Document alpinecountyca_gov_doc_5119bb54b4

September 4, 2018 Pavement Management System Plan Update Alpine County Submitted By: Sacramento Office 8795 Folsom Blvd., Suite 250 Sacramento, CA 95826 Phone: [PHONE REDACTED] NCE Proposal No. 972.01.25 ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update i Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Introduction 2 Condition Survey 3 Budget Analysis and Recommended Maintenance Practices 8 Budget Analysis 11 Unconstrained Budget Scenario 11 Constrained Budget Scenarios 13 Scenario 1 15 Scenario 2 16 Scenario 3 17 Scenario 4 18 Scenario 5 19 Scenario 6 20 Summary 22 Conclusions 24 ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update ii Appendix A: Quality Control Plan Appendix B: Section Description Inventory Section PCI Listing: Sorted by Road Name Section PCI Listing: Sorted by Descending PCI Appendix C: Preventive Maintenance and Rehabilitation Decision Tree Appendix D: Budget Needs: Budget Needs - Projected PCI/Cost Summary Report Budget Needs - Rehabilitation Treatment/Cost Summary Report Budget Needs - Preventive Maintenance Treatment/Cost Summary Report Scenario 1-6: Cost Summary Report Network Condition Summary Report Appendix E: Sections Selected for Treatment Projected SB1 RMRA Funding (Scenario 6) ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update iii List of Tables Table 1: Pavement Network and Condition Summary 6 Table 2: Area Breakdown by Functional Class and Condition Category 6 Table 3: Decision Tree 9 Table 4: Years Between Treatments 10 Table 5: Results of 5 Year Budget Needs 11 Table 6: Results of 30 Year Budget Needs 12 Table 7: Summary of Results for Scenario 1 15 Table 8: Summary of Results for Scenario 2 16 Table 9: Summary of Results for Scenario 3 17 Table 10: Summary of Results for Scenario 4 18 Table 11: Summary of Results for Scenario 5 19 Table 12: Summary of Results for Scenario 6 21 ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update iv List of Figures Figure 1: Pavement Condition Figure 2: Examples of Roads with Different Figure 3: 2018 Pavement Network Breakdown by Condition Category………………….……7 Figure 4: 2012 Pavement Network Breakdown by Condition Category………………………..7 Figure 6: Costs of Maintaining Pavements over Time Figure 6: PCI vs. Deferred Maintenance for Scenario Figure 7: PCI vs. Deferred Maintenance for Scenario Figure 8: PCI vs. Deferred Maintenance for Scenario Figure 9: PCI vs. Deferred Maintenance for Scenario Figure 10: PCI vs. Deferred Maintenance for Scenario Figure 11: PCI vs. Deferred Maintenance for Scenario Figure 12: PCI Comparisons between Figure 13: Deferred Maintenance Comparisons Figure 14: Current Condition Figure 15: Scenario 1 Projected Figure 16: Scenario 2 Projected Figure 17: Scenario 3 Projected Figure 18: Scenario 4 Projected Figure 19: Scenario 5 Projected Figure 20: Scenario 6 Projected ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update 1 Executive Summary NCE was selected by Alpine County (County) in 2018 to perform an update of its StreetSaver Pavement Management System (PMS). The previous update was performed in 2012. Since the 2012 update, maintenance on the County’s road network has been limited to pothole filling, emergency drainage fixes, and crack filling. The goals of this project were to update the County’s PMS, develop maintenance and rehabilitation strategies, and to conduct budgetary analysis and funding needs. This report contains a detailed record of the road network comprised of road names, functional classification, road length, paved area and condition. The weighted-average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 58 for the County's entire road network, which is considered to be "Fair" condition. PCI is defined with 0 being a fully deteriorated road and 100 being a newly constructed road with no cracking or other distresses. A decision tree was developed, which is used by the StreetSaver software to recommend the appropriate treatment to be applied for each road condition category. As the County has not performed pavement maintenance projects recently, the cost for each treatment was determined by using recent bid tabulations for adjacent Caltrans and NDOT districts, as well as RTC of Washoe County. These were deemed most relevant as the closest materials suppliers for the majority of the County are in the eastern Sierra region. Budget analysis was performed using several different scenarios. These show that the SB1 RMRA funds alone will not be sufficient to maintain the current network condition. Under this scenario, the maintenance backlog is projected to grow from the current $4.19 million to $12.98 million over the next 10 years, while the network average PCI will decline to 44. A sum of $210,000 per year in addition to the projected SB1 RMRA funds would be required to keep the PCI from declining and the inflation-adjusted maintenance backlog from growing. Improving the average network PCI to 70 (the commonly used threshold for “good”) would require $1 million of spending per year in addition to the projected SB1 RMRA funds, for a total of $12.9 million over the next 10 years. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update 2 Introduction Alpine County, California is responsible for the repair and maintenance of 134 centerline miles of county roads, including 69 centerline miles of paved roads. These roads are all rural and are predominantly very low volume. This network includes approximately 8.8 million square feet of pavement, and the total replacement value of the pavement structures is estimated at $39.1 million. In 2012, the County contracted with Quincy Engineering to perform the initial implementation of a pavement management system (PMS). In consultation with the County, Quincy selected the StreetSaver PMS software. Quincy was also responsible for sectioning the network into appropriate management segments, performing the initial condition surveys, as well as performing maintenance needs and budget analysis. In 2018, the County contracted with NCE to update its existing PMS. This effort included updating the StreetSaver software to the latest version, performing new surveys of the same samples rated in 2012, entering the new survey data, reviewing and updating the decision trees, and performing analysis and budget scenarios. This report documents those activities. This work was done in accordance with the Quality Control Plan developed by NCE for this project, which is included in Appendix A. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update 3 Condition Survey The initial implementation of the County's PMS in 2012 divided the paved roadway network into 73 segments, with an average centerline length of 0.95 miles. 211 sample units with a nominal area of 2000 to 2500 square feet were randomly selected to be surveyed – in all 6% of the total pavement area was surveyed. Quincy recorded GPS coordinates for the start of each sample unit, and the start and end of each sample unit were also marked with paint. NCE re-surveyed the same sample units in May and June of 2018. Sample units were located based on the GPS coordinates, although in a large majority of cases the original paint markings were also found. The paint markings were renewed or replaced as appropriate. The condition inspections did not address non-pavement issues such as traffic, safety and road hazards, geometric issues, road shoulders, sidewalks, curb and gutters, drainage issues, or immediate maintenance needs. NCE performed the 2018 surveys in accordance with the Pavement Condition Index Distress Identification Manual1 published by MTC. This manual was updated since the previous survey – the only significant change is that in the 2012 survey weathering and raveling were rated together, whereas in the 2018 survey they were considered two separate distresses. This has some implications for the comparability of the data, as discussed below. The pavement condition index, or PCI, is a measurement of pavement condition and ranges from 0 to 100. A newly constructed road will have a PCI of 100, while a failed road will have a PCI of 25 or less. The PCI is calculated based on the quantity and severity of distresses, which in the current version of StreetSaver include: 1. Alligator Cracking 5. Patching and Utility Cut Patching 2. Block Cracking 6. Rutting and Depressions 3. Distortions 7. Raveling 4. Longitudinal/Transverse Cracking 8. Weathering A more detailed description of each distress type is available in MTC’s Pavement Condition Index Distress Identification Manual. Figure 1 illustrates the definitions of the pavement condition categories. The “Fair” category includes roads with both non-load related (e.g. weathering) and load related (e.g. alligator cracking) distresses. The two categories are designated II (non-load related) and III (load related). Although the PCI range is the same, these categories are treated differently as they have different implications for the future rate of deterioration and the type of repair required. Generally, roads with 1 MTC. Pavement Condition Index Distress Identification Manual for Flexible Pavements. March 2016 – Fourth Edition ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update 4 load-related distress will deteriorate faster and require more costly repairs than roads with non-load related distress. StreetSaver assigns repairs and estimated costs to roads based on the category. 100 I Very Good/Good 70 II/III Fair (non-load) Fair (load-related) 50 IV Poor 25 V Very Poor 0 Condition Category Pavement Condition PCI Figure 1: Pavement Condition Categories ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update 5 The photos in Figure 2 illustrate roads with a range of PCIs. Figure 2: Examples of Roads with Different PCIs Blue Lakes Road Carson River Road Old Pony Express Road Avalanche Road PCI = 87 PCI = 71 PCI = 48 PCI = 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update 6 The County’s average weighted (by area)2 PCI is 58 and this is considered to be in “Fair” condition. However, the average PCI does not completely describe the road network. Table 1 is a summary of the County’s road network and the PCI by functional class. Table 1: Pavement Network and Condition Summary Functional Class Centerline Mileage # of Sections Pavement Area (sf) Weighted Average PCI Collector 20 10 4,361,969 66 Local 49 63 4,477,304 51 Total 69 73 8,839,273 58 Table 2 and Figure 3 show the distribution of pavements by functional class and condition category for 2018. Approximately one third (30.9%) of the County’s roads are “Very Good/Good” and 9.5% is considered to be in “Very Poor” condition. To compare, Figure 4 shows the distribution of pavements by condition category for 2012. Appendix B contains the PCI listing for all roads in the County. Table 2: Area Breakdown by Functional Class and Condition Category Condition Category PCI Range Collector Residential Entire Network Very Good/Good 70-100 44.2% 18.0% 30.9% Fair (II/III) 50-69 37.4% 47.0% 42.3% Poor (IV) 25-49 18.4% 16.2% 17.3% Very Poor 0-24 0.0% 18.8% 9.5% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 2 The weighted average PCI is a result of multiplying the area of each road section by the PCI of that section, totaling all sections together and then dividing by the total of the network areas or functional classification. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update 7 Figure 3: 2018 Pavement Network Breakdown by Condition Category Figure 4: 2012 Pavement Network Breakdown by Condition Category Based on the previous survey data, the network PCI was 56 in 2012. Except for pothole filling, emergency drainage fixes, and crack filling, the County has not performed any maintenance or rehabilitation activities in the past 6 years. The apparent slight increase in PCI is due to a change in the MTC distress rating methodology between the two surveys. Previously, weathering and raveling were considered to be a single distress. This single distress was associated with a deduct value that is higher than the current value for weathering and lower than the current value for raveling. In most cases where raveling/weathering was rated previously, in this survey that distress was determined to be weathering in accordance the new procedure, resulting in a lower deduct value and a higher PCI. In the absence of this change in procedure, the average network PCI would have decreased over this time period. Very Good/ Good 30.9% Poor (IV), 23.4% Very Poor 10.5% Very Good/ Good 27.1% Fair (II/III), 39.0% Fair (II/III), 42.3% Poor (IV), 17.3% Very Poor 9.5% ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update 8 Budget Analysis and Recommended Maintenance Practices Upon completion of the data collection activities, NCE reviewed maintenance and rehabilitation strategies with the County staff. This included the selection of appropriate treatments such as slurry seals or overlays, and the determination of unit costs. As the County has not performed any pavement maintenance for several years and therefore does not have any recent projects to use for cost estimates, recent bid tabs from Caltrans Districts 9 and 10, NDOT District 2, and the Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County were used. The unit costs developed include all related construction costs as well as engineering and design costs. Once appropriate maintenance alternatives were defined, a treatment unit cost was determined for each alternative and these alternatives and costs were entered into the PMS database for budgetary analyses. NCE then performed several budgetary analyses based on different constraints, including a 30-year analysis using projected SB1 RMRA funds only. StreetSaver recommends repairs for each road based on the condition category and the decision tree settings. When the pavement condition is within the “Very Good/Good” category, a crack seal or slurry seal is the recommended treatment. These types of treatments are usually considered “preventive maintenance”. When the pavement condition deteriorates to lower PCI levels, “rehabilitation” is performed. For example, when the pavement deteriorates to the “Poor” condition category, a 2-inch overlay and 20% removal and replacement is performed. In addition, base repairs are commonly used as preparatory work prior to overlays. After discussions with County staff, a detailed maintenance decision tree was prepared and included in Table 3. