation projects, and estimate budget needs.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this project is to evaluate and assess the City's pavement management process and,
if needed, to provide recommended enhancements. To successfully meet this objective, this project
included:
Task 1. Kick-Off Meeting: discuss administrative issues, invoicing, points of contact, scope of
work, budget, and schedule, obtaining applicable documents (e.g., IMS files, recent
construction bid tabs), etc.
Task 2. Records Review: review agency procedures, timelines, reports, and past budgets to
assess the efficiency, methodology, and frequency of the pavement condition surveys.
Task 3. Review Function of Easy Street Analysis: review Easy Street parameters and
outputs, and assess possible deficiencies.
Task 4. Define Network Targets: determine if the City's network pavement condition targets
are reasonable and achievable under the current funding source; develop an online
survey for dissemination to local agencies in the Pacific Northwest to determine local
agency target values and compare with the City targets.
Task 5. Recommended Maintenance and Rehabilitation Strategies: review current
maintenance and rehabilitation strategies, recommended appropriate treatments and
timing, and update treatment costs as needed.
Task 6. Conduct Budget Analysis: evaluate the City's current budget needs analysis and
recommend revisions or additional budget scenarios.
Task 7. Recommended Tools and Training: provide recommendations on software tools to
improve the current pavement management program; improve efficient use of the
pavement management program, or support implementing a different pavement
management program software, and recommend City staff training needs.
Task 8. Provide Suggestions for Public Outreach: provide public outreach
recommendations to the City.
Task 9. Identify Implementation Requirements: evaluate and identify implementation
activities requiring refinement or needs to be addressed.
Task 10. Prepare a Final Report: document the efforts, findings, and recommendations of this
project. This task constitutes the compilation of all the various task memos and does
not have specific sections within this report (i.e. summary, findings, recommendations,
etc.)
Task 11. Conduct Quality Control of Pavement Condition Survey: Conduct a 5 percent
sample of the City's pavement network and compare with the results of the IMS
pavement condition survey.
41E.NICE 1
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
;NCE 2
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
TASK 1. KICK-OFF MEETING
The project kick-off meeting was held on June 21, 2018 and attended by the City of Spokane Valley
(City) staff (Bill Helbig, John Hohman, and Adam Jackson) and NCE (Linda Pierce). During this
meeting, project details, contacts, and expectations were discussed.
Pavement Network and Condition
The City is responsible for the maintenance and rehabilitation of approximately 448.7 miles of
pavement, or 4,861 pavement sections (defined by functional class, length, width, etc.). Table 1
summarizes the pavement network by functional class. The majority of the City's pavement network is
composed of local roads, with minor arterials composing the second largest portion of the pavement
network. In addition, the City's pavement network consists of approximately 99.5 percent of asphalt
pavements and 0.5 percent of jointed plain concrete pavements.
Table 1. Summary Statistics for Pavement Network
No. of Length % Pavement Type
Functional Class Sections (mi) Asphalt Concrete
Major Arterial 240 28.0 5.88 0.37
Minor Arterial 665 62.6 13.78 0.16
Collector 332 34.1 7.61 0.00
Local 3,624 324.0 77.20 0.00
Total 4,861 448.7 99.47 0.53
Note: based on Easy Street.
The pavement condition index (PCI) is a measure of pavement condition and ranges from zero to 100.
The PCI calculation is based on ASTM D6433, Standard Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Condition
Index Surveys. A newly constructed street will have a PCI of 100, while a failed street will have a PCI
of 25 or less.
The City pavement network currently has an average PCI of 69 with a backlog (total dollar amount for
pavement treatments that are needed but cannot be performed due to lack of funding) of 7.3 percent
(Figure 1). Major arterials and local roads have PCIS greater than the network average, while minor
arterials and collectors have PCIs lower than the network average.
Major Functional
Functional Area
Arterial,
Class (yd ) PCI(a) Backlog(a)
10% Major Arterial 993,200 71 1.2
Minor Arterial, Minor Arterial 1,465,800 67 0.5
15% Collector 669,700 68 0.4
Collector,7% Local 6,473,400 70 5.1
Local,68% Network 9,602,100 69 7.3
(a) Values taken from IMS's 2017 survey data and aged to
January 1, 2019 using Easy Street.
Figure 1. Network area breakdown by functional class.
INCE 3
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
Figure 2 illustrates the PCI categories utilized by the City. Pavement condition categories (e.g., good,
fair, poor) are set by each agency and are entirely dependent on an agency's interpretation of an
acceptable levels of service. Since the City's current condition categories are consistent with industry
standards and aligns with condition scales implemented by other agencies, NCE does not recommend
any modifications at this time.
Condition PCI PCI Examples
1001
14011104.3664.1.6.. PCI = 10 PCI =90
Excellent 1
m �
85 tj011. w—
ill
Very Good
uuVV
70
PO a.75I PC1 =60
Good
60
Fair
40
. -s PCI -40 . , PCI=5
Poor
25 m
Very Poor
0
Figure 2. Pavement condition categories.
INCE 4
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
TASK 2. RECORDS REVIEW
To get a better assessment of the City's pavement management process, NCE reviewed agency
procedures, timelines, reports, and past budgets to assess the efficiency, methodology, and frequency
of the pavement condition surveys. Information reviewed included:
• Pavement Management in Spokane Valley - Microsoft PowerPoint presentation.
• 2018 Annual Budget.
• 2019-2024 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
• IMS Pavement Analysis Maps (functional class, PCI, condition rating (descriptive good-fair-
poor), projects, and rehabilitation plan and 5-year post rehabilitation PCI based on a $3.2M
annual budget.
• IMS Survey Review Map.
• IMS Pavement Management Analysis Report (January 2014).
• IMS Pavement Management Analysis Report (March 2018), excludes maps - PDF.
• IMS Pavement Management Analysis Report (April 2018) - Hardcopy.
• IMS SV_2017_ESA_Rev3_Baseline_Analysis Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.
• Links to Standard Plans and Public Works Projects.
• IMS website.
• 5-year Project Plan Map: 2014-2018 ($2M rehabilitation plan) and 2014-2018 ($7.25M
rehabilitation plan).
• GeoEngineers, Falling Weight Deflectometer Testing, Pavement Coring and Overlay Feasibility
Evaluation (December 28, 2015) - provided for information only.
• 2018 FWD &Coring Locations - provided for information only.
• Project bid tabulations:
o 0141, Sullivan/Euclid PCC Intersection.
o 0142, Broadway Argonne Mullan Intersection.
o 0240, Saltese Road Reconstruction.
o 0248, Sprague - Sullivan to Corbin.
o 0251, Euclid Avenue Reconstruction.
o 0253, Mission Street Preservation (Pines Rd to McDonald Rd).
o 0254, Mission Street Preservation - McDonald to Evergreen.
o 0255, Indiana Street Preservation.
o 0272, Euclid Avenue Pavement Preservation.
Findings
Based on the reviewed documents, NCE noted the following:
• Pavement condition surveys were conducted in 2010, 2013, 2015, and 2017. Each pavement
condition survey included data collection on approximately half of the arterial and collector
roadway network, and approximately one-third of the local road network.
• Automated condition surveys were conducted in accordance with ASTM D6433 and include
assessment of surface rutting (asphalt-surfaced pavements only) and pavement roughness as
determined by the International Roughness Index (IRI).
• Pavement condition survey results were analyzed using both automated and semi-automated
methods. IRI, wheel path rutting, transverse cracking, block cracking, alligator cracking, and
;1NIC`E 5
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
texture were collected and analyzed using sensors mounted on the collection vehicle and
computer algorithms (based on information obtained from IMS website). All other surface
distresses were identified by visually reviewing pavement images and noting distress type,
severity, and extent.
• Provided documentation did not include a description of data collection quality control or
acceptance requirements.
• Preservation treatments are not included in the City's work activities.
Discussion
The frequency and extent of data collection cycle is slightly lower than ideal (i.e., longer time span
between data collection cycles). A 100 percent survey of arterials and collectors is completed every 4
years and completed every 6 years for local roads. In addition, while assessing surface distress using
semi-automated methods is the current state-of-the-practice, there is an increasing trend in the use
of 3-dimensional data collection systems, which are capable of automatically collecting and assessing
surface distress with no (or limited) human interaction. An example automated image of the pavement
surface, along with colored lines indicating pavement distresses, is shown in Figure 3.
t .-`
711— '
( r�Y
i u.^ W.t r t I4lr II -.
r � - � _ �, •,_,`
a. Driver perspective. b. Surface image. c. Identified distress.
Figure 3. Example 3D image (courtesy of New Mexico DOT).
The ability to accurately optimize pavement preservation and rehabilitation timing and treatment is
dependent on sufficient data to capture the condition of the existing pavement, predict future
performance, and balance with available funding. Ideally, conducting data collection on the entire
pavement network every 1 to 2 years will greatly improve the ability to determine future pavement
needs; however, doing so results in increased costs for data collection and analysis.
Table 2 summarizes the current frequency along with two recommended options for future pavement
condition surveys. Option 1 includes conducting the pavement condition survey on the entire arterial
and collector network (100 percent survey every 2 years) and half of the local road network (100
percent survey every 4 years). Option 2 includes conducting the pavement condition survey on all
arterials (100 percent survey every 2 years), 50 percent for collectors (100 percent survey every 4
years), and 33 percent for local roads (100 percent survey every 6 years).
ONCE 6
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
Table 2. Extent of Data Collection (every 2 years)
Functional Total Current Option 1 Option 2
Class MilesNetwork Miles' Network Miles Network Miles
Major Arterial 28.0 50 14.0 100 28.0 100 28.0
Minor Arterial 62.6 50 31.3 100 62.6 100 62.6
Collector 34.1 50 17.1 100 34.1 50 17.1
Local 324.0 33 108.0 50 162.0 33 108.0
Total 448.7 — 170.4 — 286.7 — 215.7
1 Miles by functional class based on the Pavement Management Analysis Report(April 2018). However,
report indicates a total of 230 survey miles, which does not match the total current miles shown.
The inclusion and cost impact of preservation treatments is illustrated in Figure 4. History has shown
that it costs much less to maintain pavements in good condition than to repair pavements that have
failed. By allowing pavements to deteriorate, streets that once cost $4.70/yd2 to chip seal may soon
cost $31.50/yd2 to overlay or $100/yd2 for reconstruction. In other words, significant delays in
pavement repair can result in significantly higher costs to do more extensive repair (over 24 times
more).
Excel I it nt
CIuy1 sew
54.701yri- Chep seal Viith Repair or
Very Good Thiln AC Ovcrl.iy
$7.25 - *31.50/.0.-
c
Good
Thio AC O eria
o w/Base Repair
W
L22.5D - 539,,5Cliticiz
Prim
�iL 6405CruCt10n
60- $180102
Very Poor
F, iieo
ap s5 go
PPcr[Int t.I Pjkcmwnl Life
Figure 4. Costs of maintaining pavements over time.
Recommendations
Based on the assessment of the City's documents, it is recommended (and discussed in more detail
later in the report) the City:
• Increase the frequency of the pavement condition survey to:
o Arterial and collector network (100 percent survey every 2 years) and half of the local
road network (100 percent survey every 4 years) or
o All arterials (100 percent survey every 2 years), 50 percent for collectors (100 percent
survey every 4 years), and 33 percent for local roads (100 percent survey every 6
years).
41.'*NCE 7
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
• Confirm the accuracy of the Easy Street performance prediction models. If provided by IMS,
the existing pavement condition survey results can be used to modify the pavement
performance prediction models.
• Develop a data quality management plan that includes, at a minimum, data quality control
procedures (vendor) and acceptance (agency) criteria.
• Continue to utilize automated pavement condition survey methods.
• Consider incorporating pavement preservation into the City's work activities.
TASK 3. EASY STREET FUNCTIONALITY
A review of Easy Street, its parameters, and outputs was conducted to determine efficiency, current
data quality, and any possible deficiencies. The evaluation was intended to assist the City in
understanding the compatibility for coordinating Easy Street with the current Maintenance and
potential Asset Management Programs.
Parameters
The following provides a summary and description of the Easy Street parameters reviewed by NCE.
For each parameter, the tab names and cell or column locations are also provided.
• Backlog (Network Analysis [NA] tab, cell IT7). Percent of total area representing projects with
a PCI of 40 or less.
• Annual expenditure for current year (NA tab, cell I07). Cost to address current backlog.
This is a reported value based on the selected budget analysis; the expenditure is not spent.
• Surface Distress Index (SDI) (NA tab column AE). This is calculated as 100 minus the sum
of the distress deducts. If the sum of the distress deducts is greater than 100, then SDI is set
to 0. Rutting is only applied to asphalt pavements.
• Roughness Index (RI) (NA tab, column AF). Index ranging from 0 to 100 representing the
riding comfort or smoothness of the pavement. Pavement smoothness is measured in
accordance with International Roughness Index (IRI). IRI is converted to RI using:
RI = [11.0 - 3.5 x In (IRI)] x 10
RI from 0 to 50 represents a rough pavement, 50 to 75 is a normal/aged pavement, and 75 to
100 is a smooth pavement.
• Structural Index (SI) (NA tab, column AG).
o If deflection testing was performed, SI = deflection results (NA tab column U). This is
a user developed score ranging from 0 to 100.
o If deflection testing was not performed, SI = default values representing weak,
moderate, or strong pavement. These values depend on the pavement type, the PCI,
and the load associated distress deduct. SI is selected based on a strength code (SC)
where:
• SC = 1 corresponds to an SI of 30 (PCI >_ 80).
• SC = 2 corresponds to an SI of 60 (load associated distress deduct > 95 -
PCI) and for all concrete pavements.
• SC = 3 corresponds to and SI of 80 (load associated distress deduct < 75 -
PCI).
• Pavement Condition Index (PCI) (NA tab, column AH).
o If deflection testing was performed:
PCI = 0.5*SDI + 0.25*RI + 0.25*SI
o If no deflection testing was performed:
41E.NICE 8
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
PCI = 0.67*SDI + 0.33*RI
Roughness is used as a factor when determining PCI regardless of pavement type (asphalt,
concrete, or composite). Coefficients shown in the above equations can be modified by the
user in the Parameters tab (cells C28:D30). The calculation of PCI is not in accordance with
ASTM D6433, rather the PCI calculation represents a composite index due to the inclusion of
RI. It appears that there is a circular reference between SI and PCI if deflection testing is
performed. Currently the City does not include deflection testing in the pavement
management process so this circular reference does not affect the PCI calculations. However,
if deflection testing is included in the future, this circular reference should be further
investigated and addressed.
• Rehab Activity Code (RAC) (NA tab, column DV). Selected from the Parameters tab based
on pavement type and PCI. Potential rehabilitation activities, codes, and associated costs are
listed in Rehab Activities (RA) tab. The cost associated with routine maintenance (RA tab, row
12) is zero. Many of the unit costs associated with various rehabilitations are low and should
be revised.
• Strength Priority Factor (StPF) (NA tab, column ED). 100, 60, or 20 representing weak,
moderate, or strong pavement, respectively. StPF depends on SC:
o For SC = 1, StPF = 100.
o For SC = 2; StPF = 60.
o For SC = 3; StPF = 20.
• Pavetype Priority Factor (NA tab, column EE). 100, 75, or 95 for asphalt, concrete, or
composite pavement, respectively.
• Functional Class Priority Factor (NA tab, column EF). 100, 80, 60, or 40 for major arterial,
minor arterial, collector, or local roads, respectively.
• Area Priority Factor (NA tab, column EG). Project area in square yards divided by 100.
• Need Year Priority Factor (NA tab, column EK).
o If a dedicated project, Need Year Priority Factor = 1000.
o If not a dedicated project, Need Year Priority Factor = 75 and 100 for non-critical or
critical projects, respectively. A project becomes critical a few PCI before it
deteriorates to the next lowest condition category.
• Sequence Priority Factor (SePF) (NA tab, column EL). Value selected from Parameters tab
ranging from 20 to 160 depending on strength, pavement type, and PCI. The SePF is selected
from a series of tables. First a rehab code (RC) is assigned to each project based on PCI
(Parameters tab, cells 358:K68).
Table 3. Rehabilitation Codes and Corresponding PCI Values
RC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
PCI 0 25 40 50 60 70 80 85
Using the RC and SC, the SePF is determined (Parameters tab B161:K164) for each pavement
type (Table 4).
41E.NICE 9
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
Table 4. Sequence Priority Factor Based on Rehab and Strength Code
RC
SC 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Pavetype
1 60 90 120 50 50 90 50 50 ACP/CMP
2 80 140 140 70 70 110 70 70 ACP/CMP
3 100 160 100 100 130 130 90 90 ACP/CMP
PCC 80 60 60 20 20 20 20 55 PCC
Note: ACP - asphalt concrete pavement; CMP - composite pavement; PCC -concrete pavement.
• Priority Value (NA tab, column EM). The Priority Value is calculated as:
(50 *Seq. PF+25 *Str. PF+10 *Pavetype PF+25 *FunC. PF+50 *(100 —PCI) +1 *Area PF)
(50 +25 + 10 +25 +50 +1)
* (Need Yr PF)
100
The higher the priority value the more urgent the project. The priority value is based on
sequence (which is based on strength and PCI), as well as strength and PCI thus accounting
for these factors twice.
• Priority Rank (NA tab, column EN). Assigns a project ranking order based on the priority
value. Higher priority values receive lower priority ranks. Multiple projects can have the same
priority rank value. If they do, the projects are combined into the same project on the hidden
Ranking Calcs tab.
Combining projects with the same ranking may result in a high project cost (depending on the
number of combined sections and recommended treatment). If the combined project cost is
greater than the estimated budget (or remaining budget for a given year), the project will not
be selected. In a constrained budget scenario (i.e., annual pavement rehabilitation needs
exceed available annual budget), this function may result in some projects never being
selected for rehabilitation.
Additional analysis was conducted to determine how large of an impact this may be for
identifying projects for rehabilitation. The hidden Ranking Calcs tab was reviewed and the
number of pavement sections with the same ranking was determined. Of the 4,909 pavement
sections the:
o Number of sections with the same rank as another section: 3,944 (or 80 percent).
o Number of sections with the same rank, but sections are on different streets: 111.
o Maximum number of sections with the same rank: 13.
o Number of priority ranks with only one pavement section: 10.
The project ranking process may have a significant impact on the network's segment
prioritization process; however, as a minimum this introduces potential additional inaccuracies
to the segment prioritization process.
Review of NETWORK ANALYSIS Commands
In order to obtain a better understanding of the analysis conducted in Easy Street, the following
commands within the NA tab were reviewed and are described below:
• Update PCI. Changes Current PCI Date (cell IM3) to today's date and updates the current PCI
for each segment in the inventory.
41E.NICE 10
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
• Restore PCI. Changes Current PCI Date (cell IM3) to date in Restore PCI to Previous Date cell
(cell IU4) and updates the current PCI for each segment in the inventory.
• Run 10X Profile.
o Zeros out year 1 budget.
o Increases year 1 budget in increments (determined by estimated steady state budget
AR tab, cells O81:P91).
o Updates 10 profiles on AR tab.
o This analysis allows for the calculation of the steady state, control PCI, target PCI,
maintain existing backlog, control backlog, and target backlog budgets (AR tab, rows
231 and 249).
• Run Control.
o Enters year 1 budget as $99M and determines expenditure to fix all pavement sections
and copies and pastes the updated agency budget as the Fix All Budget scenario in AR
tab.
o Enters average value of Fix All (AR tab, cell N111) as year 1 budget and copies and
pastes, the updated agency budget as the Fix All Budget Averaged scenario in AR tab.
o Enters steady state budget (AR tab, cell H231) as year 1 budget and copies and pastes
the updated agency budget as the Steady State Current PCI Budget scenario in AR
tab.
o Enters maintain exist backlog budget (AR tab, cell H249) as year 1 budget and copies
and pastes the updated agency budget as the Maintain Current Backlog Budget
scenario in AR tab.
o Enters PCI control budget (AR tab, cell 3231) as year 1 budget and copies and pastes
the updated agency budget as the PCI Control Budget scenario in AR tab.
o Enters control backlog budget (AR tab, cell 3249) as year 1 budget and copies and
pastes the updated agency budget as the Backlog Control Budget scenario in AR tab.
o Enters target PCI budget (AR tab, cell M231) as year 1 budget and copies and pastes
the updated agency budget as the Target PCI =72 Budget scenario in AR tab.
o Enters target backlog budget (AR tab, cell M249) as year 1 budget and copies and
pastes the updated agency budget as the Target Backlog = 10% Budget scenario in
AR tab.
o Enters recommended budget (AR tab, cell N135) as year 1 budget and copies and
pastes the updated agency budget as the recommended budget scenario in AR tab.
• Create Inventory. Updates Inventory tab from inventory listed on NA tab.
• Rehab Plan by Segment. Updates Rehab by Segment tab based on the budget currently
displayed on the NA tab.
• Rehab Plan by Year. Updates Rehab by Year tab based on the budget currently displayed on
the NA tab.
• Need Year Analysis.
o Removes committed projects from schedule.
o Makes year 1-5 (NA tab, cells IK8:12) budget value = 1 to call out Need Year annual
values (assumes unlimited funds and no committed projects and optimizes treatments
and costs for the next 5 years).
o Copies Need Year annual values (Analysis Results [AR] tab, cells M211:215) to year 1-
5 budgets.
21NIC`E 11
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
o Copies and pastes updated agency budget to the Need Year Analysis Budget scenario
in AR tab.
o Updates Need Year Rehab tab.
o Re-enters recommended budget (AR tab, cell N135) in year 1 budget.
• Agency Budget. Copies and pastes the currently displayed budget into AR tab. The actual
agency budget should be entered into years 1-5 before running. If years 2-5 are updated
independent of year 1, the cell links will be overridden.
• Recommended Budget. Overrides recommended budget by copying and pasting the
currently displayed budget into the AR tab. The override budget is entered into years 1-5
before running.
• Override Control Runs. Overrides the calculated budget options by copying and pasting the
currently displayed budget into the AR tab. The respective override budget is entered into
years 1-5 before running.
• Order of operation. The following summarizes the sequence of commands for conducting an
analysis:
1. Update PCI.
2. Run 10X Profile.
3. Run Control.
4. Enter Agency Budget (and any override commands as desired).
5. Create Inventory.
6. Rehab Plan by Seg.
7. Rehab Plan by Year.
8. Need Year Analysis.
If NA commands are run out of order there is a myriad of errors that can propagate, primarily with
respect to the Need Year Analysis command. If the commands are run out of order, cells may not
update properly resulting in inaccurate calculations. Sometimes, it's clear when an error occurs
because "#N/A" occurs in numerous cells. Other times, it may not be as noticeable that errors have
propagated. One way to determine whether or not an error has occurred is to review the Annual PCI
tab, if it makes sense and starts at the current PCI value for the network, then the NA commands
were likely run in the correct order. Notification of the error may also be noted (albeit"buried") in the
Analysis Results tab.
Recommendations
The following are recommended actions to address potential issues and errors in the Easy Street
analysis:
• Obtain guidelines (user manual)to indicate the recommended order of NA commands and notes
briefly describing each command.
• Consider removing RI from the PCI calculations to be in accordance with ASTM D6433 or revise
to indicate that the PCI is a combined index. RI can be used as a separate "trigger" value in the
event the City would like to consider pavement roughness in the project selection process.
• Assess and revise the PCI and Priority Factor(PF) calculations to remove circular or double
referencing.
• Revise the priority ranking method to allow projects of the same priority/rank to be selected
separately in a given budget year.
• Pavement management process are complex. A"front-end" macro application would provide a
much improved user interface for navigating through Easy Street. An example application that
41E.NICTE 12
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
uses a "front-end" macro is shown in Figure 5. The macro provides a logical sequence of events,
while still providing the user access to the individual worksheets.
f,
1 1iHFutWORKSHEET j
1 ec..11. ,.1.:Y+s.Y.•lJv.
l u1u•W lm.,n ngr.r l=..,(s11.ex,rp IProject-Level Inputs
...I.1..,n{r ..lip ....,-Nn nn Tn.L1•W 411J1.anr9 _
.v1....of 11 la In 11,11RllOn Tr1Kh.(F'hdlrr I IrrII 1'l slllrti �, /+JYereal3
I I'.xl a.1= GrpiAr
3+1.11 y..1...r,1n.r. ......
Inceua•.111.•r Co•I•1.n Aranl 1..l. Ya.
