The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About65B - AUTHORIZE SMART PROGREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: JULY 5, 2016 TITLE: AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH THE SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY AND ROADWAY TRANSFORMATION(SMART)PROGRAM (NON - GENERAL FUND) (STRATEGIC PLAN NOS. 6, 1A, 1B, 1C, 1E, 1F, 1G) RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED Cl As Recommended 7_7 As Amended ❑ Ordinance on 1't Reading ❑ Ordinance on 2nd Reading ® Implementing Resolution 71 Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER Authorize staff to proceed with the initial steps to implement the Sustainable Mobility and Roadway Transformation Program and seek services from a financial advisor to determine the necessary revenue enhancements to complete said program. DISCUSSION Streets are vital to the operation of the City and it is important that the streets are kept in great condition. Well maintained streets raise the overall quality of living, encourage economic development, improve property values, increase bicycle mobility, provide safe pedestrian access, and protect the substantial investment already made in our street infrastructure. Poorly maintained streets, on the other hand, reduce non - motorized mobility, lead to higher vehicle maintenance costs, increase pollution and incur exponentially higher future street maintenance costs. In 2006, there was an investment of $72+ million in the City's pavement network that resulted in a well maintained street network with a citywide overall Pavement Condition Index (PC]) rating of 79, which is considered to be in good condition. A new funding source is required to maintain a PC[ rating of greater than 75, which is the minimum required to maintain crucial funding match eligibility through the Orange County Transportation Authority funding programs (i.e., Measure M2 and Comprehensive Transportation Funding Program grants). To ensure all the benefits of well- maintained streets, staff is proposing a comprehensive citywide initiative, the Sustainable Mobility and Roadway Transformation (SMaRT) program. The key goals of the program are as follows: 6513-1 Sustainable Mobility and Roadway Transformation Program July 5, 2016 Page 2 • Maintain an excellent pavement network • Protect the recently completed $72+ million pavement investment initiated in 2006 • Repave streets in poor condition in next three to five years • Financially sustainable • Implement citywide traffic safety improvements • Implement bicycle and pedestrian master plans • Repair sidewalks and expand Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) infrastructure SMaRT is a financially sustainable program that will allow the City to address its multi -modal mobility challenges from year to year, without overly relying on inconsistent grant funding or dwindling tax revenue. As part of the program, SMaRT will reconstruct all streets that are in poor or failed condition within the first three to five years and provide the financial means to properly maintain the streets in perpetuity. In order to fund this program, staff proposes to assess pavement impact fees on the heavy vehicles which are considered the single, major source of degredation to the streets. In September of 2015 the Public Works Agency commissioned a report to quantify the impact to city streets caused by heavy vehicles such as City utility, transit, school, and refuse vehicles. The report (Exhibit 1) concluded that these damages have a significant impact to the City's annual pavement deterioration. The damages were allocated to streets based on the street type and configuration, vehicle type and vehicle trip frequency. The study found that solid waste vehicles, transit busses, and City utility /street sweeping vehicles have a 38.1 percent, 12.7 percent, and 2.5 percent impact respectively. Based on these findings, staff is recommending that entities utilizing heavy vehicles fund the cost to repair their proportional share of impact to City streets. ANALYSIS SMaRT will require an estimated $80 million to rehabilitate all streets that are in poor or failed condition within the first three to five years of the program. Once the entire pavement network is in good condition, $16 million per year will be needed to maintain the network effectively. In addition to maintaining the pavement in an excellent condition year to year, the program will also implement traffic safety, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, as well as repair sidewalks and expand infrastructure to meet ADA standards. Therefore, SMaRT will not only address pavement concerns, but will result in the implementation of a significant portion of the Bicycle Master Plan, Pedestrian Master Plan, as well as elements