HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/14/1998, 2 - SOLID WASTE SERVICES PLAN - RATE STRUCTURE CHANGES 7 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN Co Uncit McApri1 1 4, 1 99R
j ac En ba 12Epo12t �pri
1¢m Dumber
C I TY O F SAN LU I S O B I S P O
FROM: John Moss, Utilities Directo
Prepared By: Sue Baasch, dministrative Analyst
Ron Munds, Utilities Conservation Coordinator
SUBJECT: Solid Waste Services Plan-Rate Structure Changes
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Provide conceptual approval of,and direct staff to present to affected businesses and residents:
1. modifications to the residential solid waste service rate structure incorporating previously
approved service options and in accordance with adopted rate structure and solid waste program
goals;
2. modifications to the commercial refuse rate structure to establish a rate structure based on
volume and frequency of collection in accordance with adopted rate structure and solid waste
program goals;and,
3. implementation of a volume based commercial recycling fee to be set at 25% of the commercial
refuse rate for a comparable volume, implementation of a base fee for commercial recycling
program services,and a per bag fee for office paper and polystyrene collection.
REPORT IN BRIEF
On January 13, 1998, Council held a study session to consider possible modifications to the City's
residential refuse collection services, and options associated with cost recovery for an expanding
and labor intensive commercial recycling program. Consistent with Council's January direction,
this report presents rate structure recommendations for residential and commercial refuse programs
and a commercial recycling fee structure,based on application of adopted rate structure and solid
waste goals and policies. With rate structure being almost entirely policy driven,it is important that
Council consider the applicable policies and goals in their review of the proposed rate structures.
The primary focus of these recommendations and the majority of our solid waste goals is to
continue to encourage increasing levels of conservation and recycling necessary to achieve
compliance with the solid waste reduction requirements of AB 939. The recommendations propose
a residential solid waste rate structure associated with previously approved service modifications;
propose a methodology for revising the commercial refuse rate structure; and, propose a
methodology for establishing a commercial recycling rate structure, consistent with Council's
January 1998 direction.
Consideration of the recommendations contained in this report represents the first step in a four step
process for establishing revised solid waste services fees. Following this first step, staff will
present the proposed rate structures through written notice, meeting with representative
. o�2—/
1
Council Agenda Report—Solid Waste Service and Rate Structure Changes
Page 2
organizations such as the BIA and Manufacturers Association, and town meetings, to receive
public input relative to the new rate structures and services. Staff will then return to Council and
present this information and final recommendations. With Council approval, staff will then apply
the new rate structures to the pending 1998 Solid Waste Base Year Rate Application and present
the final rate recommendationsto Council.
Residential solid waste rate structure modification
The recommended rate structure for residential solid waste services will set pricing according to
refuse container volume , also known as unit pricing or "pay as you throw." After adjusting for
expected customer migration to the new economy (32 gallon waste wheeler) service, the
recommended rate structure will be revenue neutral. The application of volume based pricing
strategies to the previously approved residential refuse services result in the following
recommendations:
• Retain standard service(64 gal.container)charge(this category includes the majority of
our customers);
• Set the rate for the new economy service(32 gal.container)at half of standard service;
• Set orange bag service (32 gal. per bag) at 3 bags per month as roughly equivalent to
economy service(the average orange bag customer uses 2.5 bags per month);
• Set modified premium service (96 gal. container) at a volume based rate equal to
standard(64 gal.) plus economy(32 gal.)service.
Commercial refuse rate structure modifications
The recommended rate structure would be set according to container volume and pickup frequency,
added to a base charge representing administrative costs. In a true volume based commercial rate
structure, the incremental increase between levels of service or volume of disposed refuse and the
frequency of collection should be consistent. In reviewing the City's current commercial rate
structure, the incremental increase between levels of service seem to be haphazard and staff is
unclear as to what rationale was used to establish the current structure. Correcting the anomalies
contained in the current commercial rate structure has been a goal of the Utilities Department for
some time. Additionally, this change has now become necessary to provide an equitable volume
based commercial recycling fee as directed by Council and discussed later in this report. The net
effect of the recommended rate structure would be revenue neutral,while correcting the anomalies
that have likely evolved over time.
Commercial recycling charges
Based on Council's direction in January, anticipated shortfalls in commercial revenues due to
increased demand for commercial recycling services are to be recovered through a combination of a
base charge paid by all commercial customers and a volume-based charge for customers demanding
a higher level of service. Based on staff review of the preliminary 1998 Base Year Rate
Application,there appears to be an approximate 3.2% shortfall in commercial revenue from prior
as
Council Agenda Report—Solid Waste Service and Rate Structure Changes
Page 3
year rate application projections. Consistent with Council's direction, a fee structure which
includes an approximate $3.00/commercial customer (base charge), a volume based commercial
recycling fee for corrugated cardboard collection set at 25% of the refuse rate for a comparable
volume, and an approximate $0.85 per bag fee for office paper and polystyrene collection will
develop the required revenues to offset this commercial revenue shortfall. The base fee will cover
the basic recycling services for all commercial customers(orange bin,green waste,and cardboard<
1 yard per week).
DISCUSSION
On January 13, 1998, Council held a study session to consider possible modifications to the City's
residential refuse collection services and options associated with cost recovery for an expanding
and labor intensive commercial recycling program. At that meeting Council approved the
recommended modifications to the City's residential refuse collection services which will include
the addition of a new 32 gallon waste wheeler service and eliminating the existing six can premium
service, replacing it with a single 96 gallon waste-wheeler premium service. These service
modifications were approved in order to further encourage conservation and recycling and continue
the move toward automated refuse collection which is needed to help control the cost of residential
refuse collection service. Additionally, Council provided direction to staff to develop a volume
based commercial recycling fee to be set at a percentage of the commercial refuse rate for a similar
volume. Together these program modifications will continue to improve our residential and
commercial refuse and recycling services and help us achieve our solid waste reduction goals while
providing equitable cost effective service.
The relationship between solid waste refuse and recycling services and the relative cost to provide
those services has changed significantly since 1995, the first base year rate evaluation. We
continue to seek changes in our services in order to facilitate compliance with our solid waste goals
while providing cost effective service programs. While our programs and services related to
recycling and green waste have improved significantly,the volume of refuse generated, which is
how we base the cost for service,has decreased. However,this shift in relationship between refuse
and recycling is exactly what is required by AB 939.
Other changes have occurred in our overall solid waste program since 1995. Several of these
changes were at the direction of the City, were considered during the 1997-99 Financial Plan
preparation, and will have rate implications in the 1998 base year refuse and recycling rate
application. San Luis Garbage Company now collects refuse from the downtown sidewalk refuse
containers and large City park containers,activities formerly performed by the City Public Works
Department. City expenses related to meeting the AB 939 goals are now included as AB 939 fees
charged to San Luis Garbage Company and are reflected in their overall revenue requirements,
rather than as a general fund expense. Additionally, Cal Poly was lost as a San Luis Garbage
commercial customer and there was a corresponding reduction in commercial revenues. However,
the California Men's Colony was acquired as a new commercial customer,providing a partial offset
for the lost revenue from Cal Poly.
�3
Council Agenda Report—Solid Waste Service and Rate Structure Changes
Page 4
This report recommends modifications to the City's current residential and commercial rate
structures to ensure equity and that appropriate financial messages are incorporated into the rate
structures which support our solid waste reduction and conservation goals. These recommended
rate structure modifications are intended to move the City forward in meeting its AB 939 goals,
while offering service level options to our customers that meet their service needs and ability to
pay.
Residential and Commercial Rate Structure Policies and Goals
Currently, the residential and commercial rate structures are for the most part volume-based,'
charging on the basis of the amount of refuse collected with frequency of collection a.factor for
commercial and orange bag customers. Volume-based rates, also known as unit pricing or pay-
as-you-throw, is a system under which customers pay for solid waste services per unit of waste
collected rather than through a fixed fee, and is identified in our Source Reduction and Recycling
Element as a rate structure policy. The benefits of volume-based rates include:
• Reduced waste
• Reduced waste disposal costs
• Increased waste prevention
• Increased participation in composting, recycling and green waste collection programs
• A more equitable waste management fee structure
Volume-based rates which encourage conservation are consistent with the following Council-
approved objectives for rates and rate reviews:
• Comply with legal requirements
• Ensure revenue adequacy to fully meet system operating and capital needs
• Encourage conservation
• Provide equity and fairness between classes of customers
• Result in rate structures that are easy to understand by our customers and easy to administer
• Provide for ongoing review to facilitate rate stability
In order to continue and expand the benefits of the volume based rate structure, and in response
to changes in our customers service needs, Council has.approved changes to the residential solid
waste services which offer greater flexibility and options for low volume producing customers,
while eliminating the highest, least cost effective, six can premium level of service. In keeping
with the above stated goals, a proposed rate structure has been developed for the modified
residential refuse services. Additionally, a modified commercial refuse rate structure is
proposed, which eliminates anomalies in the current rate structure which send conflicting
messages relative to our solid waste goals and create inequities among service levels.
For ease of review by Council, the remainder of this report will be broken into separate sections
for a thorough discussion of the three recommended actions.
�-y
Council Agenda Report—Solid Waste Service and Rate Structure Changes
Page 5
Section I.
Residential Solid Waste Service Rate Structure:
Recommendation summary - Provide conceptual approval of modifications to the residential
solid waste service rate structure incorporating previously approved service options and in
accordance with adopted rate structure and solid waste program goals.
Background
At the January 13" City Council meeting, Council concurred with the staff recommendation to
modify the residential refuse service levels from the current three levels of service (orange bag,
standard and premium) to four (orange bag, economy, standard and premium). Expanding the
waste wheeler service options, by including a 32 gallon waste wheeler, and eliminating the 6 can
premium service, replacing it with a 96 gallon waste wheeler service, allows refuse collection to
be further automated. .Automation reduces the number of required refuse collection routes,
decreases the number of personnel per truck from two to one and reduces the risk of injury to
collection crews. Fewer injuries mean fewer worker's compensation claims,which ultimately leads
to lower costs for refuse collection.
Automation has already had an impact on collection and operational costs. Since the last base year
rate application,SLG has reduced residential refuse collection labor hours from 17,400 annually to
13,100 annually. As previously stated, expanded automation of the collection system leads to
increased efficiency and cost savings.
Table 1. summarizes the changes to the residential refuse program services.
Table 1.
Residential Service Levels
Current Service Volurne of Refuse New Service Level Volume of Refuse
Level
Orange Bag 132 gallons/bag Orange Bag 32 gallons/bag
Economy 32 gallon waste wheeler
Standard 1 64 gallon waste wheeler Standard 64 gallon waste wheeler
I I
Premium I
192gallons/owner supplied Premium 96 gallon waste wheeler
cans
With these previously approved service modifications in place, it is now necessary to revise the
rate structure for these services such that we retain consistency in our message to conserve
resources and recycle, and remain consistent with our other rate structure goals.
a�
Council Agenda Report=Solid Waste Service and Rate Structure Changes
Page 6
Proposed Residential Rate Structure
The proposed residential rate structure for the four levels of service maintains the relative
relationship that exists between the current three levels of service. The primary goals identified
for the residential refuse services and proposed rate structure are to: (1) encourage waste
reduction and recycling; and (2) reduce refuse collection costs through increased participation in
automated service options. The proposed rate structure was created in support of these and other
solid waste and rate structure goals. The proposed rate structure is based on the following
assumptions:
I. The existing rate for Standard service is used as the baseline to determine the rate for the
other levels of service. This rate will remain essentially unchanged from our current structure
(this category includes the majority of our customers).
2. The rate for the new Economy service (32 gallon waste wheeler) will be set approximately
equal to the current rate for orange bag customers using roughly one bag per week.
3. New Orange bag rates will be set such that those customers using three orange-bags per
month will pay approximately the equivalent of the new economy service (32 gallon waste
wheeler) while four bag per month customers will pay more for an equivalent volume but
more costly to provide service, to encourage migration to the equivalent automated economy
service. It should be noted that the average orange bag customer uses 2.5 bags per month
based on San Luis Garbage Company statistics.
4. Following adjustment for customer migration to the new economy service, the recommended
rate structure will be essentially revenue neutral.
The current and proposed rate structure for residential solid waste services is shown in Table 2.
Table 2.
Residential Solid Waste Rate Structure
PROPOSEDSERVICE LE%,T-L CURRENT
SERVICE RATE SERVICE RATE
Orange Bag $2.40/month $2.40/month
(32 gallon bag) plus$1.20/bag plus$I.80/bag
i
Economy n/a j $7.90/month
(32 gallon waste wheeler)
I i
Standard $15.75/month $15.80/month
(64 gallon waste wheeler)
Premium $21.45/month $23.70/month
(6 cans,up to 192 gallons) I (96 gallon waste wheeler)
�— e
Council Agenda Report—Solid Waste Service and Rate Structure Changes
Page 7
Under the rate structure scenario presented in Table 2, the Orange Bag level of service
experiences an increase in the cost per bag and premium customers pay more for a reduced
volume of refuse service. However, as shown in Table 3, the rate charged per volume (gallons)
of refuse disposed is evenly dispersed except in the case of orange bags, which would cost
slightly more, but also require a more costly level of service in terms of labor and associated
costs.
Table 3.
Volume Charge
SERVICE LEVEL SERVICE GALLONSPER COST PER
RATE MONTH GALLON
Orange Bag $7.80 96 $ .081
(assumes 3 bags per month)
Economy $7.90 128 $ .062
Standard $15.80 256 $ .062
Premium $23.70 384 $ .062
It was not possible to align the volume rate of orange bags with the other service levels and also
balance the goals of the residential rate structure (reducing overall refuse collection costs through
automation, and encouraging waste reduction and recycling). Using the above rate structure, a
customer placing three bags per month out for collection would pay $7.80 per month or slightly
less than the economy service. A four bag per month customer would pay $9.60 per month or
$1.70 more than an economy service customer for an equivalent volume of service. Because of
collection inefficiencies which equate to increased collection costs, potential for injury when
collecting the bags and negative environmental considerations associated with the disposal of the
plastic bags themselves, staff believes there is justification for a slightly higher per volume
charge for the orange bag service. The proposed rate structure does continue to recognize those
exceptional customers who have reduced their level of required service to less than 3 bags per
month through what could be considered still exceptionally low rates.
As we view our current and proposed residential solid waste services programs and rate
structures, we find that those customers who are participating in the lower levels of service
(orange bag and economy) are still paying less than they were in 1988 for refuse services and are
receiving the added community wide benefits of curbside recycling and green waste services.
-7
Council Agenda Report—Solid Waste Service and Rate Structure Changes
Page 8
For those customers requiring a level of service in excess of the new Premium (96 gal.) service
level, it is recommended that additional waste wheelers of any size be available for a price
equivalent to the per orange bag price ($1.80 per 32 gal. volume) times 4 collections per month.
This will ensure that those customers requiring continuous service in excess of the premium
service level remain with an automated collection service. For occasional volumes in excess of
the customers desired service level, the orange bags would still be available. To allow flexibility
in container choice for volumes less than 96 gallons, the price should remain equivalent to the
previously discussed per volume cost identified in Table 3. For example, if a customer requiring
Standard 64 gallon per week service desired to receive that service via two Economy 32 gallon
waste wheelers instead of the larger 64 gallon waste wheeler because of space constraints in their
side yard (a not uncommon scenario), their cost would be the same as the Standard 64 gallon
service rate.
Table 4. shows the proposed rate structure for additional containers in excess of the Premium
service level.
Table 4.
Additional Containers
"Premium Plus Service"
Container ,
32 Gallon $7.20
64 Gallon $14.40
96 Gallon $21.60
The proposed residential rate structure modifications are consistent with our previously stated
solid waste and rate structure goals. It is intended to provide incentives for continued waste
reduction, through volume based pricing, and efficient, cost effective service by creating
incentives to move to an automated service level for all but the lowest producers of waste, who
can still achieve significant benefit from the orange bag program.
Alternatives to Proposed Residential Rate Structure
Establish a rate for orange bag service which is equivalent to the volume pricing of other
services. This alternative is not recommended as it provides limited incentive for orange bag
customers using 4 bags or more per month to change to a more efficient automated service
program. Council may choose to select this alternative if they feel that the possible convenience
of a waste wheeler vs. an orange bag is adequate incentive to move these customers to an
automated service program.
�'
Council Agenda Report—Solid Waste Service and Rate Structure Changes
Page 9
Create an unbalanced volume based rate structure that provides even greater incentive to
reduce waste for those customers at the higher service levels. This alternative, while attractive
from a waste reduction standpoint, is not recommended as staff feels the proposed balanced
volume based rate structure provides the most equitable and simple rate structure, without
penalizing those who for other reasons may be unable to reduce their waste. Staff feels the
proposed rate structure is fair, yet provides significant financial incentive for the high volume
users to minimize their waste production.
Section H.
Commercial Refuse Rate Structure:
Recommendation summary - Provide preliminary approval of modifications to the commercial
refuse rate structure in accordance with adopted rate structure and solid waste program goals.
Background
The commercial rate structure has been known to contain anomalies which do not make sense
from a cost of service standpoint. An example of these anomalies would be: a 4 yard dumpster
being picked up six times per week (for $359), is actually cheaper than a six yard dumpster
picked up 4 times per week (for $398). An equivalent volume, higher level of service, for less.
Additionally, the rate structure has not been reviewed since we have established many of our
recycling service programs. With Council direction on January 13, 1998 to create a commercial
recycling fee structure, to be based in part on the volume and frequency commercial refuse rate
structure, it became apparent that it would be necessary to modify the commercial refuse rate
structure to eliminate the anomalies before developing the commercial recycling rate as directed
by Council. Staff is recommending a true volume/frequency based rate structure as the most
equitable and consistent with our adopted solid waste and rate structure goals.
Proposed Commercial Rate Structure
The proposed commercial refuse rate structure is based on the volume of refuse disposed (usually
by the yard), frequency of collection (times per week) and an account administration cost. In the
proposed volume based commercial rate structure, the incremental increase between levels of
service, or volume of disposed refuse and the frequency of collection, will be the same for a
given commercial service category. A portion of the proposed commercial refuse rate structure
for the dumpster container service category is shown in Table 5.
02- /
Council Agenda Report—Solid Waste Service and Rate Structure Changes
Page 10
Table 5.*
Proposed Commercial Volume Based Rate Structure
SY
1 yard $50.00 $70.00 $90.00 $110.00 $130.00 $150.00 $170.00
j 2 yard $62.00 $94.00 $126.00 $158.00 $190.00 $222.00 $254.00
i
3 yard $74.00 $118.00 $162.00 $206.00 $250.00 $294.00 $334.00
I � �
1 *Partial Table Only-Complete proposed commercial rate structure included as Attachment—').
I Assumptions: Account Charge-$30.00 Trip Charge-$8.00 Disposal-$12.00/yard
As indicated in the above table, the incremental increase between levels of service is based on the
combination of volume and frequency of collection of refuse disposed.
In reviewing the City's current commercial rate structure, the incremental increase between
levels of service seem to be haphazard. The rationale used to determine the current cost for the
various levels of service is unclear. The current commercial rate structure is shown in
Attachment 1. In addition to the apparent inconsistencies in incremental cost increases,
anomalies in the volume/frequency relationship have been highlighted to simplify review. These
anomalies result in a higher frequency service for an equivalent total weekly volume. actually
costing less than an equivalent total volume picked up less frequently.
To correct the anomalies and incremental cost disparities between levels of service, the current
commercial rate structure should be abandoned and a new structure developed as recommended
based on volume and frequency as outlined in Table 5. When analyzing the rate impacts of the
proposed rate structure on commercial customers, approximately half the commercial dumpster
container service customers will experience rate increases while the other half will experience
rate decreases. A majority of the rate decreases will occur in higher frequency and volume
customers, which would appear to send the wrong pricing message for solid waste reduction
when compared to the current rate structure, however is justified on the basis of cost of service
versus the service provided. Additionally, the proposed commercial rate structure change is
deemed necessary to establish the volume/frequency based commercial recycling rate structure
discussed later in this report, if the commercial recycling volume/frequency based rate costs are
to be based on a percentage of the commercial refuse rates as directed by Council in January.
Otherwise the commercial recycling rate structure would contain the same incremental cost
disparities and anomalies as the commercial refuse rate structure.