10 irlchrd.U1-Ino Coen Rrn0di•IIl11 i Lar Vei,.r vire i' n t 1.r an. 1.1.:.11.. PI tt.. A.J.]ou*/rt11L1
1 LJ..t7mr.r.nel.r LA...Cr•..1. +r.,., 1 _."4 •a1..+l.u.111r. ST 7'111.x.rnt Cai,
• 1,w..4'..,11'C,:mr•halillb.i 110•114.21 .J
�1 ...r...no nry.nrY Goss R.,r4WI I i.e.Warxa
,.... 1 .,..1v.Jr.9
Alternative-Level Inputs
I. r...2...” ",kir Anot,..l.P•011 1 ..
1:14.,,,..,..tiara{149 ,r„9x*I,01..,x
II nm
ra.lnlr,..l.+l. . .IM. I .
.11 3. I1.,. .
.I MO..I.11..11+ Simulation and Outputs
"1 Ra Qor.n la
1":al.lnar.lsli.
A.v.rt,...1 By -.
:r. PIAAorY-ov
Ent
."1 L#,g,n.,e Pr•ar,s-1(and.Fsl
Administrative Functions
Cmnarn.nl•
➢11 r 1 • ...iZ,4,.. ICI `Jlaur
Il �I.
Y," r 1.M1r1. Ualn I --------...
1.I Att.!r Cawel
n. con .l Viola iolan har been cr.rre,nr11.) 1 —.. ---------
3:I Gate 1.s Pree Olit Ur.4.0.01-;',.., 1110 C,
11. 711*unr/flock.s.r-..,,,,,....)..,,,..,,,,:,1:.90
1. CarnbnYlun Two,.ea i'•,,,,,,,,,,am I.r A1MLIr(N.9 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1' Annual Garwn{+l Rale a,*14't 150
111 `1-p•-.Nd 1,se rt Unilx Mannal{'Ipw Mllreir 1-'2' nelalmns S,nci.l, 11
11 too or Lanre In Each.G".-..1..1111 CIuf1111J rd40i+la1 Caw.dll.ore
." I Ina I Inw S`,ap.crry.(V I:1,01
I.,nl•.1.l LAL ,riw,lly 1.ell, LaaltIewlra, =
1iwx.e.C.f.P.p.hon rPPLIKmy{W^W1 i.
• WithalL1.1..In,nr ill,l r, .,rNllalallnllc arra,rill Ven1Nr1 L4n1.'IL.W,Icina I few
. det 411,1110111: Leh.n,. rall Annhyrl4 Lr.cl
Source: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt/Iccasoft.cfm
Figure 5. Example of a macro-driven spreadsheet application.
"'INCE 13
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
;NCE 14
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
TASK 4. DEFINE NETWORK TARGETS
Establishing effective and realistic network pavement condition targets is a critical activity for
successful implementation and use of a pavement management program. Pavement condition targets
must balance, for example, the City's pavement maintenance and rehabilitation budget, the amount of
time needed to successfully achieve the targets, the long-term network condition, the resulting
backlog, and the traveling public's concern over roadway condition (specifically, ride).
Agency Survey
An online survey was developed to determine local agency pavement condition targets. This was done
to assist the City in evaluating current pavement condition targets. The survey was sent to several
cities and counties in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington State. In total, 9 agencies responded to the
survey: 7 agencies in Oregon, and 2 agencies in Washington State (Table 5). The survey questions
and results are summarized below (where applicable, the information for the City has been included to
the agency responses):
Table 5. Respondent Contact Information
Name Agency Phone Number E-mail Address
Deborah Martisak City of Beaverton 971-246-0262 dmartisak@beavertonoregon.gov
Brad Albert City of Hillsboro 503-681-6234 brad.albert@hillsboro-oregon.gov
Crystal Shum City of Lake Oswego 503-697-7420 cshum@ci.oswego.or.us
Todd Lites City of Portland 503-823-6992 todd.liles@portlandoregon.gov
Scott Smith City of Prineville 541-419-3165 ssmith@cityofprineville.com
Tricia Thompson City of Redmond 425-556-2776 tthomson@redmond.gov
Mike McCarthy City of Tigard 503-718-2462 mikem@tigard-or.gov
Monte Puymon City of Walla Walla 509-524-4513 mpuymon@wallawalla.gov
Brett Sonntag Pierce County 253-798-6297 brett.sonntag@peircecountywa.gov
What is the method used for assessing pavement condition?
Five of the responding agencies use ASTM D6433, two agencies use the Northwest Pavement
Management Association (NWPMA) Pavement Surface Condition Field Rating Manual for Asphalt
Pavements, one agency uses the San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) Pavement Condition Index Distress Identification Manual (which is based on ASTM D6433), and
the City of Walla Walla has currently not identified a pavement condition rating method (Table 6).
Table 6. Method for Assessing Pavement Condition
Agency Method for Assessing
Pavement Condition
City of Spokane Valley ASTM D6433
City of Beaverton ASTM D6433
City of Hillsboro MTC
City of Lake Oswego ASTM D6433
City of Portland ASTM D6433
City of Prineville ASTM D6433
City of Redmond NWPMA
City of Tigard ASTM D6433
City of Walla Walla To be determined
Pierce County NWPMA
ONCE 15
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
What are your pavement condition TARGETS?
The majority of the cities and counties target an overall network PCI range of 70 to 85, which would
maintain their network in the "very good" condition category (Table 7). Pierce County and the City of
Portland define their pavement condition targets by the percent of each functional class in specified
condition categories. The City of Walla Walla has not yet defined pavement condition targets.
Table 7. Pavement Condition Targets by Functional Class
Pavement Condition Targets
Agency Principal Minor Major Minor
Arterial Arterial Collector Collector Local
City of Spokane Valley 70 70 70 70 65-70
City of Beaverton 76 76 75 75 73
City of Hillsboro 70 70 70 70 70
City of Portland 80% fair 80% fair 80% fair 80% fair 70% fair
or better or better or better or better or better
City of Prineville 85 85 85 85 85
City of Redmond 75 75 75 75 75
City of Tigard N/A 85 82 80 80
Pierce County 95% good and fair; 5% poor
Range 70 - 85 70 - 85 70 - 85 70 - 85 70 - 85
Average 77 77 77 77 78
As a follow-up question, agencies were asked if they are able to meet the pavement condition targets
listed in Table 7. Of the nine responding agencies, four agencies responded and indicated that the
current agency budget level is insufficient to meet pavement condition targets (i.e., pavement needs
are greater than agency budget).
What are the number of lane miles for each functional class and overall network?
The two largest overall networks, by a large margin, are the City of Portland and Pierce County, while
the City of Redmond has the smallest network (Table 8). The functional class covering the largest
number of lane miles is local access or residential roads.
Table 8. Number of Lane Miles by Functional Class
Number of Lane Miles
Agency Major Minor Major Minor Local Overall
Arterial Arterial Collector Collector Network
City of Spokane Valley 28 63 34 — 324 449
City of Beaverton —(a) 213
City of Hillsboro 18 — 137 — 342 496
City of Lake Oswego 12 — 40 — 131 183
City of Portland 215 479 — 74 2,992 4,849
City of Prineville 135
City of Redmond 151
City of Tigard 350
City of Walla Walla 35 95 39 — 267 436
Pierce County 197 549 592 140 1,702 3,180
(a) Indicates no response.
INCE 16
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
Previous Agency Surveys
Table 9 summarizes the findings of a previous local agency survey (2012 Municipal Research and
Services Center, Pavement Preservation/Maintenance Program Survey - Washington). Agencies
reported pavement condition targets of 70 to 85 for arterial routes, 65 to 85 for collector routes, 65 to
85 for local or residential roads, and 50 to 85 for the overall network.
From the survey results, the majority of agency PCI targets range from 70 to 85 regardless of
functional class. Many of the responding agencies target a slightly higher PCI for arterials than for
collectors and locals/residential. The City PCI target values are within the typical range of other
agencies; albeit on the lower end of the range.
Assessment of City Target Values
Table 10 provides a summary of the City's current PCI targets and average PCI results from the 2013
and 2017 pavement condition surveys. From 2013 to 2017, the City was able to improve the condition
of arterial roadways to meet the identified target values, while maintaining the condition of the
remaining network within the PCI target range (slightly improving the local/residential network).
Recommendations
At this time, it is recommended that the City maintain its current pavement condition target values.
However, as will be discussed in Task 6 Budget Analysis, the City's current budget level falls short of
meeting the current target values. If a budget increase can be secured, it is recommended that the
City update the overall network target to a PCI greater than 70.
;NCE 17
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
Table 9. PCI Targets by Functional Class
Agency Arterials 1 Collectors 1 Local 1 Overall Network
City of Bellingham, WA —(a) — — 80
City of Bonney-Lake, WA 80
City of Bothell, WA 80
City of Federal Way, WA 78
City of Gresham, OR 75
City of Kirkland, WA 70 65 65
City of Marysville, WA 70
City of Medina, WA 60
City of Mukilteo, WA 70
City of Olympia, WA 100% fair or better
City of Renton, WA 80
City of Richland, WA 70
City of Sequim, WA 80
City of Troutdale, OR 70
City of Tualatin, OR 85
City of University Place, WA 70
City of Vancouver, WA 75 75 70
City of Yakima, WA 50
Clark County, WA 80 80 80 80
Franklin County, WA 80 80 80
Kitsap County, WA 60
Marion County, OR 80
Snohomish County, WA 80
Spokane County, WA 70 70 70 70
Thurston County, WA 70
Washington County, OR 75 75 65
Minimum 70 65 65 50
Maximum 80 80 80 80
Average 75 74 72 73
(a) Indicates no response.
Table 10. Meeting Pavement Condition Targets
Pavement Condition Index(a)
Year Major Minor
Arterial Arterial Collector Local Overall
Target 70 70 70 70 70
2017(b) 71 73 70 71 71
Current(`) 71 67 68 70 69
(a) PCI is defined as = 33% x International Roughness Index + 67% Surface Distress Index.
(b) IMS Pavement Management Analysis Report(April 2018).
(c) Values taken from IMS's 2017 survey data and aged to January 1, 2019 using Easy Street.
INCE 18
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
TASK 5. MAINTENANCE AND REHABI'_ITATION STRATEGIES
A review was conducted on the City's maintenance and rehabilitation strategies to determine both
treatment type, timing, and costs, and to assess if needed changes are appropriate. The City's
rehabilitation treatments and associated unit costs used in Easy Street are summarized in the last
column of Table 11. The costs are presented on a square yard basis for each pavement type,
functional class, and maintenance and rehabilitation activity combination. Treatment costs also include
a small mark-up to reflect miscellaneous unit cost increases that can occur from annual variations in
the construction market. Project variables, such as mobilization, traffic control, curb and sidewalk,
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, landscaping mitigation, or pavement striping are
not included in the costs shown in Table 11.
Table 11. Easy Street Treatment Timing and Costs
Type Rehabilitation Activity(a) PCI Cost
Min 1 Critical 1 Max 1 (yd 2)
All Routine Maintenance 85 100 100 $0.00
Asphalt Preventative Maintenance 80 82 85 $0.30
Asphalt Surface Treatment/Chip Seal 70 73 80 $3.60
Asphalt Surface Treatment/Chip Seal + Structural Patch 70 73 80 $3.60
Asphalt Surface Treatment/Chip Seal + Structural Patch 60 63 70 $3.60
Asphalt Edge Mill (EM)+Thin Overlay (1.5-2 in) 60 63 70 $14.00
Asphalt EM + Thin Overlay (1.5-2 in) + Structural Patch 60 63 70 $14.00
Asphalt EM + Thin Overlay (1.5-2 in) + Structural Patch 50 54 60 $14.00
Asphalt EM/Full-Width Mill (FWM) + Moderate Overlay (2-3 in) 50 54 60 $17.00
Asphalt EM/FWM + Moderate Overlay (2-3 in) + Structural Patch 50 54 60 $17.00
Asphalt EM/FWM + Moderate Overlay (2-3 in) + Structural Patch 40 44 50 $17.00
Asphalt FWM + Thick Overlay (> 2-3 in) 40 44 50 $20.00
Asphalt FWM + Thick Overlay (> 2-3 in) + Structural Patch 40 44 50 $20.00
Asphalt FWM + Thick Overlay (> 2-3 in) + Structural Patch 25 30 40 $20.00
Asphalt Recon + Base Rehab/FWM + Structural Patch + Overlay 25 30 40 $29.50
Asphalt Full Depth Reconstruction 0 15 25 $45.00
Composite Recon + Base Rehab/FWM + Structural Patch + Overlay 25 30 40 $34.50
Composite Full Depth Recon + Concrete + Base 0 15 25 $55.00
Concrete Joint Rehabilitation + Crack Seal 80 82 85 $3.00
Concrete Localized Rehabilitation 70 73 80 $5.25
Concrete Localized Rehabilitation + Grind 70 73 80 $2.25
Concrete Slight Panel Replacement (< 10%) 60 63 70 $12.50
Concrete Slight Panel Replacement (< 10%) + Grind 60 63 70 $12.50
Concrete Moderate Panel Replacement (< 20%) 50 54 60 $25.00
Concrete Moderate Panel Replacement (< 20%) + Grind 50 54 60 $25.00
Concrete Extensive Panel Replacement (< 33%) 40 44 50 $40.00
Concrete Extensive Panel Replacement (< 33%) + Grind 40 44 50 $40.00
Concrete Partial Reconstruction 25 30 40 $85.00
Concrete Full-Depth Reconstruction 0 15 25 $130.00
(') EM-edge mill,FWM-full-width mill.
NCE 19
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
Revised Costs from Bid Tabulations
The City does not currently use all treatments listed in Table 11. Current treatments include asphalt
overlays and reconstruction; however, the City is looking to add chip seals as an alternative treatment
in the future, which NCE strongly supports. A review of recent bid tabulations for the City, as well as
bid tabulations for Clearwater County, ID was conducted. The reviewed bid tabulations included:
• City Project No. 0141, Sullivan/Euclid PCC Intersection
• City Project No. 0142, Broadway-Argonne-Mullan PCC Intersection
• City Project No. 0240, Saltese CTB Reconstruction
• City Project No. 0251, Euclid Reconstruction
• City Project No. 0253, Mission Asphalt Overlay
• City Project No. 0254, Mission Asphalt Overlay
• City Project No. 0255, Indiana Asphalt Overlay
• City Project No. 0272, Euclid Asphalt Overlay
• Idaho Transportation Department, Project A018(729), FY 19 D2 Seal Coats
Based on previous NCE work, the following includes treatment costs used by the City of Wenatchee
(note costs are all inclusive):
• Crack seal: $1.25/yd2
• Chip seal: $4.70/yd2
• Chip seal with 2 percent base repair: $7.25/yd2
• Thin (< 2 in) asphalt overlay with 5 percent base repair:
o Arterial: $29.50/yd2
o Collector: $21.50/yd2
o Residential: $15.00/yd2
• Thin (< 2 in) asphalt overlay with 10% base repair:
o Arterial: $37.75/yd2
o Collector: $36.50/yd2
o Residential: $21.00/yd2
• Reconstruction (asphalt):
o Arterial: $176.00/yd2
o Collector: $169.50/yd2
o Residential: $104.00/yd2
Adjustment of Treatment Costs to be All-Inclusive
The City has indicated a preference to use inclusive costs (e.g., engineering, inspection, mobilization,
traffic control) in the Easy Street budget scenario analysis. Therefore, an evaluation was conducted,
using the City-provided bid tabs, to determine estimated all-inclusive treatment costs. This analysis
included (results provided in Table 12):
• Identifying and removing "non-typical" costs (e.g., sewer systems, structures).
• Re-calculating total project cost.
• Calculating unit costs for asphalt (or concrete) pavement: costs divided by quantity.
• Calculating adjustment factor: pavement cost divided by total adjusted cost.
NCE 20
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
Table 12. Estimate for Inclusive Treatment Costs
CIP #0141 CIP #0142 CIP #0240 CIP #0251
Factor Concrete Concrete Reconstruction Reconstruction
Intersection Intersection (asphalt) (asphalt)
Total Contract Cost(a) $1,346,315 $1,197,072 $871,551 $1,586,792
Asphalt/Concrete Cost $485,500 $435,000 $335,870 $557,499
Pavement Area 2,000 yd3 1,500 yd3 18,890 yd2 24,033 yd2
Concrete/Asphalt Thickness Unknown Unknown 4.0 inch 6.0 inch
Pavement Cost $243 yd3 $290 yd3 $18 yd2 $23 yd2
Total Cost $673 yd3 $798 yd3 $46 yd2 $66 yd2
Adjustment Factor 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.9
(a) Winning bid minus removed items.
Table 12. Estimate for Inclusive Treatment Costs (continued)
CIP #0248 CIP #0253 CIP #0254 CIP #0255 CIP #0272
c Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt
a or
iliaOverlay Overlay Overlay Overlay Overlay(b)
Total Contract Cost(a) $1,310,105 $473,298 $713,921 $394,616 $1,034,027
Asphalt/Concrete Cost $540,135 $157,860 $208,718 $160,880 $172,900
Pavement Area 54,190 yd2 14,005 yd2 16,047 yd2 18,110 yd2 5,080 yd2
Overlay Thickness 2.5 inch 2.5 inch 2.5 inch 2.0 inch 2.0 inch
Overlay Cost $10 yd2 $11 yd2 $13 yd2 $9 yd2 $34 yd2
Total Cost $24 yd2 $34 yd2 $44 yd2 $22 yd2 $204 yd2
Adjustment Factor 2.4 3.0 3.4 2.5 6.0
(a) Winning bid minus removed items.
(b) Included extensive removal and replacement of aggregate base.
Findings
A comparison of material costs for concrete reconstruction, asphalt reconstruction, and asphalt
overlays (2 to 3 inch) indicated a difference between the Easy Street base unit rate and the City's
weighted average materials costs. For example, the average weighted costs for:
• Asphalt overlay (2 to 3 inch) is approximately $10/SY, while Easy Street unit base rate is
$17/SY.
• Asphalt reconstruction is approximately $21/SY, while Easy Street unit base rate is $45/SY.
Based on this all-inclusive cost analysis, the treatment costs shown in Table 13 could be adjusted to
be all inclusive by multiplying:
• Concrete intersection costs: 2.8
• Reconstruction (asphalt) costs: 2.7
• Asphalt overlay (excludes CIP#0272) costs: 2.3
The Easy Street treatment costs shown in Table 12 were revised by multiplying all treatment costs by
2.7 plus adding an additional 15 percent to cover the costs of engineering and inspection. In addition,
the City conducted a thorough review of the estimated all-inclusive costs to ensure reasonableness
*INCE 21
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
based on past construction projects. The recommended all-inclusive treatment costs are shown in
Table 13.
Table 13. Estimated All Inclusive Treatment Costs
Inclusive
Type Rehabilitation Activity Rate
(yd2)(a)
All Routine Maintenance $0.00
Asphalt Preventative Maintenance $3.00
Asphalt Surface Treatment/Chip Seal $8.00
Asphalt Surface Treatment/Chip Seal + Structural Patch $9.00
Asphalt Surface Treatment/Chip Seal + Structural Patch $10.00
Asphalt Edge Mill (EM) + Thin Overlay (1.5-2 in) $27.00
Asphalt EM + Thin Overlay (1.5-2 in) + Structural Patch $28.00
Asphalt EM + Thin Overlay (1.5-2 in) + Structural Patch $29.00
Asphalt EM/Full-Width Mill (FWM) + Moderate Overlay (2-3 in) $31.00
Asphalt EM/FWM + Moderate Overlay (2-3 in) + Structural Patch $35.00
Asphalt EM/FWM + Moderate Overlay (2-3 in) + Structural Patch $38.00
Asphalt FWM + Thick Overlay (> 2-3 in) $40.00
Asphalt FWM + Thick Overlay (> 2-3 in) + Structural Patch $45.00
Asphalt FWM + Thick Overlay (> 2-3 in) + Structural Patch $50.00
Asphalt Recon + Base Rehab/FWM + Structural Patch + Overlay $60.00
Asphalt Full Depth Reconstruction $65.00
Composite Recon + Base Rehab/FWM + Structural Patch + Overlay $65.00
Composite Full Depth Recon + Concrete + Base $105.00
Concrete Joint Rehabilitation + Crack Seal $6.00
Concrete Localized Rehabilitation $11.00
Concrete Localized Rehabilitation + Grind $14.00
Concrete Slight Panel Replacement (< 10%) $22.00
Concrete Slight Panel Replacement (< 10%) + Grind $27.00
Concrete Moderate Panel Replacement (< 20%) $40.00
Concrete Moderate Panel Replacement (< 20%) + Grind $45.00
Concrete Extensive Panel Replacement (< 33%) $65.00
Concrete Extensive Panel Replacement (< 33%) + Grind $70.00
Concrete Partial Reconstruction $155.00
Concrete Full-Depth Reconstruction $240.00
(a) Recommended unit cost = base unit rate x 2.7 + 15% engineering and inspection.
Recommendations
• Increase treatment costs to reflect recent contract bid awards, inclusive costs, and costs for
engineering and inspection, as shown in Table 13.
*:WJE 22
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
TASK 6. BUDGET ANALYSIS
Based on discussions with the City, four budget scenarios were evaluated using Easy Street. The
following scenarios were selected to identify network needs and can be updated to reflect any other
scenarios:
• Scenario 1: Budget-driven analysis, annual budget of $5M.
• Scenario 2: Target-driven analysis, target PCI of 70 for arterials and collectors and
target PCI of 65 for local roads.
• Scenario 3: Budget-driven analysis, local roads only, annual budget of $1.5M.
• Scenario 4: Target-driven analysis, local roads only, target PCI of 70.
Many of the City's input values are in-line with standard pavement management practices. Therefore,
for the scenarios evaluated in this task, modifications were not made to the existing decision trees and
prediction models. However, as will be discussed, treatment costs and weighting (or multiplier) factors
were changed.
Unit Cost Assumptions
The following scenarios utilize the recommended all-inclusive cost shown in Table 13. As noted in
Maintenance and Rehabilitation Strategies, the baseline costs were critically reviewed and it was found
that multiple items had unit costs that required adjustment in order to more accurately reflect the
City's actual pavement rehabilitation project costs.
Easy Street utilizes several base unit rate modifiers to account for a variety of factors (e.g., level of
distress, functional classification). Modifications to the Easy Street unit cost multipliers included:
• Unit Rate Multiplier (Parameters tab, cell H70) = 100 (cost x unit rate multiplier/100).
• Unit Rate Exp factor (Rehab Activities tab, column L) = 1.00. Easy Street values range from
1.00 (maintenance and preservation activities) to 2.00 for reconstruction. Since the
recommended costs (Table 13) are based on all-inclusive costs from both rehabilitation and
reconstruction, it is recommended that this factor be set to 1.0 for all treatments.
• FunCL Rate Premium (Rehab Activities tab, cells n10:s10). This factor accounts for costs
associated with roadway functional classification (e.g., a higher cost is need to rehabilitate a
major arterial compared to a local road). The bid item tab review was conducted on City
projects located on the arterial network. Therefore, the following FunCL rate premium are
recommended for use in the following scenarios:
o Major arterials: 100
o Minor arterials: 100
o Collectors: 90
o Local roads: 75
• Remove and Replace/Grinding (Rehab Activities tab, Column K). This factor applies a percent
increase to account for additional pavement removal/replacement and grinding needs as a
function of pavement condition. Since these costs were included in the development of the all-
inclusive costs, this factor was set to zero for all treatments.
Finally, while the estimated treatment costs are based on several recent City bid tabs, it is difficult to
accurately characterize unit bid prices due to fluctuations in material costs, labor rates, treatment
type, treatment quantities, etc. Therefore, it is important to routinely evaluate and update treatment
unit costs. Due to fluctuating costs, it is difficult to ensure 100 percent accuracy for future budget
estimates.
41E.NICE 23
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
Decision Trees
The City's current decision trees were used in the analysis of each budget scenario. For asphalt
pavements, the decision tree is arranged according to PCI range and pavement strength (i.e., weak,
moderate, and strong). Figure 6 illustrates the asphalt pavement work activities color-coded by
treatment type.
PCI Weak Moderate Strong
85-100 Routine Routine Routine
Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance
80-84 — Preventive Preventive Preventive
Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance
70-79 Patch+Chip Seal Chip Seal Chip Seal
60-69 Mill + Patch+ Mill +Thin Overlay — Patch+Chip Seal
Thin Overlay
50-59 Mill + Patch+ Mill + Patch+
Moderate Overlay Thin Overlay
40-49 Mill+ Patch+Thick Mill+Thick Overlay Mill+ Patch+
Overlay Moderate Overlay
25-39 Reconstruction or Mill+ Patch+Thick Mill+ Patch+Thick
Mill + Patch+Overlay Overlay Overlay
0-24 Reconstruction Reconstruction Reconstruction
Figure 6. Asphalt pavement decision tree.
