Notes

Outline

Infrastructure Asset Management Southwest Chula Vista Civic Association April 26, 2007

Chula Vista’s Municipal Infrastructure Pavement* Alleys Parking Lots Sidewalks* Curbs* Gutters* Corners* (including ped ramps) Bridges Retaining Walls Stairways Guardrails Trees

Underlying Beliefs Infrastructure Asset Management Ongoing preventative maintenance to preserve infrastructure and avoid catastrophic failure Proactive infrastructure management is necessary to manage risk and liability Catastrophic failure means higher expense repairs, more impact to the public Pay now or pay more later

The Elements of Infrastructure Asset Management Inventory Condition and Capacity Assessment Determine desired/required service level Gauge current service level Estimate amount of funding required to close the gap between current and desired service level Establish criteria for choosing priorities Identify projects Prioritize projects Identify funding Deliver project Automated system to manage related data (inventory, condition, capacity, maintenance history, work orders, work in the right-of-way,etc.)

Partial Estimated Funding Need

Utility Wire Undergrounding Not typically included with municipal infrastructure Utility company asset Restricted funding source ($2 million/year 20A funds) $30.4 million since 1986 $30.2 million obligated thru 2018 Bayfront: $20.0 million Six other districts: $10.22 million GIS Map for more detail

Missing Infrastructure (Sidewalks, Curbs, Gutters, Ped Ramps, Cross Gutters) Missing Sidewalk: 162,000 lineal feet ($24 million) Missing Sidewalks, Curbs and Gutters: 148,000 lineal feet ($107 million) Missing Ped Ramps: 1,223 missing ramps ($8.0 million) GIS Map for more detail

Pavement

Pavement Facts Largest Municipal Backbone Asset $659 million replacement value Often assumed to be a primary municipal responsibility Highly visible/High public expectations Dedicated non-municipal funding is not sufficient to meet growing need Last General Fund contribution: $0.9 million for landscape beautification with H Street reconstruction between Broadway and I5

Why Have a Pavement Management System? Required to obtain funding from State transportation improvement programs Chula Vista implemented in 1986 Applies cost effective treatments early and throughout pavement life Focus on preservation and extending service life, not “worst first”

"1,113 lane miles (..." 1,113 lane miles (2,841 street sections) $ 659 million replacement value

How large is Chula Vista’s network? 1113 lane miles Chula Vista to Vancouver, WA At 35 mph it takes ~32 hours (4 days) to cover the distance

How do we measure pavements?

Slide 14

Slide 15

PCI = 75 Average PCI: 79 (“Good”) PCI Range: 13-100

Current 2006 PCI (Average PCI = 79  Backlog $43 million)

Slide 18

Scenario 1: Ideal Budget ($19.2 m/year – Ending PCI is 81) Backlog $0

Scenario 1: Ideal Budget  ($19.2 m/year – Ending PCI is 81)

Slide 21

Slide 22

Conclusions City has pavement network in “good” condition - will deteriorate to “fair” under current budget With no change in funding, deferred maintenance will grow from $43m to $160m in 10 years Allocate sufficient funds to reduce deterioration Preserve good roads first!

The Case Against  “Worst-First” Strategy Pavements typically selected for treatment are those that are closest to failure Quickly depletes available funding focusing on streets where most cost is already the case Meanwhile, acceptable streets slip into “needing major rehabilitation” Backlog quickly grows to a point of no recovery When funding constraints are present, preventative maintenance and worst-first strategies are incompatible

Drainage

What is “Drainage”? Pipes, culverts, channels (lined and natural), detention basins, etc. to manage urban runoff and provide flood control Mandated water quality best management practices (pre-treatment devices) Includes Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP)

Drainage Assessment

Drainage Challenges Lack of dedicated Federal, State and Regional funding City’s 70¢/month/residence not adequate Continually increasing water quality mandates Flood control and maintenance requirements frequently conflict with regulatory agency requirements and procedures Projects are expensive, not widely understood, usually not seen as a high priority Last General Fund contribution: $0.2 million in FY 2003

Priority Tiers CMP: Immediate red flags considered Priority 1 due to potential for catastrophic failure Priority 1: Frequent flooding and/or high chance of personal injury or property damage Priority 2: Occasional flooding with a chance of personal injury or property damage Priority 3: Frequent nuisance flooding Priority 4: Occasional nuisance flooding Priority 5: Frequent or routine maintenance manages problem, CIP project could eliminate problem

Recommended Drainage Priorities CMP Immediate Red Flags: $0.8 million Priority 1 Tier: 9 projects, $24.4 million Other CMP ($28.2 million) Priority 2 Tier: 5 projects, $4.4 to $6.1 million Priority 3 Tier: 2 projects, $0.3 to $0.6 million Priority 4 Tier: 3 projects, $1.6 to $2.2 million Priority 5 Tier: 8 projects, $1.3 to $2.3 million; unable to estimate two projects

Priority 1 Tier Drainage Projects

Slide 32

Funding Chula Vista’s Infrastructure Needs

Historical Infrastructure Funding Pavement Funding Transnet Gas Tax CDBG Recently, Proposition 42 Other Infrastructure Funding Western Chula Vista Financing Program Residential Construction Tax Gas Tax Storm Drain Revenue Grant Funds

New Infrastructure Funding November’s Infrastructure Bonds Primarily Transportation Already assumed within recommended pavement scenario Proposition 84 Small potential for drainage projects Small potential for storm water projects

Potential New Funding Vehicle Registration Fees (State legislation) Grants Federal Earmarks Local Bond Measure Local Sales Tax Increase (sunset clause) Tax Increment Citywide Assessment Districts

Slide 37