Alternatives to the Recommended Commercial Rate Structure
No Change - This alternative is not recommended as it will continue the current incremental cost
disparities and service anomalies,which will only be exacerbated by future percentage increases to
the rates. Additionally,the current rate structure is inconsistent with volume or "quantity based"
user fee goals identified in our Source Reduction and Recycling Element.
�-lb
Council Agenda Report—Solid Waste Service and Rate Structure Changes
Page 11
Provide a Volume Based Rate Structure that Places an Additional Cost Burden on Large
Commercial Generators-This alternative is not recommended as in most cases those commercial
customers who are large generators have little capacity to reduce their waste by nature of their
business and it may be seen as a detriment to the City's economic development efforts.
Additionally,staff feels a true volume/frequency based rate structure maintains the highest level of
integrity and is most consistent with our rate structure goals.
Section III.
Commercial Recycling Rate Structure:
Recommendation summary-Provide preliminary approval for implementation of a volume based
commercial recycling fee to be set at 25% of the commercial refuse rate for a comparable volume,
implementation of a base fee for commercial recycling program services, and a per bag fee for
office paper and polystyrene collection.
Background
At their January 13te study session,Council considered alternatives for meeting anticipated revenue
shortfalls in the 1998 base year rate application due to increased demands for commercial recycling
services. From 1995,the commercial recycling customer base grew by about 50% and the number
of routes increased from four to six. The labor hours expended on commercial recycling increased
from 10,800 annually to 17,300 annually,an increase of nearly 60%.
Following discussion of the four alternatives, listed below, Council stated their preference for a
volume-based commercial recycling rate set at a percentage of the commercial refuse rate to
encourage continued commercial recycling (alternative 2), with some support for a commercial
base recycling fee(alternative 3).
Alternatives as discussed at the January 13, 1998 Study Session
1. No change. Continue with the current integrated rate policy where
increases are applied to all customer classes.
2. Volume-based CommercialRecyclingRate. Establish a commercial
recycling collection rate based on the volume of material being collected.
3. Recycling Fee. Formulate a commercial recycling fee levied on every
commercial account.
4. Service Cost Reduction. Change the commercial recycling services to
place more responsibility on the customer.
The preliminary information in the 1998 Base Year Rate Application indicates an approximate
3.2% shortfall in commercial revenues. Based on Council direction at the January 13, 1998 study
session, it is staff's interpretation that Council intended this shortfall be accounted for through a
commercial recycling fee program. With this 3.2% (approximately $150,000) shortfall as a
Council Agenda Report—Solid Waste Service and Rate Structure Changes
Page 12
preliminary target for revenues to be derived from commercial recycling fees, the proposed
commercial recycling rate structure was developed to be consistent with Council direction and our
other solid waste and rate structure goals.
Proposed Commercial Recycling Rate Structure
The proposed commercial recycling fee program is made up of three components:
• a commercial recycling base charge of approximately $3.00 per month for basic recycling
services of orange bin,corrugated cardboard< 1 yard per week,and green waste services;
• a volume/frequency based commercial recycling fee for corrugated cardboard (>1 yard per
week)set at 25%of the commercial refuse rates;and,
• an approximate$0.85 per bag charge for collection of office paper and polystyrene.
This proposed commercial recycling rate structure will provide cost recovery roughly equivalent to
the revenue deficit attributable to commercial programs. It is staff's opinion that this proposed
commercial recycling rate structure is consistent with Council's prior direction, is equitable based
on the cost of services provided through the commercial recycling program, and continues to
provide considerable financial incentives for commercial recycling. The complete proposed
commercial recycling rate structure is included as Attachment 3. Included as Attachment 4 are
examples of how the proposed commercial recycling rate structure will impact some selected
commercial customers.
Alternatives to the Recommended Commercial Recycling Rate Structure
Alter the distribution of costs for commercial recycling from that proposed- Council may direct
staff to alter the mix of revenue yield from any of the identified commercial recycling rates (base
fee, volume based percentage, per bag office paper and polystyrene) to increase or decrease the
rates for an identified program. For example,changes could be made to increase the cost recovery
via the base recycling fee which would reduce the needed recovery from the volume based rate
programs for cardboard or office paper,etc.. This alternative is not recommended as staff feels that
the proposed rate structure provides a fair distribution of cost and an equitable cost recovery
program which is consistent with our solid waste and rate structure goals and prior Council
direction. Staff is prepared to assist Council in discussion of any possible mix they wish to
consider.
Recover the total revenue shortfall through an across the board percentage rate increase - This
alternative is not recommended as it has been previously considered by Council at the January 13,
1998 study session and was rejected. Additionally, it does not create any mechanism for cost
recovery from those commercial customers receiving a substantial financial benefit from the
commercial recycling services.
02'�Z-
Council Agenda Report—Solid Waste Service and Rate Structure Changes
Page 13
REPORT WRAP-UP:
Conclusions
Approval of the recommendations provided in this report will continue the City's progress in
developing a solid waste services program that achieves compliance with our diversion mandates
and programmatic requirements of AB 939, consistent with our rate structure goals, and the goals
associated with providing cost effective, quality, solid waste services with flexibility and a high
degree of customer choice.
Actions to Follow
Following Council approval of the rate structures for residential refuse services and commercial
refuse and recycling services, staff will present the proposed structures to the public and
commercial customers for additional input. Staff plans to meet with the BIA, Chamber and
Manufacturers Association as well as hold a town meeting in late April. Staff will then return to
Council with the community input and final recommendations regarding rate structures in May,
prior to applying the revised structures to the 1998 base year rate analysis. Staff anticipates
returning to Council with the 1998 base year rate application and final rate recommendations in
June.
CONCURRENCES:
San Luis Garbage Company concurs with the recommended actions.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Approval of the recommended actions will put into place a residential refuse rate structure, a
commercial refuse rate structure and a commercial recycling rate structure that will be capable of
meeting the revenue needs of our solid waste service programs. It will not at this time set the
precise rates for those services or implement the rate increases to be presented with the 1998 base
year rate application. However, the commercial revenue shortfalls identified in the preliminary
1998 rate review application which may be attributed to commercial recycling services have been
considered in the development of the proposed commercial recycling fee program.
ALTERNATIVES FOR IMPLEMENTATION:
Phased implementation - If Council so directs,staff could develop a phased implementation of the
recommended actions over several years. This alternative is not recommended as all of the
recommended actions are required to fully implement the City's solid waste reduction goals and
establish rate structures consistent with our rate structure goals. Phasing would be difficult to
integrate with our rate setting and review process, though not impossible. Additionally, the
recommended actions are needed to accomplish the residential service modifications and
commercial revenue recovery as directed by Council on January 13, 1998.
Council Agenda Report—Solid Waste Service and Rate Structure Changes
Page 14
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 - Current Commercial Refuse Rate Structure w/highlighted anomalies.
Attachment 2 - Proposed Commercial Refuse Rate Structure
Attachment 3 - Proposed Commercial Recycling Rate Structure
Attachment 4 - Impacts of Commercial Recycling Rates on Selected Customers
Attachment 5 - January 13, 1998 Council Agenda Report
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Attachment 1
RATE SCHEDULE FOR INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE ACTIVITIES
January 1, 1997
MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DUMPSTER CONTAINERS (PER MONTH)
size of COLLECTIONS PER WEEK
container
(cubic yards) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 $64.00 $93.00 $112.00 $155.00 $193.00 $216.00 $277.00
1.5 $73.00 $106.00 $133.00 $174.00 $209.00 $226.00 $319.00
2 $84.00 $119.00 $155.00 $193.00 $224.00 $240.00 $364.00
3 $104.00 $145.00 $199.00 $256.00 $334.00 $360.00 $483.00
4 $123.00 $186.00 $262.00 $355.00 $444.00 $480.00 $598.00
6 $168.00 $257.00 $360.00 $531.00 $611.00 $675.00 $798.00
8 $216.00 $317.00 $480.00 $708.00 $882.00 $956.00 $1,079.00
The rates stated above for dumpster containers shall include the monthly container rental fee.
COMMERCIAL GARBAGE CANS (PER MONTH)
number COLLECTIONS PER WEEK
of
cans 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 $14.00 $23.00 $34.00 $38.00 $40.00 $44.00 $49.00
2 $17.00 $34.00 $44.00 $48.00 $51.00 $57.00 $66.00
3 $22.00 $40.00 $54.00 $58.00 $63.00 $66.00 $78.00
4 $25.00 $46.00 $64.00 $68.00 $74.00 $80.00 $94.00
5 $32.00 $51.00 $72.00 $79.00 $87.00 $94.00 $112.00
6 $35.00 $58.00 $80.00 $90.00 $100.00 $110.00 $129.00
7 $39.00 $66.00 $88.00 $102.00 $114.00 $123.00 $145.00
8 $43.00 $72.00 $98.00 $112.00 $126.00 $140.00 $162.00
9 $47.00 $78.00 $106.00 $121.00 $137.00 $153.00 $182.00
10 $50.00 $84.00 $115.00 $134.00 $152.00 $168.00 $197.00
Maximum volume and weight per garbage can:35 gallons and 80 pounds
Additional charge per can per collection:$4.30
Rate Schedule for Integrated Solid Waste Activities- 1/1/97
Page 2
COMMERCIAL WASTE WHEELER CONTAINERS (PER MONTH)
number COLLECTIONS PER WEEK
of
containers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 $23.001 $34.00 $40.00 54.00 $67.00 $75.00 $66.00
ftw
2 $44.00 $65.00 0 ODT/- $193.00
3 $50.00 V3 0 /$128:00 $145.00 $159.00 $222.00
a $58.00 �$tOyeD�$13a.00 $156.00 $167.00 $252.00
5 $66.00 $9yoe� $122.00 $156.00 $194.00 $209.00 $293.00
s $72.00 $102.00 slaoa0� $178.00 $230.00. $260.00 $335.00
7 $79.00 $114.00 3160.00 $214.00 $270.00 $292.00 $374.00
8 $87.00 $129.004' $183.00 $246.00 $309.00 $334.00 $415.00
9 $94.00 P40.00 $198.00 $277.00 $337.00 $366.00 $498.00
10 $102.00 $153.00 $216.00 $309.00 $367.00 $399.00 $580.00
11 $110.00 $166.00 $232.00 $338.00 $395.00 $434.00 $664.00
12 $117.00 $178.00 $250.00 $368.00 $425.00 $468.00 $748.00
In addition to the collection rates stated above for waste wheeler containers,there shall be charged a
monthly rental fee for each container.
COMMERCIAL DUMPSTER CONTAINERS (PER MONTH)
size of COLLECTIONS PER WEEK
container
(cubic yards) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 $47.00 $71.00 $84.00 $115.00 $145.00 $162.00 $209.00
1.5 $55.00 $80.00 $100.00 $130.00 $158.00 $170.00 $240.00
2 $64.00 $88.00 $116.00 $144.00 $166. $182.00 $272.00
3 $78.00 '' 4i7 7U.UU $152.00 $193.00 $250.00 $270.00 $361.00
a $94.001 $197.00 $267.00 $334. $360.00 $450.00
s $270.00 $398.00 0 $507.00 $598.00
8 $239.00 $360.00 531.00 $664.00 $718.00 $809.00
The rates stated above for dumpster containers shall include the monthly container rental fee.
Rate Schedule for Integrated Solid Waste Activities- 1/1/97
Page 3
UNSCHEDULED EXTRA COLLECTIONS FOR
COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS AND
MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DUMPSTER CUSTOMERS
$16.00 1 cubic yard(minimum charge)
$21.00 2 cubic yards
$30.00 3 cubic yards
$40.00 4 cubic yards
SINGLE FAMILY and MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL
VOLUME-BASED RATES
ECONOMY RATE
$2.40/month for collection service
$1.20 per special 33-gallon bag distributed by San Luis Garbage Company
(Payable when bags are issued)
STANDARD RATE
$15.75 per month for one wastewheeler container collected once each week
PREMIUM RATE
$21.45 per month for up to one cubic yard(six standard garbage cans)collected once each week
Maximum volume and weight per garbage cart:35 gallons and 80 pounds
SERVICE AWAY FROM THE STREET CURB
$5.40 additional per month per can or container
EXTRA COLLECTIONS ON REGULAR COLLECTION DAY WITH GARBAGE TRUCK
$2.20 per standard garbage can or equivalent volume
(Not available for economy service customers)
LATE MAKEUP COLLECTIONS WITH GARBAGE TRUCK(phone call required)
$5.40 per trip plus$2.20 per extra garbage can or equivalent volume
(Not available for economy service customers)
c;z
Rate:Schedule for Integrated Solid Waste Activities- 111197
•Page 4
EXTRA COLLECTIONS WITH PICKUP OR-FLATBED TRUCK(phone call required)•
$12.00'per trip plus:
$2.20 per garbage can or equivalent volume(amounts over-six cans by quotation]
$3.00,per white good4fticle(once a month)
.$3.15,per piece of furniture
$1.70 per mattress or pozspring -
(Economy service customers must pay in advance.)
city of san Luis oBlspo Attachment 2
puoposea 199s iiate schedule
foiz intecizatea sola waste activities
MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DUMPSTER CONTAINERS(PER MONTH)
Size of COLLECTIONS PER WEEK
container
(cubic yards) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 $57.00 $83.00 $110.00 $136.00 $163.00 $189.00 $216.00
1.5 $66.00 $102.00 $137.00 $173.00 $209.00 $245.00 $281.00
2 $75.00 $120.00 $165.00 $210.00 $255.00 $300.00 $346.00
3 $94.00 $157.00 $221.00 $284.00 $348.00 $412.00 $475.00
4 $112.00 $194.00 $276.00 $359.00 $441.00 $523.00 $605.00
6 $149.00 $268.00 $388.00 $507.00 $626.00 $745.00 $865.00
The rates shown above include the monthly container rental fee and are the same for bins
and garwoods, when the volume is identical.
COMMERCIAL GARBAGE CANS (PER MONTH)
Number COLLECTIONS PER WEEK
of
cans 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 $14.00 $22.00 $30.00 $38.00 $46.00 $54.00 $62.00
2 $18.00 $28.00 $38.00 $48.00 $58.00 $68.00 $78.00
3 $22.00 $34.00 $46.00 $58.00 $70.00 $82.00 $94.00
4 $26.00 $40.00 $54.00 $68.00 $82.00 $96.00 $110.00
5 $30.00 $46.00 $62.00 $78.00 $94.00 $110.00 $126.00
6 $34.00 $52.00 $70.00 $88.00 $106.00 $124.00 $142.00
7 $38.00 $58.00 $78.00 $98.00 $118.00 $138.00 $158.00
8 $42.00 $64.00 $86.00 $108.00 $130.00 $152.00 $174.00
9 $46.00 $70.00 $94.00 $118.00 $142.00 $166.00 $190.00
Maximum volume and weight per garbage can: 35 gallons and 80 pounds
Additional charge per can per collection: $3.00
�r�
Proposed Rate Schedule for Integrated Solid Waste Activities- 1998
Page 2
COMMERCIAL WASTE WHEELER CONTAINERS (PER MONTH)
Number COLLECTIONS PER WEEK
of
containers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 $23.00 $38.00 $53.00 $68.00 $83.00 $98.00 $113.00
2 $37.00 $59.00 $81.00 $103.00 $125.00 $147.00 $169.00
3 $51.00 $80.00 $109.00 $138.00 $167.00 $196.00 $225.00
4 $65.00 $101.00 $137.00 $173.00 $209.00 $245.00 $281.00
5 $79.00 $122.00 $165.00 $208.00 $251.00 $294.00 $337.00
6 $93.00 .$143.00 $193.00 $243.00 $293.00 $343.00 $393.00
7 $107.00 $169.00 $221.00 $278.00 $335.00 $392.00 $449.00
8 $121.00 $185.00 $249.00 $313.00 $377.00 $441.00 $505.00
9 $135.00 $206.00 $277.00 $348.00 $419.00 $490.00 $561.00
In addition to the collection rates stated above for waste wheeler containers, there shall be charged a
monthly rental fee for each container.
COMMERCIAL DUMPSTER CONTAINERS(PER MONTH)
Size of COLLECTIONS PER WEEK
container
(cubic yards) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 $50.00 $70.00 $90.00 $109.00 $129.00 $149.00 $169.00
1.5 $56.00 $82.00 $107.00 $133.00 $159.00 $185.00 $210.00
2 $62.00 $93.00 $125.00 $157.00 $188.00 $220.00 $252.00
3 $74.00 $117.00 $161.00 $204.00 $248.00 $291.00 $335.00
4 $85.00 $141.00 $196.00 $251.00 $307.00 $362.00 $418.00
6 $109.00 $188.00 $267.00 $346.00 $425.00 $504.00 $583.00
8 $133.00 $235.00 $338.00 $441.00 $544.00 $646.00 $749.00
The rates shown above include the monthly container rental fee and are the same for bins
and garwoods, when the volume is identical.
Proposed Rate Schedule for Integrated Solid Waste Activities- 1998
Page 3
UNSCHEDULED EXTRA COLLECTIONS FOR
COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS AND
MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DUMPSTER CUSTOMERS
$23.00 1 cubic yard (minimum charge)
$30.00 2 cubic yards
$37.00 3 cubic yards
$44.00 4 cubic yards
SINGLE FAMILY and MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL
VOLUME-BASED RATES
ORANGE BAG RATE
$2.40/month for collection service
$1.80 per special 33-gallon bag-payable when bags are issued.
ECONOMY RATE
$7.90 per month for one 32 gallon wastewheeler container collected once each week
STANDARD RATE
$15.80 per month for one wastewheeler container collected once each week
PREMIUM RATE
$23.70 per month for one wastewheeler container collected once each week
Maximum volume and weight per garbage can: 35 gallons and 80 pounds
PREMIUM PLUS RATE
$7.20 per month for additional 32 gallon wastewheeler container collected once each week
$14.40 per month for additional 64 gallon wastewheeler container collected once each week
$21.60 per month for additional 96 gallon wastewheeler container collected once each week
SERVICE AWAY FROM THE STREET CURB
$5.40 additional per month per can or container
LATE MAKEUP COLLECTIONS WITH GARBAGE TRUCK(phone call required)
$8.00 per trip plus charges identified above for any extra containers or equivalent volume
Additional charge per can per collection: $3.00
2 �r
Proposed.RateSchedule for Integrated Solid Waste Activities- 1998.
Page 4
EXTRA COLLECTIONS WITH PICKUP OR FLATBED TRUCK(phone ca.H required)
$12.00 per trip plus:
$3.00 per garbage can or equivalent volume (amounts over six cans by quotation_)
$3:00 per white good article(once a month)
$3.00 per piece of furniture
$3.00 per mattress or boxspring
(Economy service customers must pay in advance)
city Of Safi LUIS OBISpO Attachment 3
pRoposea 199s Rate schedule
foR commeRcial Recyctmq activities
BASE CHARGE FOR COMMERCIAL RECYCLING
All commercial customers will pay $3.00 per month for commercial recycling services. This
charge includes all services except collection of cardboard in excess of one yard once a week;
collection of white office paper; and collection of polystyrene.
CARDBOARD COLLECTION
COMMERCIAL DUMPSTER CONTAINERS (PER MONTH)
Size of COLLECTIONS PER WEEK
container
(cubic yards) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 Included $17.50 $22.50 $27.25 $32.25 $37.25 $42.25
1.5 $14.00 $20.50 $26.75 $33.25 $39.75 $46.25 $52.50
2 $15.50 $23.25 $31.25 $39.25 $47.00 $55.00 $63.00
3 $18.50 $29.25 $40.25 $51.00 $62.00 $72.75 $83.75
4 $21.25 $35.25 $49.00 $62.75 $76.75 $90.50 $104.50
6 $27.25 $47.00 $66.75 $86.50 $106.25 $126.00 $145.75
8 $33.25 $58.75 $84.50 $110.25 $136.00 $161.50 $187.25
The rates shown above include the monthly container rental fee and are the same for bins
and garwoods, when the volume is identical.
02
Commercial Recycling Rate Schedule
Page 2
WHITE OFFICER PAPER COLLECTION
The charge for collection of each bag of white office paper is$0.85.
POLYSTYRENE
The charge for collection of each bag of polystyrene is$0.85.
