Asset Management Plan for Pavements PREPARED BY: MECOSTA COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION

Asset Management Plan for Pavements PREPARED BY: MECOSTA COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION 2015

Table of Contents 1 Current Assets... 4 1.1 Asset Inventory... 4 1.2 Componentized Asset Inventory... 7 1.3 Current Data and Software Tools... 8 2 Finances... 10 2.1 Current Asset Investment... 10 2.2 Income... 10 3 Managing Lifecycles... 12 3.1 Current Conditions... 12 3.2 Level of Service... 15 3.3 Assess Treatment Alternatives... 15 4 Make and Know the Rules... 16 4.1 Strategic Goals... 16 4.2 Legislation, Policy, and Standards... 18 5 Decision Making... 19 5.1 Evaluate Decision Process... 19 5.2 Basic Process Improvement Plan... 20 6 Establishing Sustainability... 21 6.1 Sustainability Assessment... 21 6.2 Program Coordination... 24 2

Overview of Asset Management The State of Michigan has been actively pursuing Asset Management since 1998 when the Michigan Legislature established the ACT 51 Transportation Funding Committee. Continued support of Asset Management has occurred as the Legislature established the Transportation Asset Management Council in Act 499 of 2002, encouraged the use of Asset Management in decision processes through Act 338 of 2006, and continued to refine Asset Management in Michigan through act 199 of 2007. Asset Management, according to Public Act 199 of 2007, means an ongoing process of maintaining, upgrading, and operating physical assets cost-effectively, based on a continuous physical inventory and condition assessment. The implementation of asset management decisions processes allows an agency to make the best decisions for their transportation network with the best information they can collect. The process enables good stewardship, transparent decision processes, and measureable performance. The following figure provides an overview of the asset management process. Know Your Assets Asset Management Process & Plan Make & Know the Rules 3

1 Current Assets The Mecosta County Road Commission (MCRC) is the jurisdictional authority over all public roads lying outside the incorporated cities and villages within Mecosta County, exclusive of any state trunk line highways. At the end of 2014, the MCRC certified approximately 285 center-line miles of county primary roads and 907 center-line miles of county local roads. Approximately 666 certified centerline miles are unsealed, i.e. gravel, roads. This section provides documentation of the assets contained on the paved roads. 1.1 Asset Inventory MDOT annually certifies all public roads within the State of Michigan. Certification maps are maintained by the MCRC and are the basis for determining the amount of money received from the Michigan Transportation Fund. Generally, the MCRC receives a higher level of reimbursement for primary roads than local roads. Further information on public road miles can be found in the following public road mileage charts and graphs. Additional information can be found on the MCRC maps. Certification Mileage Chart County Wide Urban Townships Primary Local Primary Local Total Miles Certified Aetna 15.47 54.69 70.16 Austin 15.35 56.04 71.39 Big Rapids 14.29 58.58 8.19 27.81 108.87 Chippewa 25.01 47.85 72.86 Colfax 17.56 51.50 3.08 4.17 76.31 Deerfield 24.00 56.58 80.58 Fork 12.50 61.12 73.62 Grant 18.01 44.27 62.28 Green 18.06 65.60 2.56 6.25 92.47 Hinton 22.05 58.13 80.18 Martiny 23.27 48.95 72.22 Mecosta 15.28 55.10 7.10 77.48 Millbrook 16.90 51.56 68.46 Morton 14.31 41.45 55.76 Sheridan 13.41 55.79 69.20 Wheatland 6.00 54.53 60.53 Totals 271.47 861.74 13.83 45.33 1192.37 Totals Grand Total County Wide 1133.21 Grand Total Urban 59.16 4

County Wide Road Inventory Summary Total Primary County Wide (271.47 mi), 24% Total Local County Wide (861.74 mi), 76% Urban Road Inventory Summary Total Primary Urban (13.83 mi), 23% Total Local Urban (45.33 mi), 77% 5

Urban vs. Rural Road Miles 1000.00 900.00 800.00 700.00 600.00 500.00 400.00 300.00 200.00 100.00 0.00 Primary Local Urban 13.83 45.33 Rural 271.47 861.74 6

1.2 Componentized Asset Inventory Knowledge of the number of miles under the jurisdiction of the MCRC is an important basis for understanding the current public investment. In order to gain in depth knowledge about the public investment more information must be known about the assets. In particular, it is important to understand the types of road surfaces currently maintained. The following table lists the number of miles in each surface classification, as downloaded from RoadSoft. Surface Type (miles) Total per RoadSoft 1109.408 Asphalt 507.358 Brick 0.00 Concrete 0.00 Earth 32.724 Gravel 494.957 Seal Coat 3.228 Undefined 71.141 In the future, the MCRC will be able to gain a better understanding of the value of pavement assets by improving the quality of the road surface asset information they have. The basic road surface inventory must be completed. Once this information is known, it can be expanded to document individual pavement layers. 7