For concrete pavements, the decision tree is arranged according to PCI range and roughness index
(i.e., < 60 and > 60). As with asphalt pavement, Figure 7 illustrates concrete pavement work
activities color-coded by treatment type.
*:WJE 24
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
Roughness Index
PCI > 60 < 60
85 100 Routine Routine
Maintenance Maintenance
80-84 Joint Rehab+Seal Joint Rehab+Seal
Localized Rehab a
70-79 _ Localized Rehab
Grind
60-69 Panel Replacement Panel Replacement
(< 10%)+Grind (< 10%)
50-59 Panel Replacement Panel Replacement
(<20%)+Grind (<20%)
40 49 Panel Replacement Panel Replacement
(<33%)+Grind (<33%)
25 39 Partial Partial
Reconstruction Reconstruction
0-24 Reconstruction Reconstruction
Figure 7. Concrete pavement decision tree.
Budget Analysis
Scenario 1
This scenario evaluates the current City budget of $5M/year, applied to the entire network and
analyzed over a 5-year period. The primary inputs included:
• Current PCI Date: 1/1/2019
• Analysis Start Date: 1/1/2019
• Budget Dedicated to Surface Treatments: 0 percent
• Analysis Period: 5 years
• Annual Budget: $5M
The results of this scenario indicate the PCI will decrease to 65 and the backlog will increase to 11.0
percent over the 5-year period (Table 14). With this budget-driven scenario, the total expenditure
over the 5-year analysis period will be approximately $25M. The current City budget is lower than the
Easy Street recommended annual budget of $8.4M/year, which is the average of the budget required
to maintain the current PCI ($9.4M/year) and the budget required to maintain the current backlog
($7.5M/year). The Easy Street results for Scenario 1 are provided in Appendix A.
*INCE 25
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
Table 14. Scenario 1 Results
Program Year Expenditure Network PCI(a) Backlog(a,b)
2019 $4,999,531 69 7.4
2020 $4,998,068 67 8.3
2021 $4,999,827 67 9.0
2022 $4,997,996 66 9.9
2023 $4,999,535 65 11.0
5-Yr Total $24,994,957 — —
(a) Initial values taken from IMS's 2017 survey data and aged to January 1, 2019 using
Easy Street.
(b) Percent of pavements (by area) on the entire network, with PCI < 40.
Table 15 provides a summary of the annual expenditures by functional class and year. The analysis
shows that the largest portion of the budget, over the 5-year analysis period, is allocated to the minor
arterial network.
Table 15. Scenario 1 Budget Breakdown by Year and Functional Class
Program Major Minor Total
Year Arterial Arterial Collector Local Expenditure
2019 $2,983,920 $1,921,344 $0 $94,267 $4,999,531
2020 $2,214,120 $2,770,350 $0 $13,598 $4,998,068
2021 $177,550 $2,709,804 $249,084 $1,863,389 $4,999,827
2022 $976,900 $2,732,498 $1,116,391 $172,207 $4,997,996
2023 $320,160 $3,600,580 $71,400 $1,007,395 $4,999,535
5-Yr Total $6,672,650 $13,734,576 $1,436,875 $3,150,856 $24,994,957
Scenario 2
This scenario evaluates the budget needed to achieve a PCI of 70 for arterial and collector roads and a
PCI of 65 for local roads. The primary inputs included:
• Current PCI Date: 1/1/2019
• Analysis Start Date: 1/1/2019
• Budget Dedicated to Surface Treatments: 0 percent
• Analysis Period: 5 years
• Arterial and Collector Target PCI: 70
Local Target PCI: 65
As shown in Table 16, to increase the PCI to 70 for arterials and collectors and local roads to a PCI of
65, over the 5-year analysis period, will require an annual budget of approximately $6.8M. This
expenditure will result in a decrease in the backlog for arterials and collectors from 5.5 percent to 4.6
percent and an increase in the backlog for local roads from 7.4 percent to 10.5 percent.
It's important to recognize that a long-term budget of approximately $1.9 million for local access
streets will result in a continuous decline of pavement conditions beyond year 5 of this Scenario. To
maintain a long-term PCI of 65, increased funding is required.
411ff NICE 26
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
Table 16. Scenario 2 Results
Program Arterials and Collectors Local Roads Total
Year BacklogBacklog p Expenditure
Expenditure PCI(a) (%)ca. Expenditure PCI(a) (%)(a,b)
2019 $4,959,906 69 5.5 $1,889,409 69 7.4 $6,849,315
2020 $4,959,621 69 5.4 $1,889,059 68 8.0 $6,848,680
2021 $4,959,005 69 5.0 $1,889,547 67 8.8 $6,848,552
2022 $4,958,847 70 4.5 $1,889,563 66 9.4 $6,848,410
2023 $4,958,707 70 4.6 $1,888,940 65 10.5 $6,847,647
5-Yr Total $24,796,086 — — $9,446,518 — — $34,242,604
(a) Initial values taken from IMS's 2017 survey data and aged to January 1, 2019 using Easy Street.
(b) Percent of pavements (by area) on the entire network, with PCI < 40.
Scenario 3
Recently, the City obtained approximately $1.5M/year from garbage collection fees to be designated
for the maintenance of the local road network. Therefore, this scenario determines the impact the
$1.5M/year, over the next 5 years, will have on the PCI of the local road network. For this scenario, it
is assumed that none of the current City budget ($5M/year) is allocated to the local road network
(i.e., the segments in the local road network were extracted from the entire network and an annual
budget of $1.5M was applied). The primary inputs included:
• Current PCI Date: 1/1/2019
• Analysis Start Date: 1/1/2019
• Budget Dedicated to Surface Treatments: 0 percent
• Analysis Period: 5 years
• Local Streets Annual Budget: $1.5M
The PCI for local roads drops from 69 to 64 by the end of the 5-year period and the local road backlog
steadily increase to 11.5 percent (Table 17).
Table 17. Scenario 3 Results
Program Year Expenditure Network PCI(a) Backlog(a,b)
2019 $1,499,503 69 7.6
2020 $1,499,786 67 8.4
2021 $1,499,796 67 9.4
2022 $1,499,004 65 10.2
2023 $1,499,357 64 11.5
5-Yr Total $7,497,446 — —
(a) Initial values taken from IMS's 2017 survey data and aged to January 1, 2019 using
Easy Street.
(b) Percent of pavements (by area) on the entire network, with PCI < 40.
Similar to Scenario 2, given an annual budget of $1.5M, the PCI of the local access streets will
continue to decline and the backlog will continue to increase beyond year 5. Increased funding is
required to prevent the local access streets from falling into the poor condition category.
41E.'*NCE 27
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
Scenario 4
This scenario determines the level of funding needed to improve the local roads network to a PCI of
70. As with Scenario 3, it is assumed that none of the City's current budget is allocated to the local
roads. The primary inputs included:
• Current PCI Date: 1/1/2019
• Analysis Start Date: 1/1/2019
• Budget Dedicated to Surface Treatments: 0 percent
• Analysis Period: 5 years
• Local Streets Maintain PCI: 70
As shown in Table 18, the estimated annual budget is approximately $5M. With this level of funding,
the local road backlog will steadily decrease to 3.6 percent by the end of the 5-year analysis period.
With this target-driven scenario, the required total expenditures over the 5-year analysis period is
approximately $25M.
Table 18. Scenario 4 Results
Program Year Expenditure Network PCI(a) Backlog(a,b)
2019 $5,009,125 70 6.6
2020 $5,009,707 70 5.8
2021 $5,008,904 70 5.3
2022 $5,009,676 70 4.4
2023 $5,009,491 70 3.6
5-Yr Total $25,046,903 — —
(a) Initial values taken from IMS's 2017 survey data and aged to January 1, 2019 using Easy Street.
(b) Percent of pavements (by area) on the entire network, with PCI < 40.
Comparison
As described above and summarized in Table 19, it is estimated that the current City budget (Scenario
1: $5M/year) will result in a decline in the network PCI and an increase in the backlog percent over
the next 5-year period. Targeting a PCI of 70 for arterials and collectors and allowing the local road
network to decline to a PCI of 65 (Scenario 2) requires an annual budget of approximately $6.9M;
however, the percent backlog for local roads will increase to 10.5 percent. For the local road network,
dedicating only the garbage collection fee ($1.5M/year) will results in a decline in the PCI to 64 over
the 5-year period (Scenario 3); however, to maintain a PCI of 70 will require an annual budget of
approximately $5M (Scenario 4).
Although evaluation of a long-term analysis period (> 10 years) is currently unavailable in Easy
Street, it can be expected that without an increase in the City's annual pavement budget, continued
decline in pavement condition can be expected.
411ff NICE 28
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
Table 19. Scenario Comparison
PCI 5-Year
Scenario (Backlog %) Annual
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Expenditure(a)
1. Current City Budget 69 67 67 66 65 $5,000,000
(7.4) (8.3) (9.0) (9.9) (11.0)
2. Target Driven by Functional Class $6,860,000
69 69 69 70
Arterials and Collectors (PCI 70) & (5.5) (5.4) (5.0) (405) (4.6) $4,960,000
9 68 67 66 6
Local Roads (PCI 65) (7 4) (8.0) (8.8) (9.4) (1055) $1,900,000
9 67 67 6
3. Local Roads ($1.5M/year) (7 6) (8.4) (9.4) (10.5 2) (1645) $1,500,000
70 70 770 70
4. Target Driven Local Roads (PCI 70)
(6.6) (5.8) (503) (4.4) (3.6) $5,010,000
(a) Average annual costs where applicable.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are based on the results of the budget analysis:
• Consider dedicating a portion of the annual budget to preventive maintenance to preserve
streets already in good condition.
• Pursue additional funding sources to ensure target-driven scenarios are feasible.
• Request IMS to update Easy Street for analysis periods greater than 5 years (e.g., 20 years).
• Consider using decision-support tools that include:
o Optimizing budget percent dedicated to preventive maintenance on a yearly basis.
o Allowing target values by functional class for network-wide analyses.
A summary of Easy Street parameters, current City values, and NCE recommended values are shown
in Table 20.
Table 20. Assessment of Budget Analysis Input Parameters
Input Parameter Current Value Recommended Value
Analysis Period <_ 5 years <_ 20 years(a)
Backlog limit PCI < 40 No recommended changes
Decision tree See Figures 6 and 7 No recommended changes
Functional class priority 100, 80, 60, or 40 for major No recommended changes, values are
factors arterial, minor arterial, collector, representative of typical practice
and local roads, respectively
PCI Overall network Allow PCI targets by functional class(a,b)
Percent budget dedicated 0 10 or optimized for each budget scenario
to surface treatments
Treatment costs See Table 13 Update to reflect actual costs
(a) Requires Easy Street modification.
(b) City noted that this is an Easy Street function; however, it is not intuitive how this can be conducted in the current version.
"$NIC`E 29
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
;NCE 30
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
TASK 7. RECOMMENDED TOOLS AND TRAINING
The following provides recommendations on software tools to improve the current pavement
management process, to improve efficient use of the pavement management program, or in support
of implementing a different pavement management. In addition, City staff training needs related to
the pavement management process are provided.
Software Tools
The primary tool in the pavement management process is the pavement management software.
Ideally, the components of a pavement management system include:
• Data collection:
o Inventory: number of lanes, section length, section width, surface type, functional
classification, shoulder type (e.g., unpaved, curb and gutter, sidewalk, and width).
o Work history: date of construction, type of treatment, thickness of treatment (when
applicable).
o Condition survey: roughness or ride (International Roughness Index), rut depth,
pavement distress (type, severity, and extent), and condition index.
o Traffic: truck type, truck count
• Data analysis:
o Investment strategies: single- and multi-year analysis, various budget scenarios.
o Performance analysis: pavement performance prediction, estimate expected life.
o Engineering analysis: design evaluation, preservation and rehabilitation treatments,
materials, and mix designs.
o Feedback analysis: evaluate procedures, recalibrate performance prediction models.
In general, a pavement management system provides the user with the information needed to track
pavement condition, predict future performance, identify treatment type and timing, determine
budgetary needs and impacts of constrained budgets and different treatment types and timing, and
support agency accountability efforts. Other potential tools include applications for hand-held
pavement condition assessment, GIS, and integration with other asset management systems.
Assessment of Easy Street
Easy Street meets the majority of the pavement management system components. Table 21 provides
a summary of the Easy Street components and NCE's assessment of sufficiency. Based on Table 21,
the major hindrance to the current pavement management process is the lack of previous detailed
pavement condition data (severity and extent for each distress type) and work history data. In its
current format, the exclusion of detailed pavement condition data and work history information from
Easy Street is considered to be a significant shortcoming to the pavement management process.
ONCE 31
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
Table 21. Easy Street Components
Category Component Easy Street Discussion
Component?
Inventory Number of lanes No Could be estimated
Data Section length Yes
Section width Yes May not be accurate(a)
Surface type Yes
Functional classification Yes
Shoulder information Yes However, all values are null
Work Construction date No Information is needed to assess
History Treatment type No treatment performance
Treatment thickness No
Condition Roughness or ride Current year only Detailed pavement condition data
Survey (type, severity, and extent) is
Data Pavement distress PCI deduct values needed to confirm prediction
Rut depth Current year only models and assess performance of
Condition index Current year only different treatment types and
materials
Traffic Truck type No Not an essential component;
Data although not as accurate, functional
Truck count No classification is often used in lieu of
truck data
Performance Performance prediction Yes Internal equations; unknown if
Analysis updated after each survey cycle
Treatment life Yes Only includes 5-year assessment;
predicted year would be helpful
Decision tree Yes Preservation treatments not
included; consider adding a chip
seal program
Investment Single- and multi-year Limited to < 5 Longer-term analysis maybe
Analysis years beneficial (10 - 20 years)
Budget scenarios Yes Budget- &target-driven
Evaluate designs, No Analysis is typical conducted
Engineering preservation and outside of the pavement
analysis rehabilitation treatments, management system; however,
materials, and mix designs complete inventory, historical, and
condition survey data is needed
(a) Based on roads included in quality control assessment (Task 11); however, City noted data provided to IMS was
based on review of Google images.
Desirable Functions of a Pavement Management System
A questionnaire was provide to the City to assess the desirable functions of a pavement management
software. City staff identified a number of"must have" attributes and features including the ability to
evaluate"what if" budget scenarios, funding level needed to maintain a specified PCI level, identify
unfunded backlog and percent of streets in good, poor, and failed condition, and the ability to include
customizable treatment costs (Table 22). The City staff-identified "must have" attributes and features
are currently included in Easy Street. Easy Street supports some of attributes and features listed in
Table 22; however, it does not currently allow for the inclusion of work history, previous survey
results, and stop-cap costs, evaluation of long-term (> 5 years) budget scenarios, GIS integration,
development of standard or customizable reports, and GASB reporting. If the City determines these
attributes are important, discussion with IMS for inclusion or evaluation of other pavement
management programs is recommended.
41E.'*NCE 32
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
Table 22. Summary of Desirable Functions of Pavement Management Software
3 - must have, 2 - desirable, 1 - desirable but
Software Features not necessary, 0 - not needed Easy
Bill 1 Colin 1 Mike 1 Adam 1 Average Street
IiiaLBudgetary Analysis AM
"What-if" funding scenarios 3 3 3 3 3.00 Yes
Funding level to maintain PCI 3 3 3 3 3.00 Yes
Multi-year work plan 3 3 3 2 2.75 Yes(a)
Committed projects 2 3 3 3 2.75 Yes
Customizable prediction models 2 3 3 2 2.50 No(b)
Default performance prediction models 3 2 1 3 2.25 Yes
Stop-gap costs 2 2 3 2 2.25 No
"Packaging" projects 2 1 3 2.5 2.13 Yes
Additional Performance Measures
Unfunded backlog 3 3 3 3 3.00 Yes
Percent of good, poor, failed streets 3 3 3 3 3.00 Yes
Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Customizable unit costs 3 3 3 3 3.00 Yes
Customizable thresholds 2 3 3 3 2.75 Yes(o
Customizable M&R decision tree 2 3 3 2.5 2.63 Yes
GIS Integration
List desired queries 2 3 3 — 2.67 No
Exportable shapefiles 2 3 3 — 2.67 No
Internal GIS module 2 2 3 2 2.25 No
Reports
Customizable Reports 3 3 3 2 2.75 No
Graphs 3 3 2 — 2.67 Yes(d)
Standard Reports 3 2 1 2.5 2.13 No
GASB 2 2.00 No
(a) Limited to 5 years.
(b) Easy Street"Curve Calcs"tab includes performance model information, but will require IMS to conduct changes.
(c) Overall network only; could be beneficial to allow PCI targets by functional classification.
(d) Not customizable.
Training
Suggested training topics are provided in Table 23. Training has been arranged according to level of
importance, with a "1" being the most important. In addition to the recommended training, it is also
recommended that the City develop a "desk manual"that documents, for example, the process of
evaluating the information received from IMS, step-by-step procedures for conducting any needed
analyses, and information included in reports to upper management and the City Council.
*:WJE 33
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
Table 23. Recommended Training
Topic Importance Discussion
Data quality1 Describe the importance of data quality, standards and
management requirements, maximize accuracy, repeatability, etc.
Software function1 Describe functionality, how to conduct various analyses,
and operation discuss results, and information to report
Performance2 Describe importance, what data is needed, what
prediction analysis is conducted, and how results are verified
Budget analysis 2 Describe how the analysis is conducted, target- and
budget-driven analysis, and assessing next steps
Treatment2 Describe applicable treatment types, timing, and costs,
selection and construction activities
Condition surveys 3 Describe manual, semi-automated, and automated
condition surveys, focusing on the latter
Recommendations
Based on the contents of the current version of Easy Street, previous versions (2010, 2013, and 2015)
can be accessed and distress types and PCI deduct values extracted. It is recommended that the City:
• Request IMS to populate Easy Street with the detailed results of all pavement condition
surveys, including the survey year, and severity and extent of each distress type.
• Request IMS to populate Easy Street with a work history of the road network, including
construction year, layer or treatment type, and thickness.
• Provide staff training.
• Develop a "desk manual" that documents, for example, the process of evaluating the
information received from IMS, step-by-step procedures for conducting any needed analyses,
and information included in reports to upper management and the City Council.
While the addition of this information does not appear to impact the current functionality of Easy
Street (e.g., add data into separate worksheets), maintaining a history of pavement condition
assessment and work history is an essential component of a pavement management system.
Additionally, in the event the City determines that the recommended functionality modifications to
Easy Street are cost prohibitive, and the inclusion of stop-cap costs, GIS integration, standard or
customizable reports, and GASB reporting is important, it is recommended the City evaluate other
pavement management programs.
41E.NICE 34
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
TASK 8. PUBLIC OUTREACH
The following provides recommendations for public outreach activities in support of pavement
management. Recommendations are based on efforts conducted by NCE for other local agencies.
City Council Workshops
Target new members and members wanting a refresher. Each workshop would be no more than 2
hours in length, and cover sufficient information to provide understanding, but not necessarily specific
details (e.g., discuss performance modeling without getting into the statistical analysis component).
For each workshop, participants would be provided a briefing document that summarizes the
information; this way the information can be used for future reference, as well as for future Council
workshops. Potential workshops include:
• How pavements perform (a.k.a., why pavements fail).
• Pavement management basics (e.g., types of distress, how distress is measured, treatment
types, timing, and costs, performance prediction, budget analysis).
• Budget analysis (e.g., how performance models are used to estimate budgetary needs, how to
select cost-effective treatments and when to apply them).
City Council Presentations
Ideally, City Council presentations on pavement management would be conducted on a regular
schedule, although in reality this is not always possible. The presentations would provide updates on
how the City is meeting its pavement management goals. The information shared could include (each
presentation would not necessarily include the same information):
• What street network does the City own/maintain?
• What condition is it in?
• What repairs are needed and when?
• How does the City cost-effectively maintain or improve streets?
• How are funding needs determined and how does it impact pavement condition?
• Examples of information to share may include:
rapq
PCI Breakdown 04 How do Other Cities Compare?
Marc than half are in gaud r Residential%are in better
rnnditinn mnriiiinn 9 SSR $ ".
24pL
we war/vein,'poor H 11211111111M
1~W "�
_ rtir+i!
e.1%
»M
1M hrrwH fir fF°c 3 1 ,
wavocq 414,a-r'-1 f} 4 J
r...l'e'ina S ZS 3A
Cr..
rr ,.,, ,. .. '!NICE l!NCE
ONCE 35
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
. .
^�. ._'
F
. F .;Hi. i. .
111111.1=i, 54
I \ti.• risk-- - ,-,,,L
11.19VI 11 I%.' 1111Hfrrt:
` :' - -m
� ' -
' ' �� /
. ±
rieN, '' _
��_� ` � ` �-. � � `
~ri ' -� � � _ 1��`
' -' —/ — ~�� �
__� _ riillig , 'it em` ^_ / =�' `"' -�
�� \ .~ . `� � _,
Si,
2013 2032 with current 2032 with sales tax
funding$1.25m/vear $6,35nm/vewr
~� _~.,
` I,
~ . " " � � ~ °
. °
~ . . - ' ~-�__
~ , ~ ~ . ' .' . .� ' ~~�.~_--�-~— "
^ '
~ ~
—
i I
| ^`°. 1.:L 1,1 ��
~
E.
*I ~~
_ ~ �
1~ ilil
.., 1 � = ~
ri1III
~ | . IN1NNNNNNNNNN1 �0N N 1 NNNN N1 "
i / � i i1 � � � � � � � i � � � | i i i 1 is � U � F � F_IF � Li � � �
i
; .
Develop Social Media Content
Social media is typically used to announce construction projects, traffic delays, etc., and less in
relation to pavement management. This is because relatively little pavement management information
is of interest to the masses, and thankfully, also because pavements do not deteriorate rapidly where
a media blast would be important.
Figures 8 through 10 provide examples of agency performance measure websites:
ONCE 36
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
(...!'NICTRIPPGILYTAN TRAM WORT&TION COhlIMMIVII .
V FAL SIGNS
ms11,1,../11,1 Ll
Highway Pavement
Heusi ne,Prod..I i on Airport Activity Particulate Concentrations Displacement Risk
Condition
rir /\1
'..
\
PV"-.---' li V
...,,,-
r!lt 77',NO
—Ron-airtrenemar.al —mr.P.MMII, Part....conrentratan —sham of Lower inome
r.......-..”.bu I rudilLwal.....r.Ad 5.........c.r.lh,......, ...mow m.r.,...or.ii..... ......a.v.I.w n...ovlou K.I...law., rliVirli,11,1.num...br rnun11101.
bult...tiolir.µ.1i.10.4.141. p.m pi., 1..6,
• .....vez.
C.r .-• 11.'7's,W1'6 n 0..Dr'2.!.472 n rg,7„,L,,. so-„...2-z.,.-nn ....• F,c4-al G Setecl Longume •
• nt1.1.:...k..,
IV ITAL ,S GNS g _
=
SIAM PAVIndlElffallIDITKIIII 1,-,:in....1I-1..,..,.o., 1-.5-ri:,...117:iy.il,r,..1 I.N..I nn- VLIPIIMITO ir.PMIRR nu II CEI=1
2017 Street Pavement Condit ion by City and by Street Sem ent
JIM. .. Ir. ..1.s.,.,,, ,
.
Zoom in to see androdusi street segments
-
"4, NO4
RIVini&% •., ,
.. a A,
/t eaipobji\,, .
1,
tilL4, ,
m,„.
,•::::-:-:
11111 • : ,,-- ; 'titi
Source: http://www.vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/street-pavement-condition.
Figure 8. Performance measures for the San Francisco Metropolitan
Transportation Commission.
*ONCE 37
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
D 11 ID 41 8
Reduce reliance on single occupancy vehicles and improve connectivity ty and multi-
GO . modal mobility in Kirkland in ways that maintain and enhance travel tinles,satety
MEASURE 2013 2014 2315 20116 2017 Ta ,el
The City funds active percent d Capitol Improvement
transportation optionsprogram Transportation funding 38% 36% 41% 32%' 31%" 33%
1.devoted to Active Transportation 1
So That...
Puce nd of proposed Intelligent 100%of ITS
The City can implement the Transportat+on System(ITS) 37% 38% 62% 63% 94% Strategic
adopted Active Transportation protects completed pion
and Intelligent Transportation Complete sidewalk construction
system Planson at feast one side of aid school 89% 89% 8996' 90% 90%' J00%by
walk routes 2019
I Percent of bicycle network
construction improvement 64% 64% 71%' 71%' 79% 1 W96 6y
protects completed2018
Percentage of designated arterials 60%
60% 80% 62% 62% 100%
that ora complete streets
So that.
