HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDApacket__11-16-23_0906_548
NOTICE OF MEETING
WORK SESSION
FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL
Mayor Ginny Dickey
Vice Mayor Sharron Grzybowski
Councilmember Peggy McMahon
Councilmember Hannah Toth
Councilmember Gerry Friedel
Councilmember Brenda J. Kalivianakis
Councilmember Allen Skillicorn
TIME:3:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. – WORK SESSION
WHEN:THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2023
WHERE:FOUNTAIN HILLS COUNCIL CHAMBERS
16705 E. AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS, FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ
Councilmembers of the Town of Fountain Hills will attend either in person or by telephone conference call; a quorum of the Town’s various
Commission, Committee or Board members may be in attendance at the Council meeting.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to A.R.S. §1-602.A.9, subject to certain specified statutory exceptions, parents have a right to consent
before the State or any of its political subdivisions make a video or audio recording of a minor child. Meetings of the Town Council are audio
and/or video recorded and, as a result, proceedings in which children are present may be subject to such recording. Parents, in order to
exercise their rights may either file written consent with the Town Clerk to such recording, or take personal action to ensure that their child
or children are not present when a recording may be made. If a child is present at the time a recording is made, the Town will assume that
the rights afforded parents pursuant to A.R.S. §1-602.A.9 have been waived.
AGENDA
1.CALL TO ORDER – Mayor Ginny Dickey
2.ROLL CALL – Mayor Dickey
3.REGULAR AGENDA
A.Discussions Related to future Pavement Management funding
4.ADJOURNMENT
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF NOTICE
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF NOTICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing notice was duly posted in accordance with the statement filed by the Town
Council with the Town Clerk.
Dated this ______ day of ____________________, 2023.
_____________________________________________
Linda G. Mendenhall, MMC, Town Clerk
The Town of Fountain Hills endeavors to make all public meetings accessible to persons with disabilities. Please call 480-816-5199 (voice) or 1-800-367-8939
(TDD) 48 hours prior to the meeting to request a reasonable accommodation to participate in the meeting or to obtain agenda information in large print
format. Supporting documentation and staff reports furnished the Council with this agenda are available for review in the Clerk's Office.
Town Council Work Session of November 16, 2023 2 of 2
ITEM 3. A.
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: 11/16/2023 Meeting Type: Town Council Work Session
Agenda Type: Regular Agenda Submitting Department: Public Works
Prepared by: Justin Weldy, Public Works Director
Staff Contact Information: Justin Weldy, Public Works Director
Request to Town Council Work Session (Agenda Language): Discussions Related to future Pavement
Management funding
Staff Summary (Background):
Infrastructure strategic planning is an essential component of the management of Town streets, and is driven by
growth, aging infrastructure, and limited revenue sources. The emphasis is now being placed on not only knowing
the true cost of providing a cost-effective pavement management program, but also understanding what will be
required to maintain a specific level of service throughout the life of Town-owned streets.
The pavement management software used to complete the Town of Fountain Hills pavement analysis is a Budget
Optimization Street Selector system known as "BOSS." The pavement analysis conducted by our consultant
(Roadway Asset Services, LLC.) and staff, prioritizes a multi-year rehabilitation plan using sound pavement
engineering and financial optimization principles.
The FY24 pavement maintenance projects for streets have been identified, and a budget of $5,000,000 has been
allocated and approved by the council. The Council has also indicated that another $5,000,000 will be allocated for
the FY25 pavement maintenance projects.
For the outlying years beyond FY25, a Town budget of $2,125,000.00 was utilized for the 5-year budget models.
Prior to the General Fund savings that resulted from federal grants, the Streets Fund received a $2,125,000.00
budget for maintenance and rehabilitation activities. Each year, 15% of the budget is allocated to cover other
expenses such as administrative overhead, inspections, etc.
These budgets were applied in the Budget Optimization Street Selector (BOSS) software, for the development of a
financially optimized 5-year planning model. Based on the Fix All analysis and current needs assessment, the Town
would require a total investment of $64,000,424 to treat all Town maintained roads with an appropriate
maintenance and rehabilitation activity based on current conditions and pavement type.
The Town’s greatest maintenance funding need is the Full depth reconstruction + subgrade prep for
Pre-Incorporation Asphalt which represents 75.03% percent of the total Fix All cost at $48,025,763.
Having utilized pavement management best practices and financially optimizing the Town’s limited budget, the
network average PCI of the Town’s roads at the time of the analysis was 69. However, the Town’s current backlog
(roads below a PCI of 40) of 5.3% remains unsustainable at the current budget levels and is forecasted to grow to
15.3% in 5 years, which is considerably higher than the target backlog of 8%.
The biggest challenge for staff will be gathering the funds required to complete full rehabilitation of the critical
Pre-Incorporation Asphalt roadways. In addition, there will come a point in each roadway's life cycle where it no
longer benefits from preservation and will need more progressive rehabilitation such as an overlay.
The Town’s historical budget of $2.125M dedicated to pavement management will result in a network average PCI
of 67 and a backlog of over 15% in the next 5 years. To control the growth of backlog below the target threshold
of 8% would require $5,000,000 annually and the net benefit to PCI would be a jump in the average PCI to 72.
An additional concern that requires consideration is the Town's Expenditure Limitation. This
constitutionally-required limitation on the expenditure of local revenues is calculated each year by the Economic
Estimates Commission, and the Town must remain below that set limit or lose state-shared revenue. The limit for
FY24 is $34.3M, and the current pavement maintenance budget of $5.0M represents 15% of that limit.
The Town's Municipal Advisor, Jim Stricklin from Columbia Capital, will also be in attendance to share his expertise
and answer the Council's questions regarding various funding options, including, but not limited to, the issuance
of municipal bonds. In addition, members of the Citizens' Street Committee and Roadway Asset Services will be
available to answer questions.
Attached to this staff report please find the following documents for review:
Roadway Asset Services executive summary.
Citizen Advisory Committee report.
Roadway Geotechnical Engineering Report.
Memo from the Town Engineer.
Attachments
RAS Final Report
Citizen Advisory Committee Report
Roadway Geotechnical Engineering Report
Pavement modification Detail memo
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Public Works Director (Originator)Justin Weldy 11/03/2023 05:02 PM
Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 11/06/2023 12:04 PM
Town Manager Linda Mendenhall 11/07/2023 09:20 AM
Finance Director David Pock 11/07/2023 01:36 PM
Town Manager Rachael Goodwin 11/08/2023 07:55 AM
Form Started By: Justin Weldy Started On: 11/03/2023 09:56 AM
Final Approval Date: 11/08/2023
Roadway Asset Services, LLC 6001 W Parmer Lane #370-1102 Austin, TX 78727 210-837-5249
2023 Pavement Evaluation Report
Fountain Hills, AZ
May 2023
1 Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 4
1.1 Condition Results .......................................................................................................................... 7
1.2 Budget Scenarios ........................................................................................................................... 7
Commonly Used Acronyms ........................................................................................................................... 8
2 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 9
3 Project Scope & Methodology ........................................................................................................... 12
3.1 Pavement Condition Assessment ............................................................................................... 12
3.2 Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Calculation .............................................................................. 15
3.3 International Roughness Index (IRI) Calculation and Analysis .................................................... 15
4 Description of Distress Analysis ......................................................................................................... 16
5 Results ................................................................................................................................................ 20
5.1 Pavement Condition Index Results ............................................................................................. 21
5.2 International Roughness Index Results ....................................................................................... 25
5.3 Distress Breakdown by Severity .................................................................................................. 27
6 Pavement Maintenance/Preservation Funding ................................................................................. 28
7 Scenarios and Budget Estimates ........................................................................................................ 28
7.1 Deterioration curves ................................................................................................................... 28
7.2 Treatment Activities and Cost ..................................................................................................... 29
7.3 Scenarios ..................................................................................................................................... 31
7.3.1 Do-Nothing .............................................................................................................. 31
7.3.2 Unlimited Funding (Fix All) and Distribution of Costs ............................................. 32
7.3.3 Steady State Network PCI (SS PCI) .......................................................................... 33
7.3.4 Steady State Backlog Budget (SS Backlog) .............................................................. 34
7.3.5 Sample Maintenance Budgets versus PCI Improvement........................................ 35
8 Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 36
9 Appendix I: Distress Definitions (Colorado State University) ............................................................. 37
10 Appendix II: Automated Data Collection Equipment ......................................................................... 38
10.1 Roadway Asset Collection (RAC) Vehicle .................................................................................... 38
10.2 Quality Control/Assurance .......................................................................................................... 40
10.3 LCMS-2 ........................................................................................................................................ 41
10.4 Profile .......................................................................................................................................... 41
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Town of Fountain Hills, AZ PCI Distribution ................................................................................ 5
Figure 1.2: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ Surface Type Distribution ................................................................ 6
Figure 2.1: Deterioration Curve Example .................................................................................................... 10
Figure 2.2: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ Inspection Breakdown ................................................................... 10
Figure 2.3: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ Roadway Network (Collection Status) .......................................... 11
Figure 3.1: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ Network Coverage Map ................................................................ 13
Figure 3.2: Right-of-Way Image Example.................................................................................................... 15
Figure 4.1: RAS Pavement Analysis Tool Example ...................................................................................... 17
Figure 4.2: LCMS Post PCI Processing Image .............................................................................................. 18
Figure 4.3: Example of Distress Overlay Images ......................................................................................... 19
Figure 5.1: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ PCI Ranges by Percent of Area ....................................................... 21
Figure 5.2: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ PCI Ranges by Percent of Area for Asphalt Roads ....................... 22
Figure 5.3: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ PCI Ranges by Percent of Area for Pre- Incorporation Asphalt
Roads ........................................................................................................................................................... 22
Figure 5.4: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ PCI Distribution Map ..................................................................... 23
Figure 5.5: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ PCI Example Map .......................................................................... 24
Figure 5.6: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ IRI Distribution Map ...................................................................... 25
Figure 5.7: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ Normalized IRI Example Map ........................................................ 26
Figure 5.8: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ Asphalt Distress Breakdown ......................................................... 27
Figure 7.1: Typical Pavement Life Cycle Curve............................................................................................ 29
Figure 7.2: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ - PCI Trend by Budget Scenario...................................................... 34
Figure 7.3: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ - PCI Trend by Budget Scenario...................................................... 35
Figure 7.4: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ - Predicted 5-Year Pavement Condition Index Outlook ................. 36
Figure 10.1: RAS RAC Vehicle ...................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 10.2: 9-Point Calibration Site Example ............................................................................................ 40
Figure 10.3: LCMS Data Definition .............................................................................................................. 42
List of Tables
Table 1.1: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ PCI Ranges by Percent ...................................................................... 4
Table 2.1: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ Inspection Breakdown .................................................................... 11
Table 3.1: IRI Category Ranges by Miles ..................................................................................................... 16
Table 5.1: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ Condition Scale ............................................................................... 20
Table 5.2: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ PCI Ranges by Percent of Centerline Miles .................................... 21
Table 5.3: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ Asphalt Distress Breakdown by Severity ........................................ 27
Table 7.1: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ - Maintenance Suggestion by PCI Range (Arterial Roads) (Inflated to
2023 Rates) ................................................................................................................................................. 29
Table 7.2: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ - Maintenance Suggestion by PCI Range (Alleys) (Inflated to 2023
Rates) .......................................................................................................................................................... 30
Table 7.3: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ - Maintenance Suggestion by PCI Range (Collector Roads) (Inflated
to 2023 Rates) ............................................................................................................................................. 30
Table 7.4: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ - Maintenance Suggestion by PCI Range (Local Roads) (Inflated to
2023 Rates) ................................................................................................................................................. 31
Table 7.5: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ – Fix All Analysis by Treatment Type ............................................... 33
Table 7.6: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ - Predicted 5-Year Overall Condition Index Outlook ....................... 36
4 | P a g e
1 Executive Summary
Roadway Asset Services, LLC (RAS) performed a pavement condition assessment for the Town of Fountain Hills,
AZ to provide an accurate assessment of the pavement conditions. The pavement data collection started on
November 03, 2022 and completed on November 12, 2022. This report provides the processes and procedures
for pavement condition data collection and evaluation, assessment of the results, and maintenance
recommendations for the Town’s maintained roadway network.
The pavement condition assessment included an automated mobile data collection effort, a Pavement
Condition Index (PCI) calculated using RAS’s pavement analysis tool – Road Technical Rating Intelligence
Program (Road TRIPTM), publishing of the results to a Microsoft PowerBI dashboard, and the delivery of an ESRI
file geodatabase. The assessment and conditions rating were performed in general accordance with national
standards, where applicable.
The network PCI was determined following the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) D6433-11
“Standard Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement Condition Index Surveys” to determine the Surface
Distresses Index (SDI) in combination with a Roughness Index (RI), which is derived from the International
Roughness Index (IRI). The combination of SDI and a normalized IRI value such as RI used is (67%*SDI) + (33%*RI)
= PCI.