1.3 Current Data and Software Tools Data about the pavement and road surface assets under MCRC s jurisdictions are maintained by the Administrative Staff at the MCRC. The areas that the Administrative Staff are accountable for are as follows: Administration The Administration area, which oversee the business functions of policy-making, budget, accounts receivable / payables, employment, bargaining units, workers compensation and safety, employee benefits, community relations, and technology, are comprised of; Board of County Road Commissioners, Finance and Human Resources, Public Information/Community Relations and Operations Management. Engineering The Engineering Area, which is responsible for providing engineering and technical services for road operations, preventative maintenance and improvement projects on the county road system and Federal/State Grant funded project coordination, is comprised of; Project Development, Construction Oversight, Governmental Compliance, Permits/Development, and Traffic & Safety. Operations The Operations Area oversees the maintenance and upkeep of all county roads, as well as Michigan Department of Transportation's state trunk lines. In addition, Operations is responsible for three maintenance garages, eight gravel pits, five brine wells, and approximately 90 pieces of road equipment. Operations consist of three District Crews, Big Rapids, Morley and Remus. 8

The MCRC currently uses various types of software to manage current asset data and cost information. The following table lists specific software packages utilized by the MCRC and descriptions of the functions these software packages perform. Name Function/Purpose/Data Location RoadSoft Roadway Asset Management System Server Asset Inventory Asset Condition Data Asset Deterioration Modeling Strategy Evaluation MS Excel Annual Work Program Server Pavement Deterioration predictive models Valuation data Cogitate Accounting software Server Income and Expenditure Expenses in Labor Hardcopy Maintenance history work sheets Vault 9

2 Finances The MCRC is an independent financial entity although its funds are deposited through the Mecosta County Treasurer. The Board of County Road Commissioners adopts an Annual Budget, and approves all expenditures in accordance with accepted accounting principles for government agencies. An independent audit is performed annually on the Road Commission accounts, and the results are provided to the Michigan Department of Treasury. The following sections document the financial status of the MCRC. The following data was compiled for fiscal year end 2014, and is provided here for the purposes of asset management considerations. The most recent financial information available can be obtained through the MCRC. 2.1 Current Asset Investment The MCRC currently invests in 1,192 miles of infrastructure assets. The investments include two main surface types: Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA), and unsealed roads. Unsealed roads fall into two main subcategories: natural aggregate, and dirt. As of 12/31/2014 the MCRC Infrastructure Assets are: a) Current Investment $ 34,277,947 b) Depreciated Value $ 14,976,288 c) Net Value $ 19,301,659 2.2 Income The MCRC s principal source of funding is the Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF). This fund is supported by vehicle registration fees and the Michigan state gas tax. The Road Commission's allocation is based on a formula, which includes factors such as population, miles of certified roads and vehicle registration fees within the county. In addition to Michigan Transportation Fund, the Road Commission is contracted by the Michigan Department of Transportation to maintain the State Trunk lines within Mecosta County, and with each of the County s 16 townships for specific improvement projects. MCRC also receives federal and state grants for individual projects, and may receive contributions from private developers and other governmental entities for specific improvements. The Road Commission also receives revenues from permits and interest from invested funds. The following table lists the anticipated revenues for the 2015 Fiscal Year. 10

Revenue Source Budget ($) Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF) 3,932,950 Federal/State Funds 1,382,500 State Trunkline Maintenance 1,000,000 Township Contributions 400,000 Other Contributions 32,000 Miscellaneous Income 80,000 Total $6,827,450 11

3 Managing Lifecycles 3.1 Current Conditions The MCRC is committed to continually reevaluating the current conditions of the transportation system. Part of this effort goes into evaluating the current road surface conditions with the Pavement Surface Evaluation Rating (PASER) system. The PASER system is the preferred method for Michigan agencies to rate their road pavements. PASER ratings for HMA surfaces are defined in the following tables. Asphalt PASER Ratings PASER Rating Condition Treatment 9 & 10 Excellent No maintenance required 8 Very Good Little or no maintenance 7 Good Crack sealing and minor patching 5 & 6 Fair Good Preservative treatments (non-structural) 3 & 4 Poor Fair Structural renewal (overlay) 1 &2 Failed Reconstruction 12