� -zy
Attachment 4
Impacts of Commercial Recycling Rates on Selected Customers
. "I yeling Disposal Disposal
Frequency Fee Monthly Fee Annual Monthlv Annual Cost
Cost Cost Cost
Pizza 1 yard $17.50 $210.00 $70.00 $840.00
Restaurant 2z/week
Stereo Store 1.5 yards $26.75 $321.00 $107.00 $19284.00
3z/week
Downtown 2 yards $55.00 $660.00 $220.00 $29640.00
Retail Center 6z/week
Manufactur- 32 bags/ $108.80 $19414.40 $435.20* $59657.60*
ing Office week
City of SLO 102 bags/ $375.70 $49508 $19502.00* $18,030.00*
week
Note: Currently, commercial customers do not pay for the recycling services. The
disposal cost columns indicate what the customers would pay if there was no commercial
recycling program and all material was disposed and billed as part of their refuse service.
* Based on the assumption that the recycling rate is 25% of the refuse rate.
ATfAMEW 5
council °
7oh l3, l 55$
j Agenba nepom
CITY O F SAN LU I S O B I S P O
FROM: John Moss,Utilities Directo / —
Prepared By: Ron Munds,Utilities ConsKwation Coordinator
SUBJECT: Residential Solid Waste Service Levels and the Commercial Recycling
Program
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Consider a report concerning residential solid waste service levels, the commercial recycling
program and provide direction to staff on these issues.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
With the passage of Assembly Bill 939 in 1989 which requires all cities and counties to reduce
the amount of waste going to landfills by 50%,the City's solid waste programs have evolved
significantly to achieve this goal. The result of the City solid waste management efforts has been a
37%reduction in solid waste going to the landfill in 1996. With increased regulation and changing
technology in the field of solid waste collection, processing and disposal, the City must now look
to the future and analyze collection and processing alternatives which will provide cost effective
service and meet the mandated diversion requirements.
In an effort to control residential refuse collection cost,San Luis Garbage Company(SLG)has
instituted automated collection inmost areas of the City. The goals of this collection method are to
reduce a refuse collection route,decrease the number of personnel per truck from two to one and
reduce the risk of injury to the collection crews thereby decreasing worker's compensation claims.
Currently,Orange Bag and Premium Service customers can not be collected by the automated
trucks. Staff is proposing adding a thirty gallon waste wheeler as an option to the Orange Bag and
eliminating the six can Premium service by changing the highest volume of service to a ninety-six
gallon waste wheeler which can be collected by the automated trucks. By approving the expanded
waste wheeler service options,SLG will be able to automate additional customers which will work
toward the goals previously mentioned.
A commercial recycling program was established in 1991. This coincided with the opening of the
Tank Farm Road material processing facility. Currently,the program services about 1,500
commercial establishments and recycles approximately 4,100 tons of material. Though the
program is highly successful,it is labor intensive because of the level of service currently provided.
The key components of the commercial recycling program are the collection of office paper and
cardboard. Four alternatives have been formulated to deal with the cost of the service versus the
level of service provided. Staff has concluded the best solution is to continue with the current
integrated rate policy where rate increases are applied to all customer classifications but work with
Council Agenda Report—Solid Waste Services
Page 2
SLG to analyze collection practices which will reduce cost but not discourage participationby
commercial customers in the recycling program.
DISCUSSION
Backa rotmd
In 1989,the State legislature passed into law Assembly Bill 939 which required all cities and
counties to reduce the amount of waste going to landfills by 50%by the year 2000 or face the
possibility of civil penalties. Though the City has provided curbside recycling since 1977
(contracted with San Luis Garbage Company), the mandatory reduction requirements of AB 939
signified a major change in focus of the City's recycling program and solid waste services.
In order to meet the mandated diversion requirements, during 1990 the City intensified its
recycling efforts by expanding the materials collected and promoting the program to both
residential and commercial customers. Also in 1990, the City shifted to a volume based rate
structure by adding an Orange Bag level of service for low garbage producing customers.
Additional materials were added to the recyclable list in 1995 and in 1996 a green waste
collection program was instituted.
On the policy side, in 1994, the City adopted the Rate Setting Afanual for Integrated Solid Waste
Rates. The manual provides a guide for the City and the franchisee to prepare and approve
adjustments to integrated solid waste management rates. Additionally in that year,the City
adopted the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE), Solid Waste Generation Study,
Household Hazardous Waste Element,Non Disposal Facility Element, Regional Siting Element,
Regional Summary Plan and approved the Joint Powers agreement establishing the Integrated
Waste Management Authority.
The result of the City solid waste management efforts has been a 37% reduction in solid waste
going to the landfill based on the City's 1990 base year calculations as reported to the State.
Furthermore, the San Luis Obispo Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) touts the
City's programs as being the model for other communities in the county to follow to meet the 50%
reduction mandate by the year 2000.
With increased regulation and changing technology in the field of solid waste collection,
processing and disposal, the City must now look to the future and analyze collection and
processing alternatives which will provide cost effective service and meet the mandated
diversion requirements.
The Future of Solid Waste Services
In the near future;staff will be bringing the base year,solid waste rate application from San Luis
Garbage Company(SLG)to the Council for consideration. A base year application projects costs
of sen•ice and operations for three years. The Utilities Department has formed a committee to
a-a7
Council Agenda Report—Solid Waste Services
Page 3
review the rate application. The committee members are:
1. Bill Worrell,Manager of theIWMA
2. Patricia Goldman,County's Auditor's Office
3." Carolyn Dominguez,Accounting Manager
4. John Moss,Utilities Director
5. Sue Baasch,Administrative Analyst
6. Ron Munds,Utilities Conservation Coordinator
Prior to Council examining the rate application,a Council discussion regarding modifications to
residential service levels and the commercial recycling program would be beneficial to ensure the
base year analysis reflects the desired service levels.
Residential Service Levels
As previously mentioned, the City established a volume based rate structure in 1990. Currently
there are three levels of residential service as shown in Table 1:
-z-Service evel:..
:Container Size in Gallons
as omers
Orange Bag 32 gallons/bag 3,600
Standard 64 gallon waste wheeler 5,700
Premium up to 180 gallons(owner supplied 185
cans)
Table 1
In an effort to control refuse collection cost, SLG has instituted automated collection in most areas
of the City. The goals of this collection method are to reduce refuse collection routes,decrease the
number of personnel per truck from two to one and reduce the risk of injury to the collection crews
thereby decreasing worker's compensation claims.As indicated in Table 1, 98% of the City's solid
waste customers either subscribe to the Standard or Orange Bag levels of service. Since Orange
Bag and Premium service customers can not be collected by an automated truck, staff is proposing
adding a thirty-two gallon waste wheeler as an option to the Orange Bag and eliminating the six can
Premium service by changing the highest volume of service to a ninety-six gallon waste wheeler. It
is not proposed to eliminate the Orange Bag service option at this time,but monitor the migration
of customers to the more convenient thirty-two gallon waste wheeler service.
Council Agenda Report—Solid Waste Services
Page 4
Additionally,to increase flexibility for our residential customers to "customize" their service level,
it is suggested that additional waste wheeler rates be established to accommodate varying refuse
disposal needs. For instance,if a customer has a ninety-six gallon waste wheeler and find they need
additional disposal capacity,set a rate that allows them to add a thirty-three,sixty-four or ninety-six
gallon container to their service.
At four community meetings the Utilities Department held in 1996, the public attending expressed
that they were generally satisfied with the solid waste service levels offered and the service
provided by SLG. Those that subscribed to Orange Bag service did say they enjoyed the economy
of this service level but the bags were cumbersome and prone to breaking if filled inc6rrectly or
with too much material. On the collection side, SLG has reported incidents of employee injury due
to sharp objects protruding from the bags and back injury due to excessive weight and the fact that
there is no easy way to lift the bags. Many Orange Bag customers in attendance said they would
consider changing to a waste wheeler service if such service was priced comparable to the amount
paid for placing one bag per week at the curb. Others who place less than one bag per week out for
collection were not so inclined.
By approving the expanded waste wheeler service options,SLG will be able to automate additional
customers which will work toward the goals previously mentioned. Additionally, the proposed
changes will support the City's adopted SRRE which states in Volume 1, Section 3.6.5 that the City
will analyze variable can rates which put the cost burden on the second and third levels of service
and consider adding a"mini-can" rate. All this will ultimately serve to reduce the cost of service.
Table 2 shows the proposed residential service structure:
� r •
Orange Bag 32 gallons/bag
Economy . 32 gallon waste wheeler
Standard 64 gallon waste wheeler
High Volume 96 gallon waste wheeler
Table 2
The intent of the proposed changes are to provide flexibility to our customers but move toward a
more efficient collection system in an effort to control future costs. Currently, it costs an Orange
Bag customer who places one bag at the curb each week $7.20 per month for service. SLG has
proposed that the rate for the thirty-two gallon waste wheeler be set between$8 and$10. If Council
chooses to move in this direction,a final decision on the rate for the proposed levels of service will
be part of the review of the base year rate applicationat a future meeting.
Sugsested Direction: Direct staff to include in the solid waste rate application review the addition
of a thirty-two gallon waste wheeler level of service, eliminate the current Premium service and
direct staff to return with a rate structure for the Orange Bag and 32, 64, 96 gallon waste wheeler
�
OT C?
Council Agenda Report—Solid Waste Services
Page 5
service levels, as well as the additional waste wheeler option as part of the base year rate
application review.
Commercial Recycling
The City required SLG to establish a commercial recycling program in 1991. This coincided with
opening of the Tank Farm Road material processing facility. Currently,the program services about
1,500 commercial establishments and recycles approximately 4,100 tons of materials. Though the
program is considered a very successful component of the overall recycling program and
instrumental in achieving the City's AB 939 goals, it is an expensive program because of the high
level of service currently provided to our customers. The purpose of this section is to review the
current program and determine if there are any changes or adjustments to the program or system of
fees Council would like included in the review of the base year solid waste rate application.
The key components of the commercial recycling program are the collection of office paper and
cardboard both of which are labor intensive under the current system. When SLG began its
commercial recycling program in 1991, the program utilized two people, one commercial
cardboard driver and one white office paper collection person. Currently,SLG has eight full time
employees designated to the commercial recycling program which collects cardboard,office paper,
mixed paper and co-mingled materials such as aluminum and plastics. The staffing increases are
directly related to the increase in service requirements from the commercial sector and the
significant increase in volume of material collected. This increase in material volume collected is
exactly the goal of the program,however there is a down side. The cost to provide this expanding
service has grown while revenues which help offset the cost of collection from the sale of recycled
material has declined.
The following table illustrates variance between the tons processed versus the revenue for the sale
of recyclable materials for the past three years:
Residential Tons
2,443 2,899 3,246
Commercial
Tons 3,110 3,690 4,130
Material Sales j
Revenue $929,252 $524,870 $530,260
Table 3
�-3D
Council Agenda Report—Solid Waste Services
Page 6
While the sales revenue from recycle material have decreased by 43% during this period, the
amount of recycle material that has been collected and processed from both residential and
commercial customers has increased by approximately 25%.
The focus of the following discussion is to examine an inequity between the cost of service versus
the service provided. Businesses which aggressively recycle typically can lower their level of
refuse service and/or frequency of pick-up thereby decreasing their monthly refuse bill. These
same businesses often require more frequent recyclable material collection which comes at no
direct additional cost. Essentially these businesses are creating the same amount of waste but are
able to reduce their cost by shifting the material to the recycling side of the collection equation.
While this scenario is achieving the City's solid waste reductions goals, the effect of this trend is
that commercial refuse collection revenues from rates have not increased as projected.
The following table illustrates the trend in commercial refuse collection rate revenue for the past
three years:
Numberof Commercial 1,524 1,609 1,670
Accounts
Revenue $2,010,757 $1,924,205 $2,100,204
Table 4
Though revenues recovered slightly in 1997,the dollar amount is not keeping pace with expected
income based on the rate increase enacted during that time and the increase in number of customers
to be serviced. The above numbers indicate that while the customer base between 1995 and 1997
increased by approximately 9%,revenues only grew by about 4%.
An example of the discrepancy of service versus cost of collection is a downtown clothing store
which has seven day a week collection of refuse and six day a week collection of cardboard.
Though the store produces an equivalent volume of material as it did before recycling,their
payment for service has been significantly reduced. Additionally,it takes the recycling crew more
time to load the cardboard than the refuse crew to collect the garbage thereby increasing the actual
labor cost.
A similar situation exists in the office paper collection program. Many large office complexes have
been able to significantly reduce their cost of refuse service by recycling office and mixed paper.
The current paper collection practice is to service each individual office whether small or large.
Though this provides a high level of service and encourages participation in the program,it is labor
intensive. As previously stated,both of these programs are assisting in achieving the City's goals
� 31
Council Agenda Report—Solid Waste Services
Page 7
in encouraging recycling but do come with a cost,which is then reflected in the integrated solid
waste rate.
Commercial RecyclingAlternatives
The solid waste rate review committee developed four alternatives to the current system,along with
the advantages and disadvantages of each option,for Council to consider regarding the commercial
recycling program. The alternatives are:
1. No Change: continue with the current integrated rate policy where increases are applied to all
customer classes.
2. Volume based Commercial Recycling Rate: establish a commercial recycling collection
rate based on the volume of material being collected. It was discussed by the committee that
this rate could possibly be set at one half the refuse collection rate in order to continue the
economic incentive to recycle.
3. Recycling Fee: formulate a commercial recycling fee levied on every commercial account.
This could include both a flat fee to address fixed costs of collection plus variable volume
based rate for large producers of recyclable material.
4. Service Cost Reduction: change the commercial recycling services to place more
responsibility on the customer. The customer would be required to place the recyclable
materials in a central collection location or in containers approved by SLG. .
The following is a listing of the advantages and disadvantages for each alternative:
1. .No Change: continue.with the current integrated rate policy where increases are applied to all
customer classes.
Advantages:
• Maintains the current service levels of the City's successful commercial recycling system.
• Simple to implement and understand.
• Avoids rate structure changes that other options may involve.
• Achieves revenue goals.
• Supports community-wide goals of reducing solid waste going to the landfill.
• Extends the rate increase to all customers thus lessening impact to a specific customer class.
Disadvantages:
• Does not address cost of service issues.
• Does not solve the issue of continuing decline in commercial refuse collection revenue.
• Does not separate refuse collection from recycling operations.
�-3�.
Council Agenda Report—Solid Waste Services
Page 8
2. Volume based Recycling Rate: establish a commercial recycling collection rate based on
the volume of material being collected. It was discussed by the committee that this rate could
possibly be one half the refuse collection rate to continue the economic incentive to recycle.
Advantages:
• Addresses cost of service issues.
• Continues to provide an economic incentive to recycle.
Disadvantages:
• May increase competition for lucrative large volume recycling customers thus leading to a
reduction in revenue from those accounts and compounding the current revenue problems.
• Could decrease the .amount of recycling by commercial customers because of perceived
increased cost.
• More complex and potentially more difficult for customers to understand.
3. Recycling Fee: formulate a commercial recycling fee levied on every commercial account.
This could include both a flat fee to address fixed costs of collection plus variable volume
based rate for large producers of recyclable material.
Advantages:
• Simple to understand and implement.
• Reduces the rate impact on residential customers.
• Encourages small recyclable material producers to participate in the program.
Disadvantages:
• Potentially not equitable for all customers thus not addressing cost of service issues.
• Perception that the fee is a tax.
• Possible legal implications.
4. Service Cost Reduction: change the commercial recycling services to place more
responsibility on the customer.
Advantages:
• Potentially help control rate increases by reducing the costs of providing services.
• Shift some costs from the solid waste services provider to the customer .
• Will enable staff and SLG to re-examine how we are currently providing commercial
recycling services.
Council Agenda Report—Solid Waste Services
Page 9
Disadvantages:
• Perception that service levels have decreased.
•. Potential increased cost to the customer to participate in the program because of increased
staff requirements.
• Possibility of decreased participation in the recycling program.
• Uncertainty of affects on costs or participation, would require staff time to evaluate and
develop program changes.
Suggested Direction: Continue with the current integrated rate policy (Alternative 1) and direct
staff to work with SLG to determine if service cost reductions are possible without affecting the
effectiveness of the program(Alternative 4).
CONCURRENCES
The rate review committee concurs with the recommendations made in this report.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the recommendations made in this report. Staff
will return to Council with the base year solid waste rate application in the near future, at which
time Council will consider the impacts to refuse rates of any proposed service changes.
�ay
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN
APRIL 1998
Michael D. McCluskey, Director of Public Works
Prepared by:
Wayne Peterson, City Engineer
Joe McDermott, Streets Supervisor
Public Works Department
City of San Luis Obispo
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Table of Contents
ExECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
INTRODUCTION 4
Pavement Management - The Basics
History of Pavement Management- San Luis Obispo
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT-DESIGN ELEMENTS 6
Pavement is a Valuable Asset
The Design Life of Pavement
How Pavements Age and Are Rated
Pavement Condition-The Public View
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE 9
What is a Pavement Management Software Program?
How Staff Chose the New Software?
How did we install the new system?
How Does MicroPaver Work?
ANALYSIS-HOW DOES THE CITY'S SYSTEM STAND UP? 12
System Description
Street Condition Analysis
Effects of Good Design Standards
Effects of inadequate design standards, i.e. bus route impacts
The Street Sealing Program
Summary of Current Condition
Total Value of Deficiency
Funding levels for Pavement Management
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS 20
Policy Recommendations
Pavement Condition Level
Roadway Design Criteria
Implementation Plan
Program Components
RECOMMENDED PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS 28
Recommended Funding for Global Maintenance
Recommended Funding for Major Maintenance
Recommended Funding for Program Management
Recommended Staffing for Program Management
Funding Summary
FINANCING THE PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN 33
APPENDIX
A Procedures followed to create the 1997 pavement inventory
B 1997-8 Cal-Trans Partnership Paving Program
C Five Year City Wide Work Program- with $1,500,000 major maintenance and
$500,000 global maintenance programs
D Bus Route Impacts to Surface Condition
E Existing Pavement Deficiency
F Condition - Central Business District - $150,000 per year
G Annual Work Plan of integrating all Pavement Management Programs
H Budget to raise overall PCI
I Pavement Maintenance Areas Plan
J One Year Work Program-with $4,000,000 combined major maintenance and
global maintenance
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In July of 1995, the City Council adopted an objective to complete a new Pavement
Management Plan which would replace the previous Plan adopted in 1987. City staff has
diligently pursued completion of this objective and this Plan represents a culmination of
those efforts.
The street system of the City of San Luis Obispo is important: it is the City's single most
valuable asset; it offers an immediate impression to visitors and residents about the
quality of life here in San Luis Obispo. Protecting and enhancing this asset is the
fundamental task of a good pavement management program, and a manifestation of good
City government.
The heart of a program is a computer software program which can analyze the conditions
of various street segments via special algorithms and then makes maintenance
recommendations according to the available budget. The City purchased MicroPaver, a
program originally written by the Army Corps of Engineers to maintain military bases.
This program is made available to the public via the American Public Works Department
and the University of Illinois. It is continually updated and maintained by the Corps and
is in use throughout the United States and worldwide.
Every street in the City was broken into multiple segments for data analysis; field
inspected and input into the program. Analysis shows a current value of the City's street
system at $43 Million with a potential total value of $60 Million. With a deficiency of
nearly $17 Million to correct, the pavement management program question becomes: "Is
it possible to achieve total value, and if not, what is the best strategy to keep the system
from deteriorating further and if possible, to improve the system?"
It is the opinion of this Plan that, given the financial status of cities in California, it is not
possible to fund a program with an objective to achieve 100% of the potential street
system value. Therefore this Plan recommends a comprehensive program which will,
over a period of about ten years, raise the value of the system to approximately 80% of its
potential value. A street system with this value will have a much better appearance,
experience less complaints and provide a smoother ride for the public.
This Plan incorporates many of the elements of the 1987 Plan but takes a more pro-active
role in maintaining the street system - particularly in the Downtown. New techniques for
pavement management have emerged since 1987 and many are still in the research stage.
This Plan encourages the selective use of appropriate new technologies that will make
pavement management even more cost effective and efficient.
Is this Pavement Management Plan perfect? The answer is no. Just as the 1987 Plan was
based on an a just emerging pavement management software program, this Plan assumes
that local road conditions (and therefore maintenance strategies) follow a certain
degradation curve. The actual curve can only be determined with successive road
segment data collected over time and input to software. Design recommendations are
likewise based upon vehicle and truck counts currently available and projected for the
Pavement Management Plan
Page 1
future. Finally, the life extending capabilities of various design and maintenance
strategies are based on nationwide averages.