Kirkland has an integrated Residents surveyed are No
multi-modal system al active
with maintenance of 82% Data
90%
V transportation facilities
transportation that provides
mobility and sate travel Automobile crushes irrvaivirxl 25 14 24 16 18 0
:bikes
Automobile crushes involving 23 27 28 24 20 0
pedestrians
Source: http://www.kirklandwa.gov/depart/CMO/Reports/Performance Measures.htm.
Figure 9. Performance measures for the City of Kirkland, WA.
Arterial street rating
•,ner^r Conditions are mrrrrsured in!Adel to pr 1011t1Le mainleeurnce curds.The r,rtinq it from 0 t0 100,with 100 being a Inand new S4rcel The
CA tegor les are c lassir"ed as(shod from I()to 117 t1,Fair from 50 to/It,and Poor Fr or 0In SO I his ralinra system does vary from city to city wi I h
Spokane currently using the higher end of the number scale_
1lie Ilial HI the City is in keep f;ur)"E Streets good and irnl,rayg on the Streets that requite edrlitiondl rnainte+narue.
•thud•=di,ON.,
krvk
=f'- 6.`h
so 5.1.
540%
-r,
a c - Ed! 2291
21'w
d%
Irk
r=
_J.. _.__ 2.12 _:. 21716 2017
Source: https://my.spokanecity.org/performs/.
Figure 10. Performance measures for the City of Spokane, WA.
*;NCE 38
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
Conduct Town Hall Meetings
Similar to the City Council Workshops, Town Hall meetings would provide information specific to the
interests of business owners and residents. Potential topics include:
• How the City manages the pavement network (similar to pavement management basics).
• How the City tracks pavement condition.
• How funding impacts street condition.
• City activities for managing the pavement network.
Additional topics of interest could be included based on input from the public.
ONCE 39
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
;NCE 40
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
TASK 9. IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
The following includes an assessment of the City pavement management system implementation
status and needed activities.
Roadway Network and Inventory Date
The City has a well-established GIS that identifies the road network. It was noted during the quality
control evaluation that roadway widths were not accurately reported. To improve estimates of
treatment application quantities and costs, it is recommended that roadway widths be verified and
updated as needed.
Pavement Condition Data Collection
The current pavement condition data collection procedure is conducted using automated data
collection and semi-automated pavement review. Distress assessment is in accordance with ASTM
D6433. As technology advances, consideration of 3D data analysis is recommended.
One potential shortfall of the current pavement condition data reporting process is the lack of
pavement condition history. Easy Street does not include previous PCI results for those roads that
have received multiple pavement condition surveys. Having a historical record of pavement condition
is critical for evaluating pavement performance prediction models and for assuring pavement condition
ratings from one cycle to the next are reasonable. It is understood this information is available from
previous years submittals, but extracting and manipulating the data could be challenging and time
consuming. It is recommended that the City request historical condition data be included with each
survey cycle data submittal.
The City currently conducts the pavement condition survey on a slightly lower cycle than ideal.
Therefore, it is recommended that the City consider and increase the frequency of the pavement
condition survey to:
• Arterial and collector network (100 percent survey every 2 years) and half of the local road
network (100 percent survey every 4 years) or
• All arterials (100 percent survey every 2 years), 50 percent for collectors (100 percent survey
every 4 years), and 33 percent for local roads (100 percent survey every 6 years).
Finally, it is recommended that the City develop and implement a pavement condition data collection
quality management plan to verify data collection and analysis meets the specified procedures,
protocols, and standards (including quality control and data acceptance).
Pavement Condition Targets
The City's pavement condition targets were compared to other local agencies in the Pacific Northwest.
The City's targets are slightly lower than other agencies and the City's overall road network condition
(PCI score) declines approximately 1 PCI point every year. At this time, the current budget level is not
sufficient to meet the City's current pavement condition targets. While the City has generally been
able to maintain the overall road network in good condition (PCI > 60), additional funding is required
to sustain the City's current overall road network target PCI of 70. In the event additional funding can
be secured, it is recommended that the City consider increasing its overall pavement condition target
to a PCI greater than 70.
Maintenance and Rehabilitation Decision Tree
The City's maintenance and rehabilitation decision tree was reviewed and an assessment of treatment
types, PCI trigger values, costs, and expected life was conducted. The treatment types and PCI trigger
values for different rehabilitation/treatment options was found to be in line with industry standards.
:NCE 41
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
Further, the expected life for each unique rehabilitation/treatment option was also found to be in line
with industry standards. As recognized by the City, the treatment costs included in Easy Street are
lower than actual estimated costs. It is recommended the City increase treatment costs to directly
reflect actual bid tabulations. In addition, while included in the decision tree, preservation treatments
are not currently utilized; therefore, it is recommended, as a minimum, that the City assess the
potential of including chip seals as a treatment option for asphalt pavements.
Pavement Management System
Easy Street meets the majority of the pavement management system components. However, a
significant shortcoming of the current version of Easy Street is the lack of previous detailed pavement
condition data (distress type, severity, and extent) and work history data (construction year, layer or
treatment type, and thickness). In addition, City staff identified stop-gap cost analysis, GIS
integration, and customizable reports and graphs as desirable features; however, these are
unavailable in the current version of Easy Street. If the City determines these features are important,
discussion with IMS for inclusion or evaluation of other pavement management programs (e.g.,
PaverTM, StreetSaver®) is recommended.
Performance Prediction Models
Easy Street includes pavement performance prediction models; however, verification of how well the
performance prediction models reflect in-field performance was beyond the scope of work. In the
event previous survey data is made available, how well the prediction models relate to field
performance can be assessed. In addition, the performance models included in Easy Street cannot be
modified by the City and require IMS assistance to make any changes; considering the impact, this is
typical of commercial pavement management system software.
Funding Estimate
Easy Street is capable of analyzing the following budgetary factors:
• Target-driven - agency-specified PCI level to be achieved by the end of the analysis period.
The default PCI value is 72.
• Budget-driven - agency-specified budget for each year (can be different from year-to-year) of
the analysis period.
• Recommended (Easy Street) budget - highest budget of 1) the average steady state budget
and maintain current backlog budget, 2) the PCI control budget, or 3) the backlog control
budget.
• Steady state - maintains the existing PCI level over the analysis period.
• Maintain existing backlog - maintains the existing backlog percent over the analysis period.
• PCI control - maintains the PCI above a minimum value. The default PCI value is 65; however,
this value can be modified by the user.
• Backlog control - maintains the backlog below a minimum percent over the analysis period.
The default backlog value is 12 percent and can be modified by the user.
• Fix all averaged - budget needs analysis that determines how much money is needed to
perform all maintenance and rehabilitation treatments at the optimum time.
• Target backlog - agency-specified backlog percent by the end of the analysis period. The
default value is 10 percent.
Easy Street currently includes a good selection of budget scenario analyses, and is comparable to
other pavement management software programs. However, Easy Street currently lacks the ability to
conduct analyses beyond a 5-year period.
NCE 42
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
Reporting
Easy Street is not currently set up to generate user-specified data tables, graphs, or reports.
However, the needed information to do so is contained within Easy Street, and to an extent, in the
IMS reports. Easy Street includes several premade graphs (e.g., backlog versus annual budget, PCI
versus annual budget, backlog by budget level) that can be used as is or modified by the user.
Feedback Loop
Easy Street appears to be a powerful tool that follows pavement management principles. Although a
spreadsheet application provides flexibility for both the developer and users, its operation can be a bit
cumbersome (e.g., multiple tabs, several hidden tabs, tabs that may not be used by a given agency)
and time consuming to conduct the analysis. The lack of a user guide is considered to be a critical
issue. If the City continues utilization of Easy Street, it is highly recommended that IMS be asked to
provide a user guide, as well as hands-on training and supporting materials. The user guide (and
training materials) should not only include discussion of functionality, but should also include
information related to, for example, performance model development, budget analysis, and project
and treatment selection. Having this information will be essential for new staff, as a reference to
existing staff, and in the event of staff turnover.
The City currently has a single staff member responsible for pavement management. Although there
may not be a need for additional pavement management staff, it is highly recommended that the
current process be well documented. Documentation could include the development of a desk manual
that contains, for example, an Easy Street operational manual, step-by-step processes documenting
the City's evaluation of data and results, and generation of tables, figures, and other reporting
information.
Based on discussions with the City, a number of staff training needs were identified. These training
needs would greatly assist current staff as well as incoming staff in the understanding of the
pavement management process, software, and implications on budgetary needs and analyses.
Recommended training topics include:
• Data quality management plans.
• Easy Street operation and functionality.
• Pavement performance prediction modeling.
• Budgetary analysis.
• Treatment type selection, timing, performance, and cost.
In relation to City Council members, a number of workshops and presentations would be helpful to aid
in illustrating the significance and importance of a pavement (or asset) management process. An
essential component of workshops and presentations is to provide a unified message that illustrates
the pavement (or asset) management procedure, the importance of data collection, the accuracy of
performance prediction, and the impact on budget and network performance. Having a reliable
pavement management process that City Council members understand, and that consistently delivers
a similar message from year-to-year, will greatly improve the credibility of the City pavement-related
recommendations. Potential City Council workshops and presentations include:
• Workshops:
o How pavements perform (a.k.a., why pavements fail).
o Pavement management basics (e.g., types of distress, how distress is measured,
treatment types, timing, and costs, performance prediction, budget analysis).
o Budget analysis (e.g., how performance models are used to estimate budgetary needs,
how to select cost-effective treatments and when to apply them).
41E.NICE 43
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
• Presentations:
o What street network does the City own/maintain?
o What condition is it in?
o What repairs are needed and when?
o How does the City cost-effectively maintain or improve streets?
o How are funding needs determined and how do they impact pavement condition?
At this time it appears that Easy Street will meet potential future changes in data collection
technology, additional or revised analysis procedures, and software and hardware upgrades. Although
the number of records in Easy Street does not exceed the capabilities of Microsoft Excel, it is uncertain
if this may become an issue in the future.
Recommendations
The following provides both short- and long-term recommendations for pavement management
implementation activities.
Short-Term (1 to 2 years)
• Pursue additional funding sources to ensure target-driven network scenarios are feasible.
• Request detailed historical condition data (e.g., survey year, distress type, severity, and
extent) be added to Easy Street for each pavement condition survey conducted to date.
• Request IMS to add work history data (construction year, layer or treatment type, and
thickness) to Easy Street.
• Request Easy Street user guide and supporting materials, and potential for having hands-on
training.
• Consider increasing treatment costs to directly reflect actual bid tabulations.
• Request Easy Street be updated to include analyses beyond a 5-year period.
• Conduct pavement condition surveys at a higher testing frequency.
• Develop and implement a pavement condition data collection quality management plan.
• Assess the inclusion of preservation treatments (e.g., chip seals) for asphalt pavements.
• Determine importance of including stop-gap cost analysis, GIS integration, and customizable
reports and graphs in the pavement management program. If determined to be important,
discuss with IMS or evaluate other pavement management programs (e.g., PaverTM,
StreetSaver®).
• Develop standard and customizable reporting requirements.
• Document current pavement management process (e.g., desk manual).
• Develop a public outreach program/schedule that promotes and develops the City's pavement
management program, including preparing and delivering City Council Workshops, City Council
pavement management presentations, social media content, and Town Hall Meetings.
Long-Term (3 or more years)
• Verify and update roadway widths to improve the accuracy of maintenance and rehabilitation
costs estimates.
• Consider increasing overall pavement condition target to a PCI greater than 70.
• As technology advances and is verified, consider requiring 3D data analysis as part of the
pavement condition data survey contract.
• Validate pavement performance prediction models.
• Address all IMS-specific recommendations from Task 3 regarding Easy Street's functionality.
ONCE 44
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
• Provide staff training on:
o Data quality management plans.
o Easy Street operation and functionality.
o Pavement performance prediction modeling.
o Budgetary analysis.
o Treatment type selection, timing, performance, and cost.
41E.NICE 45
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
;NCE 46
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
TASK 11. PAVEMENT CONDITION SURVEY QUALITY CONTROL
A manual survey in accordance with ASTM D6433 was conducted by NCE on approximately 5 percent
(or 241 sections) of the City's pavement network. The samples were distributed among arterials,
collectors, and local streets and included both asphalt and concrete pavements. The PCI from the
manual (quality control) survey was calculated and compared to Easy Street PCI results. The results of
this comparison, as well as the selection process for the QC survey samples and the construction of
the PaverTM pavement management software database into which the QC survey data was entered as
described below.
Selecting Samples for the QC Survey
To ensure the samples were distributed among functional class, pavement condition, and surface type,
the following describes the selection process:
1. Sort each segment of the pavement network by functional class.
2. Generate separate Microsoft Excel worksheets for each functional class.
3. Copy segment inventory data to the respective worksheet.
4. Sort segments in each worksheet by PCI value.
5. Define condition categories by PCI range (see Figure 2).
6. Generate separate worksheets for each functional class-PCI category. For example, create
worksheets for"collector-excellent" and "minor arterial-very good," etc.
7. Randomize pavement segments within each functional class-PCI category worksheet.
8. Select the first 5 percent of pavement segments in each functional class-PCI category
worksheet for inclusion in the QC survey.
By following this process, the pavement segment samples were distributed among functional classes
as well as condition categories.
A check was conducted to ensure there were a representative number of concrete and asphalt
samples. The City network (by area) is comprised of 99 percent asphalt pavements and 1 percent
concrete pavements. In total, of the 241 samples, 238 samples (or 99 percent) were on asphalt
pavements, and 3 samples (or 1 percent) were on concrete pavements.
Table 24 summarizes the distribution of pavement segment samples by pavement condition and
functional class.
Table 24. Summary of Pavement Segment Sample Distribution
Functional Pavement Condition
Class Excellent Very Good Good and Poor and Total
Fair Very Poor
Major Arterial 3 1 5 1 10
Minor Arterial 9 7 16 1 33
Collector 4 4 7 1 16
Local 72 39 60 11 182
Total 88 51 88 14 241
QC Survey
The QC survey was conducted between October 8 through 19, 2018 by an accredited NCE pavement
distress rater. Distress type, severity, and extent, and segment length and width were measured for
each pavement segment sample. The location of the QC segments are shown in Figure 11.
NCE 47
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
ll
2 ' '1M
itt .IIA
roa,...ivi.1.1i ,..4111111A1 .., g
... �� y4WI % r ° r{sr7
Irwii. � ► - ..;- IS
Bill }n ' ..... , C'' IIS`- m
TVA
4 11R4`-„ rr4r k.w . *f ■ A
q y
�j
4_ 1�11''��-1111 11 C.c`in .., $. R i, ,tom■ r_sY:':-
41. 4111''
,r .�Thx
i�itilkezrIr.OMISVAIHIPL4r4
' u sem",11 �� F diel ii At ..• '
�, W� is o,
-1.04 511.:::ijitig Tairriilimmil Emma . - ... pripouraiMPAIna
li
Mg Mot —..ilikma tijmi imiww.grop Er-Laii... irli 1.,,,,.....,
-...----moorm"--
EI
:EOraaa�ii'Rri -Evr a lit ` + i. '�F x.___ ., . _ i
zarium
lipl
i !V ^.e■`i � w ,e1leyy . \ 1 "�-air;ital
p
w + ,,� w r
iiii $� �. y`i � 1. "I
1gIllshr.az1wz ,v i NI-,l rr
AKIlts
Ira=-veggie!!0jE ..;
-
Mil ,n-
- Wili
MU' ri
Figure 11. 2018 QC survey locations.
Paver"' Database Construction
After the QC survey was completed, a database was constructed using the PaverTM pavement
management software (http://www.paver.colostate.edu/). PaverTM, originally developed for the
Department of Defense, is a pavement management tool that uses pavement condition data to
calculate PCI, develop pavement performance curves, and predict future maintenance and
rehabilitation needs. PaverTM is one of several pavement management software tools used by NCE and
was selected for this project to calculate PCI from pavement condition data collected during the QC
survey. The PaverTM database was populated using the GISID previously assigned to each pavement
segment sample and Section IDs were assigned sequentially along the road. If multiple surface types
existed on a given road segment, each surface type was assigned its own Section ID number.
Comparison of Distress Types, Counts, and Quantities
The distress types from the IMS survey (obtained from Easy Street) were compared to the distress
types noted during the QC survey. Distress quantities were used to determine the most prevalent
distress identified during the QC survey. For asphalt pavements, weathering was the most prevalent
distress type, followed by longitudinal and transverse cracking and alligator cracking. For concrete
pavements, the most prevalent distress types included shrinkage cracking and joint seal damage.
;NCE 48
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
The distress severity and extent are not provided in Easy Street (only distress type and PCI deduct
values are included); therefore, the identification of the most prevalent distress types for the IMS
survey is based on distress count (i.e., the number of distress occurrences). For the IMS surveys, the
most prevalent asphalt pavement distress types included raveling, longitudinal and transverse
cracking, and alligator cracking. For concrete pavements, the IMS survey identified distresses included
only two occurrences each of faulting, linear cracking, and scaling/crazing.
A comparison of distress type, count, and quantity (QC survey only) and the percent difference
between the QC and IMS survey counts are provided in Table 25. The information provided in Table 25
only includes QC sample pavement segments with IMS survey results from 2015 and 2017. Older
pavement segments—two of the pavement segment samples were last surveyed by IMS in 2010 and
51 pavement segments where last surveyed in 2013—were excluded from this comparison due to the
uncertainty of distress progression between the 2018 QC survey and the 2010 and 2013 IMS surveys.
Table 25. Comparison of Distress Types, Count, and Quantity
QC Survey IMS Count %
Distress Type Total Survey
Count Count Difference(a)
Quantity
Alligator cracking (ft2) 122 83,812 100 18
Bleeding (ft2) 6 1,035 3 50
Bumps and sags (ft) 19 875 0 100
Depression (ft) 27 2,660 0 100
Distortions (ft2) 0 0 24 -100
Edge cracking (ft) 37 5,361 16 57
Lane/Shoulder drop-off (ft) 34 4,269 0 100
Longitudinal and transverse cracking (ft) 174 93,644 149 14
Potholes (count) 5 6 78 -1460
Raveling (ft2) 57 3,373 179 -214
Rutting (ft2) 13 24,576 38 -192
Swell (ft2) 14 627 0 100
Weathering (ft2) 175 2,846,056 0 100
Corner spalling (ft2) 3 13 0 100
Faulting (no. of slabs) 0 0 2 -100
Joint seal damage (entire section) 3 283 0 100
Joint spalling (no. of slabs) 8 100 0 100
Linear cracking (no. of slabs) 4 102 2 50
Scaling/Crazing (no. of slabs) 1 2 2 -100
Patches/Utility cut (ft2) 99 88,525 78 21
Polished aggregate (ft2) 9 2,484 2 78
Railroad crossing (ft2) 5 4,136 0 100
(a) Negative value indicates IMS survey results are higher than the QC survey results.
Based only on distress count, the percent difference between the more "critical" distress types
(distress types that tend to indicate the need for treatment), are within 20 percent for asphalt
pavements, and includes alligator cracking, and longitudinal and transverse cracking. Also of interest
is that the IMS survey did not identify bumps and sags and depressions (counts of 19 and 27 for the
QC survey, respectively), while the QC survey did not identify any distortions (count of 24 for the IMS
;1NIC`E 49
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
survey). It should be noted that undulations in the road surface are more accurately characterized by
the International Roughness Index, which is included as part of the IMS survey. For concrete
pavement samples, the IMS survey did not identify several distress types that were noted in the QC
survey (e.g., linear and shrinkage cracking, joint spalling). Not specific to a single pavement type,
there was relatively good agreement for patches/utility cuts between the QC and IMS surveys.
Comparison of Calculated PCI
As noted, the IMS surveys were conducted in 2010, 2013, 2015, and 2017. A breakdown of the IMS
condition survey and the number (and percent) of pavement segments included in the QC sample is
shown in Table 26. Ideally, the QC survey should be conducted within 4 weeks (prior to or following)
the IMS survey to minimize the potential difference in distress propagation. Therefore, rather than
comparing the 2018 QC survey PCI results to IMS PCI results that could be up to 5 years old
(excluding the two samples that were last rated by IMS in 2010), a comparison of measured PCI to
predicted PCI was conducted.
Table 26. Summary of IMS Survey Year and Number of QC Samples
IMS Survey No. of QC % of Total
Year Samples Samples
2010 2 0.8
2013 51 21.2
2015 99 41.1
2017 89 36.9
Although a thorough evaluation of the Easy Street pavement performance prediction models was not
included in the scope of work, an analysis of the QC samples was conducted to determine the accuracy
of the Easy Street performance prediction models for asphalt pavements. Inventory data was
extracted and the PCI for 2018 was predicted using the Easy Street pavement performance equations.
The 2018 predicted PCI was compared to the 2018 QC survey PCI and is shown in Figure 12. In
general, the 2018 predicted PCI was higher than the PCI determined from the QC survey (larger
portion of the data is below the line of equality [black solid line]). This could be associated with the
difference in identified distress (count) as noted in Table 25. In addition, as indicated by the low R-
squared value, the regression model (dashed blue line) does not fully explain the variability of the
data around the mean. Generally, an R-squared of 0.70 or better is considered acceptable for this
purpose.
Figures 13 and 14 isolate the analysis shown in Figure 12, and are based on IMS 2013 and 2015
pavement condition survey results, respectively. Figure 13 represents the predicted PCI using the
2013 IMS survey data versus the 2018 QC survey PCI. Similarly, Figure 14 shows the comparison of
the predicted PCI from the IMS 2015 survey data versus the 2018 QC survey PCI. Interestingly, the R-
squared for the 2015 IMS survey results indicates less variability from the mean as compared to the
2013 predicted results (R-squared for 2015 data is higher than R-squared for the 2013 data).
Potential reasons for this difference could be the number of samples from the 2013 IMS survey are
less than those for the 2015 survey and/or advancements in data collection equipment and distress
identification algorithms (algorithms are used to identify pavement distress from images collected
during the automated pavement condition survey).
41E.NICE 50
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
100 •
•
• •• •-
80 •
• •• •f•
•
y
60 • ill • • ••
vii R2=0.4518 •''•• • • •
CI 40 w' '•• • •• • •• •
$7,41.....
c S • •
N
20 0 •
10/
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Predicted 2018 PCI
Figure 12. Predicted PCI vs. QC survey determined PCI.
100
• •
80
U •
a
a
L 60 • • ••
in R2=0.3665 • • •
U •
40 ..• _ • �_ • •
0
•
N
20
•
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Predicted 2018 PCI
Figure 13. Predicted vs. QC survey (2013 IMS data).
100 •
111 :n
0 •, fi
80 •
i. • • ••
*. _40
c 60 • 0
3 R2=0.517 •• • •
in
G 40 .•• • •• •
• •
0
N
20 • •
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Predicted 2018 PCI
Figure 14. Predicted vs. QC survey (2015 IMS data).
ONCE 51
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
Statistically, R-squared alone may not fully characterize the relationship between the IMS and QC PCI
results. As part of the data quality process, quality control and acceptance results are often evaluated
using the F- and t-test and the paired t-test. General assumptions for the statistical analysis methods
include:
1. Random sampling - as described previously, the pavement segments to be included in the
QC survey were based on a stratified-random sampling technique. The stratification included
separating pavement segments by functional class and condition category, and verifying
sufficient representative samples were selected by pavement type.
2. Data obtained from the same location - the ASTM D6433 survey is typically conducted on
a sample of the pavement segment to be surveyed. However, since Easy Street does not
contain detailed pavement condition survey results by shorter segment lengths (e.g., 0.10-
mile is standard), NCE conducted the QC survey over the entire length of the pavement
segment (i.e., the same segment begin and end points shown in Easy Street were used to
locate segments for the QC survey).
3. Use the same testing procedures - both the IMS survey and the QC survey were
conducted in accordance with ASTM D6433.
The F- and t-test can be used to determine whether two data sets come from the same population.
The F-test compares the data set variances (standard deviations), while the t-test compares the data
set means. The paired t-test is used to determine whether the means of two data sets are likely the
same.
Using the results of the IMS and QC surveys, Microsoft Excel was used to calculate both the F- and t-
test and the paired t-test based on the entire QC data set (no segments were excluded based on IMS
survey year). The results of the F- and t-tests are shown in Tables 27 and 28, respectively, and the
results of the paired t-test is shown in Table 29.
Table 27. F-test Results
2018 2018
Statistic Predicted QC PCI
PCI
Mean 74.11 73.46
Variance 398.34 369.07
Observations 153 153
Degrees of freedom 152 152
F statistic 1.08
P(F <_ f) one-tail 0.32
F Critical one-tail 1.31
Findings
Based on the results of the statistical analysis, the two survey methods generally provided reasonably
similar PCI values:
• F-test: no reason to assume the two data sets have different standard deviations.
