HomeMy WebLinkAbout0204.091l
• ~ ~
Karch 2:1, 1991
THE HONORABLE CITY corJNCIL
Palo Alto, California
/
Attention: Finance and Public Works committee
~Sidewalk Replacement Program
Members of the Council~
Report in Brief
....... -:"
5
This report recommends that Council revise portions of the criteria
for City sidewalk replacement. The proposea revision vould reduce
the a~~.t of d~maqed sidewalk currently targeted for replacement
(rather than repair) by 44; percent, and would allow staff to
concentrate on replacing sidewalk: where it 1s the most cost
e.ffective.
Background
In ~978 Council reviewed and adopted crite~ia for sidewalk
replacement. In 1982 Public Works staff surveyed the City to
determine the amount of damaged sidewalk that met the adopted
criteria fo:r replacement. As a result of the survey # council added
$200,000 to the Public Works nepa~tment Operations Division budqet
to supplement in-house sidewalk replacement p~oqra:ms. In 1985
Public Works staff resurveyed the City to determine what effect the
additional fundinq had on side",-alk. requiring-repair. In 1986 staff
met with the Finance and. Public Works COl!lJD.ittee to provide the
results of the Citywide resurvey and review the c.riteria used for
sidewalk replacement.
Also in 1986, Cvuncil directed staff to pursue various alternatives
for additional funainq for sidewalk repairs, including a 50/50
cost-shari119 program and use of general obligation bonds
(CMR:159:6J. council chose not to implem~nt these alternatives.
When the utility Users' Tax 'Was passed in 1'"'Y 1987-88 t Council
approved $850,000 in additional funds. This, combined with the
$200~OOO in the Operations Division operating budget~ provided an
annual contract sidewalk replacement program of $1,050,000 for both
F'i 1988-89 and FY 1989-90. 'I'he increased funding resulted in
approximately 200~OOO square feet of sidewalk replaced annually.
In FY 1990-91 the annual funding for contract 5ide~alk repairs was
reduced by $500,000# leaving $550,000 for annual contract sidewalk
replacement.
-1-
CMR:204:91
•
\
•. 'J.
o o
piacuaaion
Due to the reduction in fundir.q for contract replacement, statf
evaluated the work completed.on sidewalk replacement contracts over
the last five years I and reviewed the 1982 survey to determ.in~ what
perc~nt of the sidewalk met the established criteria for
replacement by defect type. Listed below are the current criteria
for replacement and the percentage of damaged sidewalk Cityvide
meeting that criteria:
Ciiter-i!l for Replacement 1962 , of Oamaged Sidewalk
ci.tywide
step or Lip 1940'
(> 3/4 inch)
sunJcen or Lifted Slope 36.S\
(> 1 inch per foot)
Spalling > 3/4 inch 25.5\
Opening 8. 6t
(> 1 inch)
Temporary Patched 10.0t
(Step/Lip < )/4 inch)
staft proposes to revise the replacement criteria to reduce the
amount of sidewalk replaced Citywide. The current and proposed
criteria are:
Type of nef;ciency CUrrent Criteria Przrw Criteria
step or Lip > 3/4 inch Replace No chanqe
Sunken or Lifted Slope Replace 0l8rqed fr=
> 2 inches in 12 inches 1" to 2"
Opening ~ > 1 inch Replace Repair
Spalling > 3/4 inch Re.place Repair
By revising the criteria .from -replace ll to -repair'" in three
categ-ories, approximately 44. percent of the side'Walks surveyed in
1982 would net be replaced I b*Jt 'Would be repaired. This 'Would
allow staff to concentrate on those replacements Citywide which
pre~ent the greatest need.
Repairs of the sidewalk deficiencies formerly replaced
include usinq concrete to level spallinq and fill openings.
-2-
CI!R: 204: S1
would
Steps
•
------~-~
I
. ,
•
o
"r.:,,'
" .' .... -
----'< •
/
or lips less than 3/4 of an inch would be either qround down or
temporarily patched with asphalt and not replaced.
Recommendations
Staff recommands that council direct staff to revise the current
criteria for sidewalk replacement and repair as follows:
1~ Step or lip qreater than 3/4 inch -rep18ce.
2. sunken section greater than 2 inches in 12 inches -replace.
3. i..ift greater than 2 :i.nches in 12 inchE<s -replace.
4~ Opening greater than 1 inch -repair.
5. Spallinq of surface greater than 3/4 inch -repair~
Respectfully submitted,
L//X,;:;J3h;yL
MICHAEl. 8. MILLER
Deputy Direc,tor ( Public Works operations
~JJj(jJ~
DAVID G. ADAMS
Director of Public Works
0t~ 9}rlA\JA
WILLIAM: ZAN~ -. -~;'
city Manager
Attachment: Criteria for Sidewalk R~placement and Repair
Related CMR: 159:6
-3-
CMR:204:91
.,
S~WALK REPLACEMEM
STEP OR UP GREATER THAN 3/4 INCH
LIFT GREATER THAN 2 INCHES IN 12 INCHES
SIDEWALK REPAIR
OPENING GREATER THAN 1 INCH.
~.:.<::.:: :::: .. :,: c.:.:., f '.~., . '. ~i·· ··::·':7~
SPAlUNG OF SURFACE GREATER THAN 3/4 INCH
f1EU> __ _
..... "". ..... -........
CRITER!A FOR SIDEWALK
REPLACEMENT & REPAIR
CrT'( OF PALO ALTO. CAUFORNIA
A"""""' ____ "
' ..