identified in the Safe Mobility Santa Ana and Non - Motorized Connectivity reports. Staff proposes a combination of an I -Bank loan and Certificate of Participation bonds to fund the initial $80 million using the impact fees, gas tax allocations, Measure M2 Fairshare, and funds from the City's general liability fund as shown in the SMaRT Presentation (Exhibit 2). With Council approval to move forward with this comprehensive pavement maintenance program as outlined in the SMaRT Presentation (Exhibit 2), the next step will be to acquire the services of a 65B -2 Sustainable Mobility and Roadway Transformation Program July 5, 2016 Page 3 financial advisor to assist staff in examining applicable financial programs to fund SMaRT. The final financial model and applicable potential options will be presented to Council for further consideration and direction. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT Approval of this item supports the City's efforts to meet Goal #6 - Community Facilities & Infrastructure, Objective #1 (Establish and maintain a Community Investment Plan for all City assets), Strategy A (Inventory of infrastructure assets), Strategy B (Maintain infrastructure assets), Strategy C (Invest in infrastructure assets), Strategy E (Prepare a Community Investment Program), Strategy F (Perform periodic measurements of asset condition), and Strategy G (Develop and implement the City's Capital Improvement Program). ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT There is no environmental impact associated with this action. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. Fre Mousavipour Executive Director Public Works Agency FM /EWG /JG /ST Exhibit: 1. Pavement Impacts Report 2. SMaRT Presentation L• MW Lt m I AECOM 999 Town and Country Road Memorandum Orange, CA 92666 www.aacom,com To Kenny Nguyen, PE, City of Santa Ana Sean Thomas, PE, City of Santa Ana cc Ken Steele, PE, AECOM Pavement Management Loading Study Subject AECOM Project No. 60477125 From Bill Poston Jr., PE Date June 21, 2016 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Introduction 714.5672622 tel 714.7453146 tax Page 1 I V I I of CAI, The City of Santa Ana desires to determine the cost impact of heavy vehicles and waste collection trucks traveling on city street pavements. AECOM was retained to conduct a pavement engineering study to determine the loading impacts and cost share responsibility of commercial buses, waste collection trucks, and other heavy vehicles on city street pavements. The study includes all public streets maintained by Santa Ana. Project Objective The overall project objective was to determine the cost responsibility for commercial buses, waste collection trucks, and other heavy vehicles for each city street, to provide the city the basis for collecting funds from the bus and truck companies. PROJECT APPROACH General Methodology Pavement Loadings The project approach for determining pavement loadings was based on a network level evaluation. This approach consisted of grouping the city streets into representative street classes and determining the percent loading impact and cost responsibility of the buses and heavy trucks for each street class. The bus and truck loading impacts were calculated based on actual vehicle weights for each class of pavement. The bus and truck weights were converted to a standard loading impact using the long -time established procedure of Equivalent Single Axle Loadings (ESALs). EXHIBIT 1 L• AcCOM Data and Sources Pavement Loadings Pavement Management Loading Study City of Santa Ana, California Street classifications, pavement types, and street areas were obtained from the Santa Ana Pavement Management Program report, June 2014 and PAVER Data spreadsheets, August 24, 2015. Secondary and collector arterials were combined for analysis due to their similarities in structure and traffic loadings. Typical street pavement sections are as shown in the full depth reconstruction lines of the Santa Ana Design Standards for Arterials and Locals. These were used to determine the asphaltic concrete pavement structural number (SN) and concrete pavement thickness for the ESAL calculations. Total traffic volumes for arterials were obtained from the Santa Ana Traffic Census for 2013- 2014. Traffic volumes for representative street segments within each street class were identified to calculate an average daily traffic volume (ADT) for each street class. ADT traffic volumes for local streets were estimated based on generalized land use trip generation, experience, and engineering judgment. Total truck volumes and classes on major and primary arterials were obtained from CalTrans June -July, 2015 truck classification counts supplied by the City. Truck counts were not available for other arterials and local streets. For those streets the total truck volumes and classes for those streets were estimated using the 2015 counts as starting points and applying engineering judgment. Waste collection truck types, axle weights, and volumes for each street class were provided by Waste Management of Orange County. Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) Transit bus volumes were obtained from the route schedules for the Orange County Transit Authority. Representative routes were reviewed for each street class for weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays, and average bus volumes were calculated. OCTA bus weights were obtained from technical information provided by the agency. Santa Ana Unified School District ( SAUSD) school bus volumes and trip locations were estimated by engineering judgment. SAUSD bus weights were based on representative weights for typical school buses. Street sweeping locations, sweeping frequency, and sweeper weights were provided by Santa Ana Public Works Maintenance. Axle load equivalency factors for calculating ESALs from axle weights were obtained from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, 1993. (1993 Pavement Design Guide) ESAL constants for calculating ESALs based on vehicle type were obtained from the CalTrans Highway Design Manual, Table 613.3A. The 10 -year ESAL constant was adjusted down to a one week ESAL constant. AECOM Project No. 60477125 om � ', June 21, 2016 Page 2 of 11 A_COM Pavement Management Loading Study City of Santa Ana, California Equivalent Single Axle Loadings Roadway pavements are designed to carry the expected number of vehicle loadings over the design life of the pavement. Vehicle loadings are determined based on the weight of the vehicle and the number and type of axles on the vehicle. The common axle types include single axles with two or four wheels; tandem axles, which are two single axles mounted adjacent to each other; and tri- axles, which are three single axles mounted together. Each vehicle has a different weight and trucks can have many different axle combinations. For example, a straight (single unit) truck often has a single axle in the front and a tandem axle in the back. A semitrailer truck often has a single axle in the front, a tandem axle at the back of the tractor, and a tandem axle at the rear of the trailer (18 wheeler). Other combinations are common. In order to bring all the possible vehicle weights and axle combinations to a uniform number to enable pavement design, the concept of Equivalent Single Axle Loading (ESAL) was developed by AASHTO. An ESAL is one loaded pass of an 18,000 lb single axle. One loading of one 18,000 lb single axle is considered a 1.0 load factor. Other combinations of weights and axle combinations would have factors less than or greater than 1.0. Heavier loadings would be greater than 1.0, while adding axles to make tandem and tri -axles would result in lower load factors for a given weight. Knowing the actual axle types and weights on those axles enables the total loading on the pavement to be calculated for each vehicle. CalTrans has further calculated truck loadings and developed ESAL constants based on truck types by axle classification and typical truck weights. This enables ESAL loadings to be calculated from truck classification counts rather than actual weights. The pavement loadings of heavier trucks are much greater than those of lighter vehicles. Therefore, the damage to a pavement from each truck driving on it is much greater than from each automobile. The following table summarizes the relative loading impact of cars and trucks on a typical existing Santa Ana local residential street paved with hot mix asphalt. AECOM Project No. 60477125 65B -7 June 21, 2016 Page 3 of 11 AECOM Pavement Management Loading Study City of Santa Ana, California RELATIVE LOADING IMPACT Vehicle Type Vehicle Load Factor Passenger Car Equivalent Passenger Car 0.0004 1 Delivery Truck (Typical Load) 0.19 475 Commercial Truck (Typical Load) 0.51 1,300 Street Sweeper 1.67 4,200 Transit Bus (50% Full) 2.26* 5,650 School Bus 1.45* 3,600 Recycling, Refuse Green Waste Truck (Empty) 0.58 1,450 Recycling, Refuse Green Waste Truck (Full) 4.34 10,850 Roll Off Truck (Empty) 0.65 1,600 Roll Off Truck (Full) 2.33 5,800 Commercial Waste Truck (Empty) 0.70 1,750 Commercial Waste Truck (Full) 1.61 4,000 "Vehicle Load Factor on Secondary and Collector Arterial ASSUMPTIONS / LIMITATIONS A terminal pavement serviceability (pt) = 2.5 was used for ESAL calculations. Serviceability is a measure of pavement condition and terminal serviceability is the condition at which the pavement is considered in need of a major rehabilitation or reconstruction. Total traffic volumes were estimated for local streets. Total truck volumes and truck classes were estimated for secondary/ collector arterials and local streets. Actual traffic and truck classification counts would be required to verify the estimates. The average of empty and full truck weights was used for calculating the pavement loading impact of refuse, recycle, and green waste trucks. The calculated pavement loading impacts are averages across all streets within a street class. Individual streets may have more or less loadings than those calculated. The tag axle on a waste hauling truck is an additional axle with two wheels that is used to better distribute the truck's weight on the pavement and reduce the overall loading impact. The tag axle is able to be raised and lowered by the operator. In discussion with Waste Management of Orange County, we learned the tag axle is generally up on the residential streets when the trash carts are being loaded. Then the tag axle is down when the loaded truck travels to the waste collection site. For the loading calculations, we assumed the typical truck operation has the tag axle in the up position when the trucks are empty and in the down position when the trucks are loaded, with one exception. Based on Waste AECOM Project No. 60477125 Lm w • June 21, 2016 Page 4 of 11 _ �JL Pavement Management Loading Study City of Santa Ana, California Management's input, we assumed the recycling, refuse, and green waste trucks have the tag axle in the up position at all times when on residential streets only. The axle weights for school buses and sweepers were estimated based on best available data. Actual axle weights are necessary to calculate the actual vehicle loading factors. ANALYSIS Pavement Loadings Loading impacts were calculated for ten scenarios — five street classes and two pavement types, as listed below: Asphaltic Concrete Pavements • Major arterial • Primary arterial • Secondary/ collector arterial • Local residential • Local nonresidential Street Classification Breakdown PC Concrete Pavements • Major arterial • Primary arterial • Secondary/ collector arterial • Local residential • Local nonresident The traffic volumes, truck classes and volumes, truck axle data, and typical pavement sections were assembled as described in the previous Data and Sources section of this technical memo. The loading impact calculations involved two steps. First the Vehicle Load Factors were calculated from the AASHTO 1993 Pavement Design Guide tables. Then the total truck ESALs and the selected truck ESALs were calculated. AECOM Project No. 60477125 • Lm June 21, 2016 Page 5 of 11 Asphalt Pavement Concrete Pavement. Street Structural Concrete Typical Section Classification Square Feet Square Feet Number Thickness Six -lane divided Major Arterial 704 23,155,436 6- Inches 166,733 roadway Four -lane divided Primary Arterial 5.28 2,746,741 6- Inches 46,345 roadway Four -lane Secondary undivided 4.40 9,440,032 6- Inches 155,242 Arterial roadway Two -lane Collector undivided 4.40 649,890 6- Inches 28,608 roadway Two -lane Local undivided 2.64 47,706,767 5- Inches 4,751,642 Residential roadway Two -lane Local Non- undivided 3.52 6,803,796 5- Inches 51,965 Residential roadway The traffic volumes, truck classes and volumes, truck axle data, and typical pavement sections were assembled as described in the previous Data and Sources section of this technical memo. The loading impact calculations involved two steps. First the Vehicle Load Factors were calculated from the AASHTO 1993 Pavement Design Guide tables. Then the total truck ESALs and the selected truck ESALs were calculated. AECOM Project No. 60477125 • Lm June 21, 2016 Page 5 of 11 MEe ®M Pavement Management Loading Study City of Santa Ana, California The concept of Vehicle Load Factors (VLF) was used to facilitate loading calculations. The VLF is the total ESAL value for a specific bus or truck for each pass of the vehicle. Specific axle weights were obtained for the selected buses and trucks. The ESALs for each axle were calculated using the axle load equivalency tables from the 1993 AASHTO Design Guide. The ESALs for all axles on each vehicle were then summed to obtain the VLF. The weekly loading impacts for the specific evaluated buses and trucks were calculated in a different manner than the loading impacts for the rest of the trucks on the street. The VLF for each evaluated bus and truck was multiplied by the weekly trips to obtain the total weekly loading impact. Specific axle weights vary considerably for the rest of the trucks, making it necessary to use CalTrans ESAL constants developed for various truck types. Note, while useful for this evaluation, these ESAL constants are time dependent so they are not directly comparable to the VLF. Weekly ESAL constants were calculated for the rest of the trucks and multiplied times the ADT to obtain the total weekly loading impact. FINDINGS The results