• t-test: no reason to assume the sample means were not equal, and it's reasonable to assume
that data sets came from the same population.
• Paired t-test: means of the two data sets were likely the same.
41E.NICE 52
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
Table 28. t-test Results
2018 2018
Statistic Predicted QC PCI
PCI
Mean 74.11 73.46
Variance 398.34 369.07
Observations 153 153
Pooled Variance 383.70
Hypothesized mean difference 0.00
Degrees of freedom 304
t statistic 0.29
P (T <_ t) one-tail 0.39
t Critical one-tail 1.65
P(T <_ t) two-tail 0.77
t Critical two-tail 1.97
Table 29. Paired t-test Results
2018
Statistic Predicted 2018 QC PCI
PCI
Mean 74.11 73.46
Variance 398.34 369.07
Observations 153 153
Pearson Correlation 0.67
Hypothesized mean difference 0
Degrees of freedom 152
t statistic 0.50
P (T <_ t) one-tail 0.31
t Critical one-tail 1.65
P(T <_ t) two-tail 0.61
t Critical two-tail 1.98
Recommendations
The comparison conducted as part of this task indicated the asphalt pavement performance models
(Easy Street curves 4 and 5) appear to predict reasonable pavement condition as compared to the PCI
results determined from the 2018 QC survey. The comparison of the occurrence (or count) of distress
types between the IMS and QC survey is less than ideal (see Table 25); however, the analysis of the
predicted versus QC-determined PCI implies the IMS survey is comparable to the field-measured QC
survey. The ASTM D6433 PCI calculation weighs the severity of each distress type as a function of
impact to maintenance and rehabilitation requirements. For example, potholes have a higher PCI
deduct value than alligator cracking, which has a higher PCI deduct value than edge cracking. While
the number of distress occurrences appears to vary, the resulting PCI values appear to reflect field
conditions.
To verify both data quality and performance prediction models, the following is recommended:
• Conduct data quality control and acceptance requirements as part of each pavement condition
survey.
41E.'*NCE 53
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
o Quality control requirements for vehicle configuration, distance measuring equipment,
profile and distress measurement equipment, and data delivery.
o Acceptance requirements may include, for example, conducting manual surveys (or
review images from automated surveys) on a sample of the pavement network and
comparing results with IMS survey results, confirming data completeness and
expected range of distress values, and comparing to previous survey results.
• Request IMS to provide the details of all pavement condition surveys within Easy Street. This
data should be arranged by segment, survey year, distress type, severity, and extent, along
with PCI deduct values for each distress, and the calculated PCI value.
• Confirm Easy Street pavement performance prediction models reflect in-service pavements.
Once the IMS data is available, performance prediction models, independent of Easy Street,
could be developed and the predicted performance compared to Easy Street predicted
performance. This would help determine if the remaining Easy Street performance prediction
models are under or over predicting the performance of the City's road network.
;1NIC`E 54
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
This project included the review and assessment of the City's pavement management process. A total
of 11 tasks were conducted to review the City's program as a whole. In general, the City's current
procedures meet the primary components (and processes) of a pavement management system.
However, the findings of this review indicated a number of areas where additional refinements or
activities are needed. The following provides a list of recommendations by project task.
Task 1. Kick-Off Meeting (Recommendations Not Applicable)
Task 2. Records Review
• Confirm the accuracy of the Easy Street performance prediction models.
• Increase the frequency of the pavement condition survey.
• Develop a data quality management plan that includes, at a minimum, data quality control
procedures (vendor) and acceptance (agency) criteria.
• Continue to utilize automated pavement condition survey methods.
• Consider incorporating pavement preservation into the City's work activities.
Task 3. Easy Street Functionality
• Obtain IMS Easy Street user manual.
• Consider removing RI from the PCI calculations to be in accordance with ASTM D6433 or
request IMS revise to indicate that the PCI is a combined index.
• Assess and revise the PCI and Priority Factor (PF) calculations to remove circular or double
referencing.
• Revise the priority ranking method to allow projects of the same priority/rank to be selected
separately in a given budget year.
• Discuss with IMS the possibility of developing an improved, macro-enabled "front-end" user
interface for navigating through Easy Street.
Task 4. Define Network Targets
• It is recommended that the City maintain its current pavement condition target values.
However, the City's current funding levels cannot support its current pavement condition
target values.
• Long-term, consider increasing overall pavement condition target to a PCI greater than 70.
Task 5. Maintenance and Rehabilitation Strategies
• Increase treatment costs to reflect recent contract bid awards and inclusive costs as shown in
Table 13.
Task 6. Budget Analysis
• Consider dedicating a portion of the annual budget to preventive maintenance to preserve
streets already in good condition.
• Pursue additional funding sources to ensure target-driven scenarios are feasible.
• Consider using decision-support tools that include:
o Optimizing annual budget percent dedicated to preventive maintenance on a yearly
basis, and
o Allowing target values to be selected based on functional class for network-wide
analyses.
;NCE 55
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
• Request IMS to update Easy Street to allow for longer (e.g., 20 years) analysis periods and
inclusion of pavement condition targets by functional class.
Task 7. Tools and Training
• Request IMS to populate Easy Street with the detailed results of all pavement condition
surveys, including the survey year, and severity and extent of each distress type.
• Request IMS to populate Easy Street with a work history of the road network, including
construction year, layer or treatment type, and thickness.
• Develop a "desk manual" that documents, for example, the process of evaluating the
information received from IMS, step-by-step procedures for conducting any needed analyses,
and information included in reports to upper management and the City Council.
• In the event the City determines that the recommended functionality modifications to Easy
Street are cost prohibitive, and the inclusion of stop-cap costs, GIS integration, standard or
customizable reports, and GASB reporting is important, consider evaluation of other pavement
management systems.
Task 8, Public Outreach
• Develop a public outreach program/schedule that promotes and develops the City's pavement
management program. Public outreach should include, at a minimum, the following tasks:
o City Council Workshops.
o City Council Presentations.
o Develop Social Media Content.
o Conduct Town Hall Meetings.
Task 9. Implementation Activities
The following summarizes implementation activities that have not been recommended in the above
list:
• Determine importance of including stop-gap cost analysis, GIS integration, and customizable
reports and graphs in the pavement management systems.
• Develop standard and customizable reporting requirements.
• Verify and update roadway widths to improve the accuracy of maintenance and rehabilitation
costs estimates.
• As technology advances and is verified, consider requiring 3D data analysis as part of the
pavement condition data survey contract.
• Provide staff training on:
o Data quality management plans.
o Easy Street operation and functionality.
o Pavement performance prediction modeling.
o Budgetary analysis.
o Treatment type selection, timing, performance, and cost.
Task 11. Pavement Condition Survey Quality Control
• Conduct data quality control and acceptance requirements as part of each pavement condition
survey.
;NCE 56
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
• Request IMS to provide the details of all pavement condition surveys within Easy Street. This
data should be arranged by segment, survey year, distress type, severity, and extent, along
with PCI deduct values for each distress, and the calculated PCI value.
• Confirm Easy Street pavement performance prediction models reflect in-service pavements.
41E.NICE 57
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
;NCE 58
City of Spokane Valley Evaluation of Pavement Management Program
Appendix A
SCENARIO 1: BUDGET-DRIVEN ANALYSIS, $5M ANNUAL BUDGET
'ONCE 59
diff �
1 ilk �
�
ri co
:11113.11113a.r.1•143.40 ��°�~�~~ �,,�W���~. 4.401.11.D131 |�� CU
RS
`
^
r' � U � « } '
: / ~ � � -
� � ! 1
1 a & li ! l " ' � � � � 1 !
1 i 1 11 ^ � J q i' / fr ,i � ; : j
,~ . ~° ~ ^—� �~',~ ,'�_ . °` ~ , ~ , ~ ^-. , .~, ~ ~ `^... . -~-~~^-^~" ,, °, , °° ~~ =� °
•," ~ °° ° ^-� ~~`-- .10••IV. . .° . ` ° " " "~. » .°� ^ ^ ^~~~• ° •
~~."~�~,° .. "° , ~" =~ =, °
`� ,' �° .^ `'..~ °",.`" ."°^"° . ° ° , ,, ° " ^�^ .. �° .� .^ �~~_ ^` .°,.`,.~~,° " ° ` .°. ~° •
�� W.
L1L
I� ^_^� ~~'. ~.~ ^ " ^^ � .'" .` " '~^ ~ .". ,° .` "~.~• " .~, . ._^,' .`° ^�~^ '°^ ~,.' ` ° � . .~ ° " ^~^ � "° °° ~ ^�.- ° ~~ " --.''. "~ ~_^� .__° ~.^ , " . " ° " , °-. ~ ", °° ~ �.~~' . ,~ .~~-. ', ,,� ^�^~ ~' ,., , " � " "" ~ " ".^ ~ ". == . �~._ ~ ~~�.^�~~" ..� ^�"^ ,.- ,, ` " � ° .~ ° ° ^~^ � ~" °" " �.°- ° ~, ..°°,° " ° ` "= ^° `� ~
`, � ~, .~ ~-~^� ~- ~.^ , ° ~ , "� " ~ "~^ ~ ". °° ° ,-°~' . ,~ .^^-^,°,, ° , ~~ ~. ~~ ~
.r Sm I. .. � ~_^� ~' ^., , = � V ,� , ~ ^~^ � = =° ^ ~..~• ° •
~~ . ^_°°" � ` A� ~" ~� ,
^" ° �` � -r-in ^.' �, ^ " � ° ^^" ° ° ^~^ ° = °° ~ 1411,•1....• ~- "~--~°"` ° ` �� �� ~� ,
= .. ". ° �- . -. �.~~~ . ~` � , " " ~ ^-. . 1499.1 ~ ° ~^~. " °_~ .-`~.�~~ .� , °~ ~° .� ~
'� ° ~. ~ �~= -- ~,�^ . � � = "^ � � "~. . ."� ~ , ~~.~• " °" ` �� ,"" ,i3 V, °
"" •� °^ = ^~~ �~~` , ~'' ^ � � ^ ", " " ^~^ ° ."^ � .. 54.11,..3.....• ° °, "~'-~° " °° ` °� -2 13) :•31 5g2 ,
`~ •
'� °� " ^�~ ~^.- ~ _-~- , � = " .~ ` . ^~. . ."~ ~ ^. ~^~-• ~ -. .^_-`'^ ,, A.S. , "~ 11;?r. =� .
-2-31 •� 4.331 2, "�� ."~-~- ~. , � ~ " ~" ° . ".. . ."" � ^. `~..� ° ~~�. '_^,. . "" , ~° ~� 2.15 0171 ^
"" •� t34) 120 ^�� .°~ .�- , � � ° � " " ^~^ ~ .�° � .. ;a,..r ° "-�"'... ', .` °° ` �� •^° 216 542 ,
`~ •= g2.31) 17) ,�~ .^- `~-- , � . , "� ° " ^-. . ."~ ~ ^. �-^~• . ,~ . ._~. '. ', ~, , "~ �° 773 1{; ~ rn
• -� ~ ^~. ^~. ~~" , � � " *" ° ~ ".. . °A ~ ^. •
^~..• � ~~ . ^--. '� " �~ ` ~~ 11:Al ~° ~
�� � 1.3:41 2,1 °,~` `~^- ' � ~ " °° " " ^~^ " �°^� '' "~~- ° "-�"~-,,'' " °° ` ~~ °~ v"^ ° al
,, " .~° ~.-^ , .^ ~^ . � � - ^, � . Ir., mm ~~." ^. ~-.-• . ,~ . ^.--. '. ,, °° , ^~ "� ~~, ~
°. ~ 14119 203 ="~~ �- ^.^ . � Al ~ ,~ � . "~. " °~.� ~ •
~^..• " ~~�. '-.. '� .. °" . ~� ". °,~ °
�� � ��� ���� ���' ����' � � � :� � � |�� � ��|� �| ��:�� � �� ������� || �� � �� �� ��� � �
,= ~ M13213 120 ^^_. .._` ~~~ � = " ,^ . � =. . �~.� ^. ~~.~� " ~~ . ^_,~� " ~. ` �� �" `^~ � n
Mm11 WI
1.
7
1,710 4 tll 11
-. = "^,. ~'_° �.- 201 I. . ,' ~ ~ '~. . 117.0 14k "~.~� " ~~ .~_~,=` ~~ , .� ~. `..~ �
,, , .3.2:41.20) ~`~` �~~ ^-.` °° 111 " .`° ° CI ^~^ " �~^� .. ^�.- ° ~~ "~^-°° 1) °° ` °� �" .�`-° °
`,. .. °",. .._^ ~._.^ °` .= , `,., '. ° '-^ . .,.,.`" ~ �~°~� ., .~ .~'_~,^^ ,, �, 1 `.'° °"" .',~ °
,, , 1W13 11.) ^-~• ~- 111111 � " ," . ~ 2....II . ��^^ Cl �~._ . ~~.^�~~" .. �~ 1 •f.,DX ~" .� .~ °
`° :3 =°� 4.941,..,.1 ^~, ,~,_.~^ ?DC 110 ° .� 2, ~ ^~^ " °°^� .. =~°_ ° ~, .''~~,° " °° ` °� '.5.11) .^~ PS3
�� �� �� � ��� ��- � � � � � �� 3 � |�� � �� ]� �� ����. � |� 4) 1 �� %� �'� � �
�"" �� �` ° PI,SI �~^ ~~` ^ ~ II ~ � 11 P1 ^~^ " =° "° .. �..- " ^_ "~-`. , " ° a �� °~ �" Cl -
~° �� ~, � ~_^ 0,74.4 II* 1..4 4.. 7 . ~ I. ~° ~ 15 `-. . ~� = ^. ~~~. . ,~ .^.--. ` ,' 4) , �" �" �� F.
"" = ~" ° .~~ ""�.�~ 31.Fe . ~ •° ` ^° " ^ "~. . �� "° ° 0•1,NIA . ~~ .^_-. '. .` ° 1 �^ =" �� °
'° 227 1%13 5.-•...Pa °., �~ . � ^" ° .`� ° ^` '�^ ^. �� .� ." �-^_ "` .~,."~^_°', " 4) I °� .".` ."° "
`, ~ ~" ~ `~~ �° ,~ I ~ . 7 1.114 41 ~ ^-. . �� ~" ~ ~^~~ . ~°�~~^-^,° ,, ° 1 �° ~= �� ~ al
CO
3
o
o 3
diff �
1 ilk �
�
ri co
:11113.11113a.r.1•143.40 ��°�~�~~ �,,�W���~. 4.401.11.D131 |�� CU
RS
`
^
r' � U � « } '
: / ~ � � -
� � ! 1
1 a & li ! l " ' � � � � 1 !
1 i 1 11 ^ � J q i' / fr ,i � ; : j
,~ . ~° ~ ^—� �~',~ ,'�_ . °` ~ , ~ , ~ ^-. , .~, ~ ~ `^... . -~-~~^-^~" ,, °, , °° ~~ =� °
•," ~ °° ° ^-� ~~`-- .10••IV. . .° . ` ° " " "~. » .°� ^ ^ ^~~~• ° •
~~."~�~,° .. "° , ~" =~ =, °
`� ,' �° .^ `'..~ °",.`" ."°^"° . ° ° , ,, ° " ^�^ .. �° .� .^ �~~_ ^` .°,.`,.~~,° " ° ` .°. ~° •
�� W.
L1L
I� ^_^� ~~'. ~.~ ^ " ^^ � .'" .` " '~^ ~ .". ,° .` "~.~• " .~, . ._^,' .`° ^�~^ '°^ ~,.' ` ° � . .~ ° " ^~^ � "° °° ~ ^�.- ° ~~ " --.''. "~ ~_^� .__° ~.^ , " . " ° " , °-. ~ ", °° ~ �.~~' . ,~ .~~-. ', ,,� ^�^~ ~' ,., , " � " "" ~ " ".^ ~ ". == . �~._ ~ ~~�.^�~~" ..� ^�"^ ,.- ,, ` " � ° .~ ° ° ^~^ � ~" °" " �.°- ° ~, ..°°,° " ° ` "= ^° `� ~
`, � ~, .~ ~-~^� ~- ~.^ , ° ~ , "� " ~ "~^ ~ ". °° ° ,-°~' . ,~ .^^-^,°,, ° , ~~ ~. ~~ ~
.r Sm I. .. � ~_^� ~' ^., , = � V ,� , ~ ^~^ � = =° ^ ~..~• ° •
~~ . ^_°°" � ` A� ~" ~� ,
^" ° �` � -r-in ^.' �, ^ " � ° ^^" ° ° ^~^ ° = °° ~ 1411,•1....• ~- "~--~°"` ° ` �� �� ~� ,
= .. ". ° �- . -. �.~~~ . ~` � , " " ~ ^-. . 1499.1 ~ ° ~^~. " °_~ .-`~.�~~ .� , °~ ~° .� ~
'� ° ~. ~ �~= -- ~,�^ . � � = "^ � � "~. . ."� ~ , ~~.~• " °" ` �� ,"" ,i3 V, °
"" •� °^ = ^~~ �~~` , ~'' ^ � � ^ ", " " ^~^ ° ."^ � .. 54.11,..3.....• ° °, "~'-~° " °° ` °� -2 13) :•31 5g2 ,
`~ •
'� °� " ^�~ ~^.- ~ _-~- , � = " .~ ` . ^~. . ."~ ~ ^. ~^~-• ~ -. .^_-`'^ ,, A.S. , "~ 11;?r. =� .
-2-31 •� 4.331 2, "�� ."~-~- ~. , � ~ " ~" ° . ".. . ."" � ^. `~..� ° ~~�. '_^,. . "" , ~° ~� 2.15 0171 ^
"" •� t34) 120 ^�� .°~ .�- , � � ° � " " ^~^ ~ .�° � .. ;a,..r ° "-�"'... ', .` °° ` �� •^° 216 542 ,
`~ •= g2.31) 17) ,�~ .^- `~-- , � . , "� ° " ^-. . ."~ ~ ^. �-^~• . ,~ . ._~. '. ', ~, , "~ �° 773 1{; ~ rn
• -� ~ ^~. ^~. ~~" , � � " *" ° ~ ".. . °A ~ ^. •
^~..• � ~~ . ^--. '� " �~ ` ~~ 11:Al ~° ~
�� � 1.3:41 2,1 °,~` `~^- ' � ~ " °° " " ^~^ " �°^� '' "~~- ° "-�"~-,,'' " °° ` ~~ °~ v"^ ° al
,, " .~° ~.-^ , .^ ~^ . � � - ^, � . Ir., mm ~~." ^. ~-.-• . ,~ . ^.--. '. ,, °° , ^~ "� ~~, ~
°. ~ 14119 203 ="~~ �- ^.^ . � Al ~ ,~ � . "~. " °~.� ~ •
~^..• " ~~�. '-.. '� .. °" . ~� ". °,~ °
�� � ��� ���� ���' ����' � � � :� � � |�� � ��|� �| ��:�� � �� ������� || �� � �� �� ��� � �
,= ~ M13213 120 ^^_. .._` ~~~ � = " ,^ . � =. . �~.� ^. ~~.~� " ~~ . ^_,~� " ~. ` �� �" `^~ � n
Mm11 WI
1.
7
1,710 4 tll 11
-. = "^,. ~'_° �.- 201 I. . ,' ~ ~ '~. . 117.0 14k "~.~� " ~~ .~_~,=` ~~ , .� ~. `..~ �
,, , .3.2:41.20) ~`~` �~~ ^-.` °° 111 " .`° ° CI ^~^ " �~^� .. ^�.- ° ~~ "~^-°° 1) °° ` °� �" .�`-° °
`,. .. °",. .._^ ~._.^ °` .= , `,., '. ° '-^ . .,.,.`" ~ �~°~� ., .~ .~'_~,^^ ,, �, 1 `.'° °"" .',~ °
,, , 1W13 11.) ^-~• ~- 111111 � " ," . ~ 2....II . ��^^ Cl �~._ . ~~.^�~~" .. �~ 1 •f.,DX ~" .� .~ °
`° :3 =°� 4.941,..,.1 ^~, ,~,_.~^ ?DC 110 ° .� 2, ~ ^~^ " °°^� .. =~°_ ° ~, .''~~,° " °° ` °� '.5.11) .^~ PS3
�� �� �� � ��� ��- � � � � � �� 3 � |�� � �� ]� �� ����. � |� 4) 1 �� %� �'� � �
�"" �� �` ° PI,SI �~^ ~~` ^ ~ II ~ � 11 P1 ^~^ " =° "° .. �..- " ^_ "~-`. , " ° a �� °~ �" Cl -
~° �� ~, � ~_^ 0,74.4 II* 1..4 4.. 7 . ~ I. ~° ~ 15 `-. . ~� = ^. ~~~. . ,~ .^.--. ` ,' 4) , �" �" �� F.
"" = ~" ° .~~ ""�.�~ 31.Fe . ~ •° ` ^° " ^ "~. . �� "° ° 0•1,NIA . ~~ .^_-. '. .` ° 1 �^ =" �� °
'° 227 1%13 5.-•...Pa °., �~ . � ^" ° .`� ° ^` '�^ ^. �� .� ." �-^_ "` .~,."~^_°', " 4) I °� .".` ."° "
`, ~ ~" ~ `~~ �° ,~ I ~ . 7 1.114 41 ~ ^-. . �� ~" ~ ~^~~ . ~°�~~^-^,° ,, ° 1 �° ~= �� ~ al
CO
3
o
,^ 3
0
tipi:
O
ri -11
inill 0
O
O
m
N
;Pp 3'1 Nan 1134142 621.43431 o-4 1'.144. <
1,4.1 r..P1e1 W Pm 5.0.443.3,.130 3.1 OrY5r R171000.4041:4 Iris alis .Jr0.14.114S1)4 1'11111 CU
B
i It
aN
Q "<
� o i 1 flui ! JiIwIhif I Iii
•1.'31 :k- 11{43 IT) S.1•......1 . -'..'a Ci I 51 331 X 1234 11 X 1x.4 41 X2. .340 Y A444.3.1.• P3 -..M."11•.'..55.'=• .; :3:11„311 50 3 131123 I x; _. ..
'S":1 .. .' IF' S_,4,44 ,......3....:..- dl•r I 54 15, 334 4110 3! 31 2244 41 22139 1114 11 *4440.5.x' i! ":N.'x•1.-141....;.-1..•.121'4.' 50 3 117.;] 3:56: •..K 31
'SIN 13 44 1,, P.'q-9} ... - .,. I PI .'1 7 122: 39 4 1,.4 4. 4114 181} 4 :-414.}R' 43 .. . 51 1 1414;3 14,12: ..1,. 36
.110- .e . _-- 1_'r.R1 - 1..391 I 12 1.'4 I'? 1456 1! 1 2.14 41 ;1730 133! X 141.0.d+r• S1 r1141.-x•.•.111"-' .341.01 5) 3 111151 1304; 3:151 36
'1 a, 11< I-, . 4 Y ." .-.I .14".310 a 39 .2 3 .2 4 %
! 151 11 X .4 41 2;11 X 1.1.11.1.11.11.1,1.1 111 !,..1.1.."....,!,..1.1.."...., `.*'
" . 1..11 '..-a41.P147
h 114 3 5.4'3 ;4"] IP
'1
'11 4223 5114 .15 5411 rtv .t1 .ro ..-.,I' .,"4 205 44 9' 1431 a 54 131'1 14 3T. 332 .31
55 3 1 ,+5 9.; 43 ' •- 01 11 -0 1 11.11. 11524 !0.21; 31
•._•1 -NC 1310 111 44:-. 1,...L so.F3 3 3x1 1'S 13 III '1 '. 4x81 10 7011 k= 4I 1 SY.0Nlr.1 11 46.,11-.5.-.-k; .'' 31 41)21 3 33311 11131 1431: N.