The PCI category break points below were developed during the Town’s 2018 survey update and were adopted
for the 2023 survey in an effort to maintain consistency in the Town’s use of descriptive terminology as they
relate to the PCI condition score ranges. In 2019, the Town Mayor and Council adopted the use of letter grades
to assist in simplifying the interpretation of the condition score ranges. The criteria used at that time were as
follows: A = 85 to 70; B = 70 to 60; and C = 60 to 50. These letter grades are not reflected in Table 1.1 as there
is no industry standard for their application and every agency’s definition of each letter grade is a matter of local
perception.
Table 1.1: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ PCI Ranges by Percent
Pavement
Condition Index
(PCI) Range
Condition
Description
Total
Distance
(Miles)
Total Area
(Sq. Yd.)
Percent of
Network by
Centerline
Miles
86 – 100 Excellent 27.28 606,319 16.4%
71 – 85 Very Good 54.03 1,217,767 32.5%
61 – 70 Good 30.76 636,866 18.5%
51 – 60 Fair 26.77 534,470 16.1%
41 – 50 Marginal 17.23 337,707 10.4%
26 – 40 Poor 9.43 184,142 5.7%
0 – 25 Very Poor 0.93 15,395 0.6%
Total of Rated Segments 166.44 3,532,666 100%
5 | P a g e
Figure 1.1 Town of Fountain Hills, AZ PCI Distribution
6 | P a g e
Figure 1.2: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ Surface Type Distribution
7 | P a g e
1.1 Condition Results
RAS’s pavement analysis tool, Road Technical Rating Intelligence Program (Road TRIPTM), was used to evaluate
and classify the pavement distresses, and calculate the SDI. The SDI is a numerical rating of the pavement
condition based on the type, severity, and density of distresses observed on the pavement surface. The SDI is a
measure of the overall serviceability provided by a pavement to the vehicle driver. The IRI value is normalized
to provide a Roughness Index (RI) between 0 and 100 for the initial calculation of the final PCI value, which is a
combination of the SDI and the RI; calculated using a weighted average: PCI = 67%*SDI + 33%*RI. At the time of
this evaluation, the weighted arithmetic average PCI for all roads was 69. Following the categories from Table
1.1, the network is currently in a ‘Good’ condition.
1.2 Budget Scenarios
RAS performed several five-year maintenance and preservation program scenarios for the Town of Fountain
Hills, AZ. Fountain Hills has a budget of $2,125,000.00 per year assigned to optimized maintenance and
rehabilitation activities. While the Town’s actual budget is $2,500,000; 15% of that budget was removed to
cover other expenses such as administrative overhead, inspection, etc. In addition, The Town has an additional
funding source from the CARES Act that equates to $10,000,000 and using the same logic presented above, 15%
of the funding was removed to cover other expenses. As such, the CARES Act funding used in the model after
removing administrative expenses was $8,500,000. This funding was spread over Fiscal Years 23 and 24 evenly
and used to target pre-incorporation residential roadways that required full reconstruction or major
rehabilitation. RAS also ran 9 additional scenarios with budgets below and above the Town’s annual budget.
All of the additional budget runs also accounted for the $8,500,000 in CARES Act funding that was used to target
residential roadways. These budgets were applied in the Budget Optimization Street Selector (BOSSTM) software,
for the development of a financially optimized 5-year plan.
Optimization is a broad-based term that has many different definitions. For most pavement management
systems, optimization is the ability to prioritize a multi-year rehabilitation plan using several different factors
that are important to Fountain Hills and based on sound engineering constraints. RAS infuses financial
optimization by identifying two key components of a financial analysis:
• Need Year – when a road/segment becomes critical, meaning it is getting closer to dropping into the next more
expensive rehabilitation category.
• Cost of Deferral – identifying the cost of deferral between a road/segment’s current rehabilitation category and
its next category.
Understanding the “Cost of Segment Deferral” allows the analysis to maximize the Town’s limited funds in the
best manner possible.
Using information provided by the Town, RAS pavement management experience, and industry standards, RAS
assigned the PCI impact to each maintenance activity and is presented in Tables 7.1 to 7.4.
A 5% inflation rate per year was applied to the maintenance and rehabilitation activity costs in the 5-year
models.
8 | P a g e
Commonly Used Acronyms
• AC Asphalt Concrete
• ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
• BR Brick
• GR Gravel
• GPS Global Positioning System
• IRI International Roughness Index
• LCMS Laser Crack Measurement System
• PCI Pavement Condition Index
• PCC Portland Cement Concrete
• PCS POS Computer System
• SDI Surface Distress Index
• RI Roughness Index
• POS Position and Orientation System
• RAC Roadway Asset Collection vehicle
• RAS Roadway Asset Services
• Road TRIPTM Road Technical Rating Intelligence Program
• ROW Right-of-way
• UNS Unsurfaced
9 | P a g e
2 Introduction
An asphalt pavement surface begins to oxidize and deteriorate from the day it is constructed. While concrete
pavements may have longer durability, they also began deteriorating after construction due to joint failure and
subgrade weakening. Many factors affect the deterioration rate, such as, but not limited to, the traffic loads,
climatic conditions, age, material durability, subgrade support, damage caused by poor drainage, and
construction materials and techniques. These factors cause the deterioration rate to be different for every
pavement section. To manage a large pavement network, “family performance” curves are developed from
available data to represent the expected performance and to help determine optimal times to apply preventive
and rehabilitation treatments. To develop more accurate curves, periodic evaluations and assessment of the
pavement condition must be performed to gain a realistic representation of condition versus age of the
pavement network.
Pavement deterioration is a non-linear process and initial deterioration occurs at a slow rate. After
approximately 40% to 50% of a pavement’s service life, a pavement segment reaches an “inflection point’ after
which pavement condition rapidly deteriorates. Understanding the condition and age at which this rapid drop
in condition occurs is unbelievably valuable in determining the optimal time for maintenance as displayed in
Figure 2.1. Properly understanding pavement conditions allows for cost effective preventive maintenance
versus reactive rehabilitation at a much higher cost.
Standard industry practice is to assess a pavement network every three to five years. More frequent
assessments will likely not detect significant changes in condition. More than five years between assessments
will likely miss critical changes and will not provide adequate data to define a deterioration curve where
preventive maintenance is best applied. RAS recommends assessments every three years for networks greater
than 100 miles. Local and residential streets can be delayed to every five years, because they are expected to
deteriorate at a slower rate compared to arterial/collector streets. Local street deterioration is based on climatic
conditions more than traffic loads. However, if funding is not separated by arterial/collector streets versus local
streets, the assessments should be done in the same year to provide equivalent information for the decision
process.
Here, we describe the tools, processes and procedures used to collect and analyze pavement condition data as
well as provide a summary of the results obtained from calculating each segment’s Pavement Condition Index
(PCI).
10 | P a g e
Figure 2.1: Deterioration Curve Example
Figure 2.2: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ Inspection Breakdown
11 | P a g e
Table 2.1: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ Inspection Breakdown
Item Description Centerline
Miles
Percent of
Centerline Miles
1 Asphalt Segments with PCI 109.16 64.9%
2 Pre-Incorporation Asphalt Segments
with PCI 57.28 34.1%
Total 168.22 100%
Figure 2.3: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ Roadway Network (Collection Status)
12 | P a g e
3 Project Scope & Methodology
The overall project scope of work contains seven tasks outlined below:
1. Verify the Town’s Street network,
2. Perform mobile image data collection,
3. Determine the Pavement Condition Index (PCI),
4. Determine International Roughness Index (IRI),
5. Determine the Surface Distress Index (SDI),
6. Budget Analysis in the BOSS software,
7. Prepare pavement final report.
3.1 Pavement Condition Assessment
Roadway Asset Services, LLC (RAS) performed a pavement condition survey for Fountain Hills, AZ beginning
November 3, 2022 and completed on November 12, 2022, covering approximately 168.22 centerline miles of
roadway. RAS used a Roadway Asset Collection (RAC) vehicle to collect street level ROW images and Laser Crack
Measurement System (LCMS-2) pavement images. The collected LCMS-2 pavement images were used to
identify street segment pavement distresses and severities through analysis, while the 360-degree panoramic
ROW images were used to confirm pavement distresses.
Roadway networks are usually divided into three pavement surface types: asphalt (AC), Portland cement
concrete (PCC), and unsurfaced (UNS). Due to the nature and scope of the project, pavement imagery and data
were only collected on paved surfaces such as asphalt, pre-incorporation asphalt, and concrete roads. These
types of roads (AC and PCC) account for most of the Town’s roadway, at approximately 166.44 centerline miles
(98.9%) of total centerline miles (Table 2.1, Figure 2.2).
To determine the general distress characteristics of each roadway segment, RAS utilized a RAC vehicle, which
combines multiple engineered technologies to collect real-time pavement data, ROW data, and images at
posted speed limits. This eliminates the need to place pavement inspection technicians in the field near vehicle
traffic. A detailed listing and description of the RAC equipment is included in Section 10.0 of this report.
Mobile image collection of the Town’s roadway network was accomplished through coordination with the
Town’s GIS map provided for the survey areas, as displayed in Figure 3.1. Efforts associated with mobile image
collection included review of client GIS street centerline file, route planning based on GIS street centerline, and
coordination of existing construction projects along the Town’s streets.
This project applied the ASTM D6433-11 ‘Standard Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement Condition
Index Surveys’ pavement condition analysis method on collected LCMS-2 images to determine the road segment
and network SDI. The ASTM D6433-11 method covers the process of quantifying pavement conditions and
identifies pavement distress types, distress extent measurements, and distress severity to determine the deduct
values for each distress type. ASTM D6433-11 outlines the method of SDI value calculation, which includes
determining the deduct values, correcting for number of distresses in each survey sample, and calculating the
PCI value by subtracting the maximum deduct value from one hundred.
The ASTM D6433-11 procedure also outlines how the road network is divided into sections and sample units;
first identifying the branches of the pavement with different uses, then dividing each branch into sections based
on pavement design, construction history, traffic, and condition. RAS used the segmentation defined by
Fountain Hills in their provided GIS database files. RAS used the option to evaluate 100% of the length of each
13 | P a g e
lane driven by the RAC vehicle. Instead of averaging the number of sample units inspected within each section,
RAS provided one PCI score, which was determined by measuring all the distresses and IRI within the driven
lane to calculate the PCI for the entire section.
Figure 3.1: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ Network Coverage Map
14 | P a g e
The RAS RAC vehicle collects pavement and ROW
images concurrently, approximately every 20 feet
along each street segment. All pavement rating is
done automatically through RAS’s Road Technical
Rating Intelligence Program (Road TRIPTM) to ensure
accurate distress capture and to minimize false
positives using proper sensor settings and sound
engineering definitions for each distress.
International Roughness Index (IRI) and longitudinal
profiles were collected using an ICC inertial profiling
system in accordance with ASTM E950, AASHTO
Standard M328-14, AASHTO R43-13, and AASHTO Standard R56-14. For the network collection project, RAS
collected IRI data and presented the results in the final database based on the following:
• Line lasers were used in each wheel path to increase repeatability of measurements and to reduce
variability due to wheel path cracking and concrete tinning.
• The ICC profiler routinely achieves 98%+ cross-correlations on certification sites, making it one of the
most accurate devices available for IRI and profile measurement.
• The operation and verification of the inertial profiling system shall be expertly conducted in accordance
with AASHTO Standard R57-14.
ROW images were also collected as part of this project. The RAC vehicle is configured with a Point Gray Ladybug
5+ 32MP 360-degree camera to provide a full panoramic image of the ROW, displayed in Figure 3.2. The images
were captured at roughly 20-foot intervals and were post-processed using collected inertial and GPS data.
The measuring of pavement width is accomplished utilizing the calibrated Ladybug imagery in conjunction with
the LCMS-2 imagery and inertial GPS data. Using the 360-degree view of the ladybug, RAS can accurately and
repeatably measure from edge of pavement to edge of pavement for each road segment. This provides a more
accurate area calculation for better budgeting and forecasting. For cul-de-sac sections an average width
measurement is taken for the straight portion and the bulb. RAS can also calculate the areas of each segment
independently and get a true area of the cul-de-sac section. The length of a road segment is determined from
the GIS database provided by the Town. RAS understands that the GIS is not always 100 % accurate. In these
cases, after collection is complete, RAS can use the GPS trajectory of the van to determine the true beginning
and ending of the road to get a more accurate length and ultimately more accurate area measurement.
15 | P a g e
Figure 3.2: Right-of-Way Image Example
3.2 Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Calculation
A pavement distress inventory consists of identifying specific pavement surface distress types that are
associated with degradation of a pavement surface due to traffic loads, environmental factors, lack of
maintenance and other anthropogenic or natural occurrences. The distress type is then assigned a severity
rating (low/medium/high), and the extents of the distress type and severity are recorded. For this project, the
pavement distress types, causes and measurements were inventoried utilizing the ASTM D6433-11 method. The
inspections covered 100% of the length of a section for the outside lane of travel.