of the loading impact calculations are listed below for each of the street classes and pavement types. Asphaltic Concrete Pavements MAJOR ARTERIALS Vehicle Weekly Total Vehicle Total Weekly Percent Vehicle Type Load Total Loading Operator Loading Impact Loading Impact Factor Trips Impact Passenger 0.0004 209,300 83.7 2.0 2.0 Cars Delivery Trucks 2 -axle 0.19 7,840 1,486.2 35.3 35.3 3 -axle 0.51 630 318.5 7.6 Commercial------------------------------ 4_axle 0,81 --------------------------------- 840---- 678.5---- --------------- ----- 33.3 Trucks ------ ----- ---- ---- -- - - - - -- - -- -------1.62-------- 5 +axle 1.89 210 397.5 9.5 City Utility/ Street Sweeper 1.63 1 2.0 0.0 0.0 Sweeping OCTA Transit Bus 6.04 180 1,087.2 25.9 25.9 SAUSD School Bus 1.45 16 23.2 0.6 0.6 Recycling 1.06 10 10.6 0.3 Refuse 1.06 10 10.6 0.3 Waste Green Waste 1.06 10 10.6 0.3 2.9 Management Roll Off 1.46 1 50 73.0 1.7 Commercial 1.12 1 10 11.2 0.3 Totals 4,192.8 100 100 AECOM Project No. 60477125 65B -10 June 21, 2016 Page 6 of 11 AECOM Asphaltic Concrete Pavements, Continued Pavement Management Loading Study City of Santa Ana, California PRIMARY ARTERIALS Vehicle Weekly Total Vehicle Total Weekly Percent Vehicle Type Load Total Loading Operator Loading Impact Loading Impact Factor Trips Impact Passenger 0.0004 97,300 38.9 2.0 2.0 Cars Delivery Trucks 2 -axle 0.19 3,330 631.6 32.2 32.2 3 -axle 0.51 210 106.2 5.4 Commercial- --------- --- --- ---- - - --- -- -- ---- ---- ------ ---------------- --------------- - ---- axle- 81- 169:6------- 8.6--- 20.7 Trucks -----4- ---- ---0= --- -- -210------- ---- ---- ---- ----- 5 +axle 1.89 70 132.5 6.7 City Utility/ Street Sweeper 1.60 1 2.0 0.1 0.1 Sweeping OCTA Transit Bus 5.52 141 778.3 39.6 39.6 SAUSD School Bus 1.44 3 4.3 0.2 0.2 Recycling 1.08 5 5.4 0.3 Refuse 1.08 5 5.4 0.3 Waste Green Waste 1.08 5 5.4 0.3 5.2 Management Roll Off 1.45 50 72.5 3.7 Commercial 1.15 10 11.5 0.6 Totals 1,963.6 100 100 SECONDARY and COLLECTOR ARTERIALS Vehicle Weekly Total Vehicle r Total Weekly Percent Vehicle Type Load Total Loading Operator Loading Impact Loading Impact Factor Trips Impact Passenger 0.0004 90,020 36.0 2.2 2.2 Cars Delivery Trucks 2 -axle 0.19 2,890 548 34.2 34.2 3 -axle 0.51 280 141.5 8.8 Commercial - - - -- ____ -0 ______ ____ _ ____0 - __._- -_.0.0 - - -- - -- 4 -axle 0- 8.8 Trucks 5 +axle 1.89 0 0 0.0 City Utility/ Street Sweeper 1.57 1 2.0 .01 0.1 Sweeping OCTA Transit Bus 5.37 146 784.0 48.9 48.9 SAUSD School Bus 1.45 10 14.5 0.9 0.9 Recycling 1.13 15 17.0 1.1 Refuse 1.13 15 17.0 1.1 Waste Green Waste 1.13 15 17.0 1.1 4.9 Management Roll Off 1.45 10 14.5 0.9 Commercial 1.19 10 11.9 0.7 Totals 1,603.4 100 100 AECOM Project No. 60477125 65B -11 June 21, 2016 Page 7 of 11 AcCOM Asphaltic Concrete Pavements, Continued Pavement Management Loading Study City of Santa Ana, California LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREETS Vehicle Weekly Total Vehicle Total Weekly Percent Vehicle Type Load Total Loading Operator Loading Impact Loading Impact Factor Trips Impact Passenger 0.0004 10,465 4.2 6.1 6.1 Cars Delivery Trucks 2 -axle 0.19 21 4.0 5.8 5.8 3 -axle 0.51 28 14.2 20.7 Commercial-- ------ - axle--- 4 -axle -- -- ----- 0.81 ---- -- ---- --------- -- ---- --- --------------- 44.7 Trucks --- -- -- ---------- 81---- --- ------- -------- - ---------- 20.7 Trucks -----4_axle-- -- ---0= ---- -0---- ------ -0------ ---- ------- .0.0--------- City Utility/ Street 5 +axle 1.89 0 0 0.0 City Utility/ Street Sweeper 1.61 2 3.2 4.6 4.6 Sweeping OCTA Transit Bus 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 SAUSD School Bus 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Recycling 2.28 5 11.4 16.5 Refuse 2.28 5 11.4 16.5 Waste Green Waste 2.28 5 11.4 16.5 62.8 Management Roll Off 1.49 2 3.0 4.4 Commercial 1.21 5 17.9 12.9 Totals 68.9 100 100 LOCAL NONRESIDENTIAL STREETS Vehicle Weekly Total Vehicle Total Weekly Percent Vehicle Type Load Total Loading Operator Loading Impact Loading Impact Factor Trips Impact Passenger 0.0004 6,700 2.7 1.9 1.9 Cars Delivery Trucks 2 -axle 0.19 220 41.1 29.5 29.5 3 -axle 0.51 60 31.8 22.9 Commercial ------ - axle--- 4 -axle -- -- ----- 0.81 -- - -- - -------- ..