"]'1 `NC 1330 ;31 41.4 . .1.14 3 Zr): 131 Y 4'3 I] "r 2;1,1 II 2011 -3:1 .{ 3 14110.1.r2 PI P4,3 11:11.5'p: -_ 051 3 '341 15239 11421: IP
'2231 '315 1139 .132 404 G....•11•1 .,.. - 7 Sr)f AI 1G 141 11 Ern 3 1 5311 352 14 !2210..; 41 4151 1 15.T.4 15323 1321; •
'5511 '.i9C 131) 531 41.:.. .40:4.4 .,.. s 3 2,1 131 23 -'1 4' I2 2x81 11 331.' 13 52 1.150.412.1 51 15,5.-11.1 r„4;°1'' 11 Oil 1 •P.0J1 111. 1131! 39
'5311 •494 1014) 10 111.Pr, 1 4141.1164 1. 4 161 11 3.• 131 53 54 211.3 II 550 IC 0 *44.0.4.x2 51 55.3 14.11.311- 10 11 2621 3 '1141 13531 '1419 31
';Pi '.11: 1531 5 5.) l,5-n.1. 3..rii. 35 545 14 151* 53 0 J:sr.1 0 1111 .7' 55 ;..r Ps.4n: 4 11 0 1 1 F'11 1114: 1554 31
C 3 +Pr 1%5 39
P. , _ , fir. 3 14 :31 "3 1:14 53 43 4.11 11 1 •11. 45 54.044.5.1 11 It,?.Ii.,,,,t.; :.1 11 ♦l I 9115[ 11121 3.26X 34
.314 Ill 11611 10 "1...'54 !Iv;,44; 1511:'. 3 !; 411 II 1166 .• 11 1x.1 11 1:141 '544 15 74.r,1'TI 51 5.,-4 15,15.3-t; r, 1, 40 3 7140 "'5.41 1411% 110
'144 134 111111 20 '.4 311 739 N 12+1 49 54 2.1 1. Para '4.14 44 )40,0..1 41 ± . ll 114 1 1047 4741 4115 39
'111 III 31411 39 .114.4 4415. ,.. . 3 11 IN 1" 1213 43 % 4x83 II 13x1 '1444 ,- 14.0.4.r.1 11 .N':-lr..'.,,t; 3O 11 4) 1 41152 4,111 11113[ 31
',PM 111 11511 -0 "144E1 5.:1 , 3 3; '53 11 3113 `P 11 5x41 II 1315 1144 :5 *110141.3 51 1.559 11-'11-.3.15, ;_. 11 4) 3 1 21!] 1134: 3111% 31
'110' 174C I5,9 14 1 45reiie. ..51,fi, " - ". I 115 17 'S 1116 a 43 1r9 4 3 11"10 1'5 55 14,0..7 41 '. 11 11154 1 45,04 41}41 I0361 31
11.1 113: 5311 111 1 31510.441 4r. 4'wr..31 1 112 III '1 7011 5 41 2x44 41 1).311 30 55 ::440•4.5.1 13 444'-11-.?„-p; 1-) 13 021 1 11311 11330 131%2 31
•.1154 R 131 -0 14»..41311 .i1Rk UN.,PI 1 A{ IR N Ida5 b di 2244 41 1 P 114 3; *IrcN.r: P1 rAY.".<-..,..e..1,,,, !-.•1341.0. AMP 3 '11,4X 14.111 17455C *
'1111 3' 1139 51. 1,415.552? 4x1.5.1 rx41T311 7 0; 311 11 1211 0 6x.4 51 11114 114 C, Aim.id .1 1 . 11 4112. 1 4 NS -1413 141.16; 31
•_3II 11 131) 11 >r0.1r,4,' 4,..II 1113111.3,, 1 111 52 532 41:.1 34 33 2x84 41 1111) CO % *.*N rc.1 53 F1.141'4:,.......14,...:,...,...3210.1.1 5011 1 .111,02 310.111 7,1100 1.p
'1311' 145 IX") 30 •x.19 514 43. 611x 3 51 301 13 132 39 05 1244 40 14:10 11:{ 0 3 1441014..3 1.S 'A14•".1.:,. _ 511131ch 101 3 31.111 !,310 151.11.3 39
'11315 17"1 ...4 0441x11. 11.41, 7 ITS 1214 -w 7.116 4111.4 I. 14:141PR 1S ;4.4..510 i .3 .:.14.-..-.+. '.41.11. X51 1 "214-!. 1;4.115 3}
.1311 -.04 1.1131 9) 121'1.'. 1.153.1.514 I2:11i•Cho-rl } re.4556 Ill .4131 41 .4 1x84 41 14130 Orr{ 54 3 14.4r1.1.r.1 11 .4'1<Ir,15„-3); 31 1) 4321 1 1:.2 151.143 5,3:113 31
'11.4 31 15441 PO III,.'. I1123..64 .4115 Rd 3 a@ 1'1 04 125.1 43 11 1..4 41 1431) 31.4 14 ] :44P00.rI. II P1,9.... ..1•t:.1'. 1) 40 3 .111.1 41111 4742 IN
'147 21 1441 54 4.6.1-5. 424.11 1:•11..9 7 Sr 131 11 1Ai3 441 4 44 14339 354 55 3 :-541.549.; /1 • - 41 1 .IC: 4111.5 39
':111 31 1213 0 14.10.4. N110.1 a1.14 3 4) 455 1C 1.151 53 5' .4,.4 41 143* 114 .1 3 *4.0.1.2.1 11 5-IF',',..Io-:-3. 4) 3 :. 10131 51242 43
'1131 21 1'14) Y' 44.11.5. 1.x.1 Erle 3 -0 1'• PI 1.531 4! 1, 1,44 41 14139 3114 .4 3 14454.1.0: II 553 11'150.15: ;4 11 40 3 ..1'..3 Ids: 5730 31 rn
'1431 A 44..1-5. 1"1..42 91414%541 7 3' 17 11 1.113 44 .® 14310 11.3 15 3 1.31..413.1 43 4 11 40 1 , 41441 135114 11 C
'1111. 31 151.1 II' 4310.1,. .+
13 4113. ,1'1319
0 1 1 . 111 . !S
2 ON 95 6 5! 1. ,..4 II 144* M 51 3 131.0.1x.1 11 1.11. 40 1 111?r1 ISTY! 4X5.2 1.E al
'55.4 17, 1x4. S;- 1,'4.44 241.4. 3315. N 511 31 413' 42 1' 1.x.4 41 2231' 2541 .{ 3 144T,-.4'r: PI 1.559 11:11^'1: 30 11 40 3 .41;41 14+1: 41-14 31 C
.52, ,..% 1311 6- ;104' 15.11) 31 1., '4 111' . .. l
1 4 ' 55 141!31. 14 2 1 155 r.: .1 4). 11 1 4,-5 PPM, M4"% Fl al
2111 :s 1,I1 . 1..5104 ;41x: I1'.. 1 Al -54 1.12' 54 13 _x84 41 X1.0 1042 .1 3 41.0.1.2.1 11 :-ll,t'„54;.3' 51 4G 1 1}.115 1342: 41131 4 e-1-
'511.
?'517 . r 1,',..04 11)+, IP•_l 1) 10 3.4 4119 50 51 12.4 41 2511 1144 0 1 *441014',3 51 P43 11.110'15020-11 40 3 111113 514: 4{"% 31 0
'54'; '.-"4 PS.. 14.1+ P6 91 311 521. 47 '5 1,.3 44 8,:1. 3145 45 3 ;11..1..2 .11 I. 1. .-1.20 : 5 S
-}1 40 1 111111 449414" 3P S
.1415 1111 IX.) 1.1 1_'4.04 651- 14+.. Si I'S "i 1.131 15 15 2x84 41 1.'.¢1 :y{! 51 3 4.0.4.5.14.0.4.5.1 11 01431'0....,.4.1.071.131.hh411Ju1 I0 1 115131 141153 '4-331 1.p 0
'101 "241 111 5.1,..114 #3• 14.4 ‘... 131 14 113 14 13 .5,1.4 4 41 25.1. X43 )1 3 :4410.1'x3 P3 '431''31,.-.10.;x.2:1.5441.141 5) 3 1300 3111 '*117 IP -11
"S114 141 IM 5.1,0.14 453' 11•.. - R {9 45' 4 13 3 4. 21"1. 1541 11 3 514.0*1*1 55 ...1.1. ,.,4 . 5141115. 50 1 41215 4'011 '3147 3@ -10
.1551 ... .' 1.1 1_.r.L1 1).4 I3.4 LS 5.1 31 1.155 15 15 2.14 41 3014' 1653 11 3 131.0.1101 13 -...1..i.."5,• .........-..e.• ,. .111.311 5) 1 115151 12.2: 151510 31 al
'SIH 2.,,, I11 5,1•..41 1)4 I'.4 26 311 1] 1416 11 75 3x04 41 3144) .31 4r,
4! 3I _ 10.r2 111 -'14'"4..-.i4r1';5.':1-.121".d. 5) 3 4105 '3111 '*110 311 C
'544 5..0.44 1 3,' 3112.. 5.1 :'4 1' 1:45 33 15 12.4 3. 29".3. 1651 11 3 311.0..1 .} .. , 4•. 1'11' 91 1 14011 1434: '4447 31 (D2241 1.0 1, II) 111,1.54 311x. 0x:5SI IN I1 J2:1 x8
35 X 24 II 110 :54! 11 3 *4Nr.1
.0 . II 1,51....1,51....1,51....-..-1,51....-..-�'.541. 1_
75. 1 .1214311 5) 1 1'3133 11,41; 1*131 31 3
'0'SI "#4 '11 I-3 11.51,101 }!3.4 I'-4 3 AS 3 • 1 '4 P1 221 II 1 14110.1.x3 4) IY4. y•.nrt
.9. . 1. :.1:1 5151 3 •1' +M 31 43. (D
.1
'5 131' 1.. ;•.1,..t,4 •• t 3113' i. . . ' 2 1 1 1::41 54 d
• V 13 62. 14 22"'1. 1 .0 3 1.1n).41 31 1114 1 131 '14 'R' 111 S
':131 2': 34* 10 1414..!,, 111'111.1.1 .1'4.".110 • 311 .52 II 111 5 3 2..3 10 1)1% 1 1 SSIC.4'r3 '1 ..,..,........41......,-1.7.41:a. 1651 1 'Sill 11130 .1i10 41 r3.
'.134 540 141) 10 I'rS'.i 4.194311-5. 14116 Ir..rfp#. 4 aS 4'1 74 125 42 ]2 Iwo 311 111. 411 % 3 344.0.4.x) 111 '1.1.1•"5<'-. 13511;.-541131ch 3744 3 31511 1:311 %3930 91 3
'1"4 241 1741 I4 ..114..5. 55113-141] 7IT111tal' 4 Si 11 41 15 57.3 14 . ";N 0 1 101.01x9 113 •:.1.1.".h.:.'.4,.--.4.311.34111145. 11 1 1141 .7X9 17514 31 al
'I'll 113 1%43 S1 43.11411.. cn'r le.natNr Oar,R'4 4 _. 151 n 1224 45 33 2x.1 31 11115. .:411 % 1 *410.4101 11 'AN."4,•.-044)1.-1..3 Si-!,,11.311 334 1 543)4 63'21! 101211 Cl S
'51.1 111 1741 30 41.11415.. 2,.x:311 14117 Ri • 55 541 11 1.544 45 13 2x"3 11 11'1. '714 R 3 *44.0.5'x1 11 '1.1.4."431..1.40x':1.3:.•54441.141 3.11 1 001 13443 101334' 11 al
In
3
S
rt
V
Z
0
110
O'i cu
N..) 3
n
tispi:z O
ri -110
ill i
O
01
O
M
N
:PP S'2P1.4'S.Yk45 WI 2144•41E10la 1'.9114 <
F»415.,1155AdI'1.5543..Y.I.4r 011 BOW 16XEk1>t 450414 Mn 511E 111115N1 II.104 1`.9114 CU
IMS I ISi it
'III 01: 18211 10 40.14 427.11r-171.0 4a•..i._ 4 14 1i 63 IIL 46 11 _ C JI 1,1 4+ „ 11 J Ai.4..2 3 33 rhN a-.I-?.41,"35 '1 19110111 ].*d 1 121.32 1:552 ..-. „
';-k 140 14133 20 12111.4x1+ 2.42',..' 0s-'.s • 2; 111 F' !Air BI 4- 244.2 3 21,,, '333 :. 3 444,..3 P} !4.V.1 . .,1-l: / 1) )S 1 4414 41:2 1,15 0
;-1. 1013} 4 .411050)14- 1'14. .. 2; 1.G 111 ;1111-1 01 211142 11 21-" 1313 4 :44.0., I} . . 11 i, 14 }
2 _ 411• -
'_'1 ',441 ;136 10 .."11.. 1.1,15-0.1 444.41 4 46.2 IX 1 IAi} 4' 1. 2r41 II ',. IX 2' 1 1'114,-..3 ES rhl.e ry14..2'n ,4414111 L.2I 1 44411 .1.11 1- }I
'I-H 21 1131 ,4) 1451151x?? 6.1114-2.1- 1.14:',44 3 43.2- 1411' 1H '514 BI .r Axel II 41• "1 .1 1 5142{41.3 1, 2444 13.,,,4-k: .1. 13 4)11 3 ;4'13 31.24: 4.1,43 24
"1111 113 5.5'0 -0 PI4'..15414 7 401 147. 111 5023 .II 41. 1,2.1 11 14 1; 2 541.44..1 II I .. 11 -041 3 341-•14 136103 1;14.31: 20
•-4'.4 114 9116 50 ]1111.44194 '1.x'41 0 .21. 411 A Lei.: 23 24 .1441 II !X. : r
'3- ,1 1 541,413 IS 1 =11-s .. ..} 1] .1..611 1 11141 1110 26
' IX.:
",'k 144 9110 10 P11.1r14k1Fd On,'011 _ 3 .0.! 1111 11 1.24: 17 41 24414 II 1554 1'3- 41 1 1,4.41..1 13 5444 1' ,. - 1F 4411 3 45.341 1!121 235.21: 21
'1414 41} 1':2} '0 G..43 .-141.:1 '1. ,. 4 ill }O: 9' ill 4' 2w,1 .1 5441 111 P 1 101:0143 13 .. 5-. •.... . . '11440. M.-II 1 43.712 42721 02141 II
'2472 411 1.411 10 0124111 5195-91) .. • 41.4 13 11 1113 4' 1-. 11241 11 6.11 171 1' 1 4111.1411 E. .... .......'-' ,•.111911, 1221 1 2041E 21326 51.1'1 bl
'414 111 1'113 10 X5041.1, 1I,nr•111 r . ... 3 RS 1412 214 2243 23 . 244e3 II 2411 436 41 1 141,..3 13 1441. 11 „ t. -061 3 0111E ]1244} 0.213 21
:I'4 ,111 1'!!! 10 14.111x4 _non 11, . a !1S 44 it:" 14 La.! 1! 2141 IP Jl l 145:4131 1} r.. 11 1' PSI 1 23.114 11114 NA. 111
•Ill 1_IEI 10 123.05 14134.1:, 4 ;A{ 1X II 127 '1 'S 1x41 16 11;1 -14 21 1 SY.,..S 31 ,.. 220 1 1,104 1;21 ''19 711
•1431 2!! 13441 20 11.11' 4 -4 421 El 1213 42 11 111.1 11 6.31 1121 9 3 :d.,..3 43 '411'--. . , >. "11164211 116 3 OI12 42143 124221 11
115' FPI 12111 2) 23,141 ..e. _5. 4 Cl) 191 P Zr 44.1 11 4.31 '101 21 3 }1411.,1"} 13 ..14. , .- . 1.19111414. 129 } 114111 121,11 111271 PI
.4412 I1} F 14) IO '05145--r,C' 1'51715. 5 - t -1) 111 11 1.119 40 11 14241 II Fill 414 % 1 411,.er3 15 . '_5 .5.1.1-31.14111 1:6 1 411:; E'l!! 102112 01
'1421 11, 4143 20 0414'-5100 454.1', . -•Or 4 -0 III IC 1,115 H 21 2x.1 II SI41 4T1 a< 1 143,11.3 PS ':.N' A ._ ,.•1:l,I,11rth 129 3 Ptd! 0.'43 101121 11
"NJ Sal 2.151 10 .4-4,..-.....E. 4's434...101 " 1111. 4 Cl) ! 1.141 4 44.
41 11 11 94! 5'1 1:
14 ,4 x 5:
} 13 .41+ .•-. 1 -1 122 1 -7143 '1211 11
'4111it.a
'-ClC1 1.14} 10 Pit. r 4.,'232., ' S 5 X 1111 352 1111 44 15 .1x.1 11 1.111 1312 X 1 :Yes.rr5 11 2h14e'x•_.° r"14.1., .,
;111' . 2) 1 5130.1 W52: 2114 21
11
'5111 . 64, , _r '01.4 IYT1.5•x14! -•••_ 3 V. 44 S 415 14 44 112141 10 "4'1'.1 -1 J 141.,..3 13 P., 11'Y'r,�•b:.}-113 40] 22X .}SIP 244134 X.
'423' 11} Il} 20 . ..'1)Fd 2)4}4. ,. 2, 5' !R 1.1°2 °'1 43 244.1 11 1111 11. 4 1'145541 m} 1} ' 1} 4p 1 143233 1436: 22 710
11[
'21N 115 1121 46 _+4110'91 ]1'14. '2,114. 5 51 421 -+6 1,113 46 45 2x4.1 11 2'... .1',4 ,1 1 SY.r..3 11 `•-11:,'-,�b;''' 711 40 1 11524) '6100: 152.171 X.
'!"41 •;]4 1420 10 r 141155 6115!. 642 lb 4 - 311.0. 13 I! 1.10 11 13 _4414 41 11140 1X 31 3 1,111..} 43 '4444-x.:.. 1. 441441 3211 3 37.511 12534 11.113 1
"2-12 '144€ 54X1 10 711.1., -33424 21 4 ITS II 22 71 244.4 41 11.01 r. R 3 ;4.549.1 43 •:.y1.-.,<....S5 1r . 1606! } -021} 121 :S1 1
'-454 '011 M46 10 11.144: U.....•-,•13 5.114m-411d • III MI EQ 1.1.10 32 31 1x44 41 104 2 }I 1 SYIr.,r3 ES -'Ml.-h-..5+1.1.,2. 1.'-:5,11:'1+' Loll 1 1:011 2].126 12659 b
'-45I ,216 5146 20 1311445 .711 Yr44'4s 64112155 , I1.1. 151 14 1147 11 31 2x.4 41 104' '71 31 3 115.....3 13 ':,N.-v{•:.+451„'-- 45414111 1114 1 31.111 23 300 1,5.512 4
'4431 17 914, 40 1141.., 6x.11. 64,11 • PO 0) 9' 1.14} 4' 13 211.4 41 1 . ':1 11 3 0411•2,d43 13 ....... ••• , 1.1;153031514. 3251 I }211 111:6 1121581 4
'-41.I '114 1640 .A Y41..,.. 63101 .4'1:1 4 356 42 1! 114 41 41 2x.4 41 11"45 122 51 1 :411,-..43 ES -114'1,.1455"15.1:1-14 4 1 0111 12,11 1 314E ;1156 1}6.111 b
'4421 -241 3130 10 CA144r 64.116 4',,5: 4 366 112 24 111. 33 31 .+,i 4, 1010 411 11 1 5441'{11.3 43 •..1..-1",-1.5,12 '-1.51110141 3211 3 14211 14456 11146; 1 rn
4171 'III H34 111 CA14. ..11 1...1.4:5 c 216 121 21 15I} 3! ..i a,. 11-12 1 4 1 3/4..9x3 13 ...1.4 I ., 5 .•..41r5.. 3211 3 11.211 41123 1111E1 1 C
•_'ll -22: 121 EO .1.1144: I.r11464
]I'6111 4 352 162 11 1.1.1 ..
' 11 !1 ..4 41 1 - -.0, 31 1 Sl1es.er .1115
5 PS ' .' .-, _. .' -5-11014 0.21 1 40.711 .1156 3.14-41 b al
',43",72-. 130 I0 31155 II.P.1 1111: 4 141 'II II 13, 14 31 24414 11 115'14 14 31 1 IMr..f 4. ............12.'1.2,l1'ø. 3211 3 1124! :2156 3`1.-03 1 C
'44}4 "114 "}0 10 3,113. 1111.;51 .Ti WE 121 94 1217 1} Er,4 1 "1 111 :4 31 344,4 0.143 13 . . .. 1•...11'11. 32r1 1 42/41 11341 7:31.‘43 1 al
'-4% -211. 121 4) 111,; 41..7191 115.5 i 211- :51 64 I_!! 15 J. 2x44 41 11"14 51 1 121..X! ES .. e' _ _. -: LII 1 41011 .1340 3:4-65 b
0440 °;0. 1430 T} 301, MP 4., Fs.4: • 216 49 EB Iii) 40 11 14414 41 114'14 „4 31 1 141,..3 !! "LN.'v!-. .:2.1'..-431^e. 3261 3 1i1'! 641;1} 314443 1 0
'41}1 '.1: PT, I:0 101Ir ',.11 f.4 N. a op; 121 12111 1 11 Ira4 40 11"0 44 31 1 ;11x190.2 23 5 .. 5 .• 31 r'.w 322! } 41"11 4!'10 .021461 1 S
'I'21 1E3 2526 311 4rpxleF4 1.0111 6:x•5" 1 23.0 4_ M Lit. 11 15 2x44 41 11.'71' 1 52 1 14.11,-.1 re, El 5,541.-.......),•."...'.0 111 -631314111 961 1 '10562 x115} 1.11512 36 0
••PT 16 1330 20 11',451x15 :111"16-4144+ 4.51411114 3 436 3341. 41. 14210 33 -3 1x.4 4! 11421 36.1 1; 1 :d.,..3 13 2....y>11.-2......,:.20 33 -041 3 421241E 114.11 260.0; 21 -11
"111. 4 1111 10 2":444+' U.,.t- 16.4rPI 1 266 1071 P. 413E 4 I1 1131. 122 ,4 1 ...I2,4I-I 13 .';.N,'.:.-...... 10,44dirkh 4l1 } 111 40.1.1 1'4.1'; A -10
'-451 '163 421.1 10 1_.{ ......113"IND F1,5: 1 Elk 111 G 1.313 13 11 242.4 41 16:40 1)1 C 1 SYes..} 15 2-'211,-.,..OC. ,4.1'1-141110111 15..21 1 41111 ::23 +2113 01 al
'4.0 '-. ':413 IL 344111 41:1.1:4116 14.4 a a4.S 21! 1'4 4163 11 11 1x.4 41 11 45! 31 1 122,..3 45 "1.14.-4;..=.A314:4.00,-"111014 Ell 3 '-!_Zi 44113 146.1;3 01 C
.2:. 1, 1,113 110 4415.4 ')11.23{45 0 10 IA 2. Iµ5 I0 3' Ir.4 In VII, 04:259 41 1 145,.1.51 1} .. ., , 11 41 1 111411 14144; 41311}S A
'1111 40 1,41 I`} 411145., 614.112 444.14 3 14 1'2 '6 1.230 #1 -S 1x.4 42 1-w: 41101 ,1 1 141,,..1.} EI 1 ;>11-et..b; :. 1) 40 1 6602 1:111 4:112 X. 3
'1146 1} .f4} It} 4411{•1, 1x41, A.1MH,3 3 31 !1 014 421: 4! .2 24414 14 1034 :EBI -1 1 541,,41.3 II IxV It,1-,l'4-. ;. 1} 40 3 1'5;13 1153: 1:31% 20 (D
'14}1 X. -
101 4,-5,-.•••:.45 1.,40.4 1 I4 121 TI Ill! 44 41 Er,4 1 I. 411 41 }dr4d.1 1} II 242. . 33 4} 1 41131.44 4511 ,115 10 S
•(24 -1, 1'411 10 1..F1 411, 71:x: 4 15 16; III) 16 II 2x44 41 1':1.'0 1H x 1 SYr..1 ES r:,I..-4:..4.31,1(•J.'-61110.11 116 1 6101 E_IE5 43121 PI e-1-
.4341
"F•SII' 11. 174'3 10 SIWxtS 21,6 36414 4 -0 '42 .1 4 1 15 II Pxe4 41 2604' k 11 1 IMes..} !! ',I, ,1.2.4,1,3.,1;1.61110th 129 3 3E71 10.'1 11511 01 3
1"3 1521 21 M....1'5134 T .I4. Tr4,44... 7 25 310 61 I.13' 01 13 144.4 41 21334 11. ,1 1 744.4-441 1.3 ..41.'.4..• .1.
. .-- 1.
,i.3; 1,41re15. 1 5.2"14 12111 41X.: P3 al
'21.1 '.121 112') 10 001,1.51 M15µ0,0 GFA': a -A 1.1 II 1-E0 16 11 21rd4 41 =1246 1'I 10 1 1-41.41.45 13 'h14e-u•.>r.11r'*=r•1:I-15619111 ].*6 1 1 1135 I11G' '0,01 31 S
'1141 MC 101'3 10 I 7.1.111 4r0411/r 1141F!M • =1 36' !C 1214 II 31 144.4 41 2;1-0 4'4 31 3 214,,..1 13 '2114,'11.-".--,....1"7.."•.1:I,532116kh 13.5 3 .4131 4,135 22.11 11 al
40
(D3
(DS
rtVe-1-
-10
Z
0
ID
Ol al
w 3
n
til. 1-r
z O
ri -110
ill i
O
O
M
N
:„,.F pP<'..'ON,1.1.4 Iin..l1Llo-4 I'.W91 <
Pr+..141.1.,t'd 10.1!4 i4'41.11!1140.1 I.Y.r REI Wm.0*4141.9 n 4 M. kn4404.IINtO4 I`.9)X1 CU
IMSI IS
it
' I14i1 119 / 4111
IIi I I g90 81- a II 11111I1i1I 1I,ICA') 3) 1 1.011 Fw...-._ ,.:1+['.G 7. ,X 2: 1.14 41 32146 4•4 )I 1 MA.41,3 F3 1-.514!"114.:.91..'•=, ': .1..11,91 3:4 b ,2. ._.