Each street segment’s PCI was calculated utilizing Road TRIPTM. The calculation tool within Road TRIPTM is based
on the ASTM D6433-11 method of calculating a street segment’s PCI value using the observed pavement
distresses and severities in the inventory database and ASTM D6433-11 deduct curves for each distress type in
combination with a normalized IRI value called a Roughness Index.
3.3 International Roughness Index (IRI) Calculation and Analysis
As part of this project, IRI values were collected along the survey segments utilizing a high-speed three laser
profiler. The IRI is a general measurement of the ride quality of a street section and was performed in accordance
with AASHTO R 43-07 and ASTM E950. IRI indexes were obtained from measured longitudinal road profiles and
were processed using a quarter-car model at 52.80-foot intervals (0.010/mi). RAS utilized a three-laser surface
profiling system for evaluating the smoothness of the pavement. The profiler uses infrared lasers and precision
accelerometer to obtain accurate and precise profile measurements. The values reported to the Town are in
units of inches per mile. It should be noted that IRI indexes can “spike”, resulting in erroneous data being
reported along sections of roads where slow speeds (below 15mph) are involved. Another cause of data spikes
are abrupt stops caused by stop signs, slow going traffic, or road characteristics (gutter pans, manholes, etc...).
Categorization of IRI indexes can vary from state to state and are typically determined by the agency (e.g., City,
DOT, County, etc.). For this report, the results have been based on a common category system that has been in
16 | P a g e
use by a variety of agencies (Table 3.1). The values for IRI should range from 0 to 550 inches/mile. Any values
above 550 inches/mile are flagged and changed to be equal to 550 in/mi as they are caused by several reasons
mentioned above. The lower the IRI number, the smoother the ride and conversely, higher the values indicate
a rougher ride using IRI.
Table 3.1: IRI Category Ranges by Miles & Percent of Area
IRI Category IRI Value (in/Mile) Normalized IRI
Value
Centerline
Miles % of Area
Excellent < 136 86 – 100 24.96 18.59
Very Good 137 - 209 71 – 85 57.95 36.53
Good 209 - 257 61 – 70 33.60 18.97
Fair 258 - 305 51 – 60 18.80 9.90
Marginal 306 - 353 41 – 50 9.80 5.18
Poor 354-426 26 – 40 8.93 4.53
Very Poor > 426 0 – 25 12.40 6.03
4 Description of Distress Analysis
Fully automated distress reduction methods are used to classify and rate the distress; therefore, acceptance
checks are performed by viewing the pavement images. The data collection vehicle includes software programs
that overlay the distress ratings directly on the pavement image to allow viewing of the image and ratings
together. Checking of distress ratings is a manual process in which samples of data are visually inspected for
accuracy of the ratings. Since distress rating checks are very time-consuming, we commonly begin sampling
checks before data collection/rating is complete. Because of this overlap, there is an opportunity to promptly
re-collect or resurvey any sections with data that do not meet quality criteria. Everything captured in the survey
vehicle is GPS-tagged and allows for real time QC to ensure nothing is missed during data collection.
RAS post-processes the pavement and Right-of-Way (ROW) imagery from the RAC vehicle for each day of image
collection. A data collection session, which is referred to as a survey, begins when the RAC crew selects “Start”
in the collection software on board the RAC vehicle and ends when they select “Stop.” In a single day, we will
collect multiple survey sets. With a completed day of collection, RAS pavement engineers and GIS analysts use
Pavemetrics® Road Inspect Software to generate all the source data used by Road TRIPTM. Every survey set is
linked to a uniquely identified road segment, which is used as an identifier during the analysis of the sample
area, then identification of the distress extent / severity, and ultimately the distress density for each road
segment is added to the database.
Figure 4.1 shows a few of the different tool’s RAS utilized within Road TRIPTM during the QC process. In the upper
left corner, we can observe the segment ID, all the images linked to that segment, the rated distresses and
exercise the option to manually add a patch area if the Road TRIPTM tool has not identified the patch. RAS utilizes
Microsoft® Azure Computer Vision algorithm to identify patches. The algorithm has been specially tested and
trained by RAS to produce accurate patch detection. The upper right corner displays the Ladybug images, which
the user can toggle between forward, left, right, right-rear, or left-rear facing views. The lower left corner lists
17 | P a g e
the distresses rated in the segment selected with the severity, quantity, density and how many points are
deducted from the SDI based on the ASTM D6433-11 deduct curve values. The lower right corner displays the
rutting measured by the Laser Profiler and visually displayed by the LCMS-2 3D data.
Figure 4.1: RAS Pavement Analysis Tool Example
This method of pavement distress inventory provides a quantifiable and repeatable process to the Town. Each
street segment, in conjunction with the pavement and ROW imagery, allows pavement engineers to review each
road segment, allowing for an open quality control process that is defendable and repeatable.
Road TRIPTM uses the depth map created by the Laser Crack Measurement System (LCMS) to locate the valleys
and fissures within the surface of the roadway. These valleys and fissures are then measured and rated. Figures
4.2 and 4.3 display an example of distress overlay images.
18 | P a g e
Figure 4.2: LCMS Post PCI Processing Image
The yellow line indicates the boundary of rated sample, green, yellow, and red dotted lines indicate longitudinal
and transverse cracking (LT) of low, moderate, and high extent. The blue lines are sealed cracks detected by the
LCMS and are attributed to the low severity linear crack category. The pink, magenta, and violet lines indicate
areas of low, moderate, and high severity alligator cracking that has been filtered because it does not meet
minimum length or width requirements. The measurements on the right side of the image are the length for
longitudinal / transverse (LT) cracking in meters, the area in square meters for alligator cracking (Acrk) and the
number of potholes (Pot) or count. Refer to Figure 4.3 for an example.
The LCMS has been set up to follow the ASTM D6433 protocols to determine the severity of each distress. Each
distress is defined by ASTM D6433, and the severity levels are presented as measurable attributes of the
distress. For example, longitudinal and transverse cracks are defined by the crack width; where non-filled cracks
with a width less than 3/8 inch or filled cracks of any width are considered low severity. Moderate severity is
defined as non-filled cracks with a width between 3/8 inch and 3 inches. High severity is defined as cracks greater
than 3 inches in width or those surrounded by moderate to high severity cracks. The overlay images provide a
visual means by which to review the sensor.
19 | P a g e
Figure 4.3: Example of Distress Overlay Images
20 | P a g e
5 Results
The overall pavement network health of the Town of Fountain Hills can be assessed by reviewing Figure 5.1 in
more detail. This graph illustrates the percentage of the network by area that falls into each descriptive
condition category. A few areas for review are as follows:
• Shape of Distribution – the graph illustrates a distribution that is shifted to the right and peaks between
a PCI of 71 to 85. This is indicative of a municipality that has an ongoing maintenance program and is
actively re-investing in the roadway network using preventative measures.
• Average PCI – The Town’s network average PCI score is 69 and slightly above the averages that are
typically seen across the Country between a 60 to 65.
• Excellent Roads – Currently 16.4% of the Town’s roadways fall into the Excellent condition category
which is slightly above the average of 15%. This is also indicative of an agency that is actively re-investing
in the roadway network.
• Backlog – these are the roads that fall below a PCI of 40 and land in the Poor or Very Poor condition
categories. Currently less than 6% of the roadway network falls into this category, which is a healthy
number. However, current status can often be deceiving as backlog can grow at an alarming rate. The
funding scenarios discussed further in this report will illustrate that the Town’s current budget is not
adequate to arrest the growth in backlog over the next 5-year period.
Table 5.1: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ Condition Scale
Pavement
Condition Index
(PCI)
Condition Description
86 – 100 EXCELLENT
71 – 85 VERY GOOD
61 – 70 GOOD
51 – 60 FAIR
41 – 50 MARGINAL
26 – 40 POOR
0 – 25 VERY POOR
21 | P a g e
5.1 Pavement Condition Index Results
Table 5.2: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ PCI Ranges by Percent of Centerline Miles
Pavement
Condition Index
(PCI) Range
Condition
Description
Total
Distance
(Miles)
Total Area
(Sq. Yd.)
Percent of
Network By
Centerline Miles
86 – 100 Excellent 27.28 606,319 16.4%
71 – 85 Very Good 54.03 1,217,767 32.5%
61 – 70 Good 30.76 636,866 18.5%
51 – 60 Fair 26.77 534,470 16.1%
41 – 50 Marginal 17.23 337,707 10.4%
26 – 40 Poor 9.43 184,142 5.7%
0 – 25 Very Poor 0.93 15,395 0.6%
Total of Rated Segments 166.44 3,532,666 100%
Figure 5.1: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ PCI Ranges by Percent of Area
22 | P a g e
Figure 5.2: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ PCI Ranges by Percent of Area for Asphalt Roads
Figure 5.3: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ PCI Ranges by Percent of Area for Pre- Incorporation Asphalt Roads
The PCI value for each road segment can be viewed in the Town’s database. The average of the road segment
PCI values for the collected roads within the survey areas was calculated to be 69 at the time of collection. This
value indicates the roadway network is in a ‘Good’ condition.
23 | P a g e
Figure 5.4 displays the Pavement Condition Index distribution throughout the Town’s survey area. Figure 5.5
displays an example zoomed-in PCI map with the actual PCI values for each roadway section.
Figure 5.4: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ PCI Distribution Map
24 | P a g e
Figure 5.5: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ PCI Example Map
25 | P a g e
5.2 International Roughness Index Results
Figure 5.6 displays the International Roughness Index distribution (IRI) throughout the Town’s survey area roads.
Figure 5.7 displays an example zoomed-in IRI with the normalized IRI values for each roadway section.
Figure 5.6: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ IRI Distribution Map
26 | P a g e
Figure 5.7: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ Normalized IRI Example Map
27 | P a g e
5.3 Distress Breakdown by Severity
Figure 5.8 and Table 5.3 display the types of distresses found on the Town’s asphalt roads.
Figure 5.8: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ Asphalt Distress Breakdown
Table 5.3: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ Asphalt Distress Breakdown by Severity
Asphalt Distress Breakdown by Severity
Type Low Moderate High
Alligator Cracking 0.7% 0.1% 0.0%
Block Cracking 4.3% 0.1% 0.0%
Long / Trans Cracking 8.6% 1.0% 0.0%
Patching 0.3% 0.0% 0.0%
Potholes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Rutting 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%
Weathering 84.5% 0.1% 0.0%
28 | P a g e
6 Pavement Maintenance/Preservation Funding
RAS performed several five-year pavement maintenance and preservation program scenarios for the Town’s
consideration using the Budget Optimization Street Selector (BOSSTM) software.
The analysis runs a series of 10 profile models of increasing budgets to define how the Town’s budget will impact
network PCI and network backlog. The scenarios include very small budgets, well below current funding and
very large scenarios, well above current funding levels. The results from all scenarios are then used to establish
a funding level trend. This approach will answer specific funding questions asked at the time of analysis but will
also provide a method to answer funding questions after the analysis is complete.
Most segments that are collected are also analyzed. However, in some cases this may not be the case, and
certain totals such as lengths or segment counts may differ between collection and analysis. This includes, but
is not limited to, requests from the client, legally disputed areas, and roads that the client is not required to
maintain.
7 Scenarios and Budget Estimates
7.1 Deterioration curves
Deterioration curves were established for each roadway pavement type (asphalt and pre-incorporation asphalt)
and follow similar degradation standards as outlined by ASTM D6433 and the US Army Corps of Engineers. A
degradation analysis was attempted through comparison of the new 2022 inspection data to the Town’s legacy
data captured in 2018. To do so, RAS analyzed the deterioration of roadways that had not received treatment
during that time to better understand the rate of degradation. In future pavement condition assessments, it is
always suggested that the current consultant conduct a thorough comparison of the current inspection data
against the previous condition assessment. Such an analysis will allow for further refinement of the pavement
deterioration curves to ensure they reflect reasonable rates of degradation in Fountain Hills. This should be
conducted after every pavement condition update. Reviewing deterioration rates for unmaintained roads as
part of each condition data collection cycle and adjusting deterioration curves is a recommended best practice.
The pavement deterioration curves were assembled to establish a 100 - 0 deterioration curve for each pavement
type. The curve represents the deterioration of roads without maintenance applied such that appropriate
maintenance and rehabilitation can be triggered at the appropriate time. As seen in the typical pavement
degradation curve illustrated in Figure 7.1 on the following page, the purpose of pavement management is to
trigger an appropriate rehabilitation on the right road and at the right time in an effort to maximize the roadways
design life and reduce the total cost of roadway ownership.
29 | P a g e
Figure 7.1: Typical Pavement Life Cycle Curve
7.2 Treatment Activities and Cost
Tables 7.1 to 7.4 summarize the maintenance strategy for roads within a PCI range, the cost of the
maintenance per square yard, and the assumed PCI impact for each type of maintenance. The costs displayed
in Tables 7.1 to 7.4 show the unit rate for roads with different strengths (defined by calculating the density of
load associated distresses for each segment), where the rates are increased to consider structural patch work
needed in the moderate and weak roads, these are Identified with Patching x1 and Patching x2 respectively.