Due to all these variables, this Plan recommends that a full street system analysis be
prepared as a part of each two year budget preparation. This will serve a two fold
purpose: a) the data input allows the software model to better predict the condition and
therefore needs of the street system; and b) it keeps the Council aware of the importance
of the street system and better helps the Council decide the degree of funding needed.
Total program recommended funding levels are nearly twice those of the current program,
increasing from $1.2 million annually today for sealing and overlay, to $2.3 million to
fully achieve the pavement management objectives recommended in this Plan. This Plan
also includes a recommendation for a new staff position to administer the program,
maintain the software and prepare plans and specifications for the needed maintenance
projects. In effect this creates an "advocate for pavement" on staff much like those that
exist now for sewer, water, parks, etc.
Why does this Plan recommend higher costs than the previous one? A number of issues
all contribute the answer.
• The previous system was designed to fully seal only 80% of the entire roadway
system versus the planned 95% level recommended in this Plan.
• The previous plan had no proactive approach to 5% of the system representing the
Downtown.
• The length of the City's roadway system has increased by 16% since 1987 (about
1.5% per year) and while adjustments were provided for increasing material costs, no
adjustments were made for roadway system increases.
• Estimates of the dollar amount required to "catch up" on major maintenance were
probably low in the 1987 Plan.
• Roads that were only 10 years old then are 20 years old today and thus further
deteriorated and the maintenance strategies are far different, more effective and more
expensive.
• Funding was not consistently provided for the major maintenance identified in the
1987 Plan.
Totaling all factors together creates a geometric funding deficiency rather than a simple
arithmetic function. This Plan will help avoid these problems by providing a clearer,
more quantifiable measure of pavement condition and return the streets to a more
favorable condition found 10 years ago.
Analysis of the current maintenance program and funding levels shows the existing street
system in a gradual decline. A program that just maintains the status quo requires an
annual increase in budget of about$200,000.
The new "Area"program. A major component of this Plan is described as the "area'
program. Citizens often complain that government agencies waste taxpayer dollars by
paving a street one year and then ripping it up the following year with a sewer or water
Pavement Management Plan
Page 2
line project. This Plan proposes that all underground work necessary within the
designated "area" would be completed in one year. The following year would be devoted
to paving projects. And after that, no projects would occur in that area for another six
years unless an emergency arises.
Nationwide, pavement traditionally has received a fairly low priority for funding until
such time as the public really starts to complain. A good pavement management plan
prevents numerous complaints while keeping the public aware that the system is actively
being managed. By adopting and implementing this, the 1998 Pavement Management
Plan, the City of San Luis Obispo can expect a significant improvement to its street
system. It provides a pro-active approach to long range planning, decreasing
neighborhood disruption and maintaining the commercial viability of the Downtown. It
will serve the needs of the community well into the next century.
Pavement Management Plan
Page 3
INTRODUCTION
Pavement Management -The Basics
Pavement management is the process and methodology of controlling the condition of the
traveled roadway surface; preserving its appearance, usefulness, safety and longevity.
Good pavement management accomplishes these goals in an effective and efficient
manner. A comprehensive pavement management program includes three major
elements: a) on-going or Global Maintenance; b) rehabilitation or Major Maintenance;
and c) inspection, monitoring, data input or Program Administration. Without one of the
three elements pavement management can survive, but at the cost of effectiveness and
efficiency.
Global maintenance is intended: to extend the life of roadways which exist in a good
condition, and to maintain all other streets in a safe and operational condition until such
time as major maintenance can take place. This form of maintenance includes street
sweeping, crack sealing, and surface sealing. The City has conducted, for a number of
years, a successful surface sealing program including chip seals, cape seals and micro-
surfacing.
Major maintenance involves an engineered design to rehabilitate a given roadway
segment and, in essence, return it to the condition of a brand new surface. Roadway
overlays and reconstruction are examples of this type of maintenance.
Program administration requires a significant effort because the street system is most
often a city's most valuable asset. The software to evaluate and make recommendations
is complicated; the data necessary is extensive; and knowledge of pavement design and
experience in the field is necessary to make effective and efficient decisions.
History of Pavement Management in the City
Prior to 1987, the Public Works Department managed the City's pavement by conducting
an annual field review. The review was conducted by the Department Head and the
Street Superintendent. The review was conducted over a two to four week period by
driving each of the city's streets, and recording the needs of the pavement on a map. The
result was an annual .work program, constrained by the budget, to correct observed
deficiencies by improving the pavement by overlay or reconstruction and to extend
existing pavement life by application of a chip seal.
In 1987, the City adopted a Pavement Management Plan that used a proprietary software
program to rate street conditions and recommend maintenance. This system was installed
and managed by staff at the Corporation Yard. The program identified a large city-wide
deficiency in street conditions. As a result, the City Council approved additional funding
for a major maintenance program which was projected to cure the deficiency within a ten
year period. Additionally, a global maintenance program was approved with a goal to
extend the life expectancy of the existing city street system.
In 1993, the City experienced a budget shortfall and addressed the shortage of funds by a
combination of staffing reductions and cutting back on programs. At the time, three
Pavement Management Plan
Page 4
different positions at the Corporation Yard were responsible for the operation and
maintenance of the Pavement Maintenance program. Two of the positions were
eliminated, and the person in the third position retired and his position was not filled. In
addition funds for major maintenance were reduced. Thus due to significant problems at
the time, two of the key areas for a pavement management program - major maintenance
and program administration - were negatively affected and streets scheduled for major
maintenance were delayed.
In 1995, the condition of Marsh Street was determined to be extraordinarily deteriorating.
With the opening of significant improvements in the downtown, the Council directed the
expenditure of over a year's worth of major maintenance funding be used to provide
significant improvements to Marsh Street, including beautification and drainage
improvements. Other streets scheduled for this type of maintenance were further delayed.
During the City Council budget deliberations in the spring of 1995, staff proposed and the
Council concurred with the need for a new pavement management system. However, the
Council rejected the request to hire a consultant to prepare the pavement management
plan and directed that the plan be prepared using only staff resources. The plan was to be
prepared within the existing workload and a budget of$15,000 was allocated. Because of
multiple other projects and Council goals, staff preparation of this comprehensive report
took longer than originally anticipated. This report is the conclusion of much staff time
and effort.
Pavement Management Pian
Page 5
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT - DESIGN ELEMENTS
Pavement is a Valuable Asset
The surfaced or paved area within the city is both a large and valuable asset.
Approximately 1/8`h of the surface area within the city limits is currently covered with
street pavement, not including the area paved and used for parkways, sidewalks, parking
lots or private streets and driveways. The replacement value of just this public street
pavement is approximately $60 million dollars. Managing the City's largest asset in an
effective and efficient manner is incumbent upon staff, and expected by the City's
citizens.
Due to the significant asset value, an effective management program must contain key
policies adopted by the local elected officials. It is important that all policy makers have
a basic understanding of pavement design and its aging process before giving direction to
implement a pavement management plan.
The Design Life of Pavement
The design life of pavement is a policy area that directly affects initial construction cost,
and secondarily affects on-going maintenance costs. In theory, the design life is time
from initial construction until it is time to remove and reconstruct the roadway section
again. The standard pavement design life in the United States is 20 years. However,
different design periods are possible as a standard design life in Europe is 50 years. The
European view is more costly initially but requires significantly less maintenance over the
life of the pavement.
Extended life expectancy can be obtained by either designing pavement with different
parameters or by using different materials. In an effort to learn from the Europeans, the
United States sent experts to study their designs with the goal of returning with new
knowledge on how to build better and longer lasting roads. The result of that research
effort is a new pavement design called Superpave. Many states have adopted it while
others, including California, are still analyzing the design parameters and doing testing.
Another example of roads with long design lives can be found here in San Luis Obispo in
the existing network of concrete streets. While they may have ride or appearance
problems, they are still structurally sound and viable streets.
Because the pavement has been designed for a 20 year life, and because there would
never be enough funds to totally replace the entire street network every 20 years,
pavement management programs have been developed with an emphasis on design life
extension. Thus a key policy and accompanying component of a pavement management
plan is a strategy on how best to achieve extension of pavement life.
How Pavements Age and Are Rated
Most pavements placed today are asphalt. Asphalt is a combination of small rock, sand
and asphaltic emulsions which act as a binder for the other material. All asphalt roads are
considered a flexible design; meaning that the road will flex under loading but rebound to
its original shape after the load has passed. It is the asphalt binder that provides the
flexibility. However, asphalt is subject to oxidation by sun light and as such loses its
Pavement Management Plan
Page 6
ability to bind the structural parts of the pavement and yet remain flexible. If not repaired
or maintained, the pavement becomes rigid and is no longer able to sustain the loads.
The pavement cracks and breaks and then must be removed and replaced.
The asphaltic emulsions also provide a watertight seal at the surface of the pavement.
This keeps water from penetrating through the pavement to the soil which supports it.
Dry soil has the strength to support a flexible pavement while wet soil does not; leading
again to structural failure. Thus it is important that a good surface seal be maintained to
keep water intrusion to a minimum.
All pavements age in a non-linear way. If all things are equal, the condition of a new
pavement remains in an excellent condition for several years while oxidation slowly takes
place. Then, gradually, the condition begins to deteriorate as either the soil looses
strength or the pavement becomes rigid. At some point, the rate of deterioration plunges
steeply. This leads to a street in poor condition and rapidly increasing maintenance costs.
Finally, the condition of the road stabilizes in a very poor condition.
Pavements in varying states of repair and ride were evaluated and a standard methodology
of measurement, the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) was established to provide a
basis for comparison and recommendation of maintenance strategies. A high PCI is a
road in good to excellent condition, while a low PCI is a road in poor condition.
The figure below shows a typical degradation curve for an asphalt roadway over a period
of time. The goal of a good pavement management program is to maintain an average
PCI of the street system as high as possible.
go
PCI
0
5 10 15 20
TIME
Typical Street Degradation Curve
Obviously, a key question that must be asked is: "At what point is it no longer
economical to try to maintain or extend the pavement life?" The point where the
pavement condition begins to rapidly deteriorate is called the critical point or pci and the
most common critical PCI is 50. Pavement management programs recommend
maintenance strategies that extend pavement life for streets above the critical point. For
those below the critical point, strategies are recommended which keep the streets in a safe
condition until such time as the road can be reconstructed. Figure 1 shows the critical
point in relation to the degradation curve and time.
Pavement Management Plan
Page 7
Good pavement management means the cost to maintain the pavement in a good or
excellent condition is relatively low, as long as the work is done before the condition
begins rapid deterioration. Once the pavement has begun to deteriorate rapidly the cost to
restore the pavement to excellent condition increases rapidly to the point where it may not
make economic sense to spend money doing routine maintenance. Most experts in
pavement management recommend that priority be placed on spending money to keep
streets maintained above the critical point.
If the condition of the pavement is above the critical point, global maintenance should be
performed frequently enough to keep it there. As pavements fall further towards the
critical point, forms of major maintenance such as overlays and spot repairs are
appropriate forms of maintenance to extend pavement life. Pavements that fall slightly
below the critical point can sometimes be restored with a combination of overlay and
reconstruction but when pavement falls further, complete reconstruction is necessary.
Reconstruction is the most costly solution to pavement problems.
The decision to allow a deteriorated pavement to remain must be made considering
potential risks. It may be rough, but it cannot have structural problems such that vehicles
using it are placed in an unsafe condition. Factors that must be considered include the
number of vehicles per day, the type of vehicles (emergency, trucks, motorcycles and
bikes, etc.). These factors tend to favor programs which place priority on maintenance,
including reconstruction, on arterial and collector roads. Finally, all pavement
management programs need an element that assures that the needs of pedestrians crossing
the street are met, regardless of the condition of the street.
Pavement Condition - The Public View
Some streets in the community will need to be maintained for more than just
transportation purposes. They serve to provide identity. An example of this was the
decision to spend significant resources on the rehabilitation of Marsh Street in the
downtown. Visitors entering the community receive their first impressions as they
observe the condition of the streets. Pavement condition is also a statement of the
governing body's performance. A well maintained, attractive street system is an indicator
of good government.
The public only intuitively knows the PCI of the City's street system. They know and
appreciate smooth streets and a fast response to a service request (such as a pothole
repair). Citizens take pride in well maintained streets and recognize that streets that
provide access to the community for our residents and visitors and streets in the principal
business areas have different needs. These streets should be maintained to a higher
standard and may have differing design standards such as decorative stamped concrete,
pavers, colored materials etc. Policies which recognize these differing standards of
expectations should be part of a good pavement management program.
Pavement Management Plan
Page 8
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE
What is a Pavement Management Software Program?
Pavement management programs can consist of basic maintenance operations directed
from a very simple file card system to a highly complex combination of maintenance
strategies tied to computerized databases. The heart of most modern programs is a
software program that contains the streets database and, on the basis of input inspection
data, makes recommendations of various maintenance strategies.
The primary purpose of the software is to provide the pavement manager a reliable basis
for making economical decisions, resulting in the best pavement the budget will allow.
Typically the database will provide information,about the kind, quantity and quality of the
pavement. The system of paved areas is broken into various sized segments that are
unique in character. The pavement type, history, and condition is recorded. The
information is used to identify needed maintenance. If money is not a limiting factor, the
project strategy is not difficult. Since budgets are a reality, the manager must use the
most economical alternative maintenance strategy in order to extend the pavement life
and maintain the surface at an acceptable condition.
The software is designed to identify a work plan that will optimize expenditures. It does
this by providing a consistent method of pavement evaluation and comparing the results
with time. Any performed maintenance effort on the pavement is input. Periodically
pavements are re-inspected to document the rate at which it ages. Some systems include
a method of forecasting the rate of expected deterioration based upon the history of
similar pavements in the system. The system tells the engineer whether the overall
system is getting better, poorer or staying the same. A well managed system will tell the
pavements' owner, the City, whether more or less funding should be allocated for
maintenance and will tell the engineer the effectiveness of the maintenance systems being
used.
One feature that many newer software programs have is GIS interaction. This allows the
manager to see the data in a geographical relationship. It helps in developing a plan of
operation in order to perform a more logical maintenance program.
The implementation of a sophisticated software program is a large project. Every street
in the system must be investigated to identify the history of the current surface.
Following this, the street must be inspected using a systematic approach to make the
results meaningful. Lastly, a good record must be made of the history and inspection.
With all of the data gathered, the final and relatively important activity is an evaluation of
the report and the development of a work plan and related budget. This process involves
a series of trial runs to find what alternative work plans will result in the most
improvement to the system within the budget allowed. Initially, the fust evaluations are
made for the purpose of identifying the amount of the deficiency and are the beginning
point for evaluation and eventual recommendation.
Pavement Management Plan
Page 9
How Staff Chose the New Software
Prior to beginning this project, staff met and discussed goals for a management system.
Desirable features were discussed and agreed upon. The system had to be simple, result
in consistent inspection results, be supported by a credible organization and relatively
easy to use. It needed to work on the City's chosen computer hardware both now and in
the future, and provide flexible reports indicating pavement conditions. It had to produce
budget-planning documents that allowed the use of materials we now use and ones we
may like to consider for use in the future. Annual updates must be easily made and Cal
Poly students should be easily trained to inspect and input the data. Last of all the
program costs and costs to inspect and install the data needed to fit within the budget
established by the Council. Staff reviewed comparison reports prepared for the Federal
Highway Administrations LTAP program.
Staff attended programs put on by the Institute of Transportation Studies at Berkeley and
examined samples of many of the better programs. Based on all information gathered,
staff made the decision to purchase MicroPaver. This program has been under continual
development by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers since the 1970's and is supported by
the University of Illinois and the American Public Works Association. The program was
originally developed to assist the military in the maintenance of its bases. It will continue
to be updated and supported, as the government has a strong desire to maintain the
program since it has proven to be an effective tool for maintenance of military bases and
commercial airports. Nations around the world have also adopted it for use in their
countries. The program is designed to run on desktop computers under Windows NT or
95. It is also designed to link directly with ARCVIEW, the City's chosen GIS software.
In addition, it has a very simple inspection system that is easy to use and results in
consistent evaluations. Also modules are currently being designed to assist maintenance
programming in other areas including storm drains, sidewalks and buildings.
How did we install the new system?
Once MicroPaver was ordered, two staff members spent a week at the University of
Illinois leaming how to operate it. Upon returning to San Luis Obispo, staff began the
process of installing the software and the database. The first project was to identify the
current pavement inventory and its condition. To do this, the entire inventory used in the
prior system was reviewed and checked against historical plans. Next, the pavement
areas were mapped utilizing AutoCad and the City's base map system. This provided an
accurate plotting of the location and area of each segment of pavement. The segment
areas were further divided on the AutoCad maps to create sample areas for inspection.
Crews of student interns were trained in defect identification and measurement following
procedures established by the Corps of Engineers. The interns inspected the sample areas
identified on the drawings. It is important that the sample area be well defined, because
the real power of the program results when the same sample area is reviewed over time
and the rate of aging and deterioration of the pavement is established.
Pavement Management Plan
Page 10
After the pavements were inspected, the resulting data was entered into the computer and
a pavement condition index, PCI, was established for each segment of roadway. The PCI
is a very important index in pavement management: the higher the PCI, the better the
pavement's condition and less funding is necessary for.rehabilitation; the lower the PCI,
the worse the ride, the condition, the public approval etc., and significantly more funding
is necessary for rehabilitation.
How Does MicroPaver Work?
MicroPaver bases its recommendations upon the data input and the Pavement Condition
Index or PCI. The PCI is a number ranging from 0-100. A perfect street would have a
rating of 100. A PCI is calculated from inspection information and is assigned to each
street segment. The street segments are assigned to a family of streets having similar
characteristics. i.e. they were built of similar material, concrete or asphalt. The PCI for
each street segment was then plotted against pavement age on a chart for each family.
The program uses the data to define the degradation curve for each family of pavement.
This curve projects the condition of each pavement in future years. It can also be used to
estimate the current condition of similar pavement that was not inspected.
Based upon the PCI and the available budget, MicroPaver assigns work on a priority basis
as follows:
1. Global Maintenance - Stop Gap Work. This work, which would be performed by
City Crews, is assigned to those streets below the critical point in order to make the
streets safe for vehicular traffic and includes repair of potholes, and grind and pave
operations.
2. Global Maintenance - Preventative Maintenance. Streets, above the critical point, are
next identified which will benefit from a maintenance program to extend street life.
This is generally done via a street sealing program and is usually performed under
contract.
3. Major Maintenance - Structural Repair. Resources are next allocated for roads above
the critical point but with areas of structural failure. Repairs performed extend
roadway life and make the road eligible for the more cost beneficial form of global
maintenance.
4. Major Maintenance - Overlays and Reconstruction. All remaining resources are
directed to those streets in the worst condition. Once this work has taken place the
PCI is essentially 100 and the street is eligible for ongoing preventative maintenance.
MicroPaver places emphasis on preserving and extending pavement life. It only
recommends work that is cost-effective - even for streets in the worst condition. It works
on the premise that once a street deteriorates to a low point the cost of rehabilitation does
not increase with time.
Pavement Management Plan
Page 1 I
ANALYSIS OF THE CITY'S STREET SYSTEM
System Description
The City has 187 KM (116 miles) of streets. As previously mentioned, the paved area of
City surface is over 1/8`h of the City's total incorporated area. The streets have been built
over a period of many years, and the materials used for pavement is a variety of concrete
and/or asphalt over the native ground or imported base material. Streets are commonly
classified by the surface material or wearing surface. The existing street surfaces are
classified as shown in the following chart.
Street Surface Material
Original Asphalt Pavement AC
Overlaid Asphalt Pavement AAC
Concrete Pavement PCC
Concrete Pavement overlaid with Asphalt APC
Oiled or gravel street GR
Streets are also classified by use. While the City's Circulation Element has a number of
classifications, for the purposes of pavement management, streets will be classified as
Central Business District, Arterial, Collector, or Local.
The following table describes the existing street system by both street classification and
pavement type.