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update 9 Table 3: Decision Tree Functional Class Condition Category Treatment Type Treatment Cost/Sq Yd, except Seal Cracks in LF: Collector I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $1.15 Surface Treatment CHIP SEAL $2.88 Restoration Treatment 2" OVERLAY $12.08 II - Good, Non-Load Related CHIP SEAL $2.88 III - Good, Load Related CAPE SEAL $5.75 IV - Poor 2" OVERLAY, 20% R+R $17.94 V - Very Poor PULVERIZE, + 3" OVERLAY $24.15 Local I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $1.15 Surface Treatment SLURRY SEAL $2.88 Restoration Treatment 2” OVERLAY $12.08 II - Good, Non-Load Related SLURRY SEAL/ CHIP SEAL $2.88 III - Good, Load Related CAPE SEAL $5.75 IV - Poor 2" OVERLAY, 20% R+R $17.94 V - Very Poor PULVERIZE, + 3" OVERLAY $24.15 The only difference between the decision tree for collectors and local roads is that for Category II, chip seals are recommended for collectors whereas slurry seals are recommended for local roads. Chip seals are generally not recommended for residential areas due to resident complaints from loose chips as well as difficulty in evenly spraying asphalt emulsion on tight curves and irregular areas. Treatments in Category I and II have further specifications for the number of years before treatments, and the number of surface treatments that can be applied before a restoration treatment is required. These are shown in Table 4. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update 10 Table 4: Years Between Treatments Treatment Type Years Between Treatments # of Treatments before Restoration Treatment Crack Treatment 4 N/A Surface Treatment 6 3 Figure 5 illustrates that pavement maintenance follows the old colloquial saying of "pay now or pay more later". It is much less expensive to maintain roads in good condition than to repair roads that have failed. By letting pavements deteriorate, roads that once cost $2.88/square yard to slurry seal may soon cost as much as $24.15/square yard to pulverize and construct a 3-inch overlay. The costs shown in the chart below are based on recent bid tabs from Caltrans, NDOT, and RTC of Washoe County. The pavement deterioration curve shown by the red line describes how pavements deteriorate over time. The appropriate treatment and its associated cost is shown. Figure 5: Costs of Maintaining Pavements over Time Pavement Condition % of Pavement Life Crack Seal, Slurry Seal $1.00-2.50/sy Chip Seal, Cape Seal $2.50-$5.00/sy Good Very Good Poor Very Poor Failed 40% 75% 90% Pulverize and 3” Overlay $20.50/sy 2” Overlay and 20% R+R $15.60/sy ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update 11 Budget Analysis Unconstrained Budget Scenario Once the pavement condition has been determined, and the appropriate maintenance treatments have been assigned in the decision tree, then it is possible to determine the funding needs for the County’s maintained roads. For the unconstrained scenario, the StreetSaver program seeks to answer the following questions: Therefore, based on the principle that it costs less to maintain roads in good condition than those in poor condition, StreetSaver will develop a maintenance strategy that will improve the overall condition of the roads and then maintain it at that level. The condition of each road determines the appropriate treatment and cost from the decision tree. For example, if Montgomery Street has a PCI of 56, and the appropriate treatment is a cape seal, then the area of the pavement section is multiplied by the unit cost to determine the total treatment cost. Additional maintenance treatments over the next five years will also be applied (e.g. slurry seal) to preserve it. Using this process, the entire road network for the County was evaluated and the costs were summed, and the results are presented in Table 5. This results in maintenance needs of approximately $8.97 million over the next five years. An annual inflation rate of 3% was assumed. The “treated PCI” represents the resulting network PCI level if recommended treatments are performed. The “untreated PCI” represents the resulting network PCI level if no maintenance and rehabilitation is done. If Alpine County follows the funding strategy recommended by the program, the average PCI will increase to 78. Table 5: Results of 5 Year Budget Needs Fiscal Year 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 Total Total Budget Needs 8.62 0.20 0.01 0.35 0.19 9.37 Rehabilitation 7.76 0.20 0.01 0.35 0.17 8.49 Preventive Maintenance 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.88 Treated PCI 73 70 75 79 78 N/A Untreated PCI 58 56 53 50 47 N/A If funding is not a constraint, how much money is needed to bring the pavement condition to a state of good repair? And once there, how much is required to maintain it at that level over the next five years? ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update 12 The funding level or determined maintenance needs illustrates the level of expenditures required to raise the pavement condition to a network PCI in the mid 70’s and eliminates the maintenance backlog. Of the $9.37 million in maintenance needs, approximately $0.88 million (approximately is programmed for preventive maintenance, while the rest is allocated for more costly rehabilitation and reconstruction treatments. Again, preventive maintenance includes treatments such as slurry seals, while rehabilitation includes overlays. Note that in this analysis, the total funding needed is “front-loaded” since it is less expensive to repair the roads in the first year than in subsequent years because of deferring maintenance and inflation. The budget needs for the first year is equal to the County’s current deferred maintenance backlog of $8.62 million. Using the same process, a needs calculation was done for a 30-year span. The results of this process are shown in Table 6. Of the $30.5 million in maintenance needs, approximately $18.5 million (approximately 60%) is allocated for preventative maintenance. Rehabilitation and reconstruction treatments make up the other $12.0 million. If the County follows this maintenance plan, then the average network PCI is projected to increase to 79 by the year 2047. Generally, following this maintenance plan would maintain the average network PCI in the upper 70’s over the next 30 years. More detailed results of the budget needs and scenarios can be found in Appendix D. Table 6: Results of 30 Year Budget Needs Fiscal Year Total Budget Needs Rehabilitation Preventative Maintenance Treated PCI Untreated PCI 17/18 8.62 7.76 0.86 73 58 18/19 0.20 0.20 0.00 70 56 19/20 0.01 0.01 0.00 75 53 20/21 0.35 0.35 0.00 79 50 21/22 0.17 0.17 0.02 78 47 22/23 0.00 0.00 0.00 85 44 23/24 4.11 2.55 1.56 87 41 24/25 0.49 0.36 0.13 86 38 25/26 0.53 0.01 0.52 85 35 26/27 0.02 0.00 0.02 84 32 27/28 0.02 0.00 0.02 84 29 28/29 0.85 0.00 0.85 84 26 29/30 2.27 0.40 1.87 86 24 30/31 0.11 0.00 0.11 85 22 31/32 1.55 0.02 1.53 84 20 32/33 0.17 0.00 0.17 83 18 ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update 13 Fiscal Total Budget Rehabilitation Preventative Treated Untreated 33/34 0.32 0.00 0.32 82 17 34/35 0.28 0.00 0.28 82 15 35/36 1.51 0.00 1.51 83 13 36/37 2.26 0.13 2.13 84 11 37/38 0.14 0.00 0.14 82 9 38/39 2.38 0.00 2.38 85 7 39/40 0.43 0.00 0.43 83 6 40/41 0.72 0.00 0.72 84 5 41/42 0.63 0.00 0.63 83 4 42/43 0.18 0.00 0.18 83 3 43/44 0.35 0.00 0.35 82 2 44/45 0.17 0.00 0.17 80 2 45/46 0.27 0.00 0.27 79 1 46/47 1.32 0.00 1.32 79 1 Total 30.5 12.0 18.5 N/A N/A Budget Scenarios Constrained Budget Scenarios As the County does not have unlimited funds to spend on road maintenance, several constrained scenarios were performed. StreetSaver allows either budget or network condition to be used as constraints. If budget is a constraint, then StreetSaver determines the optimal maintenance treatments to maximize network condition under a fixed budget. If condition is a constraint, then StreetSaver determines the optimal maintenance treatments to minimize cost to maintain the network at a certain condition. The following scenarios were analyzed: Scenario 1: Allow Network PCI to decrease to 50 ($300,000 per year over 5 years) – An annual budget of approximately $300,000 is required if the network PCI to allowed decrease to and then stabilized at 50 during the next five years. Also, the maintenance backlog will increase from $8.62 million to $11.2 million by fiscal year (FY) 2021/22. Scenario 2: Maintain Existing PCI ($980,000 per year over 5 years) – To maintain the current PCI Level of 58, an annual budget of $980,000 per year over 5 years is required, and the maintenance backlog will decrease to $7.44 million by FY 2021/22. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update 14 Scenario 3: Increase Network PCI to 60 ($1,130,000 per year over 5 years) – This budget scenario shows that an annual budget of approximately $1,130,000 for 5 years would be required to improve and maintain the network PCI at 60. By FY 2021/22, the deferred maintenance will also decrease to $6.61 million. Scenario 4: Increase Network PCI to 70 ($1,520,000 per year over 5 years) – This scenario would increase the network PCI level to 70 and maintain it there. It requires an annual budget of $1,520,000 for 5 years. The deferred maintenance will decrease to $4.59 million by FY 2021/22. Scenario 5: Do Nothing (no investment in preventative maintenance and rehabilitation) – This budget scenario was performed to establish a baseline if there is no investment made in preventative maintenance and rehabilitation. After 5 years, the network PCI level is projected to decrease to 47. The deferred maintenance greatly increases to $12.7 million by FY 2021/22. Scenario 6: Projected SB 1 RMRA Funding (Bi-Annual Budget starting with a base budget of $360,000 for FY 2019/20) – This scenario is constrained to the projected SB1 RMRA funding. The budget will be spent bi- annually to economize on planning, engineering and contractor mobilization costs and is projected to increase by approximately $20,000 every two years until FY 2026/27. After FY 2026/27, no growth is projected. Using the current budget, the network PCI level is projected to slowly decline to 50 after 5 years. By FY 2021/22, deferred maintenance increases to $11.7 million. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update 15 Scenario 1: Allow Network PCI to decrease to 50 ($300,000/year for 5 years) This budget scenario uses an annual budget of approximately $300,000 per year for 5 years. The deferred maintenance will increase to $11.2 million by FY 2021/22. At the end of the analysis period, 42% of the pavement area will be in the “Very Good/Good” condition categories, 31.6% in the “Fair”, and 44% in the “Poor” and “Very Poor” categories. Table 7 and Figure 6 summarize results from Scenario 1. Table 7: Summary of Results for Scenario 1 Fiscal Year 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 Total Total Budget 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 1.37 1.50 Rehabilitation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.70 0.83 Preventive Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 Deferred Maintenance 8.62 8.93 11.0 12.0 11.2 N/A Treated PCI 58 58 56 53 50 N/A Figure 6: PCI vs. Deferred Maintenance for Scenario 1 $8.62 $8.93 $11.00 $11.90 $11.20 58 56 53 50 51 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $14 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 PCI Deferred Maintenance Fiscal Year Deferred Maintenance Treated PCI ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update 16 Scenario 2: Maintain Existing PCI ($980,000/year) With an annual budget of $980,000 per year for 5 years, the network PCI will be maintained at the current level of 58 and the deferred maintenance will decrease to $7.44 million by FY 21/22. At the end of the analysis period, 45.7% of the pavement area will be in the “Very Good/Good” condition categories, 24.5% in the “Fair”, and 29.7% in the “Poor” and “Very Poor” categories. Road sections selected for treatment under this funding level are included in Appendix E. Table 8 and Figure 7 summarize results from Scenario 2. Table 8: Summary of Results for Scenario 2 Fiscal Year 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 Total Total Budget 0.00 0.92 2.13 0.04 1.83 4.92 Rehabilitation 0.00 0.18 1.98 0.04 1.83 4.02 Preventive Maintenance 0.00 0.74 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.89 Deferred Maintenance 8.62 8.01 7.94 8.91 7.44 N/A Treated PCI 58 58 58 61 58 N/A Figure 7: PCI vs. Deferred Maintenance for Scenario 2 $8.62 $8.01 $7.94 $8.91 $7.44 58 58 61 58 61 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $14 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 PCI Deferred Maintenance Fiscal Year Deferred Maintenance Treated PCI ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update 17 Scenario 3: Increase Network PCI to 60 ($1,130,000/year for 5 years) This scenario illustrates that an annual budget of $1,130,000 is required to increase the network PCI to 60 over the next five years. The deferred maintenance also decreases from $8.62 million to $6.61 million by FY 2021/22. Furthermore, 29.9% of the pavement area will be in the “Very Good/Good” condition categories, 40.3% in the “Fair”, and 29.7% in the “Poor” and “Very Poor” categories by the end of the analysis period. Table 9 and Figure 8 summarize results from Scenario 3. Table 9: Summary of Results for Scenario 3 Fiscal Year 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 Total Total Budget 0.67 1.11 1.98 0.00 1.88 5.65 Rehabilitation 0.18 0.74 1.98 0.00 1.87 4.77 Preventive Maintenance 0.49 0.37 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.88 Deferred Maintenance 7.95 7.13 7.17 8.15 6.61 N/A Treated PCI 58 60 61 63 60 N/A Figure 8: PCI vs. Deferred Maintenance for Scenario 3 $7.95 $7.13 $7.17 $8.15 $6.61 60 61 63 60 64 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $14 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 PCI Deferred Maintenance Fiscal Year Deferred Maintenance Treated PCI ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update 18 Scenario 4: Increase Network PCI to 70 ($1,520,000/year for 5 years) This scenario illustrates that an annual budget of $1,520,000 is required to increase the network PCI to 70 over the next five years. The deferred maintenance also decreases from $8.62 million to $4.59 million by FY 2021/22. Furthermore, 88.8% of the pavement area will be in the “Very Good/Good” condition categories, 7.2% in the “Fair”, and 3.9% in the “Poor” and “Very Poor” categories by the end of the analysis period. Table 10 and Figure 9 summarize results from Scenario 3. Table 10: Summary of Results for Scenario 4 Fiscal Year 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 Total Total Budget 4.27 0.81 1.98 0.00 0.55 7.61 Rehabilitation 3.41 0.81 1.98 0.00 0.54 6.74 Preventive Maintenance 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.87 Deferred Maintenance 4.34 3.72 3.67 4.90 4.59 N/A