The treatment activity “Full Depth Reconstruction + Subgrade Prep” is for Pre-Incorporation Asphalt roads and have
a different PCI range (0 to 60) than typical asphalt roads (0 to 40). A 5% inflation rate per year was applied to
the maintenance and rehabilitation activity costs in the 5-year models.
Table 7.1: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ - Maintenance Suggestion by PCI Range (Arterial Roads) (Inflated to 2023 Rates)
Treatment
Min
PCI
Critical
PCI
Max
PCI
Cost per
SY Priority
Reset
Value
Do nothing 85 97 100 $0.00 500 0
Surface Preservation 70 73 85 $1.58 300 +10
Surface Preservation + Patching x1 70 73 85 $2.63 200 +10
Surface Preservation + Patching x2 70 73 85 $3.68 200 +10
Micro Surface 60 63 70 $4.73 100 +20
Micro Surface + Patching x1 60 63 70 $5.78 100 +20
Micro Surface + Patching x2 60 63 70 $6.83 100 +20
Mill & Overlay 40 43 60 $67.69 500 Fixed 95
Mill & Overlay + Patching x1 40 43 60 $68.74 300 Fixed 95
Mill & Overlay + Patching x2 40 43 60 $69.79 300 Fixed 95
Surface Reconstruction 30 33 40 $70.35 200 Fixed 99
Surface Reconstruction + Patching X1 30 33 40 $71.40 500 Fixed 99
30 | P a g e
Table 7.2: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ - Maintenance Suggestion by PCI Range (Alleys) (Inflated to 2023 Rates)
Treatment
Min
PCI
Critical
PCI
Max
PCI
Cost per
SY Priority
Reset
Value
Do nothing 85 97 100 $0.00 500 0
Surface Preservation 70 73 85 $1.58 300 +10
Surface Preservation + Patching x1 70 73 85 $2.63 400 +10
Surface Preservation + Patching x2 70 73 85 $3.68 400 +10
Slurry Seal 60 63 70 $3.60 100 +20
Slurry Seal + Patching x1 60 63 70 $4.65 100 +20
Slurry Seal + Patching x2 60 63 70 $5.70 100 +20
Mill & Overlay 40 43 60 $50.77 200 Fixed 95
Mill & Overlay + Patching x1 40 43 60 $51.82 200 Fixed 95
Mill & Overlay + Patching x2 40 43 60 $52.87 200 Fixed 95
Full Depth Reconstruction 0 20 40 $57.11 300 Fixed 99
Full Depth Reconstruction + Subgrade Prep 0 40 60 $67.69 200 Fixed 99
Table 7.3: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ - Maintenance Suggestion by PCI Range (Collector Roads) (Inflated to 2023 Rates)
Treatment
Min
PCI
Critical
PCI
Max
PCI
Cost per
SY Priority
Reset
Value
Do nothing 85 97 100 $0.00 600 0
Surface Preservation 70 73 85 1.58 500 +10
Surface Preservation + Patching x1 70 73 85 2.63 500 +10
Surface Preservation + Patching x2 70 73 85 3.68 300 +10
Slurry Seal 60 63 70 3.60 100 +20
Slurry Seal + Patching x1 60 63 70 4.65 100 +20
Slurry Seal + Patching x2 60 63 70 5.70 100 +20
Mill & Overlay 40 43 60 50.77 300 Fixed 95
Mill & Overlay + Patching x1 40 43 60 51.82 200 Fixed 95
Mill & Overlay + Patching x2 40 43 60 52.87 200 Fixed 95
Surface Reconstruction 30 33 40 53.55 200 Fixed 95
Surface Reconstruction + Patching X1 30 33 40 54.60 300 Fixed 95
Surface Reconstruction + Patching x2 30 33 40 55.65 500 Fixed 99
Full Depth Reconstruction 0 20 30 57.11 400 Fixed 99
Full Depth Reconstruction + Subgrade Prep 0 40 60 67.69 200 Fixed 99
31 | P a g e
Table 7.4: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ - Maintenance Suggestion by PCI Range (Local Roads) (Inflated to 2023 Rates)
Treatment
Min
PCI
Critical
PCI
Max
PCI
Cost per
SY Priority
Reset
Value
Do nothing 85 97 100 $0.00 500 0
Surface Preservation 70 73 85 $1.58 200 +10
Surface Preservation + Patching x1 70 73 85 $2.63 300 +10
Surface Preservation + Patching x2 70 73 85 $3.68 400 +10
Slurry Seal 60 63 70 $3.60 100 +20
Slurry Seal + Patching x1 60 63 70 $4.65 100 +20
Slurry Seal + Patching x2 60 63 70 $5.70 100 +20
Mill & Overlay 40 43 60 $33.84 200 Fixed 95
Mill & Overlay + Patching x1 40 43 60 $34.89 200 Fixed 95
Mill & Overlay + Patching x2 40 43 60 $35.94 200 Fixed 95
Full Depth Reconstruction 0 20 40 $40.18 300 Fixed 99
Full Depth Reconstruction + Subgrade Prep 0 40 60 $50.77 200 Fixed 99
Each maintenance strategy has a critical and non-critical PCI range. Streets that are not maintained when they
are in critical range will deteriorate into the next category of maintenance and will become more expensive the
following year. The analysis prioritizes segments in the critical PCI range over segments that are in the non-
critical PCI range. Given an unlimited budget, the analysis will select all segments in the critical PCI range
followed by all segments in the non-critical PCI range.
Each maintenance strategy has a Cost of Deferral Priority which prioritizes selections within the critical PCI range
(within 2-4 points of dropping into the next rehabilitation activity) and within the non-critical PCI range. The
order is sequenced by prioritizing the segments that cost more to defer than segments that cost less to defer,
starting with the critical segments first. For example, the cost of deferring a critical Micro Surface at $4.73/sqyd
to a mill & overlay at $67.69/sqyd is $62.96/sqyd. The cost of deferring a mill & overlay at $67.69/sqyd to a full
reconstruction at $ 70.35/sqyd is $2.66/sqyd. The financially optimized model will prioritize the critical
selections first and if there is funding left over, non-critical selections will then be selected and prioritized using
the very same cost of deferral sequencing.
7.3 Scenarios
A variety of scenarios have been run to provide an understanding of the relationship between funding levels
and the corresponding impact to network PCI and backlog. For this analysis, all roads having a PCI < 40 were
considered backlog.
7.3.1 Do-Nothing
The Do-Nothing budget models the impact of applying zero maintenance. While it is not a scenario that occurs
in practice, the Do-Nothing budget provides an understanding of the rate at which the level of service of the
street network will deteriorate without maintenance and ensures the modeling engine is properly applying
deterioration over time. In Figure 7.2 (page 35) The blue line represents the PCI trend if there is zero
maintenance applied for the next 5 years. The network PCI would drop to 57 as well as increasing the backlog
to 22.5%.
32 | P a g e
7.3.2 Unlimited Funding (Fix All) and Distribution of Costs
The Fix All analysis identifies the current maintenance deficiency of the network.
Based on the Fix All analysis, the Town needs a total budget of $64,000,424 to treat all roads with an appropriate
maintenance and rehabilitation activity based on its current condition. The Town’s greatest maintenance need
by funding is the Full depth reconstruction + subgrade prep for Pre-Incorporation Asphalt with 75.03% percent
of the total cost for a total of $48,025,763. It is important to note that a Micro Surface or a Slurry Seal has the
highest cost of deferral and if critical roadways in this category are deferred, they will increase the already
growing backlog of the network.
33 | P a g e
Table 7.5: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ – Fix All Analysis by Treatment Type
Pavement
Type
Treatment
Code Treatment Area
(%) Cost ($) Cost
(%)
Asphalt 200 Surface Preservation 31.57%
1,491,471 2.33%
Asphalt 202 Surface Preservation + Patching x2 1.89%
208,083 0.33%
Asphalt 300 Micro Surface 0.49%
69,268 0.11%
Asphalt 302 Micro Surface + Patching x2 1.98%
405,237 0.63%
Asphalt 310 Slurry Seal 10.86%
1,169,345 1.83%
Asphalt 312 Slurry Seal + Patching x2 4.09%
697,634 1.09%
Asphalt 400 Mill & Overlay 3.45%
3,689,378 5.76%
Asphalt 402 Mill & Overlay + Patching x2 4.46%
5,359,328 8.37%
Asphalt 600 Full Depth Reconstruction 1.12%
1,534,789 2.40%
Pre-
Incorporation
Asphalt 200 Surface Preservation 3.67%
173,277 0.27%
Pre-
Incorporation
Asphalt 202 Surface Preservation + Patching x2 0.04%
4,196 0.01%
Pre-
Incorporation
Asphalt 300 Micro Surface 0.54%
76,874 0.12%
Pre-
Incorporation
Asphalt 302 Micro Surface + Patching x2 0.78%
158,509 0.25%
Pre-
Incorporation
Asphalt 310 Slurry Seal 1.99%
214,557 0.34%
Pre-
Incorporation
Asphalt 312 Slurry Seal + Patching x2 4.24%
722,715 1.13%
Pre-
Incorporation
Asphalt 610
Full Depth Reconstruction + Subgrade
Prep 28.83%
48,025,763 75.03%
7.3.3 Steady State Network PCI (SS PCI)
The Network PCI is generally accepted as the street networks measure of level of service to the community. The
purpose of the Steady State Network PCI analysis is to identify the budget needed to maintain the network PCI
as it was surveyed in 2022 and provide a steady level of service to the community.
34 | P a g e
Approximately $3,200,000 per year is needed to maintain a Network PCI of 69. However, looking at PCI alone
does not tell the whole story as backlog continues to grow while the network average PCI is maintained. At this
funding level, the network average backlog would grow to 12.5% of the network. Figure 7.2 indicates that a
budget of approximately $3,200,000 per year is needed to maintain a network PCI of 69 and maintain a
consistent level of service to the community. This budget scenario already accounts for the $8,500,000 of CARES
Act funding that is being dedicated to the residential roadway network in Fiscal Year 2023 and Fiscal Year 2024.
The remaining $3,200,000 Steady State PCI budget was optimized to select maintenance and rehabilitation
candidates in the most financially sound manner possible using a cost of deferral analysis that identifies critical
roadways.
Figure 7.2: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ - PCI Trend by Budget Scenario
7.3.4 Steady State Backlog Budget (SS Backlog)
Backlog is the term generally used to describe roads that have a PCI equal to or less than 40 and need surface
or full reconstruction. These roads provide the worst level of service to the community and are the most
expensive to repair. The purpose of the Steady State Backlog analysis is to identify the budget needed to
maintain the network backlog as it was surveyed in 2022 and not let the percent of lowest service level roads
increase.
Approximately $6,500,000 annually is needed to maintain a Network backlog of 5.3%. Figure 7.3 can be used
to predict the Town’s backlog at different budget levels.
35 | P a g e
Figure 7.3: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ - PCI Trend by Budget Scenario
7.3.5 Sample Maintenance Budgets versus PCI Improvement
Ten sample maintenance budgets were run to define the relationship between budget levels and network PCI.
The 5-year budget scenario is set to start in fiscal year 2023 and end in fiscal year 2028.
With the Town’s current budget, the network’s condition will decrease to 67 and the backlog will increase to
15.3% in Fiscal Year 2028. This budget scenario already accounts for the $8,500,000 of CARES Act funding that
is being dedicated to the residential roadway network in Fiscal Year 2023/24 and Fiscal Year 2024/25. The
remaining $2,125,000 Town annual budget was optimized to select maintenance and rehabilitation candidates
in the most financially sound manner possible using a cost of deferral analysis that identifies critical roadways.
Figure 7.4 can be used to answer and predict the network PCI at any funding level between $0 per year and
$7,000,000 per year. Figure 7.4 was used to predict the PCI at the following budgets in Table 7.7.
Fix All = $64M
Average PCI = 85
Minimum PCI = 73
36 | P a g e
Figure 7.4: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ - Predicted 5-Year Pavement Condition Index Outlook
Table 7.6: Town of Fountain Hills, AZ - Predicted 5-Year Overall Condition Index Outlook
Budget Network PCI
$1,000,000.00 66
$1,500,000.00 67
$2,000,000.00 67
$2,500,000.00 68
$3,000,000.00 69
$4,000,000.00 70
$5,000,000.00 72
$6,000,000.00 75
$7,000,000.00 77
8 Summary
In conclusion, Fountain Hills pavement is in good condition with a network average PCI of 69. However, it is
worth nothing that this is a network wide average, resulting in roadways that are much higher and much lower
than the average. At the Town’s current level of funding ($2.125M annually), the Town’s backlog (roads below
a PCI of 40) continues to grow to 15.3% over the next 5 years, larger than the target backlog of 8%. The biggest
challenge for Town staff will be to determine the level of rehabilitation necessary for pre-incorporation
roadways and those level of service decisions will directly impact future funding requirements. In addition,
there will come a point in each roadway’s life cycle where it no longer benefits from preservation and will need
more progressive rehabilitation such as an overlay. The Town’s current budget of $2.125M dedicated to
pavement management is insufficient to maintain the network’s current PCI of 69 and will decline to an average
PCI of 67 over the next 5 years. To control the growth of backlog below the target threshold of 8% would require
$5,000,000 annually and the net benefit to PCI would be a jump in the average PCI to 72.
