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