Treated PCI 71 71 73 70 70 N/A Figure 9: PCI vs. Deferred Maintenance for Scenario 4 $4.35 $3.72 $3.67 $4.90 $4.59 71 71 73 70 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $14 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 PCI Deferred Maintenance Fiscal Year Deferred Maintenance Treated PCI ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update 19 Scenario 5: Do Nothing (no investment in preventative maintenance and rehabilitation) In this budget scenario, no preventative and rehabilitation is performed. This scenario was conducted so that a baseline could be established, to show what the impact on the pavement network would be if no investment is made in preventative maintenance and rehabilitation. In this scenario, the deferred maintenance sharply increases from $8.62 million to $12.7 million by FY 2021/22. The network PCI level also decreases to 47 after 5 years. At the end of the analysis period, 8% of the pavement area will be in the “Very Good/Good” condition categories, 42.6% in the “Fair”, and 49.5% in the “Poor” and “Very Poor” categories. Table 11: Summary of Results for Scenario 5 Fiscal Year 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 Total Total Budget 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rehabilitation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Preventive Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Deferred Maintenance 8.62 8.93 11.0 12.1 12.7 N/A Untreated PCI 58 56 53 50 47 N/A Figure 10: PCI vs. Deferred Maintenance for Scenario 5 $8.62 $8.93 $11.00 $12.10 $12.70 58 56 53 50 47 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $14 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 PCI Deferred Maintenance Fiscal Year Deferred Maintenance Treated PCI ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update 20 Scenario 6: Projected SB 1 RMRA Funding (Bi-Annual Budget starting with a base budget of $640,000 for FY 2019/20) This budget scenario was conducted using the projected SB 1 RMRA funding for Alpine County, which will be used for maintenance and rehabilitation. The base funding level is $360,000, to be spent in FY 2019/20. This includes $40,000 leftover from FY 17/18 combined with $320,000 for FY 18/19. Projected funds accumulated biannually for future years are shown in Table 12. Table 12: Projected SB1 RMRA Funding Fiscal Year Road Maintenance Funds 19/20 $360,000 21/22 $680,000 23/24 $750,000 25/26 $800,000 27/28 $850,000 29/30 $860,000 31/32 $860,000 33/34 $860,000 35/36 $860,000 37/38 $860,000 39/40 $860,000 41/42 $860,000 43/44 $860,000 45/46 $860,000 Under this scenario the deferred maintenance increases from $8.62 million to $11.7 million by FY 2021/22. The network PCI level also decreases to 50 after 5 years. Furthermore, 38% of the pavement area will be in the “Very Good/Good” condition categories, 20.9% in the “Fair”, and 41% in the “Poor” and “Very Poor” categories by the end of the analysis period. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update 21 Table 13: Summary of Results for Scenario 6 Fiscal Year 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 Total Total Budget 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.68 1.04 Rehabilitation 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.61 0.93 Preventive Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.07 0.11 Deferred Maintenance 8.62 8.93 10.7 11.7 11.7 N/A Treated PCI 58 56 54 51 50 N/A Figure 11: PCI vs. Deferred Maintenance for Scenario 6 $8.62 $8.93 $10.70 $11.70 $11.70 58 56 54 51 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $14 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 PCI Deferred Maintenance Fiscal Year Deferred Maintenance Treated PCI ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update - Draft 22 Budget Summary Figure 12 compares the resulting PCIs for each of the scenarios. The County’s current bi-annual budget with a baseline of $360,000 (Scenario 6) will result in an eight-point decrease from 58 to 50 by FY 2021/22. Scenario 5, where there is no investment made in maintenance and rehabilitation, results in an eleven-point decrease from 58 to 47 over 5 years. Scenario 2 shows that an annual budget of approximately $980,000 is required to maintain the existing network PCI level of 58. Scenario 1 shows that having an annual budget of $1,520,000 would increase the network PCI level to 70. Figure 12: PCI Comparisons between Scenarios Figure 13 shows the increase in deferred maintenance costs that result from the “Do Nothing,” “SB 1 RMRA Funding,” and “Maintain Existing PCI of 58” budget scenarios. After 30 years, if no investment is made in maintenance and rehabilitation, the deferred maintenance cost is projected to sharply increase to $55.9 million. On the other hand, in the budget scenario using SB 1 RMRA funding, the deferred maintenance cost by 2047 is $37.5 million. By using the SB 1 RMRA 58 58 56 53 50 51 58 58 58 61 58 61 58 71 71 73 70 70 58 58 56 53 50 47 58 58 58 55 54 51 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Current 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 PCI Fiscal Year $300,000/year for 5 years $980,000/year for 5 years $1,520,000/year for 5 years Do Nothing SB 1 RMRA Funding ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update - Draft 23 funding as opposed to doing nothing, the deferred maintenance cost is cut nearly in half by the year 2046. Additionally, if the current network PCI of 58 was maintained, the deferred maintenance cost would greatly reduce to $12.6 million. The projected SB1 budget using RMRA funding totals approximately $15.4 million over 30 years. To maintain the existing PCI of 58, a total of $22.3 million over 30 years is needed. To prevent further degradation of the network PCI, the County would need to spend $310,000 per year in addition to the SB1 RMRA funds. Figure 13: Deferred Maintenance Comparisons between Do Nothing and SB 1 RMRA Funding Scenarios Figure 14 shows the current breakdown of the County’s road mileage by condition, whereas Figures 15 – 20 show the projected conditions at the end of 5 years for each budget scenario considered. $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 $45 $50 $55 2018202020222024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 Deferred Maintenance Million) Fiscal Year Scenario 5. Do Nothing Scenario 6. SB 1 RMRA Funding Scenario 2. Maintain Existing PCI of 58 Very Poor 9.5% Very Poor 20% Very Good 33% ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update - Draft 24 Very Good 33% Very Poor 20% Poor (IV), 24% Good (II/III), 23% Figure 15. Scenario 1 Projected Condition Very Poor 9.5% Poor (IV), 17.3% Good (II/III), 42.3% Figure 14. Current Condition Figure 16. Scenario 2 Projected Condition Figure 17. Scenario 3 Projected Condition ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update - Draft 25 Figure 18. Scenario 4 Projected Condition Figure 19. Scenario 5 Projected Condition Poor (IV), 15.1% Very Good 38% Figure 20. Scenario 6 Projected Condition ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update - Draft 26 Conclusions Alpine County has a substantial investment in its road network, estimated at $39.1 million. Overall, the roads are in “Fair” condition with an average PCI of 58. Approximately one third of the roads are in the “Very Good/Good” condition. The County’s projected bi-annual budget starting with a base budget pf $640,000 for FY 2019/20 will result in the average PCI decreasing to 50 by FY 21/22. a. Pavement Funding County’s current bi-annual budget for pavements is estimated to be approximately $360,000 in FY 2019/20 and increases by approximately $20,000 every two years until FY 2026/27, where no growth is projected. At this budget level, the County’s average network PCI level will decrease to 50 over the next 5 years. The overall condition of the pavement will remain in the “Fair” category; however, it will be near the PCI breakpoint that will soon put the pavement condition into the “Poor” category. In addition, the percentage of roads in the “Poor” or “Very Poor” category will increase to 41%. However, the percentage of pavement in the “Very Good/Good” category will increase to 38%. The resulting deferred maintenance at the end of the analysis period will increase to $11.7 million. It should be noted that there is a significant unknown in the future cost of rehabilitation; with the volatility in oil prices, we would recommend that the County carefully monitor future construction costs and be ready to adapt to large increases if necessary. b. Pavement Maintenance Strategies The County’s pavement maintenance strategies include surface seals and overlays. Since a nearly three fourths of the pavements are currently in “Very Good/Good” and “Fair” condition, it is important to preserve good pavements. Therefore, we recommend that the County maintain current efforts in the preventive maintenance and rehabilitation program as outlined in the decision tree. c. Re-inspection Strategies In order to monitor future pavement performance and on-going maintenance needs, it is recommended that all roads in the network be re-inspected every two years. d. Maintenance and Rehabilitation Decision Tree The maintenance and rehabilitation decision tree and the associated unit costs should be reviewed and updated annually to reflect new construction techniques and changing costs so the funding analysis can be reliable and accurate. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update - Draft 27 e. Next Steps To summarize, we recommend that the County consider the following steps:  Implement alternative maintenance treatments as technology changes.  Update the pavement management program regularly.  Review and update maintenance and rehabilitation decision tree and associated unit costs annually. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A Quality Control Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 99 Water Street Markleeville, California 96120 Quality Control Plan Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management Update March 29, 2018 Reno, NV 1885 S. Arlington Ave., Suite 111 Reno, NV 89509 ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update Quality Control Plan The contents of this report are the confidential property of Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd. (NCE) and should not be copied, modified, retransmitted, or used for any purpose except with NCE’s written authorization. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update Quality Control Plan Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Objectives 1 1.2 Structure 1 2.0 QUALITY CONTROL PLAN 2 2.1 Condition Survey Procedure 2 2.2 Accuracy Required For Data Collection 3 2.3 Inspectors Qualification and Experience 5 3.0 SAFETY PROCEDURE 5 Appendix A. Resumes of Inspectors ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update Quality Control Plan 1 I P a g e 1.0 INTRODUCTION When performing data collection in any field, the need for quality control is paramount. This need for quality data is essential for accurate planning, analysis, and design. NCE’s “Quality Assurance Management Plan” (QAMP) affirms that: “NCE is dedicated to achieving technical and management excellence and to delivering professional engineering and environmental services that meet or exceed our clients' needs. NCE's Quality Assurance (QA) Program is designed to achieve these goals. This QA Management Plan (QAMP) describes NCE's QA Program, which is based on four principles: client satisfaction, employee participation, problem prevention, and continuous quality improvements.” NCE's QAMP establishes minimum quality standards for performance and procedures for assuring that our clients receive quality service. It requires the participation of employees at every level. It encourages Project Managers and technical staff to take pride in their work and responsibility for ensuring that the work is done the first time correctly. The program is designed to reduce the incidence of problems related to quality and results in implementation, where necessary, of corrective actions and modification of work procedures to minimize the incidence of future problems. NCE has also prepared detailed and specific Quality Control Plans for projects, one of the most notable example being the Long Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) – Western Regional Support Contract for the Federal Highway Administration. This quality control plan documents data collection on highways, including deflection, profile, pavement distresses, traffic, maintenance and rehabilitation history, materials testing and sampling as well as a document control. 1.1 Objectives The objective of this document is to describe a formal Quality Control Plan (QCP) for the Alpine County (County) 2018 Pavement Management Program Update project. 1.2 Structure The following components are addressed in this QCP:  Condition survey procedures used  Accuracy required for data collection  Inspector qualifications and experience  Safety ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update Quality Control Plan 2 I P a g e 2.0 QUALITY CONTROL PLAN 2.1 Condition Survey Procedure The governing documents in performing condition surveys are:  “Pavement Condition Index Distress Identification Manual for Flexible Pavements,” Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 4th Edition, March 2016.  “Pavement Condition Index Distress Identification Manual for Rigid Pavements,” Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 3rd Edition, March 2016. Any exceptions to the above procedures will be discussed with the County before surveys are performed. These are usually related to distresses or situations that are not covered in the manuals but are important to the agency. Examples might include slippage cracks, roller check marks or edge cracking on streets with no curbs and gutters. Others include the rating of raveling on chip seals or open‐graded asphalt concrete mixes. Any modifications will be documented and submitted to the County for approval prior to conducting the first survey. All surveys will be performed as walking surveys with a single person crew. A record of GPS locations for approximately 210 sample units has been obtained from the previous 2012 PMS plan update and these same sample units will be inspected in this 2018 survey. It is assumed that the condition of the sample units are representative of the section as a whole. If a sample unit is determined to be unrepresentative, it will be inspected and an additional sample unit will be identified and inspected that is considered to be more representative of the overall condition of the section. The inspector will place an appropriate comment on each sample unit, and the decision of whether to substitute the new sample unit for the old sample unit will be made in consultation with the County. It is also assumed that the pavement sections are homogeneous based on the following criteria:  Pavement condition  Construction age, if known  Maintenance history, if known  Traffic volumes (or functional classification as a surrogate)  Surface types, e.g., asphalt concrete or Portland cement concrete  Geometric elements, e.g., widths It is not uncommon for section homogeneity to change over time, and thus may vary from one survey to the next. If in the course of the survey the section is observed to lack homogeneity, then the section will be split according to the criteria agreed upon by NCE and the County prior to conducting the first survey. This may require selecting alternative and/or additional sample units. Any modifications to the section inventory data will be documented and provided to the County. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update Quality Control Plan 3 I P a g e When selecting new sample units, typical sample unit dimensions will be 100 ft long by the width of the street. Since the maximum size of a sample unit allowed under StreetSaver is 4000 ft2, sample units on streets that are wider than 40 ft will have shorter (generally 50 ft). If the street is divided by a raised median, separate sample units will be selected in each direction. 2.2 Accuracy Required For Data Collection The accuracy of the data collection effort will be assessed through the following two approaches, both of which are further described in the following paragraphs.  Random re‐inspections  Systematic re‐inspection.  PCI comparisons with past surveys. 2.2.1 Random and Systematic Re-inspection As a minimum, 5% of the total sample units that have been inspected will be re‐inspected by a different inspector who was not directly involved in the initial inspection. The sample units to be re‐inspected will be randomly selected but chosen to be broadly representative of the network based on the following categories:  Functional classes, i.e., arterials, collectors, locals;  Surface types, e.g., asphalt concrete or chip seal;  Pavement conditions, e.g., good, fair, poor;  Inspectors;  Geographical areas, if applicable. Based on the results of the random re‐inspection, systematic re‐inspections may be needed due to potential bias noted within data collected for a specific treatment type open‐ graded mixes), by a specific inspector, or within a specific geographical area. In such cases, the sample units to be re‐inspected will be determined based on the nature of the bias discovered in the random inspection. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update Quality Control Plan 4 I P a g e Acceptability Criteria for Re‐Inspected Sample Units At the time of re‐inspection, the actual distress will be re‐inspected and verified, and any corrections made, if necessary. The following acceptance criteria shall be applied to the re‐ inspection as required by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC): 1) At least 50 percent of the PCI values for the re‐inspected sample units must be within 5 PCI points of the original inspection PCI values. 2) No more than 12 percent of the PCI values for the re‐inspected sample units can be greater than 15 PCI points of the original inspection PCI values If the above acceptance criteria are not met, then an additional 5% of the sample units will be re‐inspected. This will continue until the re‐inspected sections meet the acceptability criteria. 2.2.2 PCI Comparison with Past Surveys As another level of quality control, the new PCI are compared with the previous PCI for each section. If they differ by more than ±20 PCI points, these sections will be automatically flagged for further investigation to assess the accuracy of the most recent survey. If PCI is +20 points: For sections that showed a dramatic improvement in condition as assessed by the PCI, the section will be investigated to see if a maintenance and rehabilitation event has occurred since the last survey that was not recorded. This can only be resolved with feedback from the County. Typically, it may include activities such as:  Crack sealing activities – changes medium or high severity cracking to low severity  Patching activities ‐ alligator cracking that has been removed and patched, so that the resultant PCI is increased.  Surface seals  Overlays  Reconstruction If PCI is ‐20 points: For sections that showed a dramatic decrease in condition as assessed by the PCI, the section will be checked to see if the average deterioration rate exceeds the 4 points per year which , is not considered to be normal. If the deterioration rate exceeds 4 points per year, a re‐ inspection will be performed to verify that the recorded condition is accurate based on the criteria presented in Section 2.2.1. The verified PCI value will be recorded and if the PCI drop exceeded 4 points per year, the section will be flagged for additional evaluation to determine what may have caused the rapid rate of deterioration. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 Pavement Management System Update Quality Control Plan 5 I P a g e 2.3 Inspectors Qualification and Experience All NCE’s inspectors are required to attend formal training on condition distress surveys. Additionally, for projects using the MTC StreetSaver system, NCE only uses inspectors that have attend the distress training conducted by MTC and been certified by MTC. After formal training, NCE inspectors work with an experienced inspector for a minimum of three months before they are allowed to work on their own. Within the first month of working on their own, up to 20% of their work is checked weekly. Any necessary corrections are made immediately. In addition, NCE conducts an annual one‐day training and calibration workshop for all NCE staff involved with data collection. Resumes of the technicians who may be utilized on this project are included in Appendix A. Alternate technicians will only be used with permission of the County. 3.0 SAFETY PROCEDURE NCE administers a health and safety program in compliance with the Nevada Occupational Safety and Health act (Section 618.383) and Cal OSHA Title VIII, Section 3203. The program is documented in NCE's Workplace Safety Program Manual. The safety procedures include:  Inspectors to wear a safety vest at all times;  Flashing beacon on all vehicles utilized for surveys; and  Stopped vehicles to be parked at locations away from moving traffic, e.g., nearby parking, shoulders, etc. On streets where there is a high volume of traffic or high speeds, additional measures may be necessary, such as:  Surveys to occur during off‐peak periods or on weekends;  Additional inspector to watch out for traffic; and  Traffic flaggers in extreme cases. In extreme cases where it is not possible to walk on the pavement surface, surveys will be performed from sidewalks or raised medians. However, this is rare for city or county roads/streets; this is most often encountered on state highways, and lane closures are the most likely option at this point. The cost for traffic flaggers or lane‐closure are additional, and not within NCE’s scope or budget for this project. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 I P a g e APPENDIX A RESUMES OF FIELD INSPECTORS ---PAGE BREAK--- Education Shasta College Joined NCE 2012 Total Years of Experience 30 years Dick Minto Senior Construction Manager Prior to joining NCE in 2012, Dick managed road maintenance and construction activities for the Washoe County Public Works Department. He was responsible for implementing cost effective approaches for construction and maintenance activities. Those duties also included road reconstruction, surface treatments, erosion control project, repairing and maintaining drainage systems etc. He has performed construction oversight, management and resident inspection services for over 30 years. As such, Dick is extremely familiar with cost effective approaches for construction and the long term maintenance implications of various design options. He has extensive experience with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. Representative Projects Roadway Improvements Virginia Street Bus RAPID Transit Extension Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County, Nevada Constructability and Maintainability Reviews. NCE prepared the environmental document and preliminary engineering of Virginia Street, a project that increases mobility and safety along the corridor. The project includes roadway reconstruction, intersection and signal modification, landscaping and aesthetics, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and a gateway to the University of Nevada, Reno campus. East Newlands Road and Nevada Pacific Parkway Crack Repair Project City of Fernley, Nevada Resident Inspector. The East Newlands Road and Nevada Pacific Parkway Crack Repair Project consisted of repairing transverse and longitudinal cracks in an Industrial area that supports high volumes of truck traffic. The cracks ranged in width from 3” to 12” and continue to grow as a result of the asphalt roadway shrinking. NCE has worked with several jurisdictions over the past several years to provide agencies with maintenance techniques that are cost effective to maintain shrining asphalt roadways and parking lots. Dick served as the resident inspector for the 10,300 linear feet repair project. His duties included tracking work quantities and assurance that work was completed per plans and specifications. Maintain a field set of record drawings. He also monitored the project and recorded asphalt shrinkage resulting in crack growth on a basis for one year after completion of the project. Prater Way and El Rancho Drive Pavement Project Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County, Nevada Field Data Collection. Dick provided existing condition surveys of pavement, sidewalk, curb & Gutter. Marked locations of base repairs and provided input on repair alternatives to ensure the project was constructable and cost effective to maintain. West Huffaker Lane Rehabilitation Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County, Nevada Construction Manager and Inspector. The project included inspection services for design and construction for rehabilitation to pavement section, full depth ---PAGE BREAK--- Dick Minto 2 I P a g e pulverization, regrading shoulders, paved shoulders, repairing drainage structures, surface treatment, minor curb and gutter replacement, guardrail installation, signage and striping modifications to accommodate bike lanes. The scope of work also included investigation of existing conditions, condition survey, preliminary design, final design, contract administration, and construction inspection services. East Newlands Crack Repair Project City of Fernley, Nevada Construction Manager/Inspector. Responsibilities included working with the design team to complete plans for the project that would be cost effective to construct and maintain. Dick also provided daily construction inspection services for the project during construction. His duties included marking repairs in the field, insuring the contractors work met standards called out in the plans and specs. Tracking time and materials used. Providing as‐builts plans. Working with the client to make sure they were comfortable with the project. Lakeshore Drive Pavement Rehabilitation and Drainage Improvements Washoe County Public Works Department, Nevada Resident Inspector/Project Maintenance Manager. Responsibilities included advising the design team on existing conditions and design alternatives to achieve a completed project that would be efficient and cost effective to maintain. The project included underground drainage, storm treatment vaults and improvements to bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Dick reviewed proposed construction plans and schedules and worked with project managers, construction supervisors, field personnel and engineers in their performance of field inspections to ensure a high quality cost effective project. 2013 Corrective Maintenance Project Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County, Nevada Construction Manager and Inspector. The 2013 Corrective Maintenance Project consisted of several different treatments ranging from full depth patching and surface treatments to full depth reconstruction of several streets in the Reno Area. Dick provided daily construction inspection services for the project. Gonowabie Road Slope Repair Washoe County Community Services Department, Nevada Construction Manager and Inspector. The project included inspection services for the construction of a soil nail wall on Gonowabie Road in Bay. Tasks included documenting daily construction progress, and meeting with project managers, engineers, county inspector, and job superintendents for planning and construction questions. Conducted traffic control inspections, ensured daily construction procedures were consistent with plans, and ensured Best Management Practices (BMPs) were in place. Lakeshore Boulevard and Northwood Boulevard Pedestrian Path Overlay Washoe County Public Works Department, Nevada Construction Manager and Inspector. The project task included full time inspection services for construction of 15,742 linear feet of asphalt paving, 200,000 square feet of asphalt surface sealing, pre and post construction video of the project site, meeting with construction superintendents, project supervisors, provide environmental oversight, reviewing and approving construction methods and schedules, write construction and material reports, schedule material testing and documenting results. Updating project managers/owners on a daily basis, creating preliminary and final punch lists, traffic control inspections, and completing the project closeout report were also included. Miscellaneous Field Inspection Services Washoe County, Nevada Field Data Collection and Constructability Reviews. Provide miscellaneous on‐call field inspection services for construction projects, street rehabilitation projects, surface treatment projects, curb and gutter replacement projects, plan and spec oversite and review. Provide inspections for the street excavation permitting program. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dick Minto 3 I P a g e Pervious Concrete Study Nevada Department of Transportation, Nevada Field Inspector. Provide condition assessments and infiltration testing for two pervious concrete test sections constructed at Lake Tahoe. Comstock Drive Drainage and Roadway Improvements City of Fernley, Nevada Construction Manager. Dick provided constructability and maintainability input to the design team and part‐time construction inspection. Worked with design team to make sure the project was constructable and maintainable in an efficient and cost effective manner. Road Operations Effectiveness Testing City of South Lake Tahoe, California Maintenance Management Consulting Services. Provided oversight for Road RAM, winter road operations (sanding & sweeping) cost effectiveness study of jurisdictions in the Tahoe Basin. Duties included advising regulatory agencies and road maintenance managers on alternatives to reduce sediment loading in Lake Tahoe. Kings Beach Commercial Core Improvement Project Placer County Public Works Department, California Onsite Inspector. Provided inspection services for curb and gutter installation. Work with contractor and owner to make sure the project was completed as the designer’s intent to match plans and specs. Duties also included tracking labor, equipment and materials used. Twelve Bridges and Joiner Parkway Resurfacing Project City of Lincoln, California Field Data Collection Constructability Review. Dick conducted existing condition surveys and evaluated repair methods and locations of repair limits. Evaluate existing conditions and provide input to the design team for choosing repair methods that were cost effective. South Main Street and Soda Bay Road Repair City of Lakeport, California Field Data Collection and Constructability Reviews Dick conducted existing condition surveys and evaluated repair methods and locations of repair limits. Evaluate existing conditions and provide input to the design team for choosing repair methods that were cost effective. Reconstruction and Resurfacing Project City of Berkeley, California Field Inspector. Dick conducted inspection services for subgrade base repairs duties included reviewing plans and specs, providing repair alternatives that were cost effective and provided field markings of repair limits for the onsite inspectors Street Rehabilitation Plan City of Capitola, California Construction Inspector. Constructability review and mark base repairs. Worked with the design team on construction alternatives that were cost effective to construct and maintain. Provided Inspection oversight for the City’s 2016 street reconstruction project. Pavement Repair Project Town of Moraga, California Field Inspector. Conduct maintainability and constructability review for design and construction Pavement Rehabilitation and Curb Ramp Repairs City of Sunnyvale, California Field Inspector. Conduct constructability and maintainability review, locate different repair areas, and conduct ADA Ramp surveys. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dick Minto 4 I P a g e Road Rehabilitation Project City of Concord, California Construction Inspector. Conduct Constructability and Maintainability reviews. Surface Treatment and Bicycle/Pedestrian Path City of Davis, California Construction Inspector. Conduct Constructability and Maintainability reviews. Pavement Data Collection Pavement Condition Surveys for Misc. Jurisdictions Various Locations, ID, CA and NV Field Data Collection. Projects included evaluating conditions of existing streets to assist jurisdictions with future needs for funding, and maintaining roadways in a cost effective manner. Some of the clients Dick has recently worked with include:  Sparks, NV  Washoe County RTC, NV  Washoe County  Yuba City, CA  Ada County, ID  Pebble Beach Community, CA  Trinity County, CA  Rancho Cordova, CA San Francisco Bay Trail Project East Bay Regional Park District, California Constructability and Maintainability Reviews. Worked with design team to provide cost effective construction alternatives to the project. Pavement Condition Data Collection Washoe County, Nevada Senior Engineering Technician. Scope included verifying road inventory – widths, locations, and segmentation for a local road network of approximately 184 centerline miles, conducting manual PCI data collection using PAVER software, surveying the roads using ASTM D6433‐11 protocols, updating PAVER databases, updating the maintenance and work history, ensuring a rigorous and extensive QC program, creating and updating a pavement network in GIS with field verification, and reviewing PAVER database with user. Annually performed similar work for the client since 2011. Program Management System Updates Orange County, California Engineering Technician. Scope includes verifying the road inventory for a road network (674 centerline miles), surveying the roads using ASTM D6433‐11 protocols, updating the maintenance history, developing maintenance strategies, performing multiple budget scenarios, linking to a GIS shapefile, developing a seven‐year work plan, and preparing reports. Concurrent with the pavement condition survey, mobile data collection units gathered high‐resolution 360 degree georeferenced right‐ of‐way street level digital imagery along with 3D point cloud data. Assets collected included markings, signs, curb ramps, signals, and drainage features. ---PAGE BREAK--- Dick Minto 5 I P a g e FY16 Site 200 Pavement Rehabilitation Project Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), California Constructability Review. Dick conducted a constructability review of each project site with the NCE project manager, lead designer, and Lawrence Livermore National Security (LLNS) staff. The review considered items, such as storm drain pipe replacement, paving operations, and striping improvements. LLNS developed a pavement rehabilitation project for preventive maintenance and rehabilitation of several roads and parking lots within the Site 200 Campus located just off of Vasco Road in Livermore. LLNS obtained the services of NCE to perform pavement design and civil design services for its FY16 pavement maintenance project. NCE worked with LLNS to identify site improvements, above and beyond typical pavement resurfacing. In lieu of a conventional rehabilitation or reconstruction, NCE tailored pavement treatments in parking lots to address localized areas of failure with asphalt surface reconstruction in addition to a slurry seal to create a uniform finished surface. Additional cost savings were assumed by use of Full Depth Reclamation (FDR) design for a road in need of reconstruction. Other design improvements included storm drain pipe replacement, addition of drainage channel slope protection, and striping improvements to streets and parking lots. Up to five project locations are out to bid in spring 2017 and NCE will perform bidding and construction support. Street and Parking Lot Reconstruction Project City of Half Moon Bay, California Constructability Review. Dick conducted a constructability review of each project site with the NCE project manager. The review considered items, such as storm drain pipe replacement, surface drainage improvements, and paving operations. The City of Half Moon Bay asked NCE to provide pavement design recommendations and PS&E for nine residential streets in need of reconstruction and three parking lots in need of repair. The residential streets typically do not have curb and gutter and are in need of surface and sub‐surface drainage and shoulder improvements. The parking lot improvements include drainage, grading, and accommodation for parking lot users, such as buses and horse trailers. Streets slated for reconstruction were surveyed by a topographic surveyor to best design for grading and a private utility locator was hired to locate the alignment and depth of underground facilities by way of ground penetrating radar. NCE is assisting the City with coordination of utility companies where underground facility relocation is necessary. The surface seal plans used vicinity maps, quantity schedules, and details and included striping plans. Pavement reconstruction treatments included the use of full depth reclamation (FDR) and rubberized hot mix asphalt (RHMA) overlays. Water Supply Venice Drive Water Line Replacement Tahoe Keys Property Owners Association, California Resident Inspector. Responsibilities include on‐site construction inspection for a water main replacement project for the Tahoe Keys Property Owners Association. Dick provided bid assistance including the project pre‐bid meeting, preparing responses to Contractor RFIs and addendum during the bid phase as well as evaluating construction bids. Water Quality Improvements Bay Water Quality Improvement Project Phase I and II Washoe County Community Services Department, Nevada Project Maintenance / Construction Manager. Project included design and construction of a comprehensive erosion control and water quality improvement project. The project included water quality improvements utilizing best management (BMPs) within the County Right‐of‐Way to enhance water quality within the watershed. Project design conforms to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) Environmental Improvement Program for water quality retrofit. Specific project responsibilities included advising the design team on existing conditions and design alternatives to achieve a completed project that would be efficient and cost effective to construct and maintain. Fairview/Fairway Phase III, Water Quality Improvement Project Washoe County Community Services Department, Nevada Project Maintenance/Construction Manager. The Fairview/Fairway Phase III, Water Quality Improvement Project included planning of a comprehensive erosion control and water quality improvement project within the Incline Village subdivision to reduce sources of erosion, reduce the amount of storm water generated within and discharged from the County right‐of‐ way, and improve the quality of storm water discharged from the County right‐of‐way. Specific project responsibilities ---PAGE BREAK--- Dick Minto 6 I P a g e included advising the design team on existing conditions and design alternatives to achieve a completed project that would be efficient and cost effective to maintain. Central Incline Village Water Quality Improvement Project Washoe County Community Services Department, Nevada Constructability and Maintainability Reviews. The Central Incline Village Water Quality Improvement Project included installation of drainage Improvements and sediment control measures to help improve the clarity of Lake Tahoe. Dick assisted the design team in evaluating and proposing design alternatives from a cost effective approach related to construction and maintainability. Bijou Area Erosion Control Project City of South Lake Tahoe, California Construction Manager and Inspector. The project was a complex water quality improvement project that was the first of its kind in the Lake Tahoe Area. The project separated clean stream water from the untreated runoff generated in the commercial core area of South Lake Tahoe. The stream was put underground in over 1,000 ft. of 2.5’ by 7’ box culvert. The previously untreated stormwater was collected by installing several thousand feet of storm drain and connected to large treatment vaults as large as 30,000 gallons. After treatment the storm water was pumped through nearly 7,000 feet of force main to several large sediment basins that were also part of the project. The project was the most complex water quality treatment project built in the Lake Tahoe Basin. It was a multiple year project with highly restrictive environmental conditions and within a commercial area with several businesses that needed 24 hour access. Dick provided construction inspection for the two year project. His duties included participation in the preconstruction, planning and public meetings. Reviewing construction schedules, material submittals, facilitate weekly construction meetings, review, and address owner/client concerns. Review RFI’s and RFC’s work with the design and engineering teams to resolve questions related to the plans and specs. Schedule Inspectors and material testing. Track labor and materials used, prepare and review pay estimates and quantity sheets, review pay requests and advise engineer of differences. Attend meetings with various jurisdictions affected by the project. Provide daily inspections and associated required documentation. Conduct field sampling, Inspect daily traffic control. Complete daily BMP inspections. Coordinate, schedule and work with revegetation specialist. Organize and maintain project files to meet Caltrans requirements. Create and maintain construction punch list. Maintain As Built plan set. And project closeout documentation. Tilden Nature Area Sediment Basin Dredging and Pond Restoration Project East Bay Regional Park District, California Constructability and Maintainability Reviews. Work with design team to provide cost effective construction alternatives to the project. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7KLVLVWRFHUWLI\WKDW 'LFN0LQWR VPRGLILHG$670' 6HULDOQR ---PAGE BREAK--- Education A.A.S., Construction Technologies (Emphasis in Renewable Energy), 2013 Truckee Meadows Community College Registrations and Certifications OHSA 10-Hour Construction Joined NCE 2016 Total Years of Experience 5 years Kevin Foxcroft Field Technician With more than five years of experience, Mr. Foxcroft has experience in data collection and entry, construction inspection, and data analysis. Prior to joining NCE, he worked with the Nevada Department of Transportation in the survey and construction departments in which he performed a variety of tasks ranging from field reconnaissance and topographic surveys to completion of daily construction inspection reports to verify contractor work and progression. Representative Projects Transportation/Roadway Pavement Condition Data Collection I Field Technician RTC of Washoe County, NV This project involves collecting pavement condition survey data on the regional road network. NCE has collected data annually on over 160 centerline miles of roadway identified in RTC’s Regional Transportation Plan (approximately 1,870 sample units will be inspected each year). NCE’s services include updating pavement management databases for Washoe County, City of Reno, and City of Sparks as well as performing QC/QA activities on the data. Pavement Condition Data Collection I Field Technician Washoe County, NV This project involves collecting pavement condition survey data on the County’s roadway and parking lot networks, including inspecting approximately 3,000 sample units every year. NCE’s services include coordinating with the County, collecting data, QC/QA, updating the management system, developing GIS shapefiles and linking those to the management system. This work also includes establishing new sample units, and identifying unrecorded maintenance activities. Pavement Condition Data Collection I Field Technician City of Sparks, NV This project involves collecting pavement condition survey data on the City’s roadway network as well as their regional bike and pedestrian trails, including inspecting approximately 1,000 sample units every year. NCE’s services include coordinating with the City, collecting data, QC/QA, updating the management system. This work also includes establishing new sample units, and identifying unrecorded maintenance activities. ---PAGE BREAK--- Kevin Foxcroft 2 I P a g e Long Term Pavement Performance I Field Technician Federal Highway Administration, Western Regional States The project involves scheduling of all field activities, roadway evaluations, field materials sampling, and coordination of with agencies to receive maintenance information that has occurred on over 500 roadway segments across 14 Highway Agencies in the Western US. The field monitoring activities include materials sampling, falling weight deflectometer, pavement condition surveys, profile, environmental, global positioning measurements, and dynamic cone penetrometer. Maintenance Achievement Program Data Collection I Field Technician Nevada Department of Transportation, Nevada NCE is conducting field surveys, collecting data, and calculating level of service achieved through highway maintenance activities. The project includes the development of professional and accurate documentation to present the level of service to the Nevada Department of Transportation. ---PAGE BREAK--- Education University of Nevada – Reno (1984-1988) Joined NCE 1998 Total Years of Experience 16 Richard LaValley Engineering Technician As an Engineering Technician, Rich has been performing Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) operations in all of the Western States, and is capable of verifying and analyzing FWD and Deflection data. He has been accredited by the FHWA as a Distress Rater for 12 years and as a Seasonal Monitoring Technician for five years. Other duties include Transverse Profile and Distress testing and he performs downloads of Seasonal data. Rich has vital expertise with the care and maintenance of the FWD equipment and is responsible for the vehicle and all testing equipment in the field. In the course of Distress monitoring, he notes damage to roads and structures including markings and signs, and reports to appropriate agencies when attention is required. He also performed pavement materials sampling coring) at locations across the Western U.S. Rich’s extensive experience in the field with different kinds of asphalt and concrete surfaces allows him to work independently and efficiently. In 14 years of field data collection, Rich has tested over 28,000 test points using the standard FHWA 12 and 16 drop test setups (the equivalent of 300,000 test drops). He has participated in 15 FHWA certified reference calibrations at Dynatest’s facility in Starke, Florida, A & M’s facility in College Station, Texas, Denver, Colorado, and U.C. Davis. He has been involved in the comprehensive overhaul of two Dynatest 8000 Falling Weight Deflectometers, having collaborated with Dynatest in performing FHWA sponsored yearly maintenance on both FHWA and NCE privately owned FWD. Representative Projects LTPP Mr. LaValley has over sixteen years of experience with data collection on the Long Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) project. This federal project has test sites in every state and province. NCE, as the Western Region Support Contractor, has several accredited raters, including Mr. LaValley, who has measured distress at hundreds of sections over the Western United States and operated profile measurement equipment and participated in forensic activities. In the field and at home, he is responsible for all equipment calibrations and maintenance, daily logs and reports, and verification of reliable data. Pavement Condition Data Collection (2010, 2012, and 2013-2015), RTC of Washoe County, NV – Technician. This project involves collecting pavement condition survey data on the regional road network. NCE is scheduled to collect data on over 160 centerline miles of roadway identified in RTC’s Regional Transportation Plan (approximately 1,870 sample units will be inspected). NCE’s services include updating pavement management databases for Washoe County, City of Reno, and City of Sparks as well as performing QC/QA activities on the data. 2013 Corrective Maintenance, RTC of Washoe County, NV – Technician. The RTC selected NCE to provide engineering services related to the corrective maintenance for approximately three miles of roads in Washoe County, City of Sparks, and City of Reno. The project design alternatives may include full depth base repairs, mill existing asphalt and replace, and mill existing asphalt and patch. NCE will evaluate the various surface treatments which may include crack sealant, chip seal, micro surface and slurry seal. NCE’s services include project management, development of PS&E, pavement design and soils investigation reports, utility coordination, construction administration, construction management and inspection, and bidding services. Los Altos Parkway Pavement Rehabilitation, RTC of Washoe County, NV – Technician. The project area spans Los Altos Parkway from the intersections of Canyon Run Drive to Goodwin Road in Sparks. The project included completion of a pavement condition survey, development of rehabilitation/reconstruction alternatives, a life-cycle cost analysis, PS&E, and bidding services. NCE also provided full construction management and inspection services. ---PAGE BREAK--- Richard LaValley 2 I P a g e 2011-2016 Pavement Condition Data Collection, City of Sparks, NV - Technician. This project involves collecting pavement condition survey data on the City’s roadway network as well as their regional bike and pedestrian trails, including inspecting approximately 1,000 sample units every year. NCE’s services include coordinating with the City, collecting data, QC/QA, updating the management system. This work also includes establishing new sample units, and identifying unrecorded maintenance activities. San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) Pavement Engineering On‐Call Services, San Francisco, CA – Engineering Technician. Scope included collecting pavement distress data for both airside and landside pavements as per ASTM D5340 and D6433, respectively. A semi‐automated vehicle was used to collect data on the runways and taxiways with walking surveys used on the aprons. Updated SFIA’s PAVER™ PMS and submitted reports to the Federal Aviation Administration. Determining the ACN/PCN for runways and taxiways, and performed deflection testing and pavement designs (FAARFIELD) for Runways 1L/19R, Taxiways E, F, and L. Inyo County Pavement Management Program, Inyo County, CA – Engineering Technician. Scope included developing the inventory and condition information for the paved roads – approximately 550 centerline miles Inyo County and City of Bishop, conducting annual manual condition data collection using PAVER software and ASTM D6433 standards, ensuring a rigorous and extensive QC program, determining traffic volume (average daily traffic) data at 20 locations in Bishop, predicting the future pavement condition of the paved network, determining impacts of multiple budget/funding scenarios on future roadway conditions, performing 20‐year and 5‐year work planning analysis, and integrating the PMS database with the County and City’s GIS. Distress Surveys Mr. LaValley worked on the following projects collecting detailed distress surveys: Start Date Project Name Client Aug 2014 PCI Data Collection Update Town of Gardnerville May 2014 Bishop PCI Data Collection Inyo County May 2014 PCI Data Collection Reno & Sparks, Washoe County Apr 2013 Corrective Maintenance Washoe County RTC Apr 2013 Bishop PCI Data Collection Inyo County July 2013 PCI Data Collection Reno & Sparks, Washoe County Aug 2012 PCI Data Collection Washoe County RTC Mar 2012 Huffaker Lane Rehab Washoe County RTC Mar 2010 PCI Data Collection Washoe County RTC Feb 2010 DOT 2010 Overlay City of Sacramento CA Feb 2010 Sunnyvale 2010 Pavement Rehabilitation & Resurfacing City of Sunnyvale CA Feb 2010 2010 Pavement Rehabilitation Project City of Richmond CA Feb 2010 Contra Costa Improvement Project City of Pleasant Hill CA Jan 2010 El Cerrito Pavement Testing & Design City of El Cerrito CA Dec 2009 MCOG PMP Update 2010 Mendocino Council of Gov’ts Oct 2009 2009 Pavement Management Update City of Larkspur CA Sep 2009 Phase II ESA Florin Rd Project City of Sacramento CA Aug 2009 Corona On-Call Services City of Corona CA May 2009 Moya Blvd Rehabilitation Project Washoe County RTC Apr 2009 Mono County Road Rehabilitation Mono County Mar 2009 Vasco Rd Safety Improvements Contra Costa County Mar 2009 Magnolia Ave Pavement Rehabilitation City of Larkspur CA Mar 2009 Camino Pablo Pavement Rehabilitation City of Orinda CA Feb 2009 2008 PMS Update City of Fremont CA Jan 2009 Los Altos Parkway Rehabilitation Project Washoe County RTC Coring Mr. LaValley worked on the following projects collecting pavement cores: Start Date Project Name Client Apr 2014 WesTrack Nevada DOT Feb 2014 S Whitney 5 Star & Destiny City of Rocklin ---PAGE BREAK--- Richard LaValley 3 I P a g e Mar 2013 Huffaker Ln Rehab Washoe County RTC May 2011 DOT 2011 Overlay City of Sacramento CA Feb 2010 DOT 2010 Overlay City of Sacramento CA Feb 2010 2010 Pavement Rehabilitation & Resurfacing City of Sunnyvale CA Feb 2010 2010 Pavement Rehabilitation Project City of Richmond CA Jan 2010 El Cerrito Pavement Testing & Design City of El Cerrito CA Oct 2009 2009 Pavement Management Update City of Larkspur CA Sep 2009 Phase II ESA Florin Rd Project City of Sacramento CA May 2009 Moya Blvd Rehabilitation Project Washoe County RTC Apr 2009 Mono County Road Rehabilitation Mono County Mar 2009 Vasco Rd Safety Improvements Contra Costa County Mar 2009 Magnolia Ave Pavement Rehabilitation City of Larkspur CA Mar 2009 Camino Pablo Pavement Rehabilitation City of Orinda CA Feb 2009 2008 PMS Update City of Fremont CA Feb 2009 Norton Road Deflection Testing City of San Leandro CA FWD Work A sampling of condition survey projects where Mr. LaValley was responsible for the operation of the falling weight deflectometer (FWD): Start Date Project Name Client Feb 2010 Contra Costa Improvement Project City of Pleasant Hill CA Aug 2009 Corona On-Call Services City of Corona CA Apr 2009 Mono County Road Rehabilitation Mono County ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B Section Description Inventory • Sorted by Name • Sorted by Descending PCI ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Sorted by Name 2018 PMS Update PCI Listing Road Name From To FC Surface Type Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (sf) PCI Inspection Date Airport Road - CR0007 Hwy 89 Diamond Valley Road RL A 29281 24 702744 58 5/2/2018 Aspen Way - CR0167 Pine Avenue End RL A 404 20 8080 80 5/2/2018 Avalanche Road - CR0204 Snowshoe Road End RL A 1683 18 30294 10 6/1/2018 Barber Road - CR0105 Begin End RL A 1855 25 46375 79 5/2/2018 Barrett Court - CR0222 Montgomery Street End RL A 833 33 27489 27 5/3/2018 Bear Valley Road - CR0186 Hwy 4 Creekside Dr C A 12974 28 363272 44 6/1/2018 Bloods Ridge Road - CR0188 Bear Valley Road Quaking Aspen Road RL A 4257 40 170280 28 6/1/2018 Blue Lakes Road - CR0005 Begin Beginning of Section 10 C A 23415 24 561960 89 5/31/2018 Blue Lakes Road - CR0005 End of Section 05 End C A 37412 24 897888 83 5/2/2018 California Road - CR0205 Emigrant Trail End RL A 2412 22 53064 65 5/1/2018 Canon View - CR0171 Pleasant Valley Road End RL A 343 22 7546 10 5/3/2018 Carson River Road - CR0198 Hwy 88 Diamond Valley Road RL A 18308 20 366160 69 5/2/2018 Carson View - CR0207 California Road End RL A 1671 22 36762 73 5/1/2018 Cedar Lane - CR0165 Pine Avenue End RL A 229 21 4809 84 5/2/2018 Chambers Lane - CR0130 Diamond Valley Road Old Chambers Road R A 6842 20 136840 18 4/30/2018 Chisholm Trail - CR0211 Larson Canyon End RL A 723 22 15906 62 5/1/2018 Cole Court - CR0219 Montgomery Street End RL A 126 24 3024 35 5/2/2018 Creekside Drive - CR0202 Bear Valley Road No Name Road C A 6442 35 225470 58 6/1/2018 Springs Road - CR0175 Hwy 88 - West End Hwy 88 - East End RL A 3605 20 72100 23 5/2/2018 Cub Lane - CR0220 Bear Valley Road End R A 421 20 8420 86 6/1/2018 Diamond Valley Road - CR0003 Hwy 89 Foothill Road C A 38797 24 931128 54 5/1/2018 Diamond View - CR0208 Emigrant Trail End RL A 971 21 20391 75 5/1/2018 Douglas Way - CR0135 Hwy 89 End RL A 1535 24 36840 45 5/2/2018 Eberhardt Road - CR9003 Bear Valley Road End RL A 252 34 8568 40 6/1/2018 Emigrant Trail - CR0009 Hwy 88 Foothill Road C A 17990 24 431760 79 5/1/2018 Road - CR0226 Bear Valley Road End RL A 642 26 16692 73 6/1/2018 Foothill Road - CR0001 Hwy 88 State Line C A 19073 24 457752 67 4/30/2018 Fredericksburg Lane - CR0002 Foothill Road Hwy 88 RL A 2285 24 54840 18 4/30/2018 Fremont Road - CR0193 Quaking Aspen Road End RL A 1426 24 34224 84 6/1/2018 Goldrush Trail - CR9001 Sunrise Trail End RL A 1249 24 29976 67 5/1/2018 ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Sorted by Name 2018 PMS Update PCI Listing Road Name From To FC Surface Type Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (sf) PCI Inspection Date Hawkins Peak Road - CR2002 Emigrant Trail End RL A 5231 24 125544 73 5/1/2018 Hawkside Drive - CR0214 Diamond Valley Road End RL A 1501 54 81054 35 5/1/2018 Highland Lakes Road - CR0113 Hwy 4 End RL A 5591 14 78274 80 5/31/2018 Hot Springs Road - CR0004 Montgomery Street End C A 19061 23 438403 36 5/3/2018 John Ebbetts Road - CR0191 Bear Valley Road End RL A 1890 23 43470 76 6/1/2018 Lake Road - CR0194 Bear Valley Road End RL A 884 30 26520 60 6/1/2018 Laramie Street - CR0006 Montgomery Street Hwy 89 C A 1525 24 36600 73 5/3/2018 Larson Canyon - CR0210 Carson View End RL A 962 22 21164 67 5/1/2018 Lava Cap - CR0172 Pleasant Valley Road End RL A 340 21 7140 10 5/3/2018 Merk Creek Court - CR0221 Springs Road End RL A 302 20 6040 13 5/2/2018 Montgomery Street - CR0123 Hwy 89 End C A 739 24 17736 56 5/3/2018 Monty Wolf Road - CR0190 Quaking Aspen Road Bear Valley Road RL A 2392 24 57408 62 6/1/2018 Mule Ear Road - CR0216 Bear Valley Road End RL A 670 17 11390 7 6/1/2018 Nevada Road - CR0209 Emigrant Trail Carson View RL A 1756 21 36876 73 5/1/2018 No Name Road - CR0218 Bear Valley Road Creekside Drive RL A 658 35 23030 47 6/1/2018 Old Pony Express Road - CR0176 Highway 88 End RL A 2173 23 49979 48 5/2/2018 Orvis Road - CR0192 Bear Valley End of Road R A 1600 24 38400 63 6/1/2018 Ox Bow - CR0169 Pleasant Valley Road End RL A 396 20 7920 17 5/3/2018 Pine Avenue - CR0166 