':1.{ 4 1312 10 F»m..s, SYS',"RD .4,1).11C:A" 2 44X I] I I'S 91 PI 1,n23. 11110 A SI 4 414..1„ Pa l.V-1.. .n-9:'/ 1) 401 1 1112 3041 Y?
':1)' '.PI' 44}4 -0 244 11 4+.•k..,. .x • 214 ]F II P15 44 1= 1x42 14 13-3X. !R Y 4 :94..}h- 11 .. . . ':11-'111 17P1 I 3Z211 417PS 1 1 1-7
•41_1 -}I' 41'!4 12 1,1!1 51414- . 4 313 41 11 214 41 1, 20.4110 1533' /19 5• 4 4.l,,.d-, If `•.b.'x,..,14,1._"' J=1-S1a9V.h 5}.{I 3 3•;141 13112 v. A
'141 '.PI' 9112 9) C,4.11 Ir-.- +, . • 21 3311 42 12, 44 } - :1 1+;3.) 195 % 4 54.441,= Pf •..14'"x.'..144,*:5.1:1.!4!94.4.5 1441 1 41.144 4435E 1 IL' A
•:./'1 '-PI' W14 0) 6,.11 2!1..11, 4 213 14119 ; 44 ix.2 11 1 }44
. !R % 4 44•,4 .} .. .S 1:'.,11 17. 9-
40, ! 1 9191 .19 A
•419 14 9X13.1) 1..x.91 :iv.Et :x.3),43;#- 1 •_, f 3 1I 11 :1 1x4 1 11 4.1,41, •141 51 4 541.244., P9 r.5N."1-.4...4..1._'.-}'.,-=1.111120, 0) 3 .]G 'Cl 251491- A
'41.5 14: 9414 10 :F,1.1r Fk.PM1
2 14;6 1.1 11I 11 24!!11 II 0454 114 ,1 4 192.1,
. J PI !NV 14:-3 .41
5 .4: :a 4
31 651 3 40' 311.14) 2•.'.rt.: A
't"% 1;143 13.1 4.,1, 3+1. 140 41 'J
!1 7 }4 1F IPI IAV I. II 24,11 1 'l! .T 1S 4 3114.1.5: .1 44 ) 3114 "1121 '1-7X A
•C':4 145 91113 14) 40.,11 11., 3944 2 12 112 SI 1436 5 a5 1141 10 1.41 5)1 Si 4 541.1.111..... 45 1494-lr 14 r„.,,5. ]3 4) 3 ... '1113 :.1'11 A
'S1)4 141 95421 115) P.4!, 144+, -344:4....■ 2 5C 25: T1 114) 1' S1 Ln.] II 1'SI PT SS 4 59,.1,- F) !.V 1€=1'.41.1-;-)-) 3) 4) 1 '115} VII) 2'1"S A
'3111 114 11511 44 1!4 IFF+ 11+1- 7 131 T1 11k} H )} 4441 14 1'1. 1114 01 4 :•44..1h: v ., 1) 4) 1 414 4 1'411 3411114i1)
•4131 I14 91413 12 ..11v .ill. 41x: 2 .) JY T3 114) 02 Sr isr4110 1l1 1124 S2 4 541.2.1,T, LS .145•-Ir.4,,;-:J 13 4) 3 01{,4 1213 1.11% A
•5191 13} 1154) 5) -INTO,.1 1,1, 411x.. 2 -0 112 Ta 1143 94 .1 1,041 1.) I'll 134 S{ 4 59.241,. F) ........ IP..F),y t: C, 1) 4) 3 X11-, 4.411 1.119 A
al. II, t.T;11 1-0 1144 30A, 4,I• 7 -0 1' 11'1 91 17r.1 .r !'T1 1133 SS a •,...,0....g .1 1141 11 4) 1 10221 99 24
1.
•C331 41 14) ..--......149 23144 10t.. 2 55 112 11 114• 119 .4 0.41 II 1%1 313 51 4 59412.1,n, 19 1-.514.-1.4 ...1.,,,, .7.' .41941. 9) 3 [1-3 lox 1 1.2414 A
'33'1 11, .%1 IX. .......11,141 2}{{. ,Aro. 2 S5 15 P. 114' 53 .I €1001 II 1011 3442 T• 4 441.2.1.- Pf 'AI''-114--..1.r1.:':-':I-'11110th 9) 3 ,14,-) 10221: 1'{PX A
'S2A 1.1 17.1 141 ...41•111.41 21-1+1- 4 11 s, 7 €! ]9 9' 14-34 54 9 14141 1. !19! 3+2 T 4 94..1'. .} •.. .. .-. , , 551 11111:44113 l: 1'! A
•4354 .' I, -r-4.1.7143 4-10.., Mr kr 2 SF 131 SC 2147 9 14 1x41 11 1%1 `X.43 51 4 4.4.2.1 rt- IS -.....2.: :., .3.1111. 9) 3 1: lone: Yr
.'3 Io : 1.2114
'5311 1., ,rt, Ii) .r 1.,4X. 2.4 11-4.. 2 SS lT 14 11::: 4' L 14_1 11 491 2.142 T 4 59.2.1., Pf -4•• _ .- ,_'•..•!.. 4) ] '11,1 11).'17. 1'11.9 A
'S1Y 'f 3 111 ..........151 I431r 15 1a 11 1.131 9 4. 54.4 1. IA. 3412 T 4 ;94..4'1: .1 . . ..... . •,. ,49114. 1-31 1' 1419: !'119 R'
•-1;4 I.. 1i 3:G) +.1rr.'R9 09.1 14.... S. SF 99C }I 4174 13 31 2051 11 1%1 3143 11 4 SY.r.1.rr 19 - .. .:, ,•ia1l.h 2) 3 : -1 1%'b 1292: 1.249 A
'4P31 T 1112 P) Ir 1„+4 12t S: X+.I IR 1 5114) 914 13 11!) 42 11 14144 -0 1144. 4M a 4 111.1-.1n= Pf "-N'"....- '- . .•rt.;.+1020, 11){1 ] .•1-S r4.14) 104103 A
'119 '242 1T,-1 20 1..L.4.4•.• •Fn.... rar4.,410a ii 99 III 1'S 1.11) Q T Ir•a 4. 1VX.41'1 9 4 a.1..1•,4 P1 w.Ll.-,... . ,•.,.11'1. X211 ) 499 1F14111 1.1'14, A
•1414 -33 904.3 14 5'34-A-: 1119•F.'.1.i1 1x,41 I 0211.# 4% 4;14 39 Y 1x444111112 all % 4 441.1-.1,r, 19 x414.'V.-. -. 1,-,sa1...31 -.21 1 •4:9X 41;415 1,1.1% 24
'1411 1221 102'1 -0 1u14':V 41,41• , 0 61 1312 4x 9.201 42 a 14_4 41 11312 13'I 9 4 594.!1n, Fl .7.1.11.-..... .-.....,...:1 1:. 1,141-111, 4!! 3 - •151 41112} 1.1.1)1 A
'4434 -FA 1..411 14 I4.orl, 4:44944 4 1:-144!. • 9' ]'! 43 !"! a) Y 1,..1 4. 14-14 a r 51 4 594.41,4 31 144,1,.-,.!'.,:.4,1,-19111 1 4112 4113 %
•2151 10 1.443 -0 441114. 141104,4 -. 96 131 3 :,11- 43 .1 1944 41 Ii512 '1414 Y 4 :41.2.1,r i9 FM.,"'..4.441,„=• =- 4a19.11 5) 3 ''1..b 145: D.4•SC }2
':311 10 1.441 P) 11..1'1. . € ..-1.: 15 54! % 11:1 31 11 INNS 41 101120141 T 4 S44.r.1,= Pf 'tel.'"x•.0411.:{ ', :411091 0) ] 41-) 131'1: 54S S4 A rn
:12' 114 14141 9) 311144 131. !A '4 1.414 49 LI 1444 41 14554 3444 T 4 9}41-.3'.• 11 ,L.1. . . :.411411. 001 'L+"1 17194 01t X A C
'219 I1} 1144) 0) 4941 Gv-•, •1,4x : X 1C It 119 33 11 1x44 fI 14'12 1542 b1 4 5411241rtr P9 -•:N'"u...n,..2': J., .,319141 123 ,;,3 144X: 4.4.51 11 al
'IIS{ '91- 1144,.:) 5,.a..3 ',i!Il4Fy . I '"W;:4,A 24 43 4' 1.114 44 -S 4,4441 30112 '41 51 4 39n-.1,- n -.i1.-os....hr1.;{.'.1.:4]914.5 o41 4;!. Pal) 211141 A c
"UM '71-1- 1 1.y..41 14.:01;.'.1.4 G r,*,.•.r:A., 11 IR "9 4X.!) 43 R 24.4 41 209A 1019 11 4 :411!,1,: .} r-.,. .X11443. 0) 2 1•-1 11.11,7. 2}11:4 24 al
•IIh1 ,r. 1-,A ,:n'-3-3.X.11.54* 11.4:x.,1, 9 95 1:42 311 4.99 24 51 2sra4 41 31112 1002 14 4 5.41.2.1rcr if 41.41.--s.... _ .9 .1131414, 42 3 1.1112 101•2I 7119 }2
'144 1 0151. 1i L1►p,'- 1_t., 2 _2 ax 11.3 III' 9 .1 1,44 2 94
41 213} 19 S 3941-2
S 4 .1, .V '
- F1 . .10 )-I-3<: 4) 11 4) 3 3413 '4443 9419 A 0
1F.n : F -5 Ie 341 4151 1,44 44 11914 Elf SF 4 ;914.1h: • , 11 0) 1 1134:1 140111 4!219 A S
•II, L 021)..- .1.1.1114 4..-:. 1...--. '9 2 91 11 11} 44 41 10.14 40 315}0 1211 Si 4 541.2.1m- Ll .NV-Ia-I". •g;•:-) 34 4) 3 11914 kid) 1919 }1 0
.144 F 1}4!).,. M-r.., . 2 -9 1:2 11' 411• 44 .I 114.4 41 21122 141 S{ 4 19,.1,. F1 !.V I1F':,-t: 1' 1) 4) 3 II7;43 11434: 15419 A -l1
'!1'4 Ir..4') .4. .. .1 . . 7. ,41 14 P4 1116 . a 4. 21,}4 Ll1 '.{ 4 :,412.1,4 II ' " 11 4) 1 MPS "T,41 11.{.9 11 -10
1134 L 9911.1) 114'.1.;., F'1 2 -.4 141 I2 ..145 94 SI 20.44 40 :1511' S49 SC 4 5412.1n+ 43 141414-11-1.,,4:4 1-) J3 4) 3 4214 4%13 114112 A al
14.1 F 99:114.' ' .. '.+ ' t{-,1111 2 -I 131 21 1.1.11. A if 1x04 -I 21:1, 'aI9 SS 4 541!2.1.= F1 !.V 11.1{.,'.4; :) 11 4) 3 31X 493) W19 A
-1.1' • 131.1 :n, 119n.Y . 1 4,444..} 7 III m 1144 44 45 14.4 44 21-14' 1411 53 I 394.0.,4 II .t• II F•.,.: 11 4) (D
1 319 4111 11.{.9 A
1!:1 11 1-:e).' 4114•111,in ., I••4f+ 2 144} 2.1 4145 I4 I9 ,x.41 4 :1'30 4219 SL 4 :.1.2.1.1. LS .N..,11-.t.,3; :, 1) 4T,
4 I 111133 IP, : 152111 24
..k: 1<w' ■x.4•.ltvP.,F.1.su .. [1-+1.r. 2 123 1' 1 li II 9 •..,A 4., 541-3•1 }4 44 4 541.2.144 1 _ 112 3 02' 'FS} 12 (D
.41-I AL I.X., 3, 4xl1.nl491!r.19uP- 7 144- pp 1 144 Q 9 .• 2;};. 4.
ISI 14 4 14 !4•,: 1 n..+•.9.•+.. 171 1 . X.19 S
XI]{ .1C 1:12 I) •x.1.4.1414Rv..L4I.1 Ir15, •. - e_ 9 121 C. h 1!) PS II ,+44 41 3;912 I'I 51 4 S4.1.,414, 3 ".1-r 141,4 v4rc..r.r IDS 3 Cl)14) %I +151 I) 1-F
XIT 'XC I:4 -0 4x.i44-!I*P71.h14t, Ir-.. •.. 2 - 125 {I 1 141 14 9 7,44 41 21112 1.4 44 4 191,.1n= 1 4. r. 112 3 413 .IP .159 12 3
111: 1114 14 1 0.-a L' x.4.3' ,1-'.11 36{ 10 PIP 1: 45 1,.4 44 211X. 102 % 4 1919.1,4 P1 •:.N.-Y4.:f.1r'74./I..-01143. 541! 1 12'11 13'14 11.114 A al
419 195: 396 10 4vyo-..}114✓4.xr 1:+H411.,3 V 4 1,y:x 2 1.1. 92 I: :I• 11 4} 1x44 41 :?.'11) 351 ,4 4 541.2.1„ 15 .144-1131@1-.y;-20 13 4) b 1124 INC 13124- Yr S
1'-3122 111- 14;19 10 11•x1-31114.5 44..99,r 1.,...17:...4.5 3 .4.149.-. 7 14 '3 I, :1! 44 +{ 11_4 41 22112 111 49 4 594..1,- P3 1.4.4-1Id54...,020.9) 4) 1 1412 IGS 419[ A al
ID
(D3
(DS
,rt
V
Z
0
ID
Ga
Ol al
- 3
n
ti1. 3.r
z O
ri -Pt0
ill i
O
O
M
(D
:,,,.4P1.4,.•''ON,14.1 E an.11E144 1'444
FTI•1F41119.99I41.I.4-14,,1.X4111.144141-) RX1I 4114)tWtl him alis 4x401.111244 I'.9111 al
IMS i
1 it
E f @ N
I.5113 lac 1441 .0 L< 4411 744✓r.xr 4x4441•}} 44.110u1. } 14 'IC 13 :.C.• 43 A 1119 41 31.20 391 ,i 5141401, 13 114'1-Ir•1{,,4; 34 P] 4) 1 1413 )294 41 41 442
,1544 •.44• 41{, '142..4 11.24) b1,..4, 2 46) II I: 31) IC 42 21,12 11 IP:f4 !3! 41 :41,41.5 P] 461 11-11.{,4-.{-: e, 1) b{4 3 41104 4{SI _ 41
;41 '171, 1 1.11•9rir I.,2•, E-wrrms, i 41 13€ 91 [F.- 59 1 1= 1711R 2 14 1240 11,14 1240 4. 5{ )42)}14 !1 . 11 .:I 11 ..411 ] 1121 ;I4P) 1 41 11 Y
•1154 -53 =14) 14 •_t.-RI 4'4440414... Yl.ISM 4 4DC 45 241 4.131 44 15 2),3 :0 14.10 335 X ;441.41+)4 CS 41.11.-4l .tw2r 413. 131-E1a1C0h 53.41 3 •14`44 14.115 1, X
•44.0 'I4) 20 SEW I11 44fw14.+: CV.Fc4. a -0I 301 6' 1424 42 11 41111! ;119=10 303 X 54141,1,3 PS '.1141,")•-1.-4243{-3:1.54110kh 94-f1 3 41521 4.55. 1 . 1 Y
'4244 3. .42 -0 ]:.4110 1944 141..{.- Zrf 1'4 Ill 4: 99 17.4 1. 14474 1 R }441.1'.5 .} . .0 )44.1.1a11P4d, %'r4 4 14'.1 14'44 - Y
•1151 2., .'14 14 Cr.?', 1.•59.+; 101"4110 • 21. 341E 44 44 H f, 241.3 JI 16.21) 3.4 N 541,Wm5 PS 1414.'4.-.:4114)1,_....1-5,114-4 2.41 3 '.4)11 ;1155 - N
'5331 14 0117 14 Ib-M /s•14 Ay I-11,4.. 1 444 !R „ Id' 4; 41 21,x3 11 14410 45 R 341,.1.15 PS 4544."x..1'-1...)1•;1 1:1.:111445 9221 3 , II li •_ X
}4
'4. 1 4 1124 14 2911• ,
.•1 4'1, 1. 14 <41 1 2 174 72 1.110 14 57,1 1 .44 5Z 13SS }1)1244.5 17 . , 17 4441 1 1'44 :.1 41I- Y
•1444 1 I 1133) 3) 14141: Cain 141 , 2 0) 141 11 1241 51 SI 34.1 II 1.41 13:1 Si 59241415 11 1414•-1)•41„t;.3. 43 4)1 5 1;,14 15.10 •. •,. 41
'144 11 1124 5) 44,41) ,44:1414 4411".5I 2 93.{ J'4 415 1.42 10 II 21,x] 41 VII 3311 SS 344,41,4 I7 4r,V 1,..,4..:-20 17 44.41 3 1..424 4114) 1_ Y
'1414 11 1124 %4 141111 '14.14 Me,e19,nri 44 14 14 .491 4 IP Sr., 11 1'4. 34111 54 :4,4111 C • 411{1 7 11.'+. 9!941 .1... Y
<14.,1 I<3 1114 5) 1.2141: 11116..4 RC 441.a4C) 2 444 It Ti 1161 45 15 24.11 41 1.11 1 311 S0 54124/415 11 .445•-Ir 4444 4;-3J 59 441 1 '1.. 2414 ., 1: 41
.141 I1 1124 5) 4!1141. 41.41,`.1 9:0 41'? 2 92{ 3:E I. III' 91 If 1x411 II 1'41 251. 44 ;4,41.5 41 16.4-I1-.1.r.y.2: 1) -041 ] !7,94 4'44 .1.4_ Y
"442 <P, ;170 14 ;5144 ..5.414• Ice•E.J I M5 144 a42 14 1,.1 a W. 41 R 34,412.4 .} ...N.". ..
s• ..4,„ .
1.-1••' 11411. V41 1 4+114 Y
•.4 •94 X.
4{ 15 14 _ 1_ 0114141 III.S'END 4 ill 52 4 4 ,H
IS 1.1IC Y _ .1 II ;%1 172 ;1 S41l14 33 ,"-4141 ,.:1{�.• 550 5 .. 412' .431 36
.•,X .y2 4354 _ 454 CR41R•
h IC_11344-, _.tEEs 2 921 Pn '4 13 4 '2 44 1:11.1 II 1411 1'S 44 54,41, 44N
4 PP ."-s:y t ."_ ' '.19 4 1" 46.41 3 . }413) .;.Y.,..1:
411 K
't T iT:4, 4494 14 151 3.917.51 ;,94.,4 2 12) :51 ' J,r; 9 44P 21,4 11 :RP 1'S 54 44144'.5 .} ..C .11 . ',1.-, ,9s9pX
. 41 1 •
1 1444} Y
'1140 ii 444 1:5 #i. _ •r: rs360 R1 Er RI 2 NI V 2231 /0 51 24.1 II ]421 ;342 SI 5,n 114 11 CN:' 14'1 tt;'3J ]3 4 1
11 1 )a 1:3X. :1"111: 44
•3241 h 4146 IP) id., E,4,196 4,4•141 2 MC 121 E' 521' 45 IS 2x.1 11 2%I 24 4; S.11,44.44 13 .4.V 14:4•.,..4; 2-, 1 -0II 3 0.341 115-0 :1211: Y
'141 Y 4541 141 4t 4.1.11 14.4.41 xi - 26.1 III 44 1124 91 31 5,,1 11 4141 IR S3 ;4,41,.4 .7 , 1) 4111. 1 4544' 4:3X. 44
•-'.9 X' 43X. 110 45:, LI...rr', 5.4451 2 344 744 `41 1115 4• 4 .2
111S 11 5SI 3 444 41 54.1.1414 43 vr2`•_lr;.{„�b;-1-.• i] 4{I 3 .2140E 34.-1) X9113 X
,4u4 i 941 14) It). COT R. .11 2 244 !44 4, I.1:. SS IS 21,.11 % 2441 3244 41 ;M,41.r5 II .444 1.:.4,-t: is J3 4){1 ] :1111 14 324 104113C 4S
PI 1454 145 454 •4x•44 1'.41-.1 2 245 172) 3'4 4454 77 4.. 17.1 1. 244. 1444 51 241442.1 17 -L .;-1. 17 4444 1 '1120 .1.141 159.5; 44
'C53{ :93 4515 141 P1 cfl:IC_nat7.' 211.4 } +59 p21.10! 1.114 M ]I 54.1 11 £41 441 % 5124114 15 --A4."w:•.4x)1'=
1 ' 1- 44
1119 , 5011 3 14441 11454 2G 44
Nt
'51.1 14) 454 14 : 2 I.-el 11411+. 4421, 4 2.{ IR 4) 1144 45 11 2x11 11 451 441 32 ;4,41,5 FS 47.11."3.r•',.v4r,:•--7:, 1414111 9244 3 15.411 1!110 9411) 4.
'4411 155 1114 44 }10,4.144.1 4394, 1,n4re5 2 9575 1-11 471 4414 94 11 .:1,1.1 11 5711 "4 41 74,4'.5 41 415. 1 514'2 151127 140.411; Y
'C'71 Ix. 16-25 2 r44 , 14X)44)44 1 341 4X IC 1414 46 Jr 2x411 41 }XI IX Si x, 44 .42 -
1414 CS rade,-........,..2.., '11.1--:.-19441 4241 3 114221 111X. :11.20 X
1411h '.14' 1 s 14 1444,-.11 4,111,11 1t-.. 4 -0 . Si 1.313 45 % 1x.1 II 1411 '•4 X 544141,3 PS 449'1"Ir-..4411,;{ .11-1111-ya 126 ] 119343 1E42: 1042X Y rn
"541.1 1 at. „ 7 144 4 14': 9 .P 2721 II 1055 I;p 54 54.)41444 19 4141 . ., ,•41191, 45 J Ia]R Fla, 42!11 Y
'441 111 :41) I:3 RV.111 41
11 1 41, 2 . 41 11 311 1_1 9 3) 4
1 2 .1 II 1041 14-401 } 54, 41) 11 v
414 II rt. 1' .-,IM _,- 71 -ra1RM 413 61441 1.453 544% X al
'4474 145 1741) II) 5.%.14 41144 4411, 2 14 At 41 IIF 444 74 21,x1 II 1041 12314 54 3411.).1,4 19 4544."'...114,)1,;{.1:1.:.1:11'10. 150 1344 -1117 394441 44 C
'S"1.