37 | P a g e
9 Appendix I: Distress Definitions (Colorado State University)
• AC Bleeding & Pumping (ft2) represents excessive use of bituminous binder in the asphalt mix.
• AC Fatigue (Alligator) Cracking (ft2) is associated with fatigue due to traffic loading and visually looks like
interconnected cracks forming small pieces ranging in size from about 1” to 6” typically in the wheel
path.
• AC Block Cracking (ft2) usually intersect at nearly right angles and range from one foot to 10’ or more
across. The closer spacing indicates more advanced aging caused by shrinking and hardening of the
asphalt over time.
• AC Edge Cracking (ft) is parallel to and usually within 1.5 feet of the outer edge of the pavement. This
distress is accelerated by traffic loading and can be caused by frost-weakened base or subgrade near the
edge of the pavement.
• AC/PCC Lane/Shoulder Drop-off (ft) is a difference in elevation between the pavement edge and the
shoulder. This distress is caused by shoulder erosion, shoulder settlement, or by building up the roadway
without adjusting the shoulder level.
• AC Linear Cracking (trans/long) (ft) typically occurs in overlays where the crack is reflected through the
overlaying asphalt surface.
• AC Patching (ft2) is an area of pavement that has been replaced with new material to repair existing
pavement.
• AC Potholes (count) are small, usually less than 30 inches in diameter, bowl-shaped depressions in the
pavement surface. Generally, have sharp edges and vertical sides near the top of the hole.
• AC Raveling & Weathering (ft2) is loss of pavement material from the asphalt surface. Typically raveling
is caused by stripping of the bituminous film from the aggregate or hardening of asphalt due to aging.
Poor compaction, especially in cold weather construction, or insufficient asphalt content can also cause
raveling.
• AC Slippage Cracking (ft2) are crescent of half-moon shaped cracks, usually transverse to the direction of
travel. They are produced when braking or turning wheels cause the pavement to slide or deform.
• AC Rutting (ft2) is a surface depression in the wheel paths.
• PCC Corner Break (slab count) is a crack that intersects the joints. Load repetition combined with loss of
support and curling stresses usually cause corner breaks.
• PCC Divided Slab (slab count) is when a slab is divided into four or more pieces due to overloading, or
inadequate support.
• PCC Durability “D” Cracking (slab count) is caused by freeze-thaw expansion of the large aggregate, which
gradually breaks down the concrete. Usually appears as a pattern of cracks running parallel and close to
a joint or linear crack.
• PCC Joint Sealant Damage (slab count) is any condition that enables soil or rocks to accumulate in the
joints or allows significant water infiltration.
• PCC Linear Cracking (trans/long) (slab count) divide the slab in two or three pieces and are usually caused
by a combination of repeated traffic loading, thermal gradient curling and repeated moisture loading.
38 | P a g e
• PCC Patching, Large/Utility Cut (slab count) is an area where the original pavement has been removed
and replaced by new pavement.
• PCC Patching, Small (slab count) is an area where the original pavement has been removed and replaced
by filler material.
• PCC Polished Aggregate (slab count) is caused by repeated traffic applications. There are no rough or
angular aggregate particles to provide good skid resistance.
• PCC Popouts (slab count) are small pieces of pavement that breaks loose from the surface due to freeze-
thaw action, combined with expansive aggregates. Usually range in diameter from 1 to 4 inches and in
depth from ½ to 2 inches.
• PCC Punchout (slab count) is a localized area of the slab that is broken into pieces. This distress is caused
by heavy repeated loads, inadequate slab thickness, loss of foundation support or localized concrete
construction deficiency.
• PCC Scaling/Map Cracking/Crazing (slab count) is a network of shallow, fine or hairline cracks that extend
only through the upper surface of the concrete. Usually caused by concrete over-finishing and may lead
to scaling, which is the breakdown of the slab surface to a depth of ¼ to ½ in.
• PCC Shrinkage Cracks (slab count) are hairline cracks usually less than 6 feet long and do not extend
across entire slab. They are formed during the setting and curing of the concrete and do not extend
through the depth of the slab.
• PCC Spalling, Corner (slab count) is the breakdown of the slab within 1.5 feet of the corner. Usually
caused by traffic loading or infiltration of incompressible materials, weak concrete and/or water
accumulation and freeze-thaw action.
• PCC Spalling, Joint (slab count) is the breakdown of the slab edges within 1.5 feet of the joint. Usually
caused by traffic loading or infiltration of incompressible materials, weak concrete and/or water
accumulation and freeze-thaw action.
10 Appendix II: Automated Data Collection Equipment
10.1 Roadway Asset Collection (RAC) Vehicle
To determine the general distress characteristics of each roadway segment, RAS utilized one of our RAC vehicles,
presented in Figure 10.1, to collect street level (ROW) imagery and downward (LCMS-2) pavement imagery.
The RAC vehicle components include:
Navigation System
• Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU): Generates a true representation of vehicle motion in all three axes;
producing continuous, accurate position and orientation information.
• PCS: Applanix POS/LV Computer System with DGPS (Provides accurate GPS coordinates for each
subsystem) enables raw GPS data from as few as one satellite to be processed directly into the system,
to compute accurate positional information in areas of intermittent, or no GPS reception.
• GPS Receivers: Embedded GPS receivers provide heading aiding to supplement the inertial data.
Laser Crack Measuring
System (LCMS-2)
39 | P a g e
• GPS Antennas: Two GPS antennas generate raw observables data.
• Sub-meter accuracy: The system is rated to get 0.3 m accuracy in the X, Y position and 0.5 m in the Z
position.
Distance Measuring Indicator (DMI)
• Computes wheel rotation information to aid vehicle positioning and collect high-resolution imagery at
posted speeds.
Cameras
• Point Gray Ladybug 5+ 32MP 360 camera (Utilized for accurate ROW asset capture and extraction). This
system is far superior to multiple mounted independent HD cameras others use.
Pavement Imaging System
• Second-generation Pavemetrics Laser Crack Measurement System (LCMS-2) provides 1mm resolution
pavement imagery for automatic and continuous measuring of pavement cracking, texture, rutting
geometrics, and other pavement distresses.
• LCMS-2 camera is a laser array providing images used to evaluate data that conforms with ASTM D6433
protocols and provides a detailed array of data using two 1-millimeter resolution line scan cameras. A
1mm resolution is equivalent to over 4,000 laser points across the driven lane.
• Allows fully illuminated pavement image collection even in heavy shadow/canopy areas.
Pavement Ride Quality
• An inertial profiler with line lasers (Used to capture International Roughness Index (IRI)
measurements).
Ladybug 360o Right-of-Way Camera
NCAT Certified 3-Laser Profiler
40 | P a g e
Figure 10.1: RAS RAC Vehicle
10.2 Quality Control/Assurance
All subsystems for the RAS vans are integrated using International Cybernetics Corporation’s (ICC) collection
core with tight synchronization between all data streams on the van in real-time, referenced to both time and
distance. All sensor locations are calibrated to the vehicle, together with the GPS and IMU, using 3D translations
and rotations. This allows for the rapid calculation of the precise location of all sensor data. The RAC vehicle has
received independent inertial profiler certification for accuracy and repeatability from the National Center for
Asphalt Technology at Auburn University.
RAS RAC image collection includes a daily check of the on-board systems. This vehicle component check includes
a calibration site survey of a nine-point grid in state plane coordinates (Figure 10.2). Each morning and
afternoon, before and after a day’s image collection, the RAC vehicle drives over the surveyed location. The RAC
technician then extracts each point’s location to verify the location of the point extracted was within
approximately three feet of the surveyed points. RAS’ QA/QC manual includes further details regarding RAC
quality control procedures.
Figure 10.2: 9-Point Calibration Site Example
Calibration of the laser profiling system includes laser sensor checks and block tests to ensure the accuracy of
the height sensors, accelerometer calibration “bounce tests” to verify proper functioning of the height sensors
and accelerometers and distance calibration to ensure accuracy of the DMI. Calibration of the DMI and some
accelerometers occurs during field testing, and each is checked and recalibrated on a regular basis.
During image collection, the RAC technician reviews the images collected on-screen as they are collected and
any issue with image clarity requires the collection run to end and the image quality issue to be resolved. This
41 | P a g e
provides real-time verification that the equipment is operating correctly. Once resolved, the collection run
begins from the beginning for the road segment collected. The RAC technician also monitors GPS reception
during collection. If GPS reception is lost measured using positional dilution of precision (PDOP), the RAC
technician stops the collection and resolves the GPS reception issue. Collection begins again once the GPS
reception issue is resolved. The RAC technician will check each camera’s exposure rate, image quality and GPS
and IMU operation to ensure the RAC system is recording the image, GPS, DMI and IMU data and that the GPS
location is within the stated project tolerance.
Each day’s image and road data collection are recorded on an RAC server. Each night, the day’s collection data
is backed up to an external hard drive. The external hard drives are then mailed back to RAS’ project office
where the data is placed on a production server for post-processing of images and data, quality control review
and pavement distress inventory.
The QC program for pavement condition data collection typically includes random sample audits, inter-rater
reproducibility and data checks for accuracy and repeatability of the results. For this survey project random
samples of the pavement condition data were selected and checked by the lead rater or QC personnel. If the
pavement condition ratings did not meet quality standards, corrective action was taken, and the entire section
was reviewed.
Cameras
• High-definition cameras with precision lenses allow for accurate asset extraction and video log recording,
but with lower frame rate: 15 images per second, with lower 1936x1456 color resolution.
Pavement Imaging System
• Two line-scan cameras and lasers configured to image 4m transverse road sections with 1 mm resolution
(4000 pixel) at speeds that can reach 100 km/h, upgraded to the 3D imagery of the LCMS-2 camera
system.
10.3 LCMS-2
Downward-facing LCMS-2 pavement imagery is collected for use in quantifying distress type, severity, and
extents present on segments of road. The resolution of the imagery allows for distresses to be easily identified
and measured during the analysis portion of the contract. Pavemetrics’ Laser Crack Measurement System
(LCMS) is a high-speed and high-resolution transverse profiling system. Capable of acquiring full 4-meter width
3D profiles of a highway lane
at normal traffic speed, the system uses two laser profilers that acquire the shape of the pavement. Both the
resolutions and acquisition rate of the LCMS are high enough to perform automatic cracking detection, macro-
texture evaluation, rutting measurements, and much more. Custom optics and high-power pulsed laser line
projectors allow the system to operate in full daylight or in nighttime conditions. Road profile data is collected
onboard the inspection vehicle.
10.4 Profile
A road profile is a set of (X,Z) data points captured along the transversal axis of the road. A profile is captured
each time the LCMS controller receives a trigger signal from the vehicle's odometer. Typically, the LCMS system
can capture one road profile every few millimeters (5 mm at 100km/h). Each profile consists of up to 4160 data
points. This value will be referred to later in this document as being the number of points per profile.
The longitudinal profile of the road is generated by measuring its shape along an imaginary line in the direction
of travel or longitudinal axis of the road. The longitudinal profile can then be used to compute various roughness
42 | P a g e
indexes such as the IRI (International Roughness Index). The following guidelines should be followed to ensure
proper readings from the Roughness subsystem:
• Maintain the recommended tire pressure.
• Ensure the wheels are balanced.
• Drive at speeds between 15.5 mph and 60 mph.
• Avoid quick accelerations and decelerations and sudden changes in direction.
A road section is a set of consecutive profiles that are merged and saved in a common file. A road section can
be seen as a set of 3D coordinates (X, Y, Z), where X is the coordinate along the transversal axis of the road, Y
along the longitudinal axis, and Z is the depth axis, as displayed I Figure 10.3. The road section length is
configurable and is set by the user before starting the acquisition. A typical road section length is between 5 to
10 meters.
Figure 10.3: LCMS Data Definition
Z
Y
X
CASC Report Page 1
Fountain Hills
CITIZEN ADVISORY STREETS COMMITTEE REPORT
June 20, 2023
A “FIX-ALL-NOW” PROGRAM
CASC Report Page 2
The Citizens Advisory Streets Committee (CASC) was presented a mission at its first
meeting on September 29, 2021, to address street conditions and funding options, and
make recommendations to the Town Council. During the process of studying available
data the committee concluded new information was needed to determine current street
conditions and subsequently the Town authorized Roadway Asset Services in 2022 to
laser-test the entire network.