Barber Road Sage Avenue RL A 631 23 14513 59 5/2/2018 Pinon Road - CR0170 Pleasant Valley Road End RL A 1300 21 27300 19 5/3/2018 Pioneer Trail - CR0217 Emigrant Trail End RL A 646 21 13566 10 5/1/2018 Pleasant Valley Road - CR0132 Sawmill Road End RL A 3656 25 91400 13 5/3/2018 Quaking Aspen Road - CR0187 Bear Valley Road End RL A 5483 25 137075 32 6/1/2018 Red Vista Road - CR9004 Hwy 88 End RL A 741 19 14079 69 5/31/2018 River Ranch Road - CR0225 Hwy 88 End RL A 5085 19 96615 45 4/30/2018 Sage Avenue - CR0168 Pine Avenue Cedar Lane RL A 329 22 7238 87 5/2/2018 Sawmill Road - CR9002 Timber Lane End R A 12893 17 219181 20 5/3/2018 Schimke Road - CR0189 Bear Valley Road End RL A 2552 26 66352 59 6/1/2018 Schneider Cow Camp Road - CR0164 Hwy 88 End RL A 600 32 19200 40 5/2/2018 ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Sorted by Name 2018 PMS Update PCI Listing Road Name From To FC Surface Type Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (sf) PCI Inspection Date School Street - CR0125 Montgomery Street End RL A 540 14 7560 33 5/3/2018 Shakehill Road - CR0224 Emigrant Trail End RL A 1902 23 43746 75 5/1/2018 Shay Creek Road - CR0138 Hot Springs Road End RL A 7659 18 137862 15 5/3/2018 Snowshoe Road - CR0203 Bloods Ridge Road End RL A 3220 12 38640 59 6/1/2018 Spring Canyon Drive - CR0223 Emigrant Trail End R A 1040 20 20800 33 5/1/2018 Spring Cliff Road - CR0201 Bear Valley Road End RL A 766 22 16852 17 6/1/2018 Station House Road - CR0185 Alpine Way End RL A 2177 17 37009 85 6/1/2018 Sunrise Trail - CR2003 Emigrant Trail End RL A 5598 24 134352 81 5/1/2018 Timber Lane - CR0173 Pleasant Valley Road End RL A 2249 20 44980 25 5/3/2018 Topaz Place - CR0206 California Road End RL A 549 21 11529 67 5/1/2018 Turtle Rock Country Park Road - CR0212 Hwy 89 End RL A 3825 14 53550 68 5/2/2018 Water Street - CR0129 Hwy 89 End RL A 330 17 5610 67 5/3/2018 Wolf Creek Road - CR0112 Hwy 4 Jeep RL A 26799 22 589578 52 5/8/2012 Woods Lake Road - CR0122 Hwy 88 End RL A 6838 18 123084 73 5/31/2018 ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Sorted by PCI 2018 PMS Update PCI Listing Road Name From To FC Surface Type Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (sf) PCI Inspection Date Blue Lakes Road - CR0005 Begin Begining of Section 10 C A 23415 24 561960 89 5/31/2018 Sage Avenue - CR0168 Pine Avenue Cedar Lane RL A 329 22 7238 87 5/2/2018 Cub Lane - CR0220 Bear Valley Road End R A 421 20 8420 86 6/1/2018 Station House Road - CR0185 Alpine Way End RL A 2177 17 37009 85 6/1/2018 Cedar Lane - CR0165 Pine Avenue End RL A 229 21 4809 84 5/2/2018 Fremont Road - CR0193 Quaking Aspen Road End RL A 1426 24 34224 84 6/1/2018 Blue Lakes Road - CR0005 End of Section 05 End C A 37412 24 897888 83 5/2/2018 Sunrise Trail - CR2003 Emigrant Trail End RL A 5598 24 134352 81 5/1/2018 Aspen Way - CR0167 Pine Avenue End RL A 404 20 8080 80 5/2/2018 Highland Lakes Road - CR0113 Hwy 4 End RL A 5591 14 78274 80 5/31/2018 Barber Road - CR0105 Begin End RL A 1855 25 46375 79 5/2/2018 Emigrant Trail - CR0009 Hwy 88 Foothill Road C A 17990 24 431760 79 5/1/2018 John Ebbetts Road - CR0191 Bear Valley Road End RL A 1890 23 43470 76 6/1/2018 Diamond View - CR0208 Emigrant Trail End RL A 971 21 20391 75 5/1/2018 Shakehill Road - CR0224 Emigrant Trail End RL A 1902 23 43746 75 5/1/2018 Carson View - CR0207 California Road End RL A 1671 22 36762 73 5/1/2018 Road - CR0226 Bear Valley Road End RL A 642 26 16692 73 6/1/2018 Hawkins Peak Road - CR2002 Emigrant Trail End RL A 5231 24 125544 73 5/1/2018 Laramie Street - CR0006 Montgomery Street Hwy 89 C A 1525 24 36600 73 5/3/2018 Nevada Road - CR0209 Emigrant Trail Carson View RL A 1756 21 36876 73 5/1/2018 Woods Lake Road - CR0122 Hwy 88 End RL A 6838 18 123084 73 5/31/2018 Carson River Road - CR0198 Hwy 88 Diamond Valley Road RL A 18308 20 366160 69 5/2/2018 Red Vista Road - CR9004 Hwy 88 End RL A 741 19 14079 69 5/31/2018 Turtle Rock Country Park Road - CR0212 Hwy 89 End RL A 3825 14 53550 68 5/2/2018 Foothill Road - CR0001 Hwy 88 State Line C A 19073 24 457752 67 4/30/2018 Goldrush Trail - CR9001 Sunrise Trail End RL A 1249 24 29976 67 5/1/2018 Larson Canyon - CR0210 Carson View End RL A 962 22 21164 67 5/1/2018 Topaz Place - CR0206 California Road End RL A 549 21 11529 67 5/1/2018 Water Street - CR0129 Hwy 89 End RL A 330 17 5610 67 5/3/2018 ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Sorted by PCI 2018 PMS Update PCI Listing Road Name From To FC Surface Type Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (sf) PCI Inspection Date California Road - CR0205 Emigrant Trail End RL A 2412 22 53064 65 5/1/2018 Orvis Road - CR0192 Bear Valley End of Road R A 1600 24 38400 63 6/1/2018 Chisholm Trail - CR0211 Larson Canyon End RL A 723 22 15906 62 5/1/2018 Monty Wolf Road - CR0190 Quaking Aspen Road Bear Valley Road RL A 2392 24 57408 62 6/1/2018 Lake Road - CR0194 Bear Valley Road End RL A 884 30 26520 60 6/1/2018 Pine Avenue - CR0166 Barber Road Sage Avenue RL A 631 23 14513 59 5/2/2018 Schimke Road - CR0189 Bear Valley Road End RL A 2552 26 66352 59 6/1/2018 Snowshoe Road - CR0203 Bloods Ridge Road End RL A 3220 12 38640 59 6/1/2018 Airport Road - CR0007 Hwy 89 Diamond Valley Road RL A 29281 24 702744 58 5/2/2018 Creekside Drive - CR0202 Bear Valley Road No Name Road C A 6442 35 225470 58 6/1/2018 Montgomery Street - CR0123 Hwy 89 End C A 739 24 17736 56 5/3/2018 Diamond Valley Road - CR0003 Hwy 89 Foothill Road C A 38797 24 931128 54 5/1/2018 Wolf Creek Road - CR0112 Hwy 4 Jeep RL A 26799 22 589578 52 5/8/2012 Old Pony Express Road - CR0176 Highway 88 End RL A 2173 23 49979 48 5/2/2018 No Name Road - CR0218 Bear Valley Road Creekside Drive RL A 658 35 23030 47 6/1/2018 Douglas Way - CR0135 Hwy 89 End RL A 1535 24 36840 45 5/2/2018 River Ranch Road - CR0225 Hwy 88 End RL A 5085 19 96615 45 4/30/2018 Bear Valley Road - CR0186 Hwy 4 Creekside Dr C A 12974 28 363272 44 6/1/2018 Eberhardt Road - CR9003 Bear Valley Road End RL A 252 34 8568 40 6/1/2018 Schneider Cow Camp Road - CR0164 Hwy 88 End RL A 600 32 19200 40 5/2/2018 Hot Springs Road - CR0004 Montgomery Street End C A 19061 23 438403 36 5/3/2018 Cole Court - CR0219 Montgomery Street End RL A 126 24 3024 35 5/2/2018 Hawkside Drive - CR0214 Diamond Valley Road End RL A 1501 54 81054 35 5/1/2018 School Street - CR0125 Montgomery Street End RL A 540 14 7560 33 5/3/2018 Spring Canyon Drive - CR0223 Emigrant Trail End R A 1040 20 20800 33 5/1/2018 Quaking Aspen Road - CR0187 Bear Valley Road End RL A 5483 25 137075 32 6/1/2018 Bloods Ridge Road - CR0188 Bear Valley Road Quaking Aspen Road RL A 4257 40 170280 28 6/1/2018 Barrett Court - CR0222 Montgomery Street End RL A 833 33 27489 27 5/3/2018 ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Sorted by PCI 2018 PMS Update PCI Listing Road Name From To FC Surface Type Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (sf) PCI Inspection Date Timber Lane - CR0173 Pleasant Valley Road End RL A 2249 20 44980 25 5/3/2018 Springs Road - CR0175 Hwy 88 - West End Hwy 88 - East End RL A 3605 20 72100 23 5/2/2018 Sawmill Road - CR9002 Timber Lane End R A 12893 17 219181 20 5/3/2018 Pinon Road - CR0170 Pleasant Valley Road End RL A 1300 21 27300 19 5/3/2018 Chambers Lane - CR0130 Diamond Valley Road Old Chambers Road R A 6842 20 136840 18 4/30/2018 Fredericksburg Lane - CR0002 Foothill Road Hwy 88 RL A 2285 24 54840 18 4/30/2018 Ox Bow - CR0169 Pleasant Valley Road End RL A 396 20 7920 17 5/3/2018 Spring Cliff Road - CR0201 Bear Valley Road End RL A 766 22 16852 17 6/1/2018 Shay Creek Road - CR0138 Hot Springs Road End RL A 7659 18 137862 15 5/3/2018 Merk Creek Court - CR0221 Springs Road End RL A 302 20 6040 13 5/2/2018 Pleasant Valley Road - CR0132 Sawmill Road End RL A 3656 25 91400 13 5/3/2018 Avalanche Road - CR0204 Snowshoe Road End RL A 1683 18 30294 10 6/1/2018 Canon View - CR0171 Pleasant Valley Road End RL A 343 22 7546 10 5/3/2018 Lava Cap - CR0172 Pleasant Valley Road End RL A 340 21 7140 10 5/3/2018 Pioneer Trail - CR0217 Emigrant Trail End RL A 646 21 13566 10 5/1/2018 Mule Ear Road - CR0216 Bear Valley Road End RL A 670 17 11390 7 6/1/2018 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C Maintenance and Rehabilitation Decision Tree ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2018 PMS Update Decision Tree Functional Class Surface Condition Category Treatment Type Treatment Cost/Sq Yd, except Seal Cracks in LF: Yrs Between Crack Seals Yrs Between Surface Seals # of Surface Seals before Overlay Collector AC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $1.15 4 Surface Treatment CHIP SEAL $2.88 6 Restoration Treatment 2” THIN OVERLAY $12.10 3 II - Good, Non- Load Related CHIP SEAL $2.88 6 III - Good, Load Related CAPE SEAL $5.75 IV - Poor 2" OVERLAY, 20% R+R $17.90 V - Very Poor PULVERIZE, + 3" OVERLAY $24.20 Residential and Rural/Local AC I - Very Good Crack Treatment SEAL CRACKS $1.15 4 Surface Treatment SLURRY SEAL $2.88 6 Restoration Treatment 2” THIN OVERLAY $12.10 3 II - Good, Non- Load Related SLURRY SEAL $2.88 6 III - Good, Load Related CAPE SEAL $5.75 IV - Poor 2" OVERLAY, 20% R+R $17.90 V - Very Poor PULVERIZE, + 3" OVERLAY $24.20 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D Budget Needs • Projected PCI/Cost Summary Report • Rehabilitation Treatment Cost Summary Report • Preventive Maintenance Treatment Cost Summary Report Budget Scenario 1-6 • Cost Summary Report • Network Condition Summary Report ---PAGE BREAK--- 2018 87 58 $8,622,830 $863,035 $7,759,795 2019 83 56 $195,023 $0 $195,023 2020 81 53 $12,426 $0 $12,426 2021 79 50 $346,380 $0 $346,380 2022 79 47 $191,390 $16,506 $174,884 Total Cost $9,368,049 PM Total Cost $879,541 % PM 9.39% $8,488,508 Rehab Total Cost Year PCI Treated PCI Untreated Cost Needs - Projected PCI/Cost Summary Printed: 09/04/2018 Alpine County Inflation Rate = % 3.00 PM Cost Rehab Cost Criteria: 1 SS1008 MTC StreetSaver ---PAGE BREAK--- RECONSTRUCT PAVEMENT 2018 93,363.44 $2,259,402 sq.yd. Total 93,363.44 $2,259,402 sq.yd. THIN OVERLAY 2018 235,305.22 $4,211,970 sq.yd. Total 235,305.22 $4,211,970 sq.yd. SINGLE CHIP SEAL 2018 103,458.67 $297,961 sq.yd. 2020 4,066.67 $12,426 sq.yd. Total 107,525.33 $310,387 sq.yd. CHIP SEAL AND SLURRY SEAL 2018 97,960.78 $563,280 sq.yd. 2019 32,928.78 $195,023 sq.yd. 2021 55,128 $346,380 sq.yd. 2022 27,022.89 $174,884 sq.yd. Total 213,040.44 $1,279,567 sq.yd. SLURRY SEAL 2018 148,325.11 $427,182 sq.yd. Total 148,325.11 $427,182 sq.yd. Treatment Year Area Treated Cost Needs - Rehabilitation Treatment/Cost Summary Printed: 09/04/2018 Alpine County Inflation Rate = % 3.00 Criteria: 1 SS1010 MTC StreetSaver $8,488,508 Total Cost ---PAGE BREAK--- SEAL CRACKS 2022 $16,506 ft. 13,786.42 Total 13,786.42 $16,506 SINGLE CHIP SEAL 2018 $605,317 sq.yd. 210,178.67 Total 210,178.67 $605,317 SLURRY SEAL 2018 $257,718 sq.yd. 89,482.89 Total 89,482.89 $257,718 Treatment Inflation Rate = % 3.00 Cost Area Treated Year Alpine County Needs - Preventive Maintenance Treatment/Cost Summary Printed: 09/04/2018 Criteria: 1 SS1007 MTC StreetSaver Total Quantity 313,447.98 $879,541 ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Target-Driven Scenarios - Cost Summary Printed: 09/04/2018 Inflation: 3% Interest: 5% Target: Overall 50 Scenario: PCI = 50 (5 Year) Objective: Minimum Network Average PCI 2018 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 II III IV V Non- Project Project Project Total $0 Total $0 $0 $8,622,796 2019 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 II III IV V Non- Project Project Project Total $0 Total $0 $0 $8,933,730 2020 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 II III IV V Non- Project Project Project Total $0 Total $0 $0 $11,014,614 2021 $132,961 $132,961 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 II III IV V Non- Project Project Project Total $132,961 Total $0 $132,961 $11,984,903 2022 $698,807 $154,386 $0 $544,421 $0 $670,666 $0 $0 II III IV V Non- Project Project Project Total $698,807 Total $0 $1,369,473 $11,234,224 Summary Functional Class Rehabilitation Prev. Maint. Collector $557,603 $525,784 Residential/Local $274,165 $144,882 $831,768 $670,666 Total: $1,502,434 Grand Total: Year Rehabilitation Preventive Maintenance Total Cost Deferred Scenarios Criteria: 1 SS1063 MTC StreetSaver ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Target-Driven Scenarios Network Condition Summary Printed: 09/04/2018 Interest: 5% Inflation: 3% Projected Network Average PCI by year Year With Selected Treatment Never Treated Target: Overall 50 Scenario: PCI = 50 (5 Year) Objective: Minimum Network Average PCI 2018 58 58 2019 56 56 2020 53 53 2021 50 50 2022 51 47 Percent Network Area by Functional Classification and Condition Class Condition in base year 2018, prior to applying treatments. Condition Class Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total I 0.0% 21.8% 9.1% 0.0% 30.9% II / III 0.0% 18.5% 17.1% 0.0% 35.6% IV 0.0% 9.1% 14.9% 0.0% 24.0% V 0.0% 0.0% 9.5% 0.0% 9.5% 0.0% Total 49.3% 50.7% 0.0% 100.0% Condition in year 2018 after schedulable treatments applied. Condition Class Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total I 0.0% 21.8% 9.1% 0.0% 30.9% II / III 0.0% 18.5% 17.1% 0.0% 35.6% IV 0.0% 9.1% 14.9% 0.0% 24.0% V 0.0% 0.0% 9.5% 0.0% 9.5% 0.0% Total 49.3% 50.7% 0.0% 100.0% Condition in year 2022 after schedulable treatments applied. Condition Class Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total I 0.0% 19.7% 13.3% 0.0% 33.0% II / III 0.0% 10.1% 13.0% 0.0% 23.0% IV 0.0% 14.6% 9.3% 0.0% 24.0% V 0.0% 5.0% 15.1% 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% Total 49.3% 50.7% 0.0% 100.0% MTC StreetSaver Criteria: Scenarios Criteria: 1 SS1062 ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Target-Driven Scenarios - Cost Summary Printed: 09/04/2018 Inflation: 3% Interest: 5% Target: Overall 58 Scenario: PCI=58 (5 Year) Objective: Minimum Network Average PCI 2018 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 II III IV V Non- Project Project Project Total $0 Total $0 $0 $8,622,796 2019 $177,759 $177,759 $0 $0 $0 $741,920 $0 $0 II III IV V Non- Project Project Project Total $177,759 Total $0 $919,679 $8,014,058 2020 $1,977,118 $12,426 $0 $1,964,692 $0 $148,959 $0 $0 II III IV V Non- Project Project Project Total $1,977,118 Total $0 $2,126,077 $7,941,280 2021 $38,546 $0 $0 $38,546 $0 $2,531 $0 $0 II III IV V Non- Project Project Project Total $38,546 Total $0 $41,077 $8,911,240 2022 $1,831,487 $0 $0 $504,718 $1,326,769 $0 $0 $0 II III IV V Non- Project Project Project Total $1,831,487 Total $1,326,769 $1,831,487 $7,435,673 Summary Functional Class Rehabilitation Prev. Maint. Collector $3,847,151 $623,476 Residential/Local $177,759 $269,934 $4,024,910 $893,410 Total: $4,918,320 Grand Total: Year Rehabilitation Preventive Maintenance Total Cost Deferred Scenarios Criteria: 1 SS1063 MTC StreetSaver ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Target-Driven Scenarios Network Condition Summary Printed: 09/04/2018 Interest: 5% Inflation: 3% Projected Network Average PCI by year Year With Selected Treatment Never Treated Target: Overall 58 Scenario: PCI=58 (5 Year) Objective: Minimum Network Average PCI 2018 58 58 2019 58 56 2020 61 53 2021 58 50 2022 61 47 Percent Network Area by Functional Classification and Condition Class Condition in base year 2018, prior to applying treatments. Condition Class Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total I 0.0% 21.8% 9.1% 0.0% 30.9% II / III 0.0% 18.5% 17.1% 0.0% 35.6% IV 0.0% 9.1% 14.9% 0.0% 24.0% V 0.0% 0.0% 9.5% 0.0% 9.5% 0.0% Total 49.3% 50.7% 0.0% 100.0% Condition in year 2018 after schedulable treatments applied. Condition Class Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total I 0.0% 21.8% 9.1% 0.0% 30.9% II / III 0.0% 18.5% 17.1% 0.0% 35.6% IV 0.0% 9.1% 14.9% 0.0% 24.0% V 0.0% 0.0% 9.5% 0.0% 9.5% 0.0% Total 49.3% 50.7% 0.0% 100.0% Condition in year 2022 after schedulable treatments applied. Condition Class Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total I 0.0% 40.1% 14.4% 0.0% 54.4% II / III 0.0% 5.2% 11.9% 0.0% 17.1% IV 0.0% 4.1% 9.3% 0.0% 13.4% V 0.0% 0.0% 15.1% 0.0% 15.1% 0.0% Total 49.3% 50.7% 0.0% 100.0% MTC StreetSaver Criteria: Scenarios Criteria: 1 SS1062 ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Target-Driven Scenarios - Cost Summary Printed: 09/04/2018 Inflation: 3% Interest: 5% Target: Overall 60 Scenario: PCI = 60 (5 Year) Objective: Minimum Network Average PCI 2018 $181,070 $181,070 $0 $0 $0 $489,229 $0 $0 II III IV V Non- Project Project Project Total $181,070 Total $0 $670,299 $7,952,505 2019 $744,183 $0 $0 $744,183 $0 $367,662 $0 $0 II III IV V Non- Project Project Project Total $744,183 Total $0 $1,111,845 $7,131,492 2020 $1,977,118 $12,426 $0 $1,964,692 $0 $15,424 $0 $0 II III IV V Non- Project Project Project Total $1,977,118 Total $0 $1,992,542 $7,165,768 2021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 II III IV V Non- Project Project Project Total $0 Total $0 $0 $8,153,540 2022 $1,871,190 $0 $0 $544,421 $1,326,769 $11,137 $0 $0 II III IV V Non- Project Project Project Total $1,871,190 Total $1,326,769 $1,882,327 $6,612,933 Summary Functional Class Rehabilitation Prev. Maint. Collector $4,592,491 $615,625 Residential/Local $181,070 $267,827 $4,773,561 $883,452 Total: $5,657,013 Grand Total: Year Rehabilitation Preventive Maintenance Total Cost Deferred Scenarios Criteria: 1 SS1063 MTC StreetSaver ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Target-Driven Scenarios Network Condition Summary Printed: 09/04/2018 Interest: 5% Inflation: 3% Projected Network Average PCI by year Year With Selected Treatment Never Treated Target: Overall 60 Scenario: PCI = 60 (5 Year) Objective: Minimum Network Average PCI 2018 60 58 2019 61 56 2020 63 53 2021 60 50 2022 64 47 Percent Network Area by Functional Classification and Condition Class Condition in base year 2018, prior to applying treatments. Condition Class Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total I 0.0% 21.8% 9.1% 0.0% 30.9% II / III 0.0% 18.5% 17.1% 0.0% 35.6% IV 0.0% 9.1% 14.9% 0.0% 24.0% V 0.0% 0.0% 9.5% 0.0% 9.5% 0.0% Total 49.3% 50.7% 0.0% 100.0% Condition in year 2018 after schedulable treatments applied. Condition Class Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total I 0.0% 21.8% 15.5% 0.0% 37.3% II / III 0.0% 18.5% 10.7% 0.0% 29.2% IV 0.0% 9.1% 14.9% 0.0% 24.0% V 0.0% 0.0% 9.5% 0.0% 9.5% 0.0% Total 49.3% 50.7% 0.0% 100.0% Condition in year 2022 after schedulable treatments applied. Condition Class Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total I 0.0% 44.2% 14.4% 0.0% 58.6% II / III 0.0% 5.2% 11.9% 0.0% 17.1% IV 0.0% 0.0% 9.3% 0.0% 9.3% V 0.0% 0.0% 15.1% 0.0% 15.1% 0.0% Total 49.3% 50.7% 0.0% 100.0% MTC StreetSaver Criteria: Scenarios Criteria: 1 SS1062 ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Target-Driven Scenarios - Cost Summary Printed: 09/04/2018 Inflation: 3% Interest: 5% Target: Overall 70 Scenario: PCI = 70 (5 Year) Objective: Minimum Network Average PCI 2018 $3,413,427 $181,070 $373,937 $1,188,372 $1,670,048 $863,035 $0 $0 II III IV V Non- Project Project Project Total $3,413,427 Total $1,670,048 $4,276,462 $4,346,360 2019 $807,742 $0 $0 $0 $807,742 $0 $0 $0 II III IV V Non- Project Project Project Total $807,742 Total $807,742 $807,742 $3,721,260 2020 $1,977,118 $12,426 $0 $1,964,692 $0 $0 $0 $0 II III IV V Non- Project Project Project Total $1,977,118 Total $0 $1,977,118 $3,668,648 2021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 II III IV V Non- Project Project Project Total $0 Total $0 $0 $4,897,888 2022 $544,421 $0 $0 $544,421 $0 $14,958 $0 $0 II III IV V Non- Project Project Project Total $544,421 Total $0 $559,379 $4,588,988 Summary Functional Class Rehabilitation Prev. Maint. Collector $3,536,500 $611,975 Residential/Local $3,206,208 $266,018 $6,742,708 $877,993 Total: $7,620,701 Grand Total: Year Rehabilitation Preventive Maintenance Total Cost Deferred Scenarios Criteria: 1 SS1063 MTC StreetSaver ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Target-Driven Scenarios Network Condition Summary Printed: 09/04/2018 Interest: 5% Inflation: 3% Projected Network Average PCI by year Year With Selected Treatment Never Treated Target: Overall 70 Scenario: PCI = 70 (5 Year) Objective: Minimum Network Average PCI 2018 71 58 2019 71 56 2020 73 53 2021 70 50 2022 70 47 Percent Network Area by Functional Classification and Condition Class Condition in base year 2018, prior to applying treatments. Condition Class Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total I 0.0% 21.8% 9.1% 0.0% 30.9% II / III 0.0% 18.5% 17.1% 0.0% 35.6% IV 0.0% 9.1% 14.9% 0.0% 24.0% V 0.0% 0.0% 9.5% 0.0% 9.5% 0.0% Total 49.3% 50.7% 0.0% 100.0% Condition in year 2018 after schedulable treatments applied. Condition Class Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total I 0.0% 31.1% 26.6% 0.0% 57.7% II / III 0.0% 13.3% 9.3% 0.0% 22.6% IV 0.0% 5.0% 12.2% 0.0% 17.2% V 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 0.0% 2.5% 0.0% Total 49.3% 50.7% 0.0% 100.0% Condition in year 2022 after schedulable treatments applied. Condition Class Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total I 0.0% 39.2% 28.4% 0.0% 67.6% II / III 0.0% 5.2% 10.9% 0.0% 16.0% IV 0.0% 0.0% 6.7% 0.0% 6.7% V 0.0% 5.0% 4.7% 0.0% 9.7% 0.0% Total 49.3% 50.7% 0.0% 100.0% MTC StreetSaver Criteria: Scenarios Criteria: 1 SS1062 ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Scenarios - Cost Summary Printed: 09/04/2018 Interest: 5.00% Inflation: 3.00% Scenario: Do Nothing 5 Years 2018 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,622,796 $0 $0 0% $0 $0 II III IV V Non- Project Project Funded Unmet Project Total 2019 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,933,730 $0 $0 0% $0 $0 II III IV V Non- Project Project Funded Unmet Project Total 2020 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,014,609 $0 $0 0% $0 $0 II III IV V Non- Project Project Funded Unmet Project Total 2021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,117,844 $0 $0 0% $0 $0 II III IV V Non- Project Project Funded Unmet Project Total 2022 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,740,629 $0 $0 0% $0 $0 II III IV V Non- Project Project Funded Unmet Project Total Functional Class Stop Gap Rehabilitation Prev. Maint. Summary Stop Gap Unmet Funded Collector $0 $0 $0 $0 Residential/Local $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Grand Total: $0 Year Budget Rehabilitation PM Deferred Stop Gap Surplus PM Preventative Maintenance Scenarios Criteria: 1 SS1034 MTC StreetSaver ---PAGE BREAK--- Year Year Year Budget PM Budget PM Budget PM 2018 $0 0% 2019 $0 0% 2020 $0 0% 2021 $0 0% 2022 $0 0% Projected Network Average PCI by year Never Treated Year With Selected Treatment Treated Centerline Miles Treated Lane Miles 2018 58 58 0 0 2019 56 56 0 0 2020 53 53 0 0 2021 50 50 0 0 2022 47 47 0 0 Percent Network Area by Functional Class and Condition Category Condition Condition in base year 2018, prior to applying treatments. Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total I 0.0% 21.8% 9.1% 0.0% 30.9% II / III 0.0% 18.5% 17.1% 0.0% 35.6% IV 0.0% 9.1% 14.9% 0.0% 24.0% V 0.0% 0.0% 9.5% 0.0% 9.5% Total 0.0% 49.3% 50.7% 0.0% 100.0% Condition Condition in year 2018 after schedulable treatments applied. Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total I 0.0% 21.8% 9.1% 0.0% 30.9% II / III 0.0% 18.5% 17.1% 0.0% 35.6% IV 0.0% 9.1% 14.9% 0.0% 24.0% V 0.0% 0.0% 9.5% 0.0% 9.5% Total 0.0% 49.3% 50.7% 0.0% 100.0% Condition Condition in year 2022 after schedulable treatments applied. Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total I 0.0% 16.5% 4.6% 0.0% 21.1% II / III 0.0% 10.5% 21.7% 0.0% 32.2% IV 0.0% 17.4% 9.3% 0.0% 26.7% V 0.0% 5.0% 15.1% 0.0% 20.0% Total 0.0% 49.3% 50.7% 0.0% 100.0% Scenarios - Network Condition Summary Printed: 09/04/2018 Alpine County Scenario: Do Nothing 5 Years Interest: 5% Inflation: 3% MTC StreetSaver Criteria: Scenarios Criteria: 1 SS1035 ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County Scenarios - Cost Summary Printed: 09/04/2018 Interest: 5.00% Inflation: 3.00% Scenario: SB1 RMRA Budget 5 Years 2018 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,622,796 $0 $0 5% $0 $0 II III IV V Non- Project Project Funded Unmet Project Total 2019 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,933,730 $0 $0 5% $0 $0 II III IV V Non- Project Project Funded Unmet Project Total 2020 $360,000 $322,081 $170,627 $36,297 $115,157 $0 $37,590 $0 $10,654,943 $0 $0 10% $0 $0 II III IV V Non- Project Project Funded Unmet Project Total 2021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,747,388 $0 $0 5% $0 $0 II III IV V Non- Project Project Funded Unmet Project Total 2022 $680,000 $607,453 $89,548 $4,035 $504,718 $9,152 $70,836 $0 $11,680,778 $0 $0 10% $0 $0 II III IV V Non- Project Project Funded Unmet Project Total Functional Class Stop Gap Rehabilitation Prev. Maint. Summary Stop Gap Unmet Funded Collector $554,568 $0 $0 $0 Residential/Local $374,966 $108,426 $0 $0 $929,534 $108,426 $0 Grand Total: $0 Year Budget Rehabilitation PM Deferred Stop Gap Surplus PM Preventative Maintenance Scenarios Criteria: 1 SS1034 MTC StreetSaver ---PAGE BREAK--- Year Year Year Budget PM Budget PM Budget PM 2018 $0 5% 2019 $0 5% 2020 $360,000 10% 2021 $0 5% 2022 $680,000 10% Projected Network Average PCI by year Never Treated Year With Selected Treatment Treated Centerline Miles Treated Lane Miles 2018 58 58 0 0 2019 56 56 0 0 2020 54 53 13.50 6.75 2021 51 50 0 0 2022 50 47 11.24 5.62 Percent Network Area by Functional Class and Condition Category Condition Condition in base year 2018, prior to applying treatments. Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total I 0.0% 21.8% 9.1% 0.0% 30.9% II / III 0.0% 18.5% 17.1% 0.0% 35.6% IV 0.0% 9.1% 14.9% 0.0% 24.0% V 0.0% 0.0% 9.5% 0.0% 9.5% Total 0.0% 49.3% 50.7% 0.0% 100.0% Condition Condition in year 2018 after schedulable treatments applied. Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total I 0.0% 21.8% 9.1% 0.0% 30.9% II / III 0.0% 18.5% 17.1% 0.0% 35.6% IV 0.0% 9.1% 14.9% 0.0% 24.0% V 0.0% 0.0% 9.5% 0.0% 9.5% Total 0.0% 49.3% 50.7% 0.0% 100.0% Condition Condition in year 2022 after schedulable treatments applied. Arterial Collector Res/Loc Other Total I 0.0% 19.7% 15.0% 0.0% 34.7% II / III 0.0% 10.1% 11.7% 0.0% 21.8% IV 0.0% 14.6% 8.9% 0.0% 23.5% V 0.0% 5.0% 15.0% 0.0% 20.0% Total 0.0% 49.3% 50.7% 0.0% 100.0% Scenarios - Network Condition Summary Printed: 09/04/2018 Alpine County Scenario: SB1 RMRA Budget 5 Years Interest: 5% Inflation: 3% MTC StreetSaver Criteria: Scenarios Criteria: 1 SS1035 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix E Sections Selected for Treatments Based on County’s Current Budget ---PAGE BREAK--- Scenarios – Sections Selected for Treatment Interest: 5.00% Inflation: 3.00% Scenario: SB1 RMRA Budget 5 Years StreetID Year PCITreated PCIPriorTreat AreaTreated Cost PCI RoadName BegLocation EndLocation SectionLength SectionWidth Treatment CR0006 2020 78 69 4067 $ 12,426.00 72 Laramie Street Montgomery Street Hwy 89 1525 24 AC SINGLE CHIP SEAL CR0105 2020 82 73 5153 $ 16,703.00 78 Barber Road Begin End 1855 25 AC SLURRY SEAL CR0123 2020 100 50 1971 $ 37,424.00 55 Montgomery Street Hwy 89 End 739 24 AC THIN OVERLAY CR0129 2020 71 60 623 $ 4,035.00 66 Water Street Hwy 89 End 330 17 AC CHIP SEAL AND SLURRY SEAL CR0165 2020 86 78 534 $ 1,733.00 83 Cedar Lane Pine Avenue End 229 21 AC SLURRY SEAL CR0167 2020 83 74 898 $ 2,911.00 79 Aspen Way Pine Avenue End 404 20 AC SLURRY SEAL CR0168 2020 89 81 804 $ 2,607.00 86 Sage Avenue Pine Avenue Cedar Lane 329 22 AC SLURRY SEAL CR0198 2020 76 67 40684 $ 124,307.00 69 Carson River Road Hwy 88 Diamond Valley Road 18308 20 AC SLURRY SEAL CR0205 2020 73 62 5896 $ 18,015.00 64 California Road Emigrant Trail End 2412 22 AC SLURRY SEAL CR0206 2020 74 65 1281 $ 3,914.00 67 Topaz Place California Road End 549 21 AC SLURRY SEAL CR0207 2020 79 70 4085 $ 12,481.00 72 Carson View California Road End 1671 22 AC SLURRY SEAL CR0208 2020 81 72 2266 $ 6,923.00 74 Diamond View Emigrant Trail End 971 21 AC SLURRY SEAL CR0209 2020 79 70 4097 $ 12,519.00 72 Nevada Road Emigrant Trail Carson View 1756 21 AC SLURRY SEAL CR0210 2020 74 65 2352 $ 7,185.00 67 Larson Canyon Carson View End 962 22 AC SLURRY SEAL CR0212 2020 75 66 5950 $ 36,297.00 68 Turtle Rock Country Park Road Hwy 89 End 3825 14 AC CHIP SEAL AND SLURRY SEAL CR0219 2020 100 24 336 $ 9,152.00 34 Cole Court Montgomery Street End 126 24 AC RECONSTRUCT PAVEMENT CR2002 2020 76 67 13949 $ 45,217.00 72 Hawkins Peak Road Emigrant Trail End 5231 24 AC SLURRY SEAL CR9004 2020 76 67 1564 $ 4,780.00 69 Red Vista Road Hwy 88 End 741 19 AC SLURRY SEAL CR0113 2022 83 74 8697 $ 28,192.00 80 Highland Lakes Road Hwy 4 End 5591 14 AC SLURRY SEAL CR0122 2022 76 67 13676 $ 44,331.00 73 Woods Lake Road Hwy 88 End 6838 18 AC SLURRY SEAL CR0135 2022 100 41 4093 $ 77,733.00 44 Douglas Way Hwy 89 End 1535 24 AC THIN OVERLAY CR0191 2022 79 70 4830 $ 15,657.00 76 John Ebbetts Road Bear Valley Road End 1890 23 AC SLURRY SEAL CR0202 2022 100 44 25052 $ 504,718.00 57 Creekside Drive Bear Valley Road No Name Road 6442 35 AC THIN OVERLAY CR0220 2022 88 80 936 $ 3,033.00 86 Cub Lane Bear Valley Road End 421 20 AC SLURRY SEAL CR0226 2022 79 70 1855 $ 5,667.00 73 Road Bear Valley Road End 642 26 AC SLURRY SEAL 2020 Total = $358,629 2022 Total = $679,331 ---PAGE BREAK--- Collaboration. Commitment. Confidence.SM www.ncenet.com