Percent of total
Street Rank Pavement Area
Central Business District 5%
Arterial 23%
Collector 14%
Local 58%
Pavement Type t
Asphalt Pavement 45%
Overlaid Asphalt Pavement 42%
Concrete Pavement 1%
Concrete Pavement overlaid with Asphalt 9%
Un-paved streets represent 3%of all streets
Pavement Management Plan
Page 12
Total replacement value of the pavement alone is estimated to be $60 million. The value
of the street system curbs, gutters, sidewalks, drainage systems, street trees, street lights,
traffic signs and controls should be added to this figure to obtain a true overall street
system valuation.
Street Condition Analysis
The existing city street Condition Distribution Graph (0/o Area): 1997
pavement system was so
inspected and the data 2520
input into N icroPaver. Percent 15
A total of 187 centerline Area 10
kilometers of pavement 5
F
were inspected. The 0
Failed %Poor %Good %Excellent
current condition can be %Very Poor %Fair %Very Good
seen on the bar chart. Condition
Over 70% of the area of
pavement inspected was
good or better. Unfortunately some of the pavement was of lesser quality.
Pavement Condition Onve This graph shows how the pavement
Beginning 1987 and Projected to 2001 has been aging over the past 10
years and where it might be in five
January 1998 years. Using current data and
,m projecting back to 1987,
— MicroPaver indicates that a PCI of
so 80 was most likely the City average
60 at that time. The graph shows that
oO O11 40 the City has not sufficiently funded
its road surface maintenance
20ot� program to stop the system from
JU isai,rW iaffl Jtd 1991 Jd 1993 Ad is$M 1997 Ad ire Jd anoi
further deterioration. A decision
will be necessary to either provide
Yews more funding or adopt a policy
acknowledging a lesser street system if the City continues to follow the current
maintenance program.
Pavement Management Plan
Page 13
This bar chart shows how the O anditkm mon Graph ro/OAreW' 20131
pavement will appear in 10 40
years, if no further 30
maintenance is done. As Percent
seen, the only 50%of the area Arm 20
remains in the good and very 10
good categories. 01�[:Iwuo�
%Fbiled %P" %Cmd %DmeIlart
%VeyPbx %FWr %Ve ca)d
Cbrdtian
The charts below show the current average PCI for various pavement types in San Luis
Obispo and the percentage of total street area of each material.
Pavement Type Ave. PCI Ave. Age % Area
Asphalt (AC) 80 22 45
Overlaid Asphalt(AAC) 67 18 42
Overlaid Concrete(APC) 47 22 9
Concrete(PCC) 33 63 1
Street Classification Ave. PCI Ave. Age % Area
All Streets -- Average 70 20 100
Downtown 48 23 5
Arterial 59 17 23
Collector 63 19 14
Local 77 22 58
The concrete streets in the city are old. They are either in the downtown area and its
environs or are former state highways. . Many were overlaid with asphalt around 1970.
These streets have an average PCI rating of 47. The overlaid streets are now only in
slightly better condition than those streets which were not overlaid. Downtown streets
Pavement Management Plan
Page 14
rate just below the critical PCI level, primarily due to the fact that Marsh Street was
recently overlaid and has a much higher rating which helps to raise the overall average.
The local streets are in the best average condition. One reason for this high rating is that
these streets are among the newest. Recently constructed streets, those built since the
70's, were built to an adopted city standard based on engineering design standards. Older
streets were also built to a standard but not as high a standard as that used today.
One of the key indicators of the adequacy of the pavement maintenance budget is an
estimate of what it would cost to address all of the deficiencies found during the
inspection. The current deficiency at this time is $16.6 million or about 28% of its total
value. If the entire deficiency was addressed in the first year of a maintenance program (a
big undertaking!), the ongoing expenditure needed for global maintenance to maintain the
street system in excellent condition would be $500,000 per year.
Effects of Good Design Standards
As discussed above, newer
streets designed and built to
engineered standards have Asphalt Pavement Constructed in
proven to last longer. This Last 20 Years
graph shows the relationship of
pavement age to pavement 100 _ _ • - e ■
condition for asphalt pavement v 50 -- ® ' =
constructed during the past 20 a - e _
plus years. This pavement was 0
designed to current standards 0 5 10 15 20
and much of it was maintained Years
with the various seal programs.
The obvious thing to note is that the pavement average condition is good. The
exceptions, which fall well below the critical point, are generally paveouts along major
streets that also serve as bus routes.
Effects of inadequate design standards i.e. bus route impacts
Bus routes impact pavement life. The information on bus routes is illuminating, and until
this study was conducted, the effects of buses were only known subjectively. When
looked at separately, the streets that are used for bus routes have a 20 year rating of 45.
Those that are not used for bus routes have a 20 year rating of 61.
Pavement Management Plan
Page 15
The two charts below show the difference in the aging of streets on and off the bus routes.
From looking at these charts, it is evident that bus traffic does result in pavement wearing
out faster.
Pavement Aging on Arterial and Paw=Agltlg rnBts Rohe
Collector Streets that ate rtot Bus Sites
Routes
10D
loo �`�_
Pa 40 � %
0 10 ao 3D 40 so M 40 60 M 100
Years Yeah
The Street Sealing Program
Observation of the charts to the right shows the Streets Not Sealed
condition of various pavements sealed over the in lmt 8 yeam PQM
last eight years and those that have not. The
sealing program was established as a part of the
1987 pavement management plan and its
success is evident by comparing the two charts. �.
The original goal was to seal 80% of the entire ^m 6
street surface area within a ten year period (or s ■
8%/year), choosing very large areas within the °RFak, RP� %r�w Rte.
City to yearly receive the seal coat maintenance. %VMP Q %Fa` R°%G"d
cmmm
The plan assumed that 2% of the streets would
be overlaid or reconstructed each year and therefore not require sealing.
For the first five years, the City performed a"chip seal' project on selected streets. In the
last three years, the City has employed the use of Condition of Streets Sealed in
a "cape seal' for one and "Micro-Surface seals" last 8 years. Ave PCI=67
for the latest two. Several construction problems,
risk management issues and public frustration 30
issues were eliminated with the Micro Surface u
w
seal. Am ,s
io
While the current program (FY 97-99) is funded s
to seal 8% of the street per year, the average °%Fa,ed P= %Exa„m
actually accomplished over the last nine years has %VcyPwr %Fmr %.veyG d
co,mdo,
been 7.2% of the street area. The program has
fallen short of its ten year goal for two reasons: a) the total street system has grown in the
Pavement Management Plan
Page 16
last nine years and this growth has not been factored into the program; and b) the original
goal should have been 12% per year because the effective "life" of a seal coat is eight
years.
Summary of Current Condition
Total Value of Deficiency. In summary, the VLOMOM
analysis from MicroPaver shows that the S16=000
pavement system is still in good condition but $14,O o=
that it is and has been deteriorating. X0° OM
Continuing on the present course will lead to V$ t00m00D
the need for expensive repairs in the future. m M=CCO
s�.0000ro
The 1987 plan showed the need for $2.5 $4CMCM
million ($3.2 million in 1997 dollars) in 3Z=®
rehabilitation. The current plan shows the $0
need for $16.6 million. However, these two 97 86 e4 ® n " 70
numbers cannot be directly compared because ftMffltQrMMhWM
the 1987 plan was intended to return the pavement condition to 1980-81 levels; an
unknown PCI level. (As mentioned earlier, MicroPaver projected a 1987 PCI level of 80
but there are too many variables to likewise project a 1980 PCI level.) The number
generated by the current plan, in essence, returns all streets to as near a PCI of 100 as is
practical, and then assumes that only ongoing global maintenance would be necessary.
The accompanying chart describes the deficiency level against desired PCI level. The
higher the desired level of PCI, the greater the deficiency and the greater funding
necessary to achieve that desire. For example, an expenditure of$4 million dollars today
would raise the overall condition of the pavement to 80.
Funding levels for Pavement Management
As previously discussed, past funding levels have not been sufficient to stop a slow
overall degradation of the City's street system. Various funding levels were analyzed for
their effect on street system quality.
The following three charts model the relationship between overall pavement value and
age. Value is used rather than PCI because, like a junk car, the value may go to zero but
the roadway (or car) is still barely usable. The charts assume that the pavement will
depreciate to little or no value over 20 years following a straight line. The initial value
was determined by MicroPaver to be approximately $60 million. At the point where the
model shows a depreciation of $16 million (our current condition) an application of a
global maintenance and a capital improvement effort is applied (i.e. the beginning of a
new pavement management program). Applying an increased global maintenance effort
does not improve the value of the system but does stop system depreciation. Capital
improvement (i.e. major maintenance) is required to add value to the overall system. All
funding levels analyzed are based on a program of street sealing (global maintenance) and
overlay/reconstruction (major maintenance).
Pavement Management Plan
Page 17
Figure No. 1 shows that a funding level of $1.3 Million (an increase of $200,000 over
current program) is necessary to stop further degradation. This, in essence, would
maintain the current level of citizen complaints and public perception of the City's road
system condition. Funding level: $500,000 sealing and$800,000 overlay/reconstruction.
$60,000,000
$50,000,000
$40,000,000
$30,000,000 r
$20,000,000
$10,000,000
$0
r a) Ln n M CO LO n rn r
T T T T T N
Years
Straight Line depreciation at 0/65 Value without Capital Expenditures
Current Value with Capital Expenditures
Figure 1
$1.3 Million Program
Figure No. 2 shows that a program with $1.5 Million (an increase of about $400,000) will
very slowly rehabilitate the system with a major improvement in overall conditions far
into the future. Funding level: $500,000 sealing and $1,000,000 overlay/reconstruction.
$60,000,000
$50,000,000
$40,000,000
$30,000,000
$20,000,000
$10,000,000
$0
co Un N rn CO in n M r
T T T r T N
Years
—Straight Line depreciation at%5 Value without Capital Expenditures
—Current Value with Capital Expenditures
Figure 2
$1.5 Million Program
Pavement Management Plan
Page 18
Figure No. 3, with a funding level of $2 Million (an increase of about $900,000 over
current program), shows a fairly significant improvement in overall quality of the City's
system within a relatively short period of ten years and is the basis for recommendations
made in the following section. However, even with this level of funding, the overall
value of the street system will only rise to 80% of its total potential value (approximately
equivalent to a PCI of 80). It is unrealistic, given current funding levels for cities in the
State of California, to propose pavement management programs which will achieve full
potential value. A good pavement management program, recognizes realities and sets a
policy for attaining a reasonable street system that will reduce the number of citizen
complaints and increase the perception that the City has and maintains a good and smooth
street system. Funding level: $458,000 sealing and $1,500,000 overlay/reconstruction.
$60,000,000
$50,000,000
$40,000,000
$30,000,000 """""
$20,000,000
$10,000,000
$0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Years
Straight Line depreciation at°/u5
,,"='Value without Capital Expenditures
Current Value with Capital Expenditures
Figure 3
$2.0 Million Program
Pavement Management Plan
Page 19
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS
This Plan recommends an enlarged street sealing program, significant additional funding
major maintenance, and a new program focusing on maintenance in the downtown in
addition to enhancing other existing maintenance programs such as crack sealing and
concrete repair. In order to assure successful implementation, a new staff position to
provide the necessary engineering and project management is also recommended.
What happens in ten years if we pursue the recommended program and expend $2.3
million per year on pavement maintenance? Given all constraints remain constant, the
City's overall PCI will rise to 80 from 70. However, constraints do not always remain
constant and as such this Plan requires a City Council biannual reevaluation. If that
evaluation finds that the pavement condition is meeting expectations and predicts a lessor
level of needed expenditures the budget could be reduced. Considering all of the
variables involved with pavement aging and emerging pavement maintenance
technologies there is no assurance that the recommended program levels of funding will
remain constant and is in fact the best reason to perform the periodic review
recommended in this Plan. Following are recommended Policies, and where appropriate,
associated Programs to allow implementation.
Policy Recommendations
Pavement Condition Level
Policy 1.1 Achieve and maintain a PCI of 80 for all City streets.
Currently all streets have an average PCI of 70. The public, staff and the Council
feel this level to be unacceptable. Staff reviewed PCI levels of 80, 90 and 100.
Staff chose a PCI level of 80 due to budget considerations, and the fact that newer
asphalt streets have an average of 80. Examples of streets with a PCI=80 include:
Tank Farm Road from Poinsettia to the Railroad, Grand Avenue from McCollum
to CalPoly, and Chorro Street from Palm to Monterey. This level of service will
be better than the current, but there will still be streets in poor condition. There
will be fewer complaints from citizens and likewise fewer streets below the
critical point than there are today.
Policy 1.2 Review and re-evaluate PCI level every ten years.
It takes time to make significant changes in pavement condition. The changes
proposed in this document are intended to gradually raise the overall PCI level
over a period of 8 - 10 years. It is important that this program be reviewed by the
policy body for its success, and to determine if it is time to set a higher standard.
The higher PCI could be achieved much quicker; for example with a one year
expenditure of $4 million the overall PCI could be raised by 10 points to an
overall average of 80. The type of expenditure: major maintenance versus global
maintenance can be seen in Appendix H. With this level of capital funding an
ongoing maintenance level of approximately $1.3 million is required to maintain
that PCI level.
Pavement Management Plan
Page 20
Roadway Design Criteria
Policy 2.1 Set roadway design life expectancy at 20 years for all streets, other than
new local streets in subdivisions which should be designed for 50 years.
The design of major underground infrastructure (sewer, water and storm drain)
assumes a 50 year life. Therefore, it is likely that a pavement designed for 50
years could provide good service life. The predominant cause of early structural
failure is trench cuts for utilities. In older streets, with older infrastructure
systems, many street cuts are necessary in order to provide reliable utility service.
In these areas, maintaining a design life of 20 years is appropriate. Requiring
subdivisions to design streets for a 50 year.life would have an effect on the cost of
housing. While the cost of the pavement would increase about 25%, the overall
cost of the subdivision infrastructure improvements would increase by about 4%.
The exact impact on housing costs probably would not be noticed.
Policy 2.2 Set the Traffic Index (TI) at 8.5 for arterial and collector streets; at 7 for
bus routes on local streets; 6.5 for local streets with a life expectancy of 50 years; and 5.5
for all remaining local streets.
The design of pavement is based on a TI. This number is based on the expected
number of heavy vehicles to travel the street in the design life. Due to the damage
caused by buses, staff recommends a TI=8.5 for areas of arterials and collectors
and TI=7 for areas of local streets used by buses. Pavement inspections, as well as
the graphs of bus impacts, have documented that the current design standard is not
adequate to withstand the extra loads created by bus traffic. Without bus traffic, a
review of what this number should be indicates that a TI=8 should be used for
arterial and collector streets. However, since bus routes are always subject to
change, and arterials and collectors are the primary streets used by buses, it is fair
to assume that eventually the street may be used by the bus system and a little
extra design effort will pay off in the future.
Local streets are also affected by bus traffic, but the need to design every street for
that need is unrealistic. Therefore a TI=5.5 is recommended for local streets. All
referenced values are based on a life of 20 years. For local streets designed for a
50 year life, the TI will be increased to TI=6.5. This will yield a 150% increase in
useful life with only a construction cost increase of 25%.
Policy 2.2 Soil Strength (R ) will be assumed to be 5 unless documented otherwise.
Soil strength is measured in the lab and a number( the R value) that represents the
soil strength is established. In San Luis Obispo, where poor soils are common,
this number can be as low as 5 ( the lowest possible). Staff recommends that all
pavement be designed based on an assumed value of 5. The roadway designer
may have soil samples tested for actual value and the measured R value may then
be used in the calculation of the pavement design.
Pavement Management Plan
Page 21
Policy 2.3 Encourage the use of new technologies and materials in pavement design
Most likely pavement materials will continue to be asphalt. However, there are
many new designs of asphalt mixes being developed with the goal to reduce cost
and increase life. "Superpave" and other similar alternatives should be examined.
In addition the cost and benefit of concrete pavement should be monitored,
particularly where longer life is desired. Various methods of preparing the subsoil
and ways of placing the pavement are being explored, and the staff should be
encouraged to investigate and recommend new systems where they are cost
effective.
Implementation Plan
Policy 3.1 Provide a comprehensive street maintenance program that is least
disruptive to business, residents and industry
Program 3.1.1 Divide the City (except the Downtown) into eight
designated "areas"; each of which will receive all City maintenance efforts no
more than two years within an eight year period.
The city will be divided into eight areas (see Appendix I), following the pattern of
the past eight years of surface sealing. Maintenance of all facilities in the area
will be coordinated and carried out within a one or two year time period. This
Plan will involve utility agencies and the City's Utilities and Public Works
Departments. The goal of this program will be to identify and provide complete
maintenance of the area, budget allowing. The process will be programmed in a
two-year budget, with planning in the first 6 months and implementation of each
of the parts over the following 18 months. Utility work and major maintenance of
streets would occur during year one, and global street maintenance (the sealing
program) would occur during year two. During any one-year budget, two
different areas will be in process so that the entire city can be covered in an eight
year time period.
Program 3.1.2 Create a specific action plan for the Downtown area to
assure quality streets and minimal disruption of activities.
The downtown, a ninth specific maintenance area, is a unique area that should
have a regular program of maintenance. A series of small projects may have
much less impact than a few large ones. Projects should be designed and planned
to minimize the time they take. Projects should be scheduled to work in the
downtown during hours which least impact the majority of the businesses and
residents. The timing and planning of all projects needs to be closely coordinated
with the BIA.
The design of projects in the downtown should be open to new concepts and
materials. Pavers, stamped asphalt and/or concrete, and other materials should be
investigated for use in the Downtown. Pavement maintenance should be
coordinated with major projects proposed by utilities and others. The Utilities
Department Infrastructure Plan should be considered as projects are planned.
Pavement Management Plan
Page 22
In order to be least disruptive these projects would be performed by City staff. .
For example one morning the City street paving crew may grind the existing
asphalt off the street in one block.. The following morning the same crew would
return, prepare and seal any cracks and lay .a thin layer of asphalt. The next
morning the crew would adjust manholes and valve box covers and by the end of
the week re-stripe the street. The projects would be designed to be accomplished
in the morning hours, prior to noon. Visitors and adjacent businesses would for
the most part of the day not be impacted. It would be visible but would have
minimal impact on parking and access.
This proposed program is much more pro-active than the "downtown" program
associated with the current pavement management program. The current program
urges restraint in all projects to avoid disrupting business in the Downtown.
Unfortunately, this appears to have been taken too literally: except for the Marsh
Street Reconstruction Project, little has been done in the Downtown as the current
street conditions attest. This program assumes a close relationship with the BIA
for well coordinated, quick, "in and out" projects that will keep the downtown
streets smooth and attractive.
Policy 3.2 Give priority to a) arterial streets; b) collector streets, and finally, c) local
streets in areas scheduled for program implementation.
Program 3.2.1 Identify the streets by classification and schedule
rehabilitation work appropriately.
The City's MicroPaver program will identify streets of higher usage and therefore
those that will benefit the greatest from rehabilitation efforts.
Program Components
Policy 4.1 Create a comprehensive Global Maintenance component which
emphasizes extending pavement life and maintaining a safe riding surface.
Program 4.1.1 Provide every street within the eight major areas a seal
treatment once every eight years
The street sealing program provides the best cost/benefit for increasing pavement
life, and the new micro-surfacing treatment has eliminated past problems with
citizen acceptance. The beneficial life of a good sealing process is eight years,
after which it has little affect on pavement quality. In order to receive maximum
beneficial use of the seal coat, it must be reapplied at the end of its useful life or
every eight years.
This program continues the successful sealing program started in the 1987
pavement management program, which also divided the city into eight
geographical divisions, with a plan to seal the streets in one of these areas each
year. There were two reasons for this policy: one, the City had a goal of sealing
every street every eight years to extend pavement life; and two, it was much more
efficient for both the contractor and City staff to work in one area thus keeping
Pavement Management Plan
Page 23
cost down. The concept has proven to be successful. The contract costs have been
reasonable and the work has been relatively easy to manage.
Although the concept was good, actual implementation (i.e. only returning once
every eight years) has been problematic. The amount of funding was insufficient
to provide the once every eight year cycle; twenty six additional kilometers (16
miles) of streets to be sealed were discovered when all data was returned from
MicroPaver; and staff turnover made program coordination and implementation
difficult. Cross training and consistent use of the software package should
eliminate these problems.