This Report represents the Committee’s evaluation of current data and provides
recommendations to repair and maintain Fountain Hills streets.
Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Overview
III. A Fix-All-Now Program
IV. Funding Options
V. Recommendations
VI. Summary
VII. Appendix
A. Talking Points
B. Pavement Lifecycle
C. Additional Considerations
D. A “Roadmap” Forward
E. Cost Estimations
F. Volunteer CASC Members
CASC Report Page 3
Executive Summary
The street network evaluation conducted by Roadway Asset Services, LLC (RAS)
reveals that while pavement conditions in Fountain Hills are generally considered
‘good’ with an average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 69, nearly half of all streets
fall below the average. The current annual funding level of $2.125 million is insufficient
to address the backlog of streets with a PCI below 40, which is projected to increase to
15.2% over the next few years, surpassing an industry standard target backlog of 8%.
The primary challenge for Town staff is determining needed repairs for pre-
incorporation streets (1989), which impacts future funding requirements. It is important
to note that at a certain point in pavement life cycle, maintenance preservation
measures will no longer suffice, and more extensive rehabilitation, such as overlays,
will be necessary and more costly.
Given the current budget, the network’s average PCI is expected to drop to 67 over the
next five years, highlighting the insufficiency of funds to achieve acceptable PCI levels.
It is evident that “business as usual” will not yield different results in the future.
To address these issues, the Citizens Advisory Streets Committee (CASC)
recommends a comprehensive “Fix-All-Now” program that requires an additional $50
million in funds (including intersection improvements). This program aims to improve
the street network to a “PCI 70-Threshold” level, ensuring that the existing $2.125
million street revenue sources are sufficient for future maintenance. The proposed
amount considers the allocation of nearly $8 million in Federal Covid relief funds
already directed by the Town Council to street repairs.
Historically, funding for street improvements has relied on general funds, sales taxes,
state-shared revenues, regional funds, and grants, but these sources have proven to
be inadequate to prevent the deterioration of an increasing number of streets. The
CASC suggests that traditional options like bonds should be considered, weighing the
benefits of lower interest costs with a 5-year plan versus a higher annual secondary
property tax, or higher interest costs with a 20-year plan and a lower annual tax.
In summary, the CASC emphasizes the urgent need for increased funding and the
implementation of a large-scale rehabilitation program. Failure to invest adequately in
street infrastructure will result in significant future challenges and a continued decline
in pavement conditions throughout the community.
CASC Report Page 4
Overview
During the past 20 months the CASC examined three street network reports: one
developed in 2008 by Stantec Consultants, another in 2018 by Infrastructure
Management Services (IMS), and a third in 2023 by Roadway Asset Services (RAS).
During that time questions were raised, many matters were investigated, and on May
15, 2023, final CASC comments were submitted to generate this report.
The Fountain Hills Street network has nearly 4.2 million square yards of pavement for
which the Town has responsibilities for about 3.5 million square yards (85%), or 166
miles. The other 15% are in gated ‘communities’ where sustaining street conditions
are the responsibility of a HOA.
Before the Town was incorporated in 1989, many streets were constructed by
developers before ‘standards’ were adopted, and many are now 34-50 years old. In
the past decade maintenance/repairs have been a mix of activities totally dependent
on the funds available which have varied from $1.7M to $3.9M each year. Since 2016,
$14.8M has been spent on streets, nearly 70% having occurred in the past 4 years.
For several decades, monies spent on streets and intersections have come from a
combination of general funds including sales taxes, state-shared revenues, regional
funds, and grants, but the total funds were never enough; streets continued to
deteriorate. Following the Stantec Report, voters were asked in 2011 to approve an
influx of new money, but a $29M, 10-year bond package was rejected 55-45. Then
two years later, in 2013, voters did approve 67-33 an $8.2M, 5-year bond for the total
reconstruction of a single project, Saguaro Blvd. And following the IMS Report, after
the Saguaro bonds were paid off, voters were asked in 2018 to approve a $7M Primary
Property Tax (PPT) with $4M being promised to be spent annually to repair and
sustain the network, but it was rejected 60-40. Now, following the RAS Report, it’s de-
ja-vu again; more street funds are needed.
Using RAS PCI data, RAS square yardage, and RAS unit costs, the CASC has
concluded that $50M of additional funds are needed (including intersection
improvements) to position the community so the existing $2.125M street revenue
sources will be sufficient to maintain the network thereafter. To accomplish that, an
‘outside-the-box’ 5-year “Fix-All-Now” program is suggested that will improve the street
network to a “PCI 70-Threshold” level. (The $50M amount is after $8M in Federal
Covid relief funds directed by the Town Council to the network have been spent, and
continuance of the $2.125M annual allocation.)
CASC Report Page 5
Cost Summary by PCI and by Street Category (See Appendix E for Detail)
Without significant additional revenues street network maintenance levels
cannot be achieved which means streets will continue to deteriorate,
creating failing conditions from which the Town cannot possibly recover.
A “Fix-All-Now” Program
Deciding which streets to fix, and when to do it, is a complicated process because the
rates at which streets deteriorate are affected by many variables such as traffic, vehicle
weights, pavement materials, subsurface soil conditions, and weather, to name a few.
As streets age, pavements deteriorate. Usually, the first signs of distress appear as
longitudinal cracks along the direction of travel, then transverse cracks across the
pavement, then alligator-style cracking and subsequent potholes. When street
deterioration reaches the alligator stage, even in small areas, it may represent a failure
of the underlying base materials which necessitates total reconstruction, including
subgrade repair.
To establish street conditions the best approach has proven to be by using laser
technology to assign numerical values to ride comfort and pavement distresses. In
doing so Pavement Condition Indexes (PCIs) are created. The first time this was done
in Fountain Hills was 15-years ago, and then again in 2018, and in 2023. After
extensive reviews of all the data collected in each test year the conclusion reached is
that PCIs collected in one year cannot be compared to those in a later year, because
no two streets are alike, each deteriorate differently.
CASC Report Page 6
Streets fall into 4 classifications, Arterials, Collectors, Locals, and Alleys. Arterials are
the streets with the highest traffic volumes, followed by Collectors that take traffic from
intersecting residential streets to a connection with Arterials, and then Locals that are
in essence residential streets. Alleys (less than 1% of the network) are often found in
business areas, but in a few situations Alleys act like Locals as they are the only
access for some residents.
In June 2020 the Town Council established ‘minimum’ PCI goals for Arterials of 60-70;
Collectors, 50-60; Locals, 50-55. Using PCI numbers street conditions can also be
characterized in terms of five letter-grade categories that closely match maintenance/
repair options:
• “A” are those streets with PCI ratings between 100-85 and labeled as ‘excellent’.
• “B” streets between 85-70 PCI ratings are referred to as being in ‘good’ condition.
• “C” (70-55 PCI ratings), a ‘marginal’ category.
• “D” (55-40 PCI ratings), a ‘fair’ category.
• “F” (below a PCI rating of 40), considered a ‘poor’ category.
Pavement management falls into three major categories: (1) maintenance, (2)
rehabilitation (repairs), and (3) reconstruction. The reason for these categories is that
State Statutes restrict ‘low interest, tax-free bonds’ to be used for one-time
‘rehabilitation/reconstruction’ projects, not ongoing/annual ‘maintenance’.
• Maintenance is usually associated with “A” and “B” streets, down to a PCI rating of
70, and consists of crack filling followed by protective or slurry seals. (Recent
example, Shea Blvd. Costs in the maintenance category are estimated to vary from
$1.60 to $3.70 per square yard.)
• Repair/Rehabilitation usually occurs with “C” and “D” streets (PCI ratings between
70 and 40) and consists of some panel replacements followed with a slurry seal or
chip seals with cape. And mill & overlays, some for the full pavement width, and in
some very wide streets, just the travel lanes. (Recent example, El Lago Blvd from
Palisades to Ave of the Fountains. Costs in this category vary widely between $3.70
and $53.00 / SY.)
• Reconstruction is normally associated with “F” streets (PCI ratings between 40 and
25) and consists of mill & overlay with major panel replacements. PCI ratings below
25 usually necessitate full-depth replacement. (Costs in this category vary
extensively and could approach $70.00 / SY.)
Once streets are ‘fixed’ PCI values are ‘reset’ until the next laser test results. Assumed
values are:
For Maintenance: crack fill with seal coating: PCI 85
CASC Report Page 7
For Repair/Rehabilitation: slurry, chip seals with cape: PCI 88. Mill & overlay
(including isolated panel replacements): PCI 90
For Reconstruction: PCI 95
But these values do not last forever; all streets begin to deteriorate immediately. To
keep pavements above a PCI 70-Threshold, maintenance activities must be repeated
every 6-7 years. But each time that’s done the ‘reset’ value diminishes somewhat, and
after maybe three maintenance applications (20 years) streets will need to undergo
more extensive treatment. To determine deterioration rates, it is suggested that laser
tests be conducted every five years.
Pavement Maintenance Life Cycle
Funding Options
Over the years funding options have not changed. Three options are available to
supplement current existing Town revenues:
• Bonds are often considered first since they have a sunset provision that appeals to
many voters. However, bonds include interest expenses; dollars paid that do not
make it to the streets. Depending on bond retirement schedules, a 5-year plan will
have a lower interest price tag but a higher annual secondary property tax, while a
20-year plan will have more interest but a lower annual tax. (Bonds are like home
mortgages or vehicle loans when cash reserves are not available.)
CASC Report Page 8
• A Primary Property Tax is a cash reserve alternative to bonds (no interest
expenses). Based on a 5-year “Fix-All-Now” program, $9M will be needed. Then,
after the entire network is fixed, property tax revenues could be used to pay for fire,
police, etc. and the local sales tax rate could be cut to 1.2% thus making FH more
attractive to businesses and consumers.
• Local Sales Taxes are another option (they do not require voter approval). The
Town’s current 2.9% sales tax rate is expected to generate $15.4M in 2024. To
produce another $9M to fix the street network, the rate would have to increase 58%
to 4.6% (and when combined with State Sales Taxes it would mean that FH would
have the highest sales tax rate in Maricopa County).
Inasmuch as no decisions will be reached for a while, the months that follow would be
a great opportunity to assess how voters would like to proceed. Then in the fall the
Town Council will be in a better position to arrive at a consensus on how to address
the street network going forward.
Recommendations
The CASC recommends a “Fix-All-Now” strategy to bring all streets up to a PCI 70-
Threshold level using municipal tax-free bonds as the financing source. Two bond
alternatives are suggested, either a combination of “packages” by street category, or
one overall issue.
Either alternative is designed to be a “Fix-All-Now” program, where the monies
available from General Fund commitments and from bonds are combined to complete
all necessary repairs over a seven-year period. Funds for the first two years, FY23
and FY24, are already committed by the Council. Bond funds will be needed for FY25
though FY 29. Then when the program is completed in 2030, the currently available
$2.125M annual revenues should be sufficient to sustain “maintenance” activities for
the foreseeable future.
Alternative 1: Comprehensive single bond package:
$50M, 20-year bond program to improve all streets, including intersections.
Alternative 2: Street “Packages” – 4 separate bond packages:
$5M, 5 to 20-year bond program for Arterials only.
$9M, 5 to 20-year bond program for Collectors only.
$26M, 5 to 20-year bond program for Locals/Alleys only.
$10M, 5 to 20-year bond program for Intersections, Pedestrian, & Bicycle Safety only*.
CASC Report Page 9
*(La Montana/Palisades, La Montana/Saguaro, Palisades/Palomino,
Palisades/Golden Eagle, Palisades/FH Blvd, Saguaro/FH Blvd,
Avenue of the Fountains/Saguaro + sidewalk infill,
Crosswalk Safety Improvements, adding turn lanes,
installing traffic and/or pedestrian signals, adding bicycle lanes.)
The advantage of long-term bonds is the annual ‘tax’ is the least and some of the
indebtedness will be paid by those who move to Town in later years. Costs used to
generate the bond amounts are based on recent street bid prices, plus reasonable
contingencies for unknown surprises, and 5% annual inflation.
The CASC recommends Alternative 2 on the belief this bond referendum approach
provides voters an opportunity to choose what they believe are most important. The
CASC also recommends that a referendum be presented to voters in November 2024.
Summary
Throughout this decade and before, monies to fix Fountain Hills streets have come
from a combination of general funds including sales taxes, state-shared revenues,
regional funds, and grants. Because streets have continued to deteriorate using these
limited funds should be proof that relying on those monies alone is not enough.
The recommended “Fix-All-Now” 5-year program will eliminate the need to ask voters
for more funds every 5-7 years, and after streets are improved to a PCI 70-Threshold
level, the combination of existing general funds should be sufficient to properly
maintain the street network for the foreseeable future.
Other considerations:
1. The “Fix-All-Now” solution differs considerably from the RAS recommendation,
where instead of an “average” PCI as a goal, the “Fix-All-Now” uses a PCI 70-
Threshold goal. (Adopting an “average” approach means some streets will not
meet the Council’s ‘minimum’ conditions.)