11R•1...R•1... a1„ 2 11I 1.1 }44 45 44 5P [7x1 I. • 1441 +} 34,41'.S .} C. . .. . ., 1 q. 4} 1 ;NR '. Y C4 45141 al
.11X •41.1 rd43 4) RIr, 55 Al11 1151, 4%r, 2 1 2
' 145; '_ 45 x411 11 1'11 1156 51 54241 9
41 13 CN':-144` '3':, 43 4) 5 4 51
2:42 •XII 0442 X 414
51.4 •441 4143 14 P1.:.4 324.. 1 N.., 3 14 311 I. 142 !I 4= Iasi 11 "11 IX/ S4 14,41..1•4 I3 44,4 it:.4,44•'):-`711 4) ] MIK 4143) 3-14}{ Y 0
';51 '.44: 24!1 44 41.11 4.4,44 4,..r., - R. 411 442 9 35 17x1 1 121 Sl ;4,4.4 Cl . _ :1 11 31 1 RIR 1147 MSIR- Y S
'2111 .24: 152 3 41) Pi I, 4...,.I4 ., .. 2 54 PA 43 1.125 59 •i 24.1 11 1241 .32 S: 54.-41m5 11 16,-It.a.t, 4
-.- ;-14.1a 46 3 947:4 14413 51441 41 0
'51.1 ,fi: 423) 541 144..044 2..1.414) F1.-.- 2 '4T5 14 43 113 44 11 11,14 91 14;14 22 41 7-44,41,4 111 4241.1411.{44.41°24=53 404 1 :44 ;!!d 1+.34: X "51
'UT -4" )34) 597 1.3..4 11.2441 4)',,. 4)S 41 414 114; 47 44 1,,4 4. 1%14 97) 51 411,4'.4 41 44[„^4.1^44 11 4411 J !1'11 I:1P) I.1 C. Y
.1141 ,44- 43.) ;13 1113.44 S.10.•. 2 lie, 141 IC I}I' 49 12 24.4 41 1150 172 41 51,4114 II Iryy.lr',14-,'4.1-34 II 411 9 .'1414 1154 14119: 44 al
1111 '.44, 4314 340 1.4.94 414,42 .,.W•. 2 .% 43 1136 51 P} 2x14 41 IX14 17'. 41 ;4,41.4 I3 42,4 14•.{1..44. 71 11 -0{1 .;449 ROA .1444: X
'441[ '4, NP) 511 1.3.44 .4,.41, 11,..4 2 .. 112 4E 11,6 51 41 17.4 41 11-544 F71 41 344,0....4 17 at' 11 ..N.: 7P 41)11 ....1.4I 11:; E;1 161. },
•-134 -0 1156 153 I4w44r;u < 1-.,.., 2 451 491 1444 46 CS 2x.9 41 1143) 1•I 91 A,41 r4 41 In:'=II-Ft.,t; 1') 53 441 'Y 1141) 1;:34: X 3
•50.1 4) .414 14 4)»7..4?) ,:
) 1 .1-%.e <1 '1" 2 -I{ 3C. 42 1-} 54 II 27x 444 IPP) I9 S{ 5. , 4
1,.14 I3 44 14:4{14;.;-. 3) 4).{I ] 14.[4 21:X. 1.;14: Y (D
'54.1 `34. 444) 4) 144741'•,. 11.., 11 . 61 1404 1; Y 7,4 44 14141 144 44 34,41,.5 .} •:.44.-•41-',..1„-:, . ,..111911, 4.1. 1 15.11 4!414 -{4.1 Y S
.1274 031 10[11.5) 24144,1, 106.3Y.,.V".3.i , I 4411. Iii 41::4 52 51 24 4 141{ 91 14' .2 444' S•41.A414 II 1129-11,.,:,,-t;-3.. 113 4 ,414 3.F
{1 I 4 1%,.113 !39143 44
14144 34. KK") 53 •1,.M 1.-4.- !14!,111.. 2 .195 771 4416 114 55 1x14 91 14:20 1% 541 14.11,.1.r5 II 444-1444{.,-!: ih 1) 4{I ] 4-145 51,4) 131=1: X 3
'4141 2134 I'!!) 14 4.4 41 4)41 s, ,_ 4 24. IT +1 1.194 PS 12 17,4 .1 16394 R ;4,41'.1 .9 •.1144.-*•3lw*r•:t.13.r141191. 1744 1 119+1 914r, I5.W PL al
.4451 .412.4 1)11 3) 61.111 1.144 4. - , 4 164 304 4 1.12 45 II Ir.4 41 max. '4t 32 - S41war5 15 41544."",74.tr1.23).1:1-1111,'4 53.21 3 41411 .:414 1:154 X S
'IP-I I. 4.4413:) 4411.4, 4414141 PI 11.-1.i 2 4 132, 341 1435 21 5 1x14 41 14323 5151 4; ;41,41.4 113 4244_14s5{vrbl•24.5) 4) 3 344F]] 24'53: 95422 44 al
ID
(D3
(DS
e-1-
-10 V
Z
0
tO
O'l 0.1
(n 3
Collaboration. Commitment. Confidence
www.ncenet.com
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: April 2, 2019 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: City initiated street vacation.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapter 22.140 SVMC; RCW 35A.47.020 and chapter 35.79
RCW.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None.
BACKGROUND: Resolution 19-005 would start a City-initiated street vacation of unimproved
rights-of-way of portions of Tschirley Road, Long Road, Rich Avenue, and Greenacres Road in
the Northeast Industrial Area between Flora Road and Barker Road. The intent is to remove
impediments to future development in order to allow underutilized industrial land to be
considered for future development.
This request is being initiated as part of the City's Economic Development Program. The rights-
of-way as they currently exist, are not needed by the City for public transportation purposes and
limit the usability of the adjacent parcels. Adequate vehicular access will be provided at the time
of development.
The areas proposed for vacation are located between Flora Road and Barker Road, adjacent to
twelve parcels (55065.0105, 55063.0151, 55065.0170, 55065.0190, 55064.0171, 55064.0169,
55065.0107, 55064.0170, 55064.1107, 55061.9062, 55061.9066, 55064.9030).
Resolution 19-006 would set a public hearing date before the Planning Commission.
OPTIONS: Consensus to place both proposed resolutions on a future Council consent agenda
for approval consideration; or take other appropriate action.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to place proposed Resolution 19-005,
initiating the vacation of identified portions of Tschirley Road, Long Road, Rich Avenue and
Greenacres Road, STV-2019-0001; and Resolution 19-006 setting a public hearing for the
Planning Commission on a future Council consent agenda for approval consideration.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None.
STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Resolution 19-005;
2. Proposed Resolution 19-006; and
3. PowerPoint.
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 19-005
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, INITIATING THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY
VACATION REQUEST STV-2019-0001 PURSUANT TO RCW 35.79.010; AND OTHER
MATTERS RELATED THERETO.
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley owns the Tschirley Road right-of-way lying west of
Barker Road, north of Union Pacific Railroad and Euclid Avenue, West half of Section 6, Township 25
North,Range 45 East,W.M.; and further defined as follows: That portion of an unnamed street in Plat No.
3 of West Farms Irrigated Tracts according to plat thereof, recorded in Volume T of Plats, page 6, lying
north of the easterly extension of the North line of Tract 61 of said West Farms Irrigated Tracts,said street
being between Tracts 57 and 58 and a portion of Tract 62; and
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley owns the Long Road right-of-way lying west of Barker
Road, north of Union Pacific Railroad and Euclid Avenue, East half of Section 6, Township 25 North,
Range 45 East, W.M.; and further defined as follows: That portion of an unnamed street in Plat No. 3 of
West Farms Irrigated Tracts according to plat thereof, recorded in Volume T of Plats,page 6, lying north
of previously vacated street(by County vacation number 2093) said street being between Tracts 55 and 56
and between Tracts 63 and 64 and a portion of Tract 67; and
WHEREAS,the City of Spokane Valley owns the Rich Avenue right-of-way lying west of Barker
Road, north of Union Pacific Railroad and Euclid Avenue, East half of Section 6, Township 25 North,
Range 45 E.,W.M.; and further defined as follows: That portion of an unnamed street in Plat No.3 of West
Farms Irrigated Tracts according to plat thereof,recorded in Volume T of Plats,page 6,being the north 20
feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 6, said street being north of and
adjacent to Tract 54, and Tract 55; and
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley owns the Greenacres Road right-of-way lying west of
Barker Road,north of Union Pacific Railroad and Euclid Avenue, East half of Section 6,Township 25N.,
Range 45E.,W.M.; and further defined as follows: That portion of an unnamed street in Plat No. 3 of West
Farms Irrigated Tracts according to plat thereof,recorded in Volume T of Plats,page 6, lying north of the
westerly extension of the North line of Tract 76 of said West Farms Irrigated Tracts, said street being east
of and adjacent to Tract 54,Tract 65,Tract 66 and a portion of Tract 75; and
WHEREAS, upon incorporation, the City of Spokane Valley acquired all public rights of-way
within its municipal boundaries, from Spokane County; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35.79.010, the legislative authority may by resolution initiate the
vacation of any street or alley or any part when it is in the public interest; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds it is in the public interest to vacate the streets as shown in
attachment"A"; and
WHEREAS, SVMC 22.140.020 establishes authority for the City Council to initiate by resolution
the vacation of certain sections of Tschirley Road,Long Road,Rich Avenue, and Greenacres Road.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane
County,Washington,as follows:
Resolution No. 19-005 Council initiates street vacation STV-2019-0001 Page 1 of 3
Section 1. The City Council hereby initiates the street vacation of sections of Tschirley Road,
Long Road,Rich Avenue, and Greenacres Road,File No. STV-2019-0001, as set forth in attachment"A."
Section 2. Effective Date.This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption.
Adopted this day of April,2019.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
ATTEST:
L.R. Higgins,Mayor
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Office of the City Attorney
Resolution No. 19-005 Council initiates street vacation STV-2019-0001 Page 2 of 3
Attachment"A"
I I
I
1 I
Nok-tHeFN PRCIC RY-
4
L4TVcJ�} w
7 J -
PhRK I' ......
1
�}S" i- -
I
,1• •
F C�
plr.'eP�1 `.' P��d C1 - i
Resolution No. 19-005 Council initiates street vacation STV-2019-0001 Page 3 of 3
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 19-006
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE AND TIME FOR THE
PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER STREET VACATION REQUEST STV-2019-
0001,PURSUANT TO RCW 35.79.010; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO.
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley has initiated a Street Vacation request (File No. STV-
2019-0001) for the vacation of 1,266 feet of Tschirley Road, 1,565 feet of Long Road, 1,328 feet of Rich
Avenue,and 2,615 feet of Greenacres Road,located northwest of the intersection of Barker Road and Euclid
Avenue adjacent to twelve parcels (55065.0105, 55063.0151, 55065.0170, 55065.0190, 55064.0171,
55064.0169, 55065.0107,55064.0170, 55064.1107, 55061.9062,55061.9066, 55064.9030); and
WHEREAS,pursuant to RCW 35.79.010,the legislative authority shall, by resolution,set the date
and time when a street vacation application shall be considered by the legislative authority or a committee
thereof; and
WHEREAS, chapter 22.140 SVMC establishes regulations and procedures for processing the
vacation of public streets; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to 22.140.030, the Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing
pursuant to RCW 35.79.010, and shall develop and forward a recommendation regarding STV-2019-0001
to the City Council.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane
County,Washington,as follows:
Section 1. Establishment of Public Hearing Date and Time for STV-2019-0001. The required
public hearing for street vacation request STV-2019-0001, as set forth in Attachment "A," shall be
conducted before the Spokane Valley Planning Commission,May 23, 2019 beginning at 6:00 p.m. in the
City Council Chambers at the City Hall of the City of Spokane Valley, 10210 East Sprague Avenue,
Spokane Valley,Washington 99206.
Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon adoption.
Adopted this day of April,2019.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
ATTEST:
L.R. Higgins,Mayor
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Office of the City Attorney
Resolution No. 19-006 Setting Public Hearing Date and Time for STV-2019-0001 Page 1 of 2
Attachment"A"
I,
00.111.1"111.111111°111.1.11.11.11111111111111. III - .
fti
' zre9'?
NORYs.ept4 pAC4PIC EY-
} I .
4lit
gill .
_ __ iV-1 1 -
..., . _ I%
—8-8P:vo q Oill. . _.
I
PARKill _ I. ,.
w - . .fii
1
•
- s gyp ' - i
cl'
Resolution No. 19-006 Setting Public Hearing Date and Time for STV-2019-0001 Page 2 of 2
Northeast Industrial Area
City Initiated Street Vacation
STV-19-0001
April 2, 2019
Mike Basinger, Economic Development Manager
Process
City1 ,1z,..,
17 ,430
Council administrative report A �o
9:9-
Ave.fl
City Council consent agenda
Resolution 19-005 initiates street vacation
Resolution 19-006 sets public hearing with PC 17 Garland Ave Planned
1b—
Planning Commission recommendation
@ 42
C
O U
LL w
z Z Z .
CityCouncil decision II
E Euclid Ave �'
Staff completes the vacation ii
S oka o^t9°oeN Me r
-o,EM
—L-LII nln 1511IF I 1 I I"'
Street Vacation
_ _ .
_._. .
14 „e
' y g.
- --` ,. 1; % ., - 55061 9060
;y •o Rrch Ave- r -- - 55061.9062
f
-
-- - - - - - _ 55065.01 05
I 1 1 55065 0105 o ' r
_
o a
1,.. _ _ Y 55061 9066 Lf if a
; t 1. , .55065.0171^ 55065.0107 .t "
%. ti 1 =fi x , . 55063 0151 ___'_
hid "t '�� rt..•. -_ ^.6 55064 0169
- I Garland Ave (Planned) '
i
• Tsch i rle ROWVacation Proposed Street I -"'50640170
0
y
1 Centerline - 6196` x - - 55064-9030
•
Long ROW Curbsif- -z�
# Affected Parcels — ,—
Greenacres ROW I E:::3 Spokane Valley BoundaryI
1,
Rich ROW �.. f }��
0 250 500 Fee[ - _
--..ate .
II
1,1 N Produdiai Date:3/27/19 '__ t w, _ _, 1, , -
1 1
.
1
Questions?
Mike Basinger, AICP
Economic Development Manager
CITY 01
Spokane
Valle
3'
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: April 2, 2019 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Electrical Permitting
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: WAC 296-46B: Electrical Safety Standards, Administration, and
Installation
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A
BACKGROUND: As per Council request, staff has performed research into service options
related to permits and inspections for electrical work in the City of Spokane Valley. This
presentation will focus on the current process of electrical permitting through Washington State
Dept. of Labor & Industries (L&I) and what options Council may wish to consider if they wish to
move away from the current process.
Currently, only the 27 Washington cities listed below run their own electrical permitting program.
The City of Spokane is the only eastern Washington permitting jurisdiction which processes
electrical permits and conducts inspections and plan reviews related to electrical permits. The
cities of Tacoma and Milton both contract with Tacoma Power for their electrical permit
inspections.
Aberdeen Longview Redmond
Bellingham Lynnwood Renton
Bellevue Marysville Sammamish
Burien Mercer Island SeaTac
Des Moines Milton —Tacoma Power Seattle
Everett Mountlake Terrace Spokane
Federal Way Normandy Park Tacoma —Tacoma Power
Kirkland Olympia Tukwila
Lacey Port Angeles Vancouver
According to L&I records, the City of Spokane Valley currently averages 1500 electrical permits
per year; permit fees average $300 per permit, resulting in approximately $450,000.00 per year
in revenue. However, the costs to hire qualified journeymen electricians for inspections, certified
electrical plans examiners, and permit processing staff far exceed this amount.
OPTIONS: Discussion
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Staff recommends working with L&I to enhance
coordination and customer service within the existing program. However, staff will further
investigate service provider options if that is Council's direction.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This is not currently a City of Spokane Valley program. If
implemented, we anticipate the General Fund would experience an annual operating loss of
$104,000 that is comprised of the following:
• Recurring General Fund expenditures would increase by $554,000 including the cost of
4 additional employees consisting of 3 inspectors and 1 permit technician, supplies,
training, permit processing and archiving, etc.
• Based upon recent permit activity reported by L&I we assume Recurring General Fund
Revenues would be $450,000.
Additionally, we anticipate an initial program implementation/set-up cost of approximately
$645,000 including acquisition of vehicles, PCs, tablets, cell phones, work spaces, etc.
STAFF CONTACT: Jenny Nickerson, Building Official; John Hohman, Deputy City Manager
ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint presentation
so, okane ----
Valley
Electrical Permitting
Overview of current process and potential electrical permitting options
Jenny Nickerson, Building Official
John Hohman, Deputy City Manager
Why are we looking at this?
► In recent years, a representative of the Northwest HVAC/R
Association Et Training Center and a local professional contractor
have contacted Council and staff requesting consideration of
bringing electrical permitting `in-house' in the City of Spokane
Valley.
► In years past, contractors and developers expressed concern
about the length of time between an electrical inspection request =,
and the date of inspection, and that inspections go beyond
electrical items such as safety concerns.
2
overview - Current p rocess
Labor &t Industries (L&i) issues, inspects, and maintains all
electrical permits statewide, except for 27 municipalities.
Immediate issuance of electrical permits applied for online or in
person at Lai office downtown at 901 N Monroe.
► Plan review by qualified staff is required only for projects such as
schools Et hospitals as per State law.
► City of Spokane is the only eastern Washington permitting
jurisdiction with in-house electrical permitting/inspection.
► Electrical permits and inspections have been required in
Washington State since 1935. --------------------
3
overview - Current process
Regionally, 92% of Lai inspections are conducted within 48
hours.
City of Spokane Valley Building Inspectors verify Lai electrical
permit issuance on site (panel sticker) or online (Lai website).
► Verification performed at time of framing inspection for new
construction or at `rough-in' inspection for trade permits.
► Lai inspection staff are able to easily coordinate with other Lai
programs such as contractor licensing to ensure that
tradespersons are appropriately licensed (electrical vs.
mechanical).
4
Electrical permits vs Construction permits
4763 5136
3993 4349
IIhk. 1
1233
1
014 2015 2016 2017 2018
(Electrical Construction
5
Electrical permit revenue (estimated )
vs
Construction permit revenue (actual )
___
_„,. m
2,408,831
2,744,975 2,694,478
1 ,581 ,462
1 ,665,046
366,900 434,100 495,600 459,600 1
� 369,900
•
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Electrical Construction
Service Options -_
► Retain existing Lai process for electrical permitting, plan
review and inspection.
► Bring electrical permitting, plan review and inspections in-
house.
► Explore options to contract for electrical permitting, plan
review and inspection such as:
❖ City of Spokane (permitting, plan review Et inspection) 1
❖ Private electrical contractor (plan review Et inspection)
1
Retain Labor Et Industries process
► Washington State Lai Chief Electrical Inspector reported that:
❖ Significant permit process and customer service policy updates have
been implemented by Labor 8 Industries staff over the past 2 years;
❖ There is no wait time from permit issuance to inspection scheduling next
day (2:00 am cutoff);
❖ LBtI is very open to forming a positive working relationship with COSV;
► COSV customers greatly benefit from the successful relationships
formed by Permit Center staff with other outside agencies such as
SVFD, SRHD, Clean Air, Environmental Services Et Water Districts.
► The City has received no complaints regarding the current Labor Et
Industries electrical permit process.
8
OPTIONS - Bring in - house
► Implementation cost could be in excess of $645,000, including:
❖ Inspection vehicles, and specialized electrical inspection equipment
•:f General equipment (PC's, tablets and cell phones)
New work spaces and furnishings
► Hire inspection and review staff with state-mandated qualifications
❖ Current salary range may not be attractive to qualified candidates.
9
OPTIONS - Bring in - house
► Increased General Fund Recurring Expenditures of $554,000:
❖ 2 qualified inspectors with state-mandated qualifications
❖ 1 plan review/inspector with state-mandated qualifications
❖ 1 permit tech. for permit 8t documentation maintenance
❖ Increased educational/training budget and memberships.
❖ Permit processing/archiving through current SMARTGov software.
10
OPTIONS - Bring in - house
Increased General Fund Recurring Revenues of $450,000;
Based upon LW records that reflect 1 ,500 electrical permits per year at an
average of $300 per permit.
Net Impact to the General Fund is estimated
to be a recurring annual loss of $104,000.
11
OPTIONS - Contract w/ City of Spokane
City of Spokane employs 6 inspection/review staff dedicated to
electrical but cross-trained in mechanical as well.
Little to no added revenue for City of Spokane Valley.
► Difficult to predict if this option would provide any significant
benefit to City of Spokane Valley customers.
i ► COSV projects unlikely to receive preferential treatment;
delays could occur during times of heavy City of Spokane
workload.
► Initial discussion with City of Spokane staff has occurred,
further analysis necessary to determine if this is feasible.
12
OPTIONS - Contract w/ Private Contractor
► This option works well for municipalities such as Tacoma, or
smaller communities like Milton; they contract with Tacoma
Power Et Light to provide services of permitting/inspection.
► Local electrical contractors may not be willing to impact their
business customers to prioritize City of Spokane Valley
electrical inspection requests.
Local electrical contractors may not be willing to prioritize City
of Spokane Valley's customers to allow for the opportunity to
perform inspections of their competing contractors' work.
City of Spokane Valley would still need to add qualified staff for
plan review and administrative permit processing functions;
anticipate a minimum of 2 new full-time employees.
13
Work closely with Lai supervisors and local inspectors to improve
coordination and customer service - staff recommendation.
► Staff to investigate other service options if desired by Council.
► Building Official to continue to monitor options and provide
future report as Council desires.
14
Questions?
Thank you for your time!
15
DRAFT
ADVANCE AGENDA
as of March 28,2019; 11:30 a.m.
Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative
To: Council& Staff
From: City Clerk,by direction of City Manager
Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings
April 9,2019,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue April 21
1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes; Resolution 19-005 Initiating Street Vacation,
Resolution 19-006 Setting Planning Commission Public Hearing for Street Vacation) (5 minutes)
2. Motion Consideration: Bid Award,Wilbur Avenue Sidewalk—Bill Helbig (10 minutes)
3. Admin Report: Proposed Street Vacation,2019-0002 Baldwin Ave.—Connor Lange (10 minutes)
4. Admin Report: Update on Tourism Venues—John Hohman, Chelsie Taylor,Mike Stone (45 minutes)
5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 75 mins]
April 16,2019, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue April 91
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Motion Consideration: Bid Award Knox Sidewalk,Hutchinson to Sargent—Gloria Mantz (10 minutes)
NON-ACTION ITEMS
2. Report on Crisis Co-response Team—Chief Werner,Deputy Dan Moman;Mental Health Professional Holly
Keller;Frontier Behavioral Health Chief Operating Officer Jan Dobbs (30 minutes)
3. Comp Plan Amendments 2019—Lori Barlow,Mike Basinger (20 minutes)
4. CERB (Community Economic Revitalization Board)Planning Grant—Mike Basinger (10 minutes)
5. Federal Legislative Agenda—Mark Calhoun,John Hohman, Cary Driskell (15 minutes)
6. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 90 mins]
April 23,2019,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue April 161
Proclamation: Older American's Month;Lemonade Day
1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes,Resolution 19-007 sets PC Hearing 2019-0002) (5 mins)
2.Motion Consideration: Bid Award,Evergreen Crossing,Mission to Indiana—John Hohman (10 minutes)
3.Motion Consideration: Bid Award,Midilome Neighborhood St.Imp. Project-John Hohman (10 minutes)
4. Admin Report: Police Department Quarterly Report—Chief Werner (10 minutes)
5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes)
6. Info Only: Department Reports [*estimated meeting: 40 mins]
April 30,2019, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue April 23
ACTION ITEMS:
1.Motion Consideration: Adoption of Federal Legislative Agenda—M.Calhoun,J.Hohman, C.Driskell(10 min)
NON-ACTION ITEMS:
2. Park Road Reconstruction Project Update—Gloria Mantz (10 minutes)
3. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 25 mins]
May 7,2019, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue April 30
1. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes)
May 14,2019,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue May 71
1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes)
2. First Reading Ordinance, Comp Plan Amendments—Lori Barlow,Mike Basinger (20 minutes)
3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 30 mins]
Draft Advance Agenda 3/28/2019 1:42:51 PM Page 1 of 2
May 21,2019, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue May 141
1. Draft 2020-2025 Six-Year TIP—Adam Jackson (20 minutes)
2. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 25 mins]
May 28,2019,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue May 211
1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes)
2. Second Reading Ordinance, Comp Plan Amendments—Lori Barlow,Mike Basinger (10 minutes)
3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes)
4. Info Only: Department Reports [*estimated meeting: mins]
June 4,2019, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue May 281
ACTION ITEMS:
1.Public Hearing: 2020-2025 Six-Year TIP—Adam Jackson (15 minutes
2. Resolution Adopting 2020-2025 Six Year Tip—Adam Jackson(no public comment) (5 minutes)
NON-ACTION ITEMS:
3. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: mins]
June 11,2019, Special Meeting: 2020 Budget Workshop,8:30 a.m. —2:30 p.m., [due Tue June 41
June 11, 2019, 6 pm formal meeting cancelled
June 18,2019, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due Tue June 111
1. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes)
AWC Annual Conference:June 25-28 Spokane Convention Center
June 25,2019,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue June 181
1. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes)
2. Info Only: Department Reports
July 2,2019, Study Session,6:00 p.m. [due Tue June 251
1. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes)
July 9,2019,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due Tue July 21
Proclamation: Parks and Recreation Month
1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes)
2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins (5 minutes)
*time for public or Council comments not included
OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS:
Camping in RVs Police Dept. Quarterly Rpt(Jan,April,July, Oct)
Donation Recognition Sign Ordinance
Graffiti Snow Removal: Streets& Sidewalks
Health District Re SV Stats St. Illumination(ownership,cost,location)
Land Use Notice Requirements St. O&M Pavement Preservation
Mirabeau Park Forestry Mgmt. Studded Snow Tires
Naming City Facilities Protocol Utility Facilities in ROW
Park Lighting Water Districts& Green Space
Park Regulations Ordinance Amendments Way Finding Signs
PFD Presentation
Draft Advance Agenda 3/28/2019 1:42:51 PM Page 2 of 2