Program 4.1.2 . Implement an effective pothole response program
This is considered a "stop gap" or preventive maintenance procedure. Pothole
repair prevents water intrusion into the supporting soil, and assures that the
roadway surface remains in as safe a condition as possible until such time as the
road can receive major maintenance. Potholes are the result of unique failures of
the pavement resulting in a hole. The life of the pavement is only marginally
extended and the condition of the pavement is only slightly improved. The City
staff will repair "potholes" in normal working situations and on normal working
days within 24 hours of notice.
Program 4.1.3 Implement a Grind and Paveout repair program
This is a process of removing irregularities in the pavement's profile using a
grinding machine. After the surface is smoothed, a thin coat of asphalt is applied
to hide the grind marks, make the surface uniform and provide some small
extension of the pavement's life. This is a life extending process that results in a
good finished pavement appearance. Recent applications have been to address
bicycle and pedestrian safety issues, although larger projects are equally possible
as evidenced by the recent Orcutt Road and Tank Farm Road paving project
performed by City staff.
This process is also appropriate for concrete streets that have been overlaid with
asphalt. The crew grinds off the old asphalt and lays a new layer on the concrete.
This process should be repeated as soon as it becomes apparent that the old
asphalt has begun to de-laminate from the concrete. Seal coating the asphalt
surface may delay this but it will normally be necessary every 20 years. The City
of San Francisco has been following this kind of program and found it successful.
Many pavements display a failure called "alligator pavement" prior to forming
potholes. The name reflects the appearance that is similar to the design of an
alligator's hide. Removing the alligatored pavement, prior to complete failure via
grinding or the more traditional dig-out methods, and replacing the failed asphalt
with new asphalt material is a proactive procedure that will extend the life of the
pavement.
Pavement Management Plan
Page 24
Program 4.1.4 Implement a crack sealing program
Older pavements become brittle and crack and, if not addressed, allow water
through the pavement to the supporting soil. Cracks should be sealed in the fall
prior to rain and prior to any seal program. Cracks to be sealed are those too large
to be sealed by the global sealing program. Ideally, the City should have a
program that inspects and seals cracks every three years. The inspection program
used by MicroPaver is an appropriate tool to use to identify streets needing to be
crack sealed. If streets are inspected every three years, the data can be used to
prepare a work plan to first address those streets that will be sealed in the area of
the seal coat program and then those streets that are outside of that area.
Program 4.1.5 Provide a comprehensive curb and gutter repair and
replacement program.
This continues and expands the current successful program. The edge of City
street pavements are protected by a containment system of concrete curbs and
gutters. Where drainage is concentrated, and must cross the surface of the street,
cross gutters are installed. These features are important to the life of the
pavement. They cant' water away from the pavement and protect the edges from
raveling. They are maintained by City crews and by adjacent property owners.
Well maintained concrete curbs, gutters, and cross gutters will extend the life of
the pavement.
Policy 4.2 Create a comprehensive Major Maintenance component to rehabilitate
poor quality streets to an excellent condition.
Program 4.2.1 Implement engineered design solutions to all streets
possible within the selected area for rehabilitation.
This work will be engineered and inspected by staff or consultants, depending on
overall workload, and will be contracted to the private sector for construction.
Engineered design means a design based upon data collected about the existing
structural section, such that an individual solution is created which most cost
effectively applies to what funding is available. By focusing all work in one
specific area, the City should be able to receive somewhat better contract prices.
This program allocates approximately 2/3`d of funding for major maintenance for
use in the scheduled maintenance area. Major maintenance is much more
expensive than Global Maintenance, because the roadway is in much worse
condition. Upon completion of this effort, the pavement should return to a PCI
level of 100.
Program 4.2.2 Implement engineered design solutions to major arterials,
which are not part of the scheduled area for improvements, if deemed necessary.
This program allocates approximately 1/3`d of funding for major maintenance to
be used to rehabilitate the major arterial streets in the city as long as needed.
These streets are just too important to the well being of the city to be forced to
Pavement Management Plan
Page 25
await treatment for eight years. All design, inspection and contracting features of .
program 4.2.1 apply to this program also.
Policy 4.3 Implement a pavement management administration component to
guarantee the preservation an enhancement of the quality and life of the City's roadway
system.
Program 4.3.1 Inspect the street system annually and input data to
MicroPaver.
Annually the staff will conduct inspections of pavement and provide the Council
with a summary report of the condition. The inspections will be conducted
following MicroPaver procedures, and -the condition report will be made
available through the program. Streets inspected during the annual inspection will
be those streets within the next year's area for maintenance. Also included will be
any downtown, arterial, or collector street that had not been inspected in the last
three year or had received a PCI of less than 60 at its last inspection. Streets
overlaid, reconstructed or newly constructed in the last 6 years would not be
inspected until they were 6 years old.
The Pavement Management Plan shall be linked to the City's GLS. The data file
shall be updated annually, so that others wishing to use it as a part of a GIS
application may do so.
The condition of the pavement shall be reported every two years at the time of the
preparation of the two year budget.
Program 4.3.2 Continually update MicroPaver with data from City staff
global maintenance efforts.
Monthly the staff should update the database to reflect the maintenance work
conducted.
Program 4.3.3 Inspect and update signs and delineation in each scheduled
work area.
The same crews that are responsible for maintaining the pavement must also
maintain the signs and delineation. These features shall be reviewed annually and
appropriately maintained. During the area maintenance program, all signs that do
not meet standards for reflectivity or standard design shall be removed and
replaced. Delineation shall be restored on all streets surfaced. Material for
striping, such as thereto-plastic, shall meet longevity standards. Delineation in the
downtown may need to meet other needs. With the increased vehicle and
pedestrian activity, and more frequent sealing program, painted stripes may be
more economical. Staff should investigate which is the appropriate material.
Program 4.3.4 Prepare and enforce regulations on trench cuts in City
streets to preserve pavement design life.
Trenches in any street have the effect of severely reducing its life expectancy.
Trenches are made in streets to allow the installation of utilities. Water, sewer,
gas, and many wire utilities use underground systems within the street. These
Pavement Management Plan
Page 26
utilities are normally installed at the time of original development of subdivisions
and street extensions.
Unfortunately additional utility structures must be installed and existing ones must
be repaired or replaced. When this happens, the pavement of the street is cut and
repaired after the installation. Repairs are done carefully but due to the nature of
the material used, the pavement is never as competent as was the original
structure. Eventually the fill in the trench settles, causing the pavement to drop
and cracks open up along the edge of the trench. The street becomes rough and the
surface is opened to water penetration, which aggravates the problem by reducing
the strength of the supporting soil.
Studies done by other agencies indicate that trenches reduce the effective life of
the pavement. At least two agencies in California, Sacramento and Los Angeles,
have adopted policies and regulations implementing an aggressive program
consisting of fees, standards and inspections, to protect their streets from damage
caused by utility cuts. This program will research these programs and their
success, if any, and formulate new regulations for enforcement in San Luis Obispo
as appropriate.
Existing regulations should remain in place which limit the ability to trench City
streets which have been overlaid/reconstructed within the last five years or which
have been sealed within the last three years. These regulations are waived in the
case of an emergency but act to force utilities to do long range planning or design
their infrastructure in a differing way (such as a bore and jack project as opposed
to open trench). All trench projects which occur before the year designated for
major maintenance should be required to sea] one half the street width (or 4m
width whichever is less) for the length of the trenching project. This will add
expense to the utility performing the trench operation but will relieve the taxpayer
from the extra expense of underwriting the cost to repair a failed roadway later on.
Pavement Management Plan
Page 27
RECOMMENDED PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS
Due to various factors, the funding originally set aside for the 1987 pavement
management program is insufficient to meet today's needs. Each of the policies and their
respective programs are tailored to improve the quality of the City's street system and
none are inexpensive. The recommendations made herein were made with the full
comprehension that unlimited funding is not an option. Therefore, program costs were
analyzed to optimize what was felt to be a reasonable pavement management program.
Recommended Funding for Global Maintenance
Street Sealing Program: Proposed Budget $458,000
Existing Budget $270,000
Increase in Budget $188,000
This program should be considered the foundation of a good pavement
management system. If funding becomes critical, the Global Maintenance - Street
Sealing Program should be the City's highest priority. Surface sealing all the
streets in 1/8a' (95% / 8 = 11.875%) of the city in each year will cost an estimated
$500,000 per year. This number includes both the seal coat and the preparation for
the seal coat. The seal coat is of limited benefit if placed on pavement that has
structural and base problems. These need to be fixed first.
The current program level is insufficient to meet this program objective.
Currently city staff are employed to prepare the surface area designated for the
sealing program. This will no longer be possible due to other priorities set by this
pavement management program and the size of area anticipated herein.
Therefore, additional resources (i.e. contract services) will be needed to
adequately prepare the streets for surface sealing. This may result in increased
scope of work for the sealing contractor or may be bid as a separate contract.
The last street sealing program (FY 96-97) sealed 8.0% of the street surface area
with a budget of $270,000. In order to seal the needed 12% area a total of
$405,000 is required ($270,000 x 12 / 8). The remaining $95,000 consists of
surface preparation services ($70,000) and contingencies ($25,000). If the full
funding recommended for major maintenance is implemented, the area for sealing
can be reduced to 10.8% (from 11.875%) or roughly 11% because roads newly
overlaid or reconstructed do not need to be sealed. Thus the appropriate funding
for sealing would be reduced to $458,000.
Downtown Street Program: Proposed Budget $150,000
Existing Budget $0
Increase in Budget $150,000
An annual budget of $150,000 is proposed to allow staff to perform regular
maintenance of pavement in the City's downtown area of the city. This work
would be primarily to grind and pave at this time because the existing pavement is
Pavement Management Plan
Page 28
in such poor condition. The amount of funding is based upon analysis by
MicroPaver to maintain the streets in this area without further deterioration (see
appendix F). This is a new program that places an emphasis on maintaining the
quality of the streets in the Downtown area. With time no longer spent preparing
street surface areas for the sealing program, City staff will perform this program.
Pothole Response Program: Proposed Budget $20,000
Existing Budget $10,000
Increase in Budget $10,000
This is an expansion of the current program whereby City staff will take a more
aggressive and pro-active approach to finding and filling potholes.
Grind and Paveout Program: Proposed Budget $90,000
Existing Budget $50,000
Increase in Budget $40,000
This program currently exists as simply the asphalt line item in the streets budget.
This program represents a new emphasis on how to accomplish maintenance in a
timely and effective manner. The program will be used to repair poor pavement
problems that cannot be included in the current Major Maintenance Program.
City staff will perform this program.
Crack Sealing Program: Proposed Budget $10,000
Existing Budget $0
Increase in Budget $10,000
This is in essence a new program, as very little crack sealing currently takes place.
City staff will perform this task in the fall of each year - just prior to the rainy
season. This work extends pavement life by preventing water from penetrating
cracks. Workload issues will need to be addressed as this program is
implemented.
Curb and Gutter Repair Program:
Proposed Budget $20,000
Existing Budget $16,500
Increase in Budget $ 3,500
This program, performed by City staff, represents an expanded curb and gutter
program, due to the need to repair and replace as much curb, gutter and sidewalk
as possible in the identified street seal area each year. Current funding: $16,500
($12,000 base +$4,500 mid-year adjustment).
Pavement Management Plan
Page 29
Recommended Funding for Major Maintenance
A substantial increase in funding for this type of maintenance is needed in order to have
an effect on the City's overall average pavement condition.
Major Maintenance for all streets in designated "area" (Program 4.2.1):
Proposed Budget $1,000,000
Existing Budget $ 825,000
Increase in Budget $ 175,000
This recommended spending level, when combined with the recommendation for
non-designated area, represents a near two-fold increase in the allocation for
major maintenance. This type of maintenance is needed if streets in poor
condition are ever to become acceptable to the public again.
Major Maintenance for Arterials in non-designated area(Program 4.2.2):
Proposed Budget $500,000
Existing Budget $0
Increase in Budget $500,000
Because the City cannot ignore the major arterial streets that serve the public on a
daily basis, funds are required to repair and rehabilitate streets. Should the
occasion arise when no such streets are identified, the funding should be
transferred to the area program for that year.
Major Maintenance - testing and evaluation:
Proposed Budget $10,000
Existing Budget $0
Increase in Budget $10,000
To make the most cost effective use of City funds, structural testing of existing
pavements should be done by consultants who specialize in this field.
Recommended Funding for Program Management
Inspect and input data: Proposed Budget $10,000
Existing Budget $10,000
Increase in Budget $0
This represents no change to the existing capital improvement program budget
and will allow Cal Poly intems to continue to be used to gather and input the
necessary data.
Update Data of City operations: No budget change
City staff will be trained on how to input data from the daily work that they
perform. Data will most likely be input weekly.
Pavement Management Plan
Page 30
Inspect and update signs, etc.: No budget change
City staff will simply concentrate their current city-wide efforts into the design
area when needed.
Trench cut regulations: No budget change
City staff will research the effectiveness of other cities regulations and prepare for
Council adoption an effective regulation.
Recommended Staffing for Program Management
Add one new staff position: Proposed Budget $62,000
Existing Budget $0
Increase in Budget $62,000
From a staffing perspective, the existing pavement management program has
floundered due to a combination of budget and staffing cut backs. The preparation
of this Plan took over two years to prepare, simply because there were too many
competing demands on existing staff resources. The recommended program
substantially expands the width and breadth over the existing program.
Traditionally paving projects receive the lowest of priority; not due to a disdain
for this type of project; but rather competing projects which demand higher
priority. Significant workload analysis of current staff output shows that each
engineer is able to design and produce for construction bidding approximately
$1,000,000 worth of projects per year. Currently there is no staff person available
to either design existing paving projects, nor keep the existing pavement
management plan current.
A new staff (Civil Engineer) position is therefore recommended. Since this
program recommends a new emphasis on preservation of the City's most valuable
asset, some staffing must be made available for that purpose. The increase
recommended in Major Maintenance justifies a new engineer position for design
purposes (about .6 position). This person could also provide the staffing to keep
existing funding levels of Major Maintenance on schedule by being assigned to
the pavement management program. Given the tasks of additionally managing the
hiring of student interns for data collection and input, running yearly program
recommendations and hiring consultants for pavement testing, yields the need for
an additional 500 hours per year or about a t/a position. Thus to fully implement
the recommended pavement management program, a new full time engineering
position is recommended at a cost of approximately $ 62,000 per year.
Pavement Management Plan
Page 31
Funding Summary
Current Proposed
Funding Funding Increase
Global Maintenance(Excludes Staffing Costs)
Street Resealing 270,000 458,000 188,000
Downtown Street Repair 150,000 150,000
Pothole response 10,000 20,000 10,000
Grind and Pave-out 50,000 • 90,000 40,000
Crack Sealing 10,000 10,000
Curb and Gutter Repair 16,500 20,000 3,500
Total Global Maintenance 346,500 748,000 401,500
Major Maintenance
Designated"Area' 825,000 1,000,000 175,000
Arterials not in "Area' 500,000 500,000
Testing and evaluation 10,000 10,000
Total Major Maintenance 825,000 1,510,000 685,000
Program Management
Inspection and data entry 10,000 10,000
Staffing for Program Management 62,000 62,000
Total Program Management 10,000 72,000 62,000
TOTAL $1,181,500 $2,330,000 $1,148,500
Pavement Management Plan
Page 32
FINANCING THE PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN
This Plan includes recommendations for a comprehensive Program which includes a
significant increase in funding levels in order to achieve a street system that is no longer
in a state of decline and in fact a state of gradual betterment that the City can be proud of.
The City of San Luis Obispo has traditionally funded all streets' program from the
General Fund and no change is recommended or anticipated as a part of this document.
The General Fund is comprised of many elements, one of which is the state gas tax, a tax
collected in order to fund local road programs. However, the amount of state gas tax
available to the City is substantially less than the City is currently spending on pavement
management and should,.therefore, not be looked upon to help serve the additional needs
created by this program's recommendations.
There are many demands on a City to fund various programs. Unfortunately, street
maintenance is not able to be supported by an "enterprise" fund (such as water systems
are supported by a water fund, etc.) and therefore must compete with all other needs for
valuable general fund resources. It therefore becomes the province of the governing body
to determine what programs get prioritization and therefore funding.
As described earlier, the street system represents the City's single largest capital
investment with a potential value of $60 million. Through deterioration, this asset has
depreciated to about $43 million and unless additional resources are allocated this
deterioration and accompanying citizen complaints will continue. As seen earlier, a
$200,000 increase in program funding is necessary just to keep the system at its current
level. Any funding beyond that will make incremental improvements to the overall street
condition. This program recommends program funding levels that will make a significant
improvement to the street condition over a ten year period.
Is there any help on the horizon for additional funding for pavement management? The
answer is probably not. Currently, due to a good economy, the general fund has
additional resources that should be allocated toward increased levels of funding support
for pavement management. However, the cumulative effects of Proposition 13, 62 and
218 have made it virtually impossible to raise taxes or form special road improvement
districts to raise funds for the specific purpose of better road maintenance.
Additionally, the State of California, in order to balance its own budget a few years ago,
took funds traditionally designated for cities and diverted them to the State's General
Fund. When that General Fund was once again in good fiscal health, the State did not
return those funds to the cities but either gave extra funds to other State programs or
provided a tax cut to the citizens of the State.
Currently, SLOCOG, the regional council of governments is researching the possibility of
asking the citizens to vote for a sales tax increase which would be designated for road
projects and maintenance. This may offer a ray of hope for additional pavement
management funding and that effort should be encouraged and supported.
Street cut fees are another potential source of revenue for pavement management; but
would be so insignificant that they should not be considered as contributing help to the
City's general fund. For example, the City of Sacramento, which recently became the
Pavement Management Plan
Page 33
first city to implement a comprehensive street cut fee, expects to receive yearly fee
revenues of between $40,000 and $60,000. For a city the size of San Luis Obispo the
yearly fees would probably be in the $3,000 to $4,000 range. The emphasis on a
comprehensive street cut program is street preservation and not necessarily fee collection.
What's the bottom line? Preserving the street system at its current level will require
additional resources from the City's General Fund. Improving the street system will
require yet more resources from the City's General Fund. This Plan recommends that the
City begin immediately with a substantial increase in funding and therefore a significant
beginning in roadway improvement. During periods of tight financial times, full funding
may not be possible. With biannual reviews of the program, and knowledge of the effects
of funding levels, financial decisions in the future will made on firm ground - knowing
the impacts to the street system of each funding decision.
I/CAR/PMP Pavement Report
Pavement Management Plan
Page 34
Appendix A
Procedures followed to create the 1997 pavement inventory
I. The City purchased the Micro Paver program from the University of Illinois. Two
employees attended a week long class to learn how to implement the program.
II. Following the directions in the manuals staff prepared forms for inventorying the
streets and recording pavement inspections.
III. Parameters were established regarding how the street system would be segmented
and ranked:
A. Streets would be divided into segments based on the age of pavement and
the volume of traffic.
1. Portions of a street built in different years would be in different
segments.
2. Portions of a street with differing traffic volumes would be in
different segments.
B. Streets would be assigned a rank based on common usage. This was to
recognize two things, streets with a higher rank generally have higher
traffic volumes, and streets with a higher rank receive more scrutiny from
the public. Rankings were as follows:
1.. A-Downtown streets,
2. B-Arterial streets,
3. C-collector streets,
4. D-industrial local streets, and
5. E-local streets.
IV. Mapping parameters:
A. Streets that run in an easterly direction are mapped through intersections
with streets of equal rank that go in a northerly direction.
B. Streets that were a higher rank are mapped through the intersection of a
street of a lower rank.
V. Naming parameters:
A. Streets are named using their given name shortened to 4 characters.
Names beginning with Spanish prefixes such as Santa and La had the
prefix shortened to `S', `L', or as appropriate.
B. Street segments are labeled by naming the cross street at the westerly or
northerly end of the segment first and the other end second. Again the
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A I
cross street names were shortened to 4 characters. Where possible the
names that were repetitive were reviewed so that the reader would
recognize the street by the abbreviated name. Example High Street is
`High" and Highland is `Hlan'.
VI. The inventory created in 1987 was reviewed and was used as the basis for a new
inventory.
VII. The history of each street was researched by a student intern. The data sheets
from 1987 were reviewed and the construction plans viewed. In addition the
index was searched to identify whether the street had been worked on since the
last inventory was completed.