-- ---- -- 17.0 --- ---- -- ----- -- 126- 44.7 Trucks --- -- -- ---------- ---- - - ------ --- ------- -------- - ---------- 5 +axle 1.89 7 7 1 3.3 9 .6 City Utility/ Street Sweeper 1.57 1 0.8 0.6 0.6 Sweeping OCTA Transit Bus 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 SAUSD School Bus 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Recycling 1.06 0 0 0.0 Refuse 1.06 0 0 0.0 Waste Green Waste 1.06 0 0 0.0 23.3 Management Roll Off 1.46 j 10 j 14.5 10.4 Commercial 1.12 1 15 17.9 12.9 Totals 139.1 100 100 AECOM Project No. 60477125 65B -12 June 21, 2016 Page 8 of 11 AECOM Concrete Pavements Pavement Management Loading Study City of Santa Ana, California MAJOR ARTERIALS Vehicle Weekly Total Vehicle Total Weekly Percent Vehicle Type Load Total Loading Operator Loading Impact Loading Impact Factor Trips Impact Passenger 0.0002 20,9300 41.9 1.0 1.0 Cars Delivery Trucks 2 -axle 0.19 7840 1,486.2 35.1 35.1 3 -axle 0.51 630 318.5 7.5 Commercial---------- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- -------------------------- - - - - -- --------------- - - - -- axle_____ 32.9 Trucks - - - - -4- ___0.81____ ___840____ ______678.5 _______16.0________ 5 +axle 1.89 210 397.5 9.4 City Utility/ Street Sweeper 1.61 1 2.0 0.0 0.0 Sweeping OCTA Transit Bus 6.11 180 1,099.8 26.0 26.0 SAUSD School Bus 1.46 16 23.4 0.6 0.6 Recycling 1.73 10 17.3 0.4 Refuse 1.73 10 17.3 0.4 Waste Green Waste 1.73 10 17.3 0.4 4.4 Management Roll Off 2.39 50 119.5 2.8 Commercial 1.83 10 18.3 0.4 Totals 4237.5 100 100 PRIMARY ARTERIALS Vehicle Weekly Total Vehicle Total Weekly Percent Vehicle Type Load Total Loading Operator Loading Impact Loading Impact Factor Trips Impact Passenger 0.0002 97,300 19.5 0.9 0.9 Cars Delivery Trucks 2 -axle 0.19 3330 631.6 30.3 30.3 3 -axle 0.51 210 106.2 5.1 Commercial--- --- -- - ----- ----- - ---- -- --- ---- -- --- ---- ------------ ---- - - --- -- -- - - ---- 19.5 Trucks - ----4_axle----- ---0:81---- ---210------- - ----169.6------ - --- ---- -8.1--- - ----- 5 +axle 1.89 70 132.5 6.3 City Utility/ Street Sweeper 1.61 1 2.0 0.1 0.1 Sweeping OCTA Transit Bus 6.11 141 861.5 41.2 41.2 SAUSD School Bus 1.46 4.4 4.4 0.2 0.2 Recycling 1.73 5 8.7 0.4 Refuse 1.73 5 8.7 0.4 Waste Green Waste 1.73 5 8.7 0.4 7.8 Management Roll Off 2.39 50 119.5 5.7 Commercial 1.83 10 18.3 0.9 Totals 2,091.2 100 100 AECOM Project No. 6047712.5 65B -13 June 21, 2016 Page 9 of 11 AcCOM Concrete Pavements, Continued Pavement Management Loading Study City of Santa Ana, California SECONDARY and COLLECTOR ARTERIALS Vehicle Weekly Total Vehicle Total Weekly Percent Operator Vehicle Type Load Total Loading Impact Loading Impact. Loading Operator Factor Trips. Loading Impact Loading Impact Impact Passenger Factor Trips 2.1 2.2 Impact Passenger 0.0002 90,020 18.0 1.0 1.0 Delivery Trucks Cars 0.19 21 4.0 4.2 4.2 Delivery Trucks 2 -axle 0.19 2,890 548.0 31.6 31.6 Commercial 3 -axle 0.51 280 141.5 8.1 14.5 Commercial------------------------------ 4 -axle 0.81 ----- --------------- -- - - -- --------------- ----- Trucks axle -- -- - - -- 0---- 0-- - �------ 8.1 Trucks -----4_ - ---- - -0.81 - -- - ---- ---------- -- ---- ---- ----0=0- - -- - -- City Utility/ Street 5 +axle 1.89 0 0 0.0 3.3 City Utility/ Street Sweeper 1.61 1 2.0 0.1 0.1 Sweeping Transit Bus 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 OCTA Transit Bus 6.11 146 892.1 51.4 51.4 SAUSD School Bus 1.46 10 14.6 0.8 0.8 Recycling 1.73 15 26.0 1.5 Waste Refuse 1.73 15 26.0 1.5 75.8 Waste Green Waste 1.73 15 26.0 1.5 7.0 Management Roll Off 2.39 10 23.9 1.4 Commercial 1.83 10 18.3 1.1 Totals 1,736.4 100 100 LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREETS Vehicle Weekly Total Vehicle Total Weekly Percent Operator Vehicle Type Load. Total Loading Impact Loading Impact. Loading Factor Trips. Impact Passenger 0.0002 10,465 2.1 2.2 2.2 Cars Delivery Trucks 2 -axle 0.19 21 4.0 4.2 4.2 3-axle 28 14.2 14.5________ Commercial _____ ____0.51____ __ _ _ _ __ 14.5 4 -axle 0.81 0 0 0.0 Trucks - ---5 --- -- -- - - -- -- ----- --------- ---- -------------------- - �------ +axl--- 5 +axle 1.89 .-8 0 0 0. 0.0 City Utility/ Street Sweeper 1.61 2 3.2 3.3 3.3 Sweeping OCTA Transit Bus 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 SAUSD School Bus 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Recycling 3.91 5 19.6 20.4 Refuse 3.91 5 19.6 20.4 Waste Green Waste 3.91 5 19.6 20.4 75.8 Management Roll Off 2.39 2 4.8 5.0 Commercial 1.83 5 92 9.6 Totals 96.3 100 100 AECOM Project No. 60477125 65B -14 June 21, 2016 Page 10 of 11 AECOM Concrete Pavements, Continued Pavement Management Loading Study City of Santa Ana, California LOCAL NONRESIDENTIAL STREETS Street Classification Arterial Vehicle Weekly Passenger Cars 0.77 Total Vehicle Delivery Trucks 13.20 5.21 Total Weekly Percent 9.67 14.24 Vehicle Vehicle Type Load Total 2.49 2.50 Loading Operator 0.00 12.74 SAUSD Loading impact Loading Imp act 0.25 Waste Management 1.39 36.74 Trips Totals 38.03% Impact 100.00% Passenger 0.0002 6,700 1.3 0.8 0.8 Cars Delivery Trucks 2 -axle 0.19 220 41.1 26.1 26.1 3- axle----- 0.51- 60----- 31`8----------------- -20 2--- Commercial - - - - ------ - -- --- - --- --- ----- ----- 4 -axle 0.81 20 17.0 10.8 39.4 Trucks ------ -- --- ------ --- --- --- --- -- ----- ---- ---------------------- - ------------------- 5 +axle 1.89 7 13.3 8.4 City Utility/ Street Sweeper 1.61 1 1.6 1.0 1.0 Sweeping OCTA Transit Bus 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 