2. The CASC believes an across-the-board “reconstruction” strategy for pre-
incorporation streets included in the RAS report is not warranted, or affordable.
(Using a previously proven hybrid repair on pre-incorporation streets that served
the community for at least the past 34 years (since 1989 incorporation) is
recommended.)
3. Before bond amounts are finalized consideration should be given to reclassify
some streets and make a thorough review of future intersection needs, including
pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements. (Traffic warrants may already
justify signals at several locations, and as the community grows in the next 7
years, more improvements will be needed.)
CASC Report Page 10
4. After extensive reviews the CASC is convinced that there are no short cuts to
fixing the streets without a significant amount of new revenue; conditions will only
worsen. Even if the Town could allocate an additional $1M each year, that would
not be enough. (It’s unrealistic to believe the Town could allocate as much as
$50M over the next 7 years … $7M every year.)
5. Since 2008 two different professional street consultants have concluded more
funds are needed, and now in 2023, a third consultant has concluded the
same. But only once have more funds been provided, and that was 10 years ago
when $8M was approved to reconstruct Saguaro Blvd. (The $29M rejected by
voters in 2011 and the $4M annual rejection in 2018 would have reduced today’s
price tag considerably.)
6. Catching-up with street repairs to overcome ongoing deterioration seems
paramount. To accomplish that requires significant additional revenues so
existing revenues can be used to maintain the network at levels acceptable to
residents and businesses.
Failure to invest adequately in street infrastructure will result in significant future
challenges and a continued decline in pavement conditions throughout the community.
To help resolve the street issues it’s suggested that public open forums be initia ted this
fall to give residents ample opportunities to voice their opinions.
CASC Report Page 11
Appendix
A. Talking Points
Overview: The streets in Town are falling apart; half the network is substandard. Even
streets that are in good condition are subject to deterioration and must be maintained.
The problem today is the result of ignoring what should have been done years ago and
without an influx of capital, continual deterioration will exceed the Town’s ability to
sustain the network. Support statements include:
1. Infrastructure Improvement: Investing in the bond issue will significantly enhance
the overall infrastructure, leading to smoother, quieter, and safer travel experiences
for residents and visitors.
2. Long-Term Cost Savings: By proactively addressing streets through the bond issue,
further damage can be prevented, and more expensive repairs can be avoided.
Investing now will help save money over time by reducing the need for extensive
street reconstruction projects.
3. Enhanced Safety: Upgrading and maintaining streets is crucial for ensuring the
safety of motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists. By addressing current street
conditions and intersection needs through the bond issue, accidents and potential
injuries can be minimized, creating a safer environment for everyone.
4. Economic Growth: Well-maintained and reliable infrastructure is vital to attracting
businesses, promoting tourism, and stimulating economic growth. By investing in
the bond issue, it demonstrates the community’s commitment to attracting new
businesses and creating job opportunities.
5. Preserving Property Values: High-quality streets contribute to the overall appeal and
desirability of the Town. By funding street repairs through the bond issue, property
values will be preserved and potentially increased, thus benefiting property owners
and ensuring a positive real estate market in the long term.
6. Limited-Time Opportunity: The urgent need for street repairs combined with the
availability of the bond issue presents a unique opportunity. By acting now,
necessary funding at favorable interest rates can be achieved.
7. Community Well-being: Investing in the Town's streets is an investment in the well-
being of its residents. Smooth and well-maintained streets improve accessibility,
reduce noise levels, and minimize traffic congestion, resulting in a higher quality of
life for everyone.
CASC Report Page 12
8. Environmental Benefits: Upgrading streets can include implementing
environmentally friendly practices, such as incorporating sustainable materials and
improving drainage systems, thus reducing the carbon footprint, and contributing to
a greener future.
9. Increased Civic Pride: Addressing Street problems through the bond issue
demonstrates commitment to a sense of pride among residents, fostering a stronger
community spirit, and a shared responsibility for the Town's development.
10. Transparency and Accountability: The bond issue provides a clear and
transparent mechanism for funding street repairs, ensuring the funds are dedicated
solely to the intended purpose. Implementing oversight and accountability measures
to promote trust and confidence among residents are doable.
B. Pavement Lifecycle Program
CASC Report Page 13
C. Additional Considerations
1. Based upon Town growth in the past decade and current traffic, some streets
may need to be reclassified to the next higher category. Prior to finalizing any
bond packages, each category should be visited to determine which streets
should be reclassified to a higher level; examples are included below.
from to
Collectors to Arterials
Golden Eagle Palisades Sunridge
Sunridge Dr Palisades Golden Eagle
Locals to Collectors
Gunsight Saguaro La Montana
LA Montana El Lago Arroyo Vista
Arroyo Vista La Montana FH Blvd
Chama FH Blvd Gunsight
Sierra Madre Sunridge Sunridge
Verde River / Paul Nordin Palisades Saguaro
Panorama Saguaro Saguaro
Bainbridge FH Blvd Golden Eagle
Inca FH Blvd Kingstree
Monterey Shea Saguaro
Del Cambre Grande El Sobrante
Hampstead / Fayette Palisades Fairlynn
Saguaro Business Frontage Panorama Colony
Thistle Palisades Mountain Side
Mountain Side Thistle Palisades
2. A Town-wide “speed limit assessment” should be conducted to ensure that by
category streets are consistent; that speed limits are posted the same in both
directions; that general signage upon entrance to the Town informs drivers that
the local speed limit is 25 mph on any street not posted.
3. The Town should investigate and identify options for private (HOA) properties to
be able to use Town negotiated prices so cost savings can be passed along.
4. Throughout the program of street repairs, the Town should consider addressing
wide streets with pavement markings that allow for a left-turn lane, parking lanes,
and/or bike lanes by narrowing the travel lanes appropriately to help “manage”
posted speed limits.
5. All Arterials and Collectors should have centerline markings.
6. All Local streets at a minimum should have traffic control stop signs/stop lines
when intersecting with Collectors and/or Arterials.
7. All frontage streets should be clearly marked and/or signed as two-way.
CASC Report Page 14
8. Additional radar activated speed limit signage should be placed strategically
throughout the community on Arterials, and on all streets ahead of entering a
special enforcement area.
9. Prepare an ‘Intersection 10-Year Improvement Plan” addressing primary
intersections; considerations are shown below.
Facility Cross Street Existing Recommended Description
Palisades Palomino 4 way stop New Traffic Signal Complete planned improvements
Palisades Golden Eagle 3 way stop Traffic Circle Eliminate 3 way stop with circle
Palisades FH Blvd Existing Traffic Signal L Turn Queuing NB to WB & EB to NB turn lane ext
Palisades Ave of the Fountains Existing Traffic Signal Do Nothing -
Palisades La Montana 4 way stop Traffic Circle Eliminate 4 way stop with circle
Palisades Saguaro Existing Traffic Signal L Turn Queuing NB to EB turn lane extension
Saguaro La Montana 2 way stop Traffic Circle Eliminate 2 way stop with circle
Saguaro Ave of the Fountains 3 way stop Traffic Circle Eliminate 3 way stop with circle
Saguaro El Lago Existing Traffic Signal L Turn Queuing NB to EB turn lane extension
Parkview Verde River Drive 4 way stop Traffic Circle Eliminate 4 way stop with circle
FH Blvd El Lago Existing Traffic Signal Do Nothing -
FH Blvd Saguaro 1 way stop Traffic Circle Reduce traffic conflicts with circle
El Lago La Montana 4 way stop Traffic Circle Eliminate 4 way stop with circle
La Montana Parkview 1 way stop Traffic Circle Eliminate EB stop sign with circle
Other Concept
Sidewalk Infill Downtown/Arterials x ft
Speed Controls Radar Speed Limit Signs x number of controls
Pedestrian Crossings Signal Controlled Crossings x number of crossings
Bicycle Lanes Arterials/Collectors x number of miles
CASC Report Page 15
D.
Ju
n
e
Ju
l
y
Au
g
Se
p
t
Oc
t
No
v
De
c
Ja
n
Fe
b
Ma
r
Ap
r
Ma
y
Ju
n
Ju
l
y
Au
g
Se
p
t
Oc
t
No
v
CA
S
C
Pr
e
s
e
n
t
F
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
-
S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
T
C
/
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
20
CA
S
C
F
i
n
a
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
/
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
?
X
Ho
s
t
P
u
b
l
i
c
O
p
e
n
H
o
u
s
e
(
Q
/
A
)
X
X
X
X
Or
g
a
n
i
z
e
P
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l
A
c
t
i
o
n
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
(
P
A
C
)
7t
h
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5t
h
TO
W
N
P
U
B
L
I
C
R
E
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
Co
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
F
H
T
i
m
e
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S
o
c
i
a
l
M
e
d
i
a
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
I
n
s
i
d
e
r
X
X
X
X
X
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
S
u
r
v
e
y
(
B
o
L
a
r
s
o
n
)
X
X
X
X
Pu
b
l
i
s
h
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
X
Pu
b
l
i
c
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5t
h
TO
W
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
Re
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
s
X
X
Fi
n
a
l
i
z
e
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
N
e
e
d
s
X
X
Fi
n
a
l
i
z
e
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
N
e
e
d
s
X
X
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
U
p
d
a
t
e
t
o
T
C
X
X
X
X
X
RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
S
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
I
n
p
u
t
X
X
X
Q/
A
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
(
O
p
e
n
H
o
u
s
e
F
o
r
u
m
s
)
X
X
X
X
De
c
i
s
i
o
n
T
i
m
e
(
V
o
t
e
)
7t
h
X
5t
h
TO
W
N
C
O
U
N
C
I
L
Me
e
t
i
n
g
s
0
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
1
2
2
CA
S
C
F
i
n
a
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
/
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
?
X
Pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
i
n
P
u
b
l
i
c
O
p
e
n
H
o
u
s
e
X
X
Po
l
i
c
y
/
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
X
X
X
Re
f
e
r
e
n
d
u
m
L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
(
d
u
e
d
a
t
e
)
X
4t
h
20
2
3
/
2
4
E
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
D
a
t
e
s
7t
h
2
5t
h
CA
S
C
R
e
p
o
r
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
20
2
3
20
2
4
Ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
/
T
i
m
e
D.
A
"
R
o
a
d
M
a
p
"
F
o
r
w
a
r
d
CASC Report Page 16
Le
t
t
e
r
-
G
r
a
d
e
PC
I
R
a
n
g
e
Re
p
a
i
r
s
/
P
C
I
R
a
n
g
e
s
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
Co
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
s
Lo
c
a
l
s
All
e
y
s
Art
e
r
i
a
l
s
Co
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
s
Lo
c
a
l
s
All
e
y
s
Art
e
r
i
a
l
s
Co
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
s
Lo
c
a
l
s
All
e
y
s
Art
e
r
i
a
l
s
Co
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
s
Lo
c
a
l
s
All
e
y
s
20
2
3
U
n
i
t
C
o
s
t
s
$4
.
7
3
$3
.
6
0
$3
.
6
0
$3
.
6
0
$3
6
.
2
1
$2
7
.
1
9
$1
8
.
7
2
$2
7
.
1
9
$6
7
.
6
9
$5
0
.
7
7
$3
3
.
8
4
$5
0
.
7
7
$7
0
.
3
5
$5
7
.
1
1
$4
0
.
1
8
$5
7
.
1
1
w/
p
a
t
c
h
i
n
g
$6
.
8
3
$5
.
7
0
$5
.
7
0
$5
.
7
0
$3
8
.
3
1
$2
9
.
2
9
$2
0
.
8
2
$2
9
.
2
9
$6
9
.
7
9
$5
2
.
8
7
$3
5
.
9
4
$5
2
.
8
7
$7
1
.
4
0
$6
7
.
6
9
$5
0
.
7
7
$6
7
.
6
9
Av
e
2
0
2
3
U
n
i
t
C
o
s
t
s
/
S
Y
$5
.
7
8
$4
.
6
5
$4
.
6
5
$4
.
6
5
$3
7
.
2
6
$2
8
.
2
4
$1
9
.
7
7
$2
8
.
2
4
$6
8
.
7
4
$5
1
.
8
2
$3
4
.
8
9
$5
1
.
8
2
$7
0
.
8
8
$6
2
.
4
0
$4
5
.
4
8
$6
2
.
4
0
5%
20
2
5
I
n
f
l
a
t
e
d
U
n
i
t
C
o
s
t
s
$6
.
3
6
$5
.
1
2
$5
.
1
2
$5
.
1
2
$4
0
.
9
9
$3
1
.
0
6
$2
1
.
7
5
$3
1
.
0
6
$7
5
.
6
1
$5
7
.
0
0
$3
8
.
3
8
$5
7
.
0
0
$7
7
.
9
6
$6
8
.
6
4
$5
0
.
0
2
$6
8
.