VIII: The student intern reviewed the data and determined where the street should be
segmented based on the parameters listed above.
IX. The inventory sheet was sent to the Auto Cad operator who mapped the pavement
of the street based on the information given on the inventory sheet. The AutoCad
operator calculated the length and area of the pavement. Sample units, sized at
232 Sq. Meters, were mapped and a copy of the map for each street printed. The
printed map was provided to a team of two students to perform field inspections.
X. Field inspections were carried out by a two person team. The inspections followed
the criteria defined in the inspection manuals provided for MicroPaver. Inspectors
recorded the condition of the pavement and verified the dimensional information
that had been gathered in the office.
XI. A student entered the Inventory and Inspection data in the computer data base.
XII. The data base was exported to the 955 Morro file service using the MicroPaver
Import and Export program. The export file was named using the date and initials
of the person exporting the file. This was done to provide the data for others to
use while the files were being updated and to provide a method of data protection
because the data files in the export file could not be corrupted by anyone using the
data base and they were backed up daily on that file server.
Anyone wishing to enter data or to use the file was instructed to import to their"C" drive
the most recent export file. Only one person could be adding information to the file at any
given time.
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 2
Appendix B
Project-1997-98 Program Estimated cost
0 0
California, NCL to Taft $220, 000
Chorro, Marsh to Pismo $40, 000
Johnson, Laurel to Southwood $135, 000
Laurel, Johnson to Southwood $135, 000
Southwood, Sinsheimer to Laurel $55, 000
Santa Barbara, leff to Broad $110, 000
Santa Rosa, Peach to Palm $90, 000
Broad, Murray to 101 $110, 000
[Total $895, 000
These projects were submitted to CalTrans last June for Cycle 9 of the State
Partnership program. The project list may be amended and changed prior to
June 1998 or the beginning of construction which ever occurs first.
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 3
Appendix C
5 Year Work Program-$1 .5 Million
per Year
Plan
Year
Branch Section Maintenance 7/1/98 7/1/99 7/1/00 7/1/01 7/1/02
AIHi FeIMNEND Major M&R>=Critical 0 15,850 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Almd CentMiss Major M&R>=Critical 0 16,196 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Alri FlorEEnd Major MBI.R>=Critical 0 14,725 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Alta NEndCata Major M&R>=Critical 0 8,414 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Andr MontEEnd Major M&R>=Critical 0 4,002 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SLtxone Major M&R>=Critical 0 12,477 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Atas GallOcea Major M&R>=Critical 0 26,213 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Augu BishGerd Major M&R>=Critical 26,131 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
GerdLaur Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 45,684 0
W/olaur Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 24,063
Auto LOVREnd Major M&R>=Critical 0 0 20,139 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Aval OceaOcea Major M&R>=Critical 0 20,111 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Bahi AlriSEnd Major M&R>=Critical 0 0 4,304 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
BBee HighSand Major M&R>=Critical 0 7,463 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SandSout Major M&R>=Critical 0 13,492 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Bent MeinMurr Major M&R>=Critical 0 12,352 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Bish John—)64E Major M&R>=Critical 5,629 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
BICt EndBlue Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 3,516 0 0
Bond HathKent Major M&R x Critical 0 12,015 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
BoxW WEndWave Major M&R>=Critical 0 0 6,158 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Bran BeebBroa Major M&R x Critical 1 0 62,985 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 4
Bres WEndSerD Major M&R>=Critical 1,560 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Bria WoodEEnd Major M&R>=Critical 12.229 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Broa 101Mont Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 68,165 0
HighSout Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 46,919 0
MarsHigh Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 179,687 0
MeinMurr Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 14,721
MontMars Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 75,367 0
Murr101 Major M&R>=Critical 52,916 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Buch JohnSPRR Major M&R>=Critical 0 3,725 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
OsosSRos Major M&R>=Critical 10,333 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Bull 467S686S Major M&R>=Critical 7,148 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
686S847S Major M&R>=Critical 0 3,268 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
847SWill Major M&R>=Critical 0 6,066 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
BVis NEndLoom Major M&R>=Critical 22,561 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Cali FootT2 Major M&R>=Critical 66,841 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
CapW SacrEnd Major M&R>=Critical 0 12,377 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Carm HiguMars Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 8,871 0 0
Cam LaEnEnd Major M&R>=Critical 0 5,844 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Caud BroaVict Major M&R>=Critical 0 5,984 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Cala SaaLAlls Major M&R>=Critical 23,536 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Cent BroaLinc Major M&R>=Critical 24,889 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Cerr CuesFeff Major M&R x Critical 0 18,936 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
JeffCues Major M&R>=Critical 0 15,300 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
PatrJeff Major M&R>=Critical 0 10,655 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Chan MitcLawr Major M&R>=Critical 0 4,288 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Chor HiguMars Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 5
0 0 0 40,086 0
MarsPism Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 29,769 0
MontHigu Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 8,396
Chur BroaSBar Major M&R>=Critical 0 23,926 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
NipoBroa Major M&R>=Critical 10,659 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
CJoa LOVRNend Major M&R>=Critical 21,182 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Clov PtriRanc Major M&R>=Critical 0 3,985 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Cone CazaEEnd Major M&R>=Critical 0 12,288 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Coup WestDart Major M&R>=Critical 22,718 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Crai NendPatr Major M&R>=Critical 0 5,267 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
PatrJeff Major M&R>=Critical 0 11,112 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Cypr BranHigh Major M&R>=Critical 0 17,173 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Daly AIHiPatr Major M&R>=Critical 0 4,045 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Dese WEndCaca Major M&R>=Critical 8,381 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
DNor Ramol45w Major M&R>=Critical 0 8,722 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Donn WEndJeff Major M&R>=Critical 0 4,537 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
DSur RamoLEnt Major M&R>=Critical 21,841 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Edge HarmSotw Major M&R>=Critical 0 4,059 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SotwSEnd Major M&R>=Critical 0 10,287 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
EICe SanLCorr Major M&R>=Critical 0 5,675 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Elle NeodMban Major M&R x Critical 0 9,788 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
EImC RamoEEnd Major M&R>=Critical 0 0 1,501 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
FelM HlanPatr Major M&R>=Critical 0 17,432 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Felt CuesFerr Major M&R>=Critical 0 11,682 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Ferr CRomFoot Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 12,856
NlanChor Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 3,697 0 0
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 6
Fix] WendLizz Major M&R>=Critical 4,188 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Flet BoulLeon Major M&R>=Critical 0 5,659 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Flor EtPalaur Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 121.587
KnolCarl Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 24,904
SpriKnol Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 23,484 0
SydnElPa Major M&R>=Critical 12.062 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Foot FerrSRos Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 343,781
LCerPatr Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 40.386
Fran BroaVict Major M&R>=Critical 0 6,055 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Fred LongGran Major M&R>=Critical 41,320 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Gall OceaAtas Major M&R>=Critical 0 0 26,507 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Gard HiguPism Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 31,949 0
Gerd NEndAugu Major M&R x Critical 0 6,716 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Gran LoomMinS Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 46,880
L.00mMonN Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 44,710
SlacMcCo Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 38,098
Greg JohnEEnd Major M&R>=Critical 0 4,693 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Grov PhilMont Major M&R>=Critical 21.799 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
WilsPhil Major M&R>=Critical 0 18,833 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Hath CarpCali Major M&R>=Critical 0 28,534 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Hays Gran70He Major M&R>=Critical 0 22.798 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Hend LoomSlac Major M&R>=Critical 35,683 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Henr GeorElla Major M&R>=Critical 0 2,301 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
1risGeor Major M&R>=Critical 5,529 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Herm LEntLune IMajor M&R>=Critical 0 13,767 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
High CyprSBar IMajor M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 7
0 0 0 0 122,931
Higu HindMeiE Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 7,370 0 0
MarsNipo Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 287,561 0 0
MeisPraE Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 32,142 0
NipoSRos Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 361,847 0
SC/L.VacE Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 12,174
VachSubr Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 8,444
MIS NEndLinc Major M&R>=Critical 0 11,363 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
HIan FerrSRos Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 10,617
NChoFerT Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 68,348
PatrEPat Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 12,135 0
WEndPatr Major M&R>=Critical 0 38,219 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Hutt SandHigh Major M&R>=Critical 0 6,315 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
his JohnFi%I Major M&R>=Critical 0 6,558 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Isla BroaToro Major M&R>=Critical 62,521 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
JayC WEndCrai Major M&R>=Critical 0 9,653 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Jeff DalyMarl Major M&R>=Critical 0 5,430 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Jenn SwazRach Major M&R>=Critical 0 4,482 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
John BishLaur Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 182,132
Kent HathBond . Major M&R>=Critical 0 13,822 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
King SandBran Major M&R>=Critical 0 6,175 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Kntw SouwSEnd Major M&R>=Critical 0 16,447 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Lake BalbOcea Major M&R>=Critical 0 8,269 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Laur JohnSout Major M&R>=Critical 50,281 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
LawD TangOrcu Major M&R x Critical 0 8,571 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
LeeA NEndTanD Major M&R>=Critical 0 6,447 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 8
Leff NipoOsos Major M&R>=Critical 0 32.642 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
OsosSRos Major M&R>=Critical 12,026 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
LEnt SEndCata Major M&R>=Critical 0 11,466 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Lima MadFHuas Major M&R>=Critical 0 20.402 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Linc BroaChor Major M&R>=Critical 6.955 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
ChorWes Major M&R>=Critical 48,490 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
HillBroa Major M&R>=Critical 0 5.364 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
L.ia JohnWild Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 18.339
LLom EndLCerr Major M&R>=Critical 0 4,403 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Long HathSlac Major M&R>=Critical 12,014 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Loom BVisSMig Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 11,978 0
SMigSYne Major M&R>=Critical 11,685 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
LOVR IOILVerd Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 16,667
LRob OakrEend Major M&R>=Critical 0 6,012 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Lune LaFnVerd Major M&R>=Critical 0 30.800 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
WEndLaEn Major M&R>=Critical 5,269 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Mado LOVRPere Major M&R>=Critical 13,720 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
OceaPO Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 66,152
PODali Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 32,844
MarC NEndOcea Major M&R>=Critical 0 4,127 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Mae SHigEnd Major M&R>=Critical 0 40,101 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Marl PatrJeff Major M&R>=Critical 0 14,070 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Mars 1ohnCali Major M&R>=Critical 25,954 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SLCKNipo Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 62,501 0 0
MCC] GranBVis Major M&R>=Critical 36,151 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
McMi NEndMori Major M&R>=Critical 0 0 4,172 0 0
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 9
0 0 0 0 0
Mein BroaChor Major M&R>=Critical 0 14,749 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Mill CaliGrov Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 62,363
OsosSRos Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 78,027
Mitc MeadBroa Major M&R>=Critical 32,554 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Mnta LemoElle Major M&R>=Critical 10,382 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
LincSCrk Major M&R>=Critical 0 3,941 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SRosLemo Major M&R>=Critical 12,693 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Mont NipoBroa Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 16,115 0 0
Pepp101 Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 143,902 0
SRosToro Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 19,905 0 0
Montr PasaSkyl Major M&R>=Critical 0 24,645 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Morr MarsPism Major M&R>=Critical 6,673 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
MontMars Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 61,201 0
PaImMont Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 18,258 0 0
PismUpha Major M&R>=Critical 0 29,028 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Mouv HillUnc Major M&R x Critical 0 25,624 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Mutr BroaSRos Major M&R>=Critical 27,537 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Nipo HiguMars Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 47,289 0 0
MarsBuch . Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 34,685 0 0
PalmHigu Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 91,470 0
Oakr HlanNend Major M&R>=Critical 0 13,681 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Ocea MadoPinc Major M&R>=Critical 0 18,911 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Olea NEndlron Major M&R>=Critical 0 3,503 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Oran HathBond Major M&R>=Critical 0 9,850 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Osos l Ol Waln Major M&R>=Critical 2,528 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 10
ChurSPRR Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 19,913
MillHigu Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 39,309 0 0
Paci BroaSRos Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 57,684 0 0
JohnPepp Major M&R>=Critical 0 9,769 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Palm NipoSRos Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 453,565 0 0
Pasa MiraSkyl Major M&R x Critical 0 14,276 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Peac NipoBro Major M&R x Critical 20,637 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
ToroPepp Major M&R>=Critical 20,479 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Penn BuchEEnd Major M&R>=Critical 4,842 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Pepp MarsPaci Major M&R>=Critical 0 4,500 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Pere MadoGarc Major M&R>=Critical 0 14,806 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Phil CaliPark Major M&R>=Critical 0 23,654 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Pism HigttNipo Major M&R>=Critical 50,445 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
NipoOsos Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 59,751
Prad SL.CkHigC Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 14,037
SL.CkHigN Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 4,822
Pric HighBran Major M&R>=Critical 16,669 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
RacC RachEEnd Major M&R>=Critical 0 5,983 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Rafa RamoSEnd Major M&R>=Critical 0 12,172 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Ramo L.EniTass Major M&R>=Critical 243,274 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Ranc ClovWest Major M&R>=Critical 0 9,250 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
NEndClov Major M&R>=Critical 0 3.258 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Rock PerkBroa Major M&R>=Critical 45,089 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Rose LaurSEnd Major M&R>=Critical 16,512 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Rosi FootCRom IMajor M&R>=Critical 0 3,142 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SaCa DeICHele Major M&R>=Critical 0 6,624 0 0 0
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A I 1
0 0 0 0 0
Sacr Capilndu Major M&R>=Critical 0 32,721 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Sand BeebBma Major M&R>=Critical 0 60.853 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SBar LefBroa Major M&R>=Critical 60,187 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SJos WEndLEnt Major M&R>=Critical 0 10,751 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Sklk WoodSEnd Major M&R>=Critical 11,712 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Skyl MiraPasa Major M&R>=Critical 0 9,869 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
MontMira Major M&R>=Critical 0 15,878 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Slac LongGran Major M&R>=Critical 42,496 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Smit WEndlohn Major M&R>=Critical 0 7,231 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SnDr HeIcAugu Major M&R>=Critical 0 0 10,390 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Sout FernKent Major M&R>=Critical 4,758 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Kentlohn Major M&R x Critical 7,817 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SinsLaur Major M&R>=Critical 22,783 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
WoodFern Major M&R>=Critical 4,493 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SRos HiguMars Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 87,773 0 0
PalmHigu Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 156.691 0 0
PeacPalm Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 89.102 0
PismSPRR Major M&R>=Critical 0 33.610 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
WalnPeac Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 86,469 0 0
Staf Cali Kent Major M&R>=Critical 0 12,664 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
KentEEnd Major M&R>=Critical 0 16,752 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Swee RockBma Major M&R>=Critical 0 0 11,854 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
TanD JohnSyca Major M&R>=Critical 0 10,189 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Kentlohn Major M&R>=Critical 0 12,159 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
SycaEdge Major M&R>=Critical 0 34,418 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 12
TFRd HiguEC/L Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 31,843 0
PoinSPRR Major M&R>=Critical 48,957 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
TngC NEndTanD Major M&R>=Critical 0 3,467 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Toro MontSLCK Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 106,075 0
PhilWaln Major M&R<Critical 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 15,158 0
TwiR WEndEEnd Major M&R x Critical 0 0 23,341 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Upha HighChor Major M&R>=Critical 22,134 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Vena ChorLinc Major M&R>=Critical 0 14,737 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Verd LuneEEnd Major M&R>=Critical 0 10,650 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Vice PeriCayu Major M&R>=Critical 0 27,954 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Wild 1 077 Fnd Major M&R>=Critical 19,655 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Wils GrovPark Major M&R>=Critical 0 13,925 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Wmon PatrWJef Major M&R>=Critical 0 16,694 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
WNew NewpCora Major M&R>=Critical 0 13,330 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Wodb BroaVict Major M&R>=Critical 0 7,364 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Total Sum of Major Above Critical Funded 1,499,50 1,499,78 108,365 0 0
8 6
Total Sum of Major Under Critical Funded 0 0 1,391,25 1,497,96 1,497.943
8 2
Appendix C
Five year work plan
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 13
Appendix D
Bus Route Impacts to Surface Condition
Bus Routes
Surface Material
Rank AAC AC APC PCC
Downtown % of Area Used by 66.6% 0.0% 86.1 0.0%
Streets Buses %
% of Length used by 55.4% 0.0% 82.2 0.0%
Buses %
Arterial Streets % of Area Used by 77.7% 15.3% 100.
1100.0
Buses 0% %
% of Length used by 75.6% 97.0% 100. 100.0
Buses 0% %
Collector Streets % of Area Used by 22.6% 45.1% 51.7 0.0%
Buses I %
% of Length used by 27.9% 45.4% 53.8 0.0%
Buses
Local Streets % of Area Used by 1.9% 3.9% 17.9 0.0%
Buses %
% of Length used by 1_.8% 3.4% 17.9 0.0%
Buses I I %
AC Asphalt Pavement.
AAC Asphalt Pavement that has been overlaid.
PCC Concrete Pavement.
APC Concrete Pavement that has been overlaid with asphalt.
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 14
Appendix E
Existing Pavement Deficiency
Family Existing PCI PCI in 10 years Current Deficiency
Central Business 48 35 $1,900,000
District Streets
Arterial and 60 44 $7,700,000
Collector Streets
Local Streets (Not 80 64 $3,600,000
resurfaced)
Local Streets 68 52 $3,400,000
(Already resurfaced)
Streets used for Bus 56 43 $7,600,000
Routes (Included in
above families)
Total Deficiency 70 55 $16,600,000
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 15
Appendix F
Condition Central Business
200 District=$.150;000 per year
so
eo
Avg -
Condition -
ao
20--
0 - - - - -Z -- s a
Year.
Appendix Paverdcht Wfiagemept Plan
Pag6.Al6
Appendix G
Annual Work Plan
Fu9YM S9D Vea 7liid Yea
AM%dy [JI 4b W An JU CL NN OBC F�IW&6 IMW I" JU JA9 Ift JCkR IN.IMC An rm fug An
hnuatayefdlrtnemaf
PlannaRaim
Prapefirg Plat for hila IBS
Pm*ng Flas tar M R Acgarn .
FgyavgPaslaMaa9dxe
Fwann 9 hfrdSbUM e
QxMmm d MRRocran
CMw=irgMawFaa R9ea
tblity Rniea d
UwRCJGIfMU, Q D
Thsschedule re4iiresskMmrsnims Filled Basirdcatemkprogamt ranaread
aersgtUlMtprgedsnayneed mve thedly. UfledBmmirdcEdevorkprogan
lead timetobeawarrplista Whnft acMesomwninaell awkcum atthe
sdredia sametima
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 17
Appendix H
Budgets required in one year to raise overall pavement condition.
18000000 -
16000000 --
14000000--
80000001600000014000000
12000000 -
13 Major above dYdical
10000000 ❑Major below Critical
Im0
❑Seal
M 8000000 - ■Preventive
: . a Stop Gap
6000000 - - -
4000000 ;
2000000 _ - --
0 _
97 86 84 Y 80 72 71 70f
PCI
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 18
Appendix I
PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE AREAS PLAN
Total Square Meters per Area
1. 256340. 6. 243708.
2. 267523. 7. 256613.
:. \I 3. 254971. 8. 242216.
4. 266063. 9. 87083.