SAUSD School Bus 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 Recycling 1.73 0 0 0.0 Refuse 1.73 0 0 0.0 Waste 32'7 Green Waste 1.73 0 0 0.0 Management Roll Off 2.39 10 23.9 15.2 Commercial 1.83 15 27.5 17.5 Totals 155.9 100 100 PAVEMENT LOADING IMPACTS The table below summarizes the weighted pavement loading i source and street classification for all streets in the city. The p loadings for each vehicle source for each street classification a percent of citywide pavement area for that street classification pavement loading impact. Weighted Pavement Loading Impacts (Percent) mpacts for each vehicle ercent of total pavement re multiplied by the total to obtain the weighted Vehicle Source Street Classification Arterial Local Totals. Passenger Cars 0.77 3.29 4.06 Delivery Trucks 13.20 5.21 18.41 Commercial Trucks 9.67 14.24 23.91 City Utility/ Street Sweeping 0.01 2.49 2.50 OCTA 12.74 0.00 12.74 SAUSD 0.25 0.00 0.25 Waste Management 1.39 36.74 38.13 Totals 38.03% 61.97% 100.00% AECOM Project No. 60477125 65B -15 June 21, 2016 Page 11 of 11 65B -16 lIOT %719& , FLFiF..117r= IT .=4 II Prepared by the Public Works Agency City of Santa Ana June 15, 2016 MIM = �� 658 -17 I �. Ism I .,_ � i� �:. _. _. . . h��,= � �y� cx Y �+ � -� _ \ �, _. ' ., 658 -21 Slide #10 Slide #11 Slide #12 Maintaining city streets in good condition is important to our quality of life and a challenge that cities from all over the country face. The City of Santa Ana is no exception. While the current condition of our streets is better than most, our existing funding is not enough to maintain them in this good condition. In fact, it will lead to repair and replacement costs that are more than 10 times today's cost—something we simply wont be able to afford. The SMaRT -Santa Ana Sustainable Mobility And Solution: Roadway Transformation With SMaRT -Sang Ana, the City of Santa Ana has the opportunity to be a leader in sustainable pavement programs. Implementing it will put Santa Ana on the map as one of the most proactive and innovative cities in the US. Maintain an excellent pavement network. Protect the city's recent $72+ million pavement investment. Repave streets that are in poor I condition within three to five years. Ensure financial sustainability and " program efficiency. ............................... SMaRT -Santa Ana Goals •'Maintain an excellent pavement network •Protect recent $72+ million pavement investment Repave streets in poor condition within three to five years Financial sustainability: Implement citywide traffic safety improvements Implement Bicycle'and Pedestrian mister plans Repair sidewalks and expand ADA {infrastructure T• - Slide #20 Slide #21 659 -25 b rorf pva Slide #23 Slide #24 65B ° -26 WorABNol Slide #26 Slide #27 651' -27 Slide #28 Slide #29 Slide #30 T. Slide #31 Slide #32 Slide #33 ppC��ll6x1tl0`-'? MAINTI ONCE _., Iii li ,r ,1 ;at ` ' R, Slide #34 _. ra 1/GI kle hripact 11AOo Itp09 ROfb 4- n rnon Sr600 Vr2BN norn 3,600 i i' avu 1.300 1 f Passenger 6itV Utility Commercial School BUS Transit Bus Solid Waste Car Truck: 6MI29 Slide #35 Slide #36 -100 [(?V iy000 — xti 13000 pq0;: — d0 Vii 4ti i'OOF? ppC��ll6x1tl0`-'? MAINTI ONCE _., Iii li ,r ,1 ;at ` ' R, Slide #34 _. ra 1/GI kle hripact 11AOo Itp09 ROfb 4- n rnon Sr600 Vr2BN norn 3,600 i i' avu 1.300 1 f Passenger 6itV Utility Commercial School BUS Transit Bus Solid Waste Car Truck: 6MI29 Slide #35 Slide #36 Annual Impact and Cost to Santa Ana Streets PCI 80 75 70 65 60 PG With Current Funding 55 rr 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 Fiscal Year End 65b!30 Slide #37 Slide #38 Slide #39 2.5% d% 05% 5500,000 $600,000 $100,000 13% 52,600,000 i School Bus City Utility Pesseng¢r Transit bus Solid Weste Vehicle Truck PCI 80 75 70 65 60 PG With Current Funding 55 rr 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 Fiscal Year End 65b!30 Slide #37 Slide #38 Slide #39 42% 38% $8,400,000 $7,600,000 13% 52,600,000 i Transit bus Solid Weste Cominryrr i�l Truck PCI 80 75 70 65 60 PG With Current Funding 55 rr 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 Fiscal Year End 65b!30 Slide #37 Slide #38 Slide #39 r' Funding needed to implement SMaRT -Santa Ana $80 Million $16 Million initial investment to each year thereafter to reconstruct streets in sustain the program. poor condition within the first 3 -5 years. Current annual Street Maintenance 7' budget is $4.5 Million We need $16 Million annually R Repair Casts With Current Funding $90rsr, sl3 fir Itn III Sss r Lcul $700 r °. $600 ` = $500 $400 'x $300 ...