6
4
11
3
,
4
3
6
12
,
3
3
9
28
,
9
2
0
16
,
3
6
5
17
1
,
0
6
0
$7
2
1
,
2
2
6
50
5
,
7
2
6
$
$2
,
1
8
6
,
7
5
7
$1
,
2
7
5
,
8
5
6
$4
,
6
8
9
,
5
6
6
$4
,
6
8
9
,
5
6
6
15
6
,
1
2
6
70
,
1
6
6
90
,
7
6
8
0
31
7
,
0
6
0
$7
9
8
,
5
8
4
$2
,
1
7
9
,
2
5
1
$5
,
1
7
3
,
9
5
8
$8
,
1
5
1
,
7
9
3
$8
,
1
5
1
,
7
9
3
41
5
,
7
1
8
23
3
,
3
7
9
45
0
,
9
1
9
95
,
6
0
4
1,
1
9
5
,
6
2
0
$2
,
1
2
6
,
3
9
8
$5
,
0
7
5
,
2
9
3
$1
7
,
3
0
5
,
8
2
0
$4
,
7
8
2
,
3
5
1
$2
9
,
2
8
9
,
8
6
2
-$
8
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
1
,
2
8
9
,
8
6
2
4,6
3
1
-
15
,
0
8
3
15
,
7
0
1
35
,
4
1
5
$2
3
,
6
8
8
$0
$8
5
9
,
7
6
1
$1
,
0
7
7
,
7
1
7
$1
,
9
6
1
,
1
6
5
$1
,
9
6
1
,
1
6
5
1,
7
1
9
,
1
5
5
$7
2
1
,
2
2
6
$7
9
8
,
5
8
4
$2
,
1
2
6
,
3
9
8
$2
3
,
6
8
8
$5
0
5
,
7
2
6
$2
,
1
7
9
,
2
5
1
$5
,
0
7
5
,
2
9
3
$0
$2
,
1
8
6
,
7
5
7
$5
,
1
7
3
,
9
5
8
$1
7
,
3
0
5
,
8
2
0
$8
5
9
,
7
6
1
$1
,
2
7
5
,
8
5
6
$0
$4
,
7
8
2
,
3
5
1
$1
,
0
7
7
,
7
1
7
$4
4
,
0
9
2
,
3
8
6
$3
6
,
0
9
2
,
3
8
6
IM
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
C
O
S
T
S
$4
4
,
0
9
2
,
3
8
6
-$
8
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$3
6
,
0
9
2
,
3
8
6
Br
e
a
k
d
o
w
n
b
y
S
q
u
a
r
e
Y
a
r
d
s
20
2
5
20
2
6
20
2
7
20
2
8
20
2
9
1.0
5
In
f
l
a
t
i
o
n
F
a
c
t
o
r
ST
R
E
E
T
R
E
F
E
R
E
N
D
U
M
5
$7
,
2
1
8
,
4
7
7
$7
,
2
1
8
,
4
7
7
$7
,
5
7
9
,
4
0
1
$7
,
9
5
8
,
3
7
1
$8
,
3
5
6
,
2
9
0
$8
,
7
7
4
,
1
0
4
$3
9
,
8
8
6
,
6
4
3
$4
0
M
Re
f
e
r
e
n
d
u
m
P
a
c
k
a
g
e
s
AR
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
2
$2
,
3
4
4
,
7
8
3
$2
,
3
4
4
,
7
8
3
$2
,
4
6
2
,
0
2
2
$4
,
8
0
6
,
8
0
5
$5
M
CO
L
L
E
C
T
O
R
S
3
$2
,
7
1
7
,
2
6
4
$2
,
7
1
7
,
2
6
4
$2
,
8
5
3
,
1
2
7
$2
,
9
9
5
,
7
8
4
$8
,
5
6
6
,
1
7
6
$9
M
LO
C
A
L
S
/
A
L
L
E
Y
S
5
$4
,
6
5
0
,
2
0
5
$4
,
6
5
0
,
2
0
5
$4
,
8
8
2
,
7
1
6
$5
,
1
2
6
,
8
5
2
$5
,
3
8
3
,
1
9
4
$5
,
6
5
2
,
3
5
4
$2
5
,
6
9
5
,
3
2
1
$2
6
M
IN
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
3
$2
,
9
8
3
,
3
3
3
$3
,
2
8
9
,
1
2
5
$3
,
4
5
3
,
5
8
1
$3
,
6
2
6
,
2
6
0
$1
0
,
3
6
8
,
9
6
7
$1
0
M
PA
C
K
A
G
E
R
E
F
E
R
E
N
D
U
M
$9
,
7
1
2
,
2
5
3
$1
0
,
1
9
7
,
8
6
5
$1
1
,
4
1
1
,
7
6
0
$8
,
8
3
6
,
7
7
5
$9
,
2
7
8
,
6
1
4
$4
9
,
4
3
7
,
2
6
8
$5
0
M
FO
O
T
N
O
T
E
S
:
Up
p
e
r
'
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
C
o
s
t
s
'
C
h
a
r
t
:
Lo
w
e
r
‘
C
o
s
t
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
’
C
h
a
r
t
:
·
On
l
y
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
b
e
l
o
w
a
7
0
P
C
I
a
r
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
·
Re
f
e
r
e
n
d
u
m
p
a
c
k
a
g
e
s
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
s
t
r
e
e
t
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
e
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
v
a
r
y
·
Le
t
t
e
r
-
g
r
a
d
e
s
:
C
,
m
a
r
g
i
n
a
l
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
;
D
,
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
i
n
f
a
i
r
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
;
F
,
p
o
o
r
(
b
a
c
k
l
o
g
)
A
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
…
2
-
y
e
a
r
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
(
2
0
2
5
-
2
6
)
·
Su
g
g
e
s
t
e
d
r
e
p
a
i
r
s
a
r
e
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
P
C
I
r
a
n
g
e
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
s
…
3
-
y
e
a
r
p
l
a
n
(
2
0
2
5
-
2
7
)
·
Un
i
t
c
o
s
t
s
a
r
e
‘
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
’
f
o
r
2
0
2
3
;
2
0
2
5
u
n
i
t
c
o
s
t
s
a
r
e
i
n
f
l
a
t
e
d
5
%
L
o
c
a
l
s
/
A
l
l
e
y
s
…
5
-
y
e
a
r
p
l
a
n
(
2
0
2
5
-
2
9
)
·
Sq
u
a
r
e
y
a
r
d
a
g
e
a
n
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
c
o
s
t
s
a
r
e
s
h
o
w
n
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
s
t
r
e
e
t
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
e
a
c
h
l
e
t
t
e
r
-
g
r
a
d
e
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
…
3
-
y
e
a
r
p
l
a
n
(
2
0
2
7
-
2
9
)
·
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
a
r
e
s
h
o
w
n
t
o
b
e
s
p
e
n
t
o
n
L
o
c
a
l
s
(
a
c
t
u
a
l
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
w
i
l
l
v
a
r
y
)
·
5%
i
n
f
l
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
p
l
a
n
y
e
a
r
To
t
a
l
s
le
s
s
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
Fu
n
d
s
N
e
e
d
e
d
69
-
6
0
59
-
5
5
54
-
4
0
39
a
n
d
B
e
l
o
w
Mi
c
r
o
S
u
r
f
a
c
i
n
g
w
/
p
a
t
c
h
i
n
g
,
S
l
u
r
r
y
S
e
a
l
w
/
p
a
t
c
h
i
n
g
(P
C
I
r
a
n
g
e
:
M
i
n
=
6
0
;
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
=
6
3
;
M
a
x
=
7
0
)
So
m
e
S
l
u
r
r
y
S
e
a
l
So
m
e
M
i
l
l
&
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
(g
r
a
y
-
z
o
n
e
c
o
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
)
Mil
l
&
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
w
/
p
a
t
c
h
i
n
g
(P
C
I
r
a
n
g
e
:
M
i
n
=
4
0
;
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
=
4
3
;
M
a
x
=
6
0
)
Su
r
f
a
c
e
R
e
c
o
n
s
t
u
c
t
i
o
n
w
/
p
a
t
c
h
i
n
g
(
P
C
I
ra
n
g
e
:
M
i
n
=
3
0
;
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
=
3
3
;
M
a
x
=
4
0
)
F
u
l
l
De
p
t
h
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
w
/
s
u
b
g
r
a
d
e
p
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
P
C
I
ra
n
g
e
:
M
i
n
=
0
;
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
=
2
0
;
M
a
x
=
4
0
)
C
(
6
9
-
5
5
)
D
F
CO
L
L
E
C
T
O
R
S
AR
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
LO
C
A
L
S
AL
L
E
Y
S
$3
,
6
6
9
,
8
9
6
$7
,
7
6
0
,
2
7
0
$2
5
,
5
2
6
,
2
9
6
$7
,
1
3
5
,
9
2
4
40
%
18
%
34
%
7%
ST
R
E
E
T
T
O
T
A
L
S
68
9
,
9
1
1
31
5
,
8
8
4
58
5
,
6
9
0
12
7
,
6
7
0
CO
S
T
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
F
u
n
d
s
Ne
e
d
e
d
Co
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y
To
t
a
l
s
Im
p
r
o
v
Ye
a
r
s
Av
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
Co
s
t
s
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
s
1.0
5
1.
1
0
1.1
6
1.
2
2
5-
Y
e
a
r
F
u
n
d
s
N
e
e
d
e
d
$4
,
6
8
9
,
5
6
6
$0
E.
Co
s
t
B
r
e
a
k
d
o
w
n
$8
,
9
5
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$8
,
9
5
0
,
0
0
0
$4
5
,
0
4
2
,
3
8
6
$0
$4
5
,
0
4
2
,
3
8
6
$4
,
6
8
9
,
5
6
6
$8
,
1
5
1
,
7
9
3
$0
$8
,
1
5
1
,
7
9
3
$2
3
,
2
5
1
,
0
2
7
$0
$2
3
,
2
5
1
,
0
2
7
Bo
n
d
F
u
n
d
s
0%
$3
6
,
0
9
2
,
3
8
6
$0
$3
6
,
0
9
2
,
3
8
6
CASC Report Page 17
F. Volunteer CASC Members
Jerry Butler, Kim Colenso, Gregg Dudash, Mark Graham,
Buck Haworth, Bernie Hoenle, Dean Hughson, Jeffrey Kerr,
Karl Manthe, Joe Mueller, Chris Plumb, Gary Salavitch
CASC Background Experience
45 years - Business Management Leadership
40 years - Transportation Planning
36 years - Design / Construction Industry
33 years - Civil Engineering
28 years - Roadway Construction
25 years - Project Consulting
20 years - Home Building Industry
15 years - Project Management
8 years - Design / Roadway Management
***
A special debt of gratitude is extended to Town Hall staff for guiding us through the
community’s complicated street maize, and for their patience. Without their leadership this
report would not have been possible. Thank you.
Grady Miller, Retired Town Manager
Rachael Goodwin, Interim Town Manager
Justin Weldy, Public Works Director
David Janover, Town Engineer
Andy Whisler, Assistant Town Engineer
Jeff Pierce, Streets Superintendent
Angela Espiritu, Executive Assistant
Local Road Pavement Section Detail Page 1 of 2
Town of Fountain Hills
Public Works Department
Memorandum
TO: Justin Weldy, Director of Public Works
FROM: David A. Janover, PE, F.NSPE, CFM, Town Engineer
CC: Andrew Whisler, PE, Assistant Town Engineer
DATE: August 29, 2023
RE: Local Pavement Pavement Section Detail
As the Town’s roadways age, staff is looking for ways to not only improve the asphalt’s resistance to
vehicular loading and climate, but look for ways to improve our maintenance to achieve maximum
pavement lifecycle. One such way to achieve additional effectiveness for future maintenance, is to increase
the thickness of the top (surface) course for newly reconstructed road sections. Currently, the standard
pavement section for local roads is 2” of asphalt over 6” of aggregate base, resulting in an 8” total section
atop the subgrade (see figure below, the Local Road Typical Section, which appears as Exhibit 5 of Section
3.05 of the Subdivision Ordinance).
I recommend that the surface course (item 2 in the above exhibit) be increased by one inch, from 2” to 3”
thick, and to decrease the thickness of the aggregate base by one inch, from 6” to 5”. This will result in the
same overall thickness of 8” atop the subgrade, but due to the increased strength of asphalt compared to
aggregate base, this pavement section change will result in a stronger road section than the existing one.
Furthermore, the thicker 3” top layer of asphalt will be very beneficial for future maintenance, when it
comes time to perform a mill and overlay. The thicker asphalt layer will provide a more stabilized base for
the future milling operation, resulting in superior performance, improved lifecycle, and ultimately, a lower
overall cost to the Town. The proposed detail reflecting the discussed modification is shown below:
Local Road Pavement Section Detail Page 2 of 2
Town of Fountain Hills
Public Works Department
Memorandum
I recommend that this modified pavement section be implemented immediately, starting with the M.R.
Tanner pavement work for FY24, and that the Subdivision Ordinance be amended to reflect the updated
detail, subject to Council approval.