5. 2321,�1. tOial 2106648. APRIL 1998
ot
Sri.^o�/fti�r
I
F—
f
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 19
Appendix J
One Year - $4 Million Program
Sum of Funded Work
Street Limits Major M&R >= Critical Micro Surface
Abbo GranHend 0 5,738
AH Fe1MNEND 0 6,891
Alic MargNEnd 0 1,316
Alis NEndCara 0 1,692
Almd CentMiss 0 5,026
Alph BroaEEnd 7.070 0
AM FlorEEnd 0 6,402
Alta NEndCara 0 3,230
Anne WEndPatr 0 4,184
Andr ConeEEnd 0 2,717
MontEEnd 0 1,740
SLDCone 0 3,872
Aral EEndBroo 0 3,243
Ashm WEndWave 0 3,699
Atas GallOcea 0 10,471
Augu BishGerd 26,131 0
GerdLzur 28,264 0
Auto LOVREnd 0 8,756
Aval Ocea0cra 0 5.792
Bahi Alr1SEnd 0 1,871
Balb OceaCora 0 10,722
Band CorrSEnd 0 1,633
Barr NEndSout 0 3,936
BBee HighSand 0 2,660
SandSout 0 4,187
Bent MeinMurr 0 5,071
Binn EIIaSEnd 0 1.487
Bish AuguJohn 0 4,142
BushAugu 0 7,264
John264E 5.295 0
B1Ct EndBlue 0 1,012
Blue WBCtRock 0 4,041
Bond HathKent 0 4.866
Kentlong 0 2,430
Bone EmplSuel 0 5.447
Boro AtasMado 0 1,531
Boug PoinHoll 0 7.032
Boul SylvSEnd 0 11,900
BoxW WEndWave 0 2,975
Boys ChorSRos 0 9,304
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 20
Bran BeebBroa 0 20,066
Bres WEndSerD 0 525
Bria WoodEEnd 12:129 0
Brid BeeBEEnd 0 5.687
Broa MeinMwT 0 3,729
Murrl0l 52,916 0
Brok SouSWEnd 0 2,119
Broo TankSawl 0 5.297
Buch JohnSPRR 0 1,488
OsosSRos 10,333 0
SRosJohn 0 6,820
Bull 46786865 7.148 0
686S847S 0 1.288
847SWill 0 2,637
Wi114455 0 2,760
Bush FlorSEnd 0 4.875
B V is NEndLoom 22,561 0
CaJa NEndSend 0 3,980
Cali FootTaft 66,841 0
MontSLDr 0 5,550
TaftPhil 0 12,915
CaLu MargCaJa 0 6,417
CaMa NEndSend 0 3,784
Came MargNEnd 0 1,533
Capi CastEEnd 0 8,039
CapW SacrEnd 0 5,381
Carl NEndMari 0 1,640
Carl F1orEEnd 0 1.928
Carp FootHath 0 2,116
Casi DiabEnd 0 2,223
Cast NEndPref 0 5,546
Cata LaEnEnd 0 1,862
Caud BroaVict 0 2,602
WEndMead 0 755
Cava GallGail 0 9,471
Caza SanLAlis 0 6,778
Ceci AuguEnd 0 3,467
Cent BroaLinc 24,889 0
CerC CerrEnd 0 1,293
Cerr CuesFerr 0 5,877
JeffCues 0 6,652
LosCRosi 0 4,872
PatrJeff 0 4,633
RosiPatr 0 1,866
Chan MitcLawr 0 1,690
Chor FootWest 0 9,064
Montmgu 0 21418
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 21
PaImMont 0 2,165
PismBuch 0 3,463
WestUnc 0 16,560
Chri CraiWarr 0 3,202
Chup WEndLPm 0 7,842
Chur BroaSBar 0 8.050
NipoBroa 10,659 0
OsosEEnd 0 2.243
Cirna WoodEEnd 0 1.671
Goa LOVRNend 22,520 0
GOV PtriRanc 0 1,732
RancSkyl 0 5,061
Coli NEndRor 0 3.433
Colu PoinEEnd 0 3.220
Cone C17aEEnd 0 4,254
Cord FramEnd 0 7,831
Carl GaUGulf 0 8,618
Coro FlorEnd 0 2,552
Corr Corr 0 4,347
SendWood 0 5.639
Cort PrefNEnd 0 3,314
Coup WestDart 22,718 0
Crai NendPatr 0 2,290
PatrJeff 0 4,831
Cres TanDTanD 0 7,344
Coca NEndRoya 0 3,294
Cues FootHlan 0 9,070
Cumb WoodEFnd 0 1,603
Cycl WEndHoll 0 3,602
Cypr BranHigh 0 5,195
Dahl PoinEEnd 0 2,619
Dali MadoEnd 0 3.614
Daly AMP= 0 1,533
Dan CuesCoup 0 2,593
DeAn De1RSFnd 0 2,695
DeIR CordDiab 0 3,906
DescPref 0 4,414
DiabPort 0 6,853
PonDesc 0 985
Desc DeIRLOVR 0 5,444
LOVRVist 0 7,164
Dese WEndCasa 8.381 0
Diab CityDeIR 0 3,079
De1RI.OVR 0 5,633
LOVRVist 0 4,405
DMar WEndRamo 0 6,701
DNor 145WLEnt 0 2,976
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 22
Rarno145w 0 3,792
Donn WEndJeff 0 1,973
Drak OceaBelb 0 6.997
DSur RamoLEnt 21,841 0
Dunc NEndOrcu 0 4.494
ECeC NEndEICe 0 3,178
Edge HarnnSorw 0 1.198
SotwSEnd 0 3,192
EICa NEndF3or 0 2,630
EICe SanLCorr 5,535 0
EICr EICeEnd 0 7,432
Elle MbanSEnd 0 1,451
NendMban 0 3,118
E1mC RamoEEnd 0 653
EIPa EICeEnd 0 2,499
EITi NEndMado 0 4,836
EMer MadoSEnd 0 11,408
Empl BoneGran 0 3,909
Empr BonePrad 0 4,239
Enci NEndEICe 0 1,905
Escu VistSEnd 0 1,846
Este NEndMarg 0 2,238
Expo SouSCorr 0 8,766
FaiW NEndRoya 0 3.375
RoyaPart 0 1,591
RIM HlanPatr 0 7,579
Felt CuesFerr 0 5,079
TassCues 0 1,372
Fem SoutOrcu 38.654 0
Fixl WendU7z 4,188 0
Flet BoulLcon 0 2,461
FIoA BishSanC 0 2,188
BushBish 0 2,750
Flor CarlElCa 0 2,785
SydnEJPa 12,779 0
Foot WGLLCer 0 6,080
Fram MiraEnd 0 6.376
Fran BroaVict 0 2,294
Fred HathLong 0 7,537
LongGran 41,320 0
Fu11r EndSunf 0 7,546
Gail CaudSEnd 0 1,538
Gall OccaAtas 0 11,525
Gana CorrSEnd 0 1.633
Gard BuchUpha 0 11.200
Gerd INEndAugu 0 2,260
Gold IPoinSEnd 0 2,258
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 23
Grav GarfAbbo 0 2,526
Greg JohnEEnd 0 1.385
Gret AuguSydn 10,451 0
Gma EmplSuel 0 7,084
SHigEntpl 0 4,965
Grov PhilMont 21,799 0
WilsPhil 0 5.424
Gulf LakeAtas 0 6,115
Harm SequEdge 0 5.529
Hath Carpcali 0 8.632
L.ongCarp 0 8,889
Hays Gran70He 0 6.897
Hend GarfAbbo 0 2.541
L.00mSlac 0 10.277
Henr GeorElla 0 774
hisGeor 5.529 0
Herm L.EntLune 0 5,355
HigF HiguGran 0 4,631
High HiguCypr 0 7.696
SPR RSBar 0 1,776
Higu SC/LVacE 0 2,265
VachSubr 0 2.139
MIS LincSEnd 0 7,939
NEndLinc 0 4.940
Hlan PatrEPat 7,840 0
PatrPatr 0 4,620
WEndPatr 0 12,508
HOW BougTaFa 0 8.868
Howa WEndPhil 0 2,134
Huas MadFCayu 0 9,242
Humb BroaVict 0 2,888
Hutt BranSand 0 2,407
SandHigh 0 2,393
his JohnFixl 0 2,409
Iron BrooWave 0 6,408
Isla BroaToro 0 18,006
Jah DeIRSEnd 0 2,695
Jami NEndTanW 0 1,690
JayC WEndCrai 0 4,197
Jeff CRomHlan 0 8,194
DalyMarl 0 1,880
FootCRom 0 1.047
MarlWmon 0 1,846
Jenn SwazRach 0 1,322
John Bishl-aur 0 41,175
LaurSout 64,093 0
SoutOrcu 0 14,640
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 24
r �
Kent HathBond 0 3,981
King BranSouS 0 1,304
HighSand 0 2,361
SandBran 0 2,434
SouSSEnd 0 4,873
Kntw SouwSEnd 0 4,737
LaCi NEndJohn 0 3,078
Lade WoodSEnd 0 2,752
Lagu LOVRVist 0 8,593
Lake BalbOcea 0 3.037
LaLu DeIREnd 0 2.695
Laur FlorJohn 0 2,145
JohnSout 50.281 0
Lavi Lagu VisL 0 1,700
LawC LawnEEnd 0 1.606
LawD TangOrcu 0 3,672
Lawn WEndMead 0 1,913
LCan CRomTolo 0 5,077
L.Ceff NEndFoot 0 8,215
LeeA NEndTanD 0 2,443
Leff OsosSRos 12,026 0
LEnt CataFoot 0 7,692
SEndCam 0 4,842
Leon SanCFIet 0 1,817
SanCSEnd 0 2,693
Lily PoinEnd 0 2,227
Lima MadFHuas 0 8.041
Linc BroaChor 7,347 0
ChorWes 48,490 0
HillBroa 0 1,970
Lin MargNEnd 0 1,328
Ira John Wild 0 4,381
LLom EndLCerr 0 1,808
Lobe WEndHoll 0 4,222
Long HathSlac 13,152 0
Loom SMigSYne 11,404 0
LOVR IOILVerd 0 4,800
DescPerf 0 10,260
L.osVerdes 0 3,660
MadoEC/L 0 2,406
OceaRoya 0 9,880
PerfOcea 0 28,318
RoyaMado 0 14,625
WC/LDesc 0 28,490
LPic EndExpo 0 1,010
LPra MariSHig 0 6,431
LRob 10akrEend 0 2,209
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 25
Lune 1.,F Verd 0 13,391
VerdEEnd 0 3,901
WEndLaEn 5,269 0
LVin JohnEEnd 0 3,292
Mado CILLOVR 0 7,520
DaliElMe 0 10,970
ElMel01 0 27,720
LOVRPere 13,300 0
OceaPO 51,928 0
PereOcea 0 17,500
PODali 0 6,704
Madr CorrSEnd 0 1,572
MatC NEndOcea 0 1,794
Marg SHigEnd 0 17,435
Mari LPraLPra 0 10,233
Marl PatrJeff 0 5,332
Mars JohnCali 31.273 0
SLCKNipo 0 18,000
SRosJohn 0 20,064
Marta NEndLVin 0 1,586
McCI GranB Vis 36,151 0
McMi NEndMori 0 1,814
Mead SOUMitc 0 10,358
Mein BroaChor 0 4,352
ChorSRos 0 4,398
Migu NOENViEs 0 2.585
Mira PasoSkyl 0 4,028
MirD FramEnd 0 7,300
MisL BroaSEnd 0 2,756
Miss BroaChor 0 5,112
ChorLinc 0 4,985
Mitc MeadBroa 32,554 0
Mnta LemoElle 10,382 0
LincSCrk 0 1,714
SRoslsmo 12,693 0
Mont ChorSRos 0 16,560
ToroPepp 0 9,225
Montr PasaSkyl 0 7,098
Mort PismMars 7,828 0
UphaPism 0 11,000
Mout/ Hillf nc 0 7,752
MrGI TaFaFull 0 6,857
Murr BroaSRos 27,537 0
Newp WNewEEnd 0 8,476
Oakr HlanNend 0 5,465
Oakw KenlEEnd 0 1,340
Ocea MadoPinc 0 8,222
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 26
Olea NEndlron 0 1,523
Oliv SRosLemo 0 3,430
Oran HathBond 0 3,511
Osos 101 Waln 2,397 0
ChurSPRR 0 3,705
PaciChur 0 15,216
Paci JohnPepp 0 3,956
Palo RamoSerr 0 5,711
Part QuaiQuai 0 9,417
Pasa MiraSkyl 0 6,117
MrosMira 0 5,075
PatC PatrEEnd 0 2,595
Patr DalyHigh 0 4,191
HighFoot 32,184 0
TwinPatr 0 4,877
Peac ChorOsos 18,743 0
SRosToro 0 3,442
ToroPepp 20.479 0
Penn BuchEEnd 4,842 0
Pew MarsPacl 0 1,328
PhilMars 0 13,141
Pere MadoGarc 0 6,437
Perk RockBroa 0 1,763
Phil CaliPark 0 7,156
JohnPepp 0 2,531
Pine MadFOcea 0 6.309
Pism HiguNipo 50,445 0
OsosSRos 0 3,485
SRosJohn 0 7,709
Poin BougTaFa 0 6,825
LilySnap 0 13,658
TaFaLlly 0 17,411
Popp MrGIEAEN 0 2,678
Port 21IEDeIR 0 3,428
Capi21 I E 0 1,392
Prad HiguECIL 0 18,817
Pref HedlLO VR 0 16,116
WEndHedl 0 15,261
Pric HighBran 16,669 0
Prkr Highsous 0 5,733
QuaC NEndQuai 0 1,396
Qum PartRoyW 0 6,154
Rafa RamoSEnd 0 5,292
Ramo DSurLEnt 0 5,702
ElmVerd 0 1,670
LEntTass 246,568 0
PaloBroa 0 5,712
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 27
TassElm 0 1,771
VerdPalo 0 4,565
Ranc ClovWest 0 3,798
NEndClov 0 1,376
Reba WEENAugu 0 1,902
Rica NOENSacr 0 5.044
Robe NOENViEs 0 2,335
Rock PerkBroa 45,089 0
StonPerk 0 1,843
RosC PoinEnd 0 2,780
Rose LaurSEnd 0 4,755
Rosi CRontNend 0 1,388
FootCROm 0 1,366
Roug WEndEEnd 0 3,515
RoyC NE.ndRoya 0 1,998
Royal FatrLOVR 0 20,000
LOVRGaII 0 5,415
RubiFair 0 2,323
Rubi NEndRoya 0 4,030
SaCa DeICHele 0 11$80
FlorLeon 0 2,223
HelcAugu 0 4,271
LeonDelC 0 2,255
WEndFlor 0 1,561
Sacr Capilndu 0 12,897
NEndCapi 0 5,680
SanA DescPref 0 4,293
SanC DescEEnd 0 4,171
Sand BeebBroa 0 22,354
Sant HeleSaCa 0 4,372
SawC BrooEEnd 0 1,794
SBar LeffBroa 46,867 0
Scaw PineOcea 0 4,162
Send WoodEFnd 0 1,603
Sequ H=SouW 0 762
SerD SerHBroa 0 10,180
SerH WEndSerD 0 3.542
SieW EIIaNBis 0 4,463
NBisBish 0 4,043
S3os WEndl.Ent 0 3,425
Sklk WoodSEnd 11.712 0
Sky] MiruPasa 0 3.890
MontMim 0 4,573
Slac LongGmn 41,476 0
SLDr Calilohn 0 20,130
SLuc ICRonTolo 0 4,833
Smit WEndlohn 0 2,850
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 28
Snde CorrSEnd 0 2,597
Sonr VistWEnd 0 1.781
Sous WEndHigu 0 4,119
soul FemKent 5.023 0
JohnSyca 0 4,275
KentJohn 8,029 0
LaurWaod 0 3,907
SinsLaur 22,783 0
WoodFem 4,891 0
SRos PismSPRR 35,304 0
Staf CaliKent 0 4,799
KentEEnd 0 4,943
Sten NendMurr 0 4,761
Ston WRocBroa 0 6,719
Star HighBran 0 4,802
Suel BoneGran 0 5,096
Sunf FullPoin 0 7,895
Swee RockBroa 0 3,679
Sydn FlorEEnd 0 2,306
GretAugu 0 1,203
HeleGret 0 4,023
JohnFlor 0 4,471
TanD JohnSyca 0 3,428
Kendohn 0 4,091
SycaEdge 0 13,749
Tass FootRamo 0 3.029
RamoSEnd 0 6,565
TOIOFDot 0 7,068
TFRd BroadPoins 0 9,614
PoinSPRR 50,301 0
SPRROrcutt 0 23,112
TngC NEndTanD 0 1,423
Tolo SLucTass 0 4,185
Toro PhilWaln 0 2,701
SLCKLeff 50,870 0
Tuh EndSunf 0 3.317
Tom WIINEnd 0 946
Twill W EndEEnd 0 10,148
Upha ChorMorr 0 2,969
HighChor 22,134 0
Vali MiraEnd 0 2,471
Vega VisBVisA 0 2,497
Vena ChorLinc 0 4,244
Verd LuneEEnd 0 4,373
Vice PcriCayu 0 9.676
Vict WoodFran 0 4,798
ViEs NOENSacr 0 6.025
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 29
VisA VisCDesc 0 4,050
VISB DescSEnd 0 1,479
DiabDesc 0 8,456
VisC DescSEnd 0 2,519
VisBDesc 0 7,366
VisL LaViWEnd 0 12.627
Vist VistSEnd 0 1,530
Wain SRosToro 0 3,626
Ward SandHigh 0 2,464
Warr JeffPatr 0 4.656
Wave TankSAsh 0 8.617
Wild LizzSEnd 19,655 0
Will BullEnd 0 2,939
Wils GrovPark 0 4,321
Wist SuntEnd 0 2,889
Wmon PatrWJef 0 6,854
WNew NewpCora 0. 5,712
Wodb BroaVict 0 3,202
CorrLade 0 11,752
Ladelawt 0 7,342
WoSd NEndSend 43,902 0
Yarr PoinEnd 0 2,428
Zaca WEndSHig 0 7,239
Grand Total 1,733,961 2,265,806
Appendix Pavement Management Plan
Page A 30
Dennis E. Johansen 805-543-0984 04/14/1998 11 : 57 : 18 AM r-2
MEETING C� AGENDA
April 14, 1998 DATE ��y / ITEM #
To: Honorable Mayor Allen Settle
Members of the City Council -
City of San Luis Obispo
Re: Solid Waste Service Plan-Rate Structure Changes
From: Dennis Johansen
Consumer
Dear above captioned individuals:
At this morning's meeting of the Business Improvement Association(BIA), the board was presented the
"Solid Waste Service Plan-Rate Structure Changes"by Mr. John Moss. We were told that your body was
to review this document this evening.
Although we were encouraged to attend tonight's meeting by Councilperson Smith,because I already have
another meeting scheduled, it will be impossible to attend this evening. Submitting for your attention a
carefully researched and thoughtful response to your staff s report will also be impossible do to the
complexity and length of the report.
At first glance, it appears that the new rate structure could be perceived as punitive enough as to discourage
recycling at all. As evidence, I draw your attention to"attachment 4" near the rear of the report. If I
understand the thought process used in this document, it would appear that the"stereo store"identified in
the chart would pay $56 per month for one waste wheeler(picked up three times per week) and up to 1
cubic yard of cardboard per week. (Data from table one on page two of the fust set of attachments, and
base recycling rate for commercial accounts from the table on attachment 3). If,however, according to
attachment 4,the"stereo store"exceeds, even by a small fraction, the one cubic yard allowance of
cardboard for that week, the rate would jump an additional $23.75 ($26.75 less the base rate of$3.00).
There may be a rational to this thinking, but as of yet, I have not found it in the document.
There is little double that the Council, staff and citizens have, through significant effort,placed the City at a
very desirable level of recycling and well on the way towards meeting the year 2000 goal. I would
encourage the council to receive this document"for study only"this evening,while hopefully engaging the
residential and commercial consumers and giving them time to educate themselves concerning this subject.
In all fairness, it's probably all in this document,but I hate getting things of this magnitude on such short
notice. Also,would it be too tough to number all the pages of the document so that we can address the
issues contained in a more orderly manner, and, if we are really trying to sell people on recycling,how
about duplexing this thing and using half the paper to begin with.
Your most humble trash generator,
Dennis Johansen .� ❑CDD DIR
/ ❑FIN DIR
�.. ❑FIRE CHIEF
iTv"tJEY ❑PW DIR
[]4"ERKIORIG ❑POLICE CHF
RECEIVED ❑yiGM EAM ❑RECDI11
�j _ C3'ML DIR
❑,
E3 PERS DIR
APR 1 4 1998
SLO CITY CLERK
Dennis E. Johansen 805-59 .'-0989 04/11/1998 11 : 57 : 16 AX Y. 1
Facsimile Cover Sheet
Date: 04/14/1998
Total Pages: 2
To: Mayor and City Council
Company: City of San Luis Obispo
Phone:
Fax: 781-7109
From : Dennis E. Johansen
Company: Jim's Campus Camera, Inc.
766 Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Phone: 805-543-2047
Fax: 805-543-0984
Message. . .
Howdy.....
I know time is short, but since we first got a chance to see the Waste
Management document this morning, I would appreciate it very much if this
fax could reach the council and John Dunn before the meeing.
Thanks
Dennis Johansen
SupeNoice 2.0 is atrademarkof Pacific Image Commis icatons,Inc.