+r _ Cast of Why $200 i„J' 2016 R,p i, COSt $100. IS117 W1,11 m) $0 C 16 17 38 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 FY Ending r' Funding needed to implement SMaRT -Santa Ana $80 Million $16 Million initial investment to each year thereafter to reconstruct streets in sustain the program. poor condition within the first 3 -5 years. OGi'A 65B632 .max. Slide #43b Slide #44 rw will we fund SMART- -Santa An ars I. Years 6 -20 VC mrc 21. HO OTO MYOI ut 65EV --33 Slide #45 Slide #46 L+yRi IMA VA $25 $2U $15 0 � $lU $5 I Aft 16 17 iH 19 Re 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2H 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Bond General Fund • SAUSP • OCrA city Utility • Solld Waste • Reliable Proposed Solid Waste Rate Adjustment (Residential) (Commercial) s. Increase less than a $1 per month increase less than a $5 per month 1r!. 659234 Slide #48 Slide #49 How will Santa Anas solid waste fees compare? Residential Service S)in Perfiapim.. scan : wx #2 of 32 WIIIIIIIIIII fa as I s All cmu,m,able Orange County cities (32), aS,c.ic, change in Santa Ana pates off.. Before I" k„ anmmwmmeorange COOnyenes(o2), asumlremangemsanmaaa gmese�y A;, T' Before How will Santa Anas solid waste fees compare? Residential Service law um #B of 32 S 9 a v b a ' e All comp able Orange Caumy Cities 132), assuming change in Santa Ana pater only. C After I" k„ anmmwmmeorange COOnyenes(o2), asumlremangemsanmaaa gmese�y A;, T' Before Rate Adjustment Process (Prop 218) In 1996 CA voters approved Prop. 218 which requires agencies to have a vote by the impacted property of a proposed /increased fee Revenues collected can only be used for their intended purpose Property owners can protest the fee Notices must be sent to all property owners impacted and a public hearing must be held If 50% +l property owners oppose a fee increase, it cannot be implemented. 2018 v Now will Santa Anas solid waste fees compare? Commercial Service _ om N1301 33 Nmw ��. u. � Swm 2. x. �� 1■ ��I' Sou,'• g g Rate Adjustment Process (Prop 218) In 1996 CA voters approved Prop. 218 which requires agencies to have a vote by the impacted property of a proposed /increased fee Revenues collected can only be used for their intended purpose Property owners can protest the fee Notices must be sent to all property owners impacted and a public hearing must be held If 50% +l property owners oppose a fee increase, it cannot be implemented. 2018 65B-37 Slide #55 Slide #56 Slide #57a 659?38 Slide #57b SMaRT -Santa Ana Additional Information tF 659239 Bond 0 General ford ■ SAUSD • OCTA City Utility • Solid Waste ri Reliable tom. Solid Waste Rate Adjustment (Residential) Increase — Curbside cart service, base monthly Fee Year 1: 0.0% $ 0.00 Year 2: 5.0% $ 0.87 Year..: 4.6% $ 0.97 Year 4: 4.4% $ 0.97 Year 5: 4.2% $ 0.97 TOTAL $ 3.88 % Increase - 3 yard bin, once weekly collection Year 1; 0.0% $ 0.00 Year 2: 3.6% $ 4.72 Year 3: 3.5% $ 4.72 Year 4. 3.4% $ 472 Years: 12% $ 4,72 TOTAL $ 18.88 65K-40 Rate Adjustment Process 0 Initial Capita )rovement Loan w w w w w e ;• Source Term Annual Payment Amount - Y ® $ 25,000,000 c 1 1.75 %o]0yr estimated Debt Service (20 yrs) $ 1,482,500 $ 50,000,000 4.5F o 20 yr estimated Debt Service (20 yrs) $ 3.796,000 Total Debt 20 years $ 5,278,500 Service Funding available at the time of financing: $ 5,000,000 Total SMART -Santa Ana Budget for Construction: $ 80,000,000 (Prop 218) • In 1966 CA voters approved Prop. 218 which requires agencies to have a vote by the impacted t ' property of a proposed /increased fee j S • Revenues collected can only be used for their W�: ax f2 { intended purpose rr"��, sr • Property owners can protest the fee z s v`$ss • Notices must be sent to all property owners impacted and a public hearing must be held If 50% A property owners oppose a fee increase, it cannot be implemented 0 Initial Capita )rovement Loan w w w w w e ;• Source Term Annual Payment Amount - Y ® $ 25,000,000 c 1 1.75 %o]0yr estimated Debt Service (20 yrs) $ 1,482,500 $ 50,000,000 4.5F o 20 yr estimated Debt Service (20 yrs) $ 3.796,000 Total Debt 20 years $ 5,278,500 Service Funding available at the time of financing: $ 5,000,000 Total SMART -Santa Ana Budget for Construction: $ 80,000,000 283MMUM $30 $25 -YearStrategic Plan -Goal 6 -la: Inventory of Infra structure Assets Goal 6-1b: Maintaltry Infrastructure Assets A f I Goal 6-1c: Invest in Infrastruct re Assets U Goal 6-11d Invest in,Community Goat 6 Monitor lyerformance of lhirastrUCtUre Assets \_\][( \ \\\ � ..� <��\ \)\)( ` }\ \}}\ }\\ . `) ( })))2 li: : :il( 5 | || | | || }\ |�� 17 18 In 20 212 2 2 3 24 25 26 2 7 29 29 30 3132 33 34 3536 3 38 39 40 41 FY EndIng SMART,Santa-Ana is sepal, / Maintain -,116 aid Replace .m ... ii SMART-Santa Ana Bond $5.3 awl a Existing Bond - - $4 "d e -YearStrategic Plan -Goal 6 -la: Inventory of Infra structure Assets Goal 6-1b: Maintaltry Infrastructure Assets Goal 6-1c: Invest in Infrastruct re Assets U Goal 6-11d Invest in,Community Goat 6 Monitor lyerformance of lhirastrUCtUre Assets °� . «.... � ..� <��\ §50- r-%? 6 2