The following table provides the PASER ratings for all federal aid roadways under MCRC jurisdiction. Federal aid roads, 218.35 miles, make up 18.9% of the system under MCRC s jurisdiction. PASER Ratings on Federal Aid Eligible Road in Miles and % 2015 Ratings Township 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Total Aetna 0.000 14.041 1.130 0.514 4.360 0.814 5.369 0.000 0.469 0.000 26.697 Austin 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.115 1.379 7.357 0.537 0.000 4.500 0.000 15.888 Deerfield 0.000 0.000 1.012 0.525 3.648 2.570 3.468 6.223 2.982 0.864 21.292 Hinton 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.988 1.008 3.089 4.098 3.889 2.998 0.000 16.070 Mecosta 0.000 6.284 4.889 3.450 4.153 4.122 8.129 3.190 3.776 0.000 37.993 Millbrook 0.000 0.000 1.472 0.000 4.307 4.715 2.970 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.464 Morton 0.000 0.000 1.045 6.785 3.296 5.634 2.467 0.000 2.006 0.000 21.233 Wheatland 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.190 8.231 0.503 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 14.924 2014 Ratings Township 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Total Big Rapids 0.000 3.213 3.304 2.810 12.429 4.625 4.731 1.467 1.079 0.000 33.658 Chippewa 0.000 1.378 1.976 1.232 1.830 6.547 4.491 1.079 3.992 0.000 22.525 Colfax 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.581 0.000 4.217 8.709 1.803 0.466 0.000 23.776 Fork 0.000 0.107 2.987 0.740 5.365 1.880 0.790 0.000 0.000 0.000 11.869 Grant 0.000 0.000 1.768 0.000 0.754 2.373 3.262 6.235 3.017 0.000 17.409 Green 1.391 5.040 0.998 3.156 15.140 5.827 4.809 1.231 2.177 0.000 39.769 Martiny 0.000 0.000 1.919 1.000 1.970 1.268 12.295 0.000 0.000 0.000 18.452 Sheridan 0.000 0.000 1.987 1.012 0.093 10.701 5.129 0.497 0.000 0.000 19.419 2014 & 2015 Totals 1.391 30.063 24.487 39.098 67.963 66.242 71.254 25.614 27.462 0.864 354.438 Percentage 0.39% 8.48% 6.91% 11.03% 19.17% 18.69% 20.10% 7.23% 7.75% 0.24% 100.00% APR* 5.391 *APR = Average Paser Rating calculated by weighting the mileage with the paser value 13

Federal Aid Road Pavement Condition Summary (Paved) Good Condition (10-7) 95.04 26.81% Fair Condition (6-4) 205.46 57.97% Poor Condition (3-1) 53.94 15.22% Total Miles 354.44 100.00% The current known ratings provide important information regarding the estimated remaining life for the pavements owned by the MCRC. The estimation of remaining life of service was based on the standard degradation models included in the PASER rating system. The following chart provides a breakdown of the expected remaining service life, with a PASER rating of 10 or 9 having more than 10 years of remaining service life, a rating of 8 or 7 having an RSL of 5 to 10 years, and a rating of 6 or below equating to less than 5 years RSL. The PASER rating is a reflection of the surface quality of the roadway, not an absolute indicator of quality. A roadway with a low or PASER rating, or one past its Remaining Service Life is still a usable road. Remaining Life of Service Summary by Lane Miles Less Than 5 Years, 259.40 (73%) 5 to 10 Years, 63.59 (18%) More Than 10 Years, 31.45 (9%) 14

3.2 Level of Service The MCRC is responsible for maintaining a road system that is reasonably safe and convenient to the traveling public. This charge for good stewardship requires the MCRC to establish level of service goals for the operations and maintenance of the roads. The MCRC has currently published goals for winter weather operations and new development, or driveway permits. Winter Operations MCRC policy has established five priority rankings for plowing and winter operations activities. These priority rankings are: Priority 1 State trunk line routes Priority 2 High volume paved roads Priority 3 Medium volume paved roads Priority 4 Subdivision roads Priority 5 Unpaved roads Driveway Permits The Specifications and Administrative Rules Regulating Driveways, Road Approaches, Banners and Parades on and over Highways Policy (2006) established the MCRC s level of service requirements for all new developments requesting access to the county road system. The policy addresses the need for traffic impact studies, drainage and road/driveway surface requirements. Road Surfaces The MCRC has been exploring the possibility of setting service goals for the maintenance of pavements under their jurisdiction. The service goals have not been formally adopted at this time. However, the MCRC Engineering Department has selected the goal of 80% of all paved surfaces in good or fair condition, according to PASER ratings, as something they would like to achieve. 3.3 Assess Treatment Alternatives MCRC currently uses the treatment alternatives prescribed in the Asset Management Guidelines for Local Agencies. MCRC has found these alternatives to be limiting on the basis of funding restrictions and MDOT s distinctions between 2R and 3R projects. MCRC is currently working to establish a broader toolkit. The new toolkit will allow the MCRC to have more flexibility in choosing treatment options and will provide better solutions. The hope is to develop a tool kit that will include better fixes and optimize service life. 15

4 Make and Know the Rules 4.1 Strategic Goals Vision Statement The Mecosta County Road Commission s vision is to be a leader in providing a high quality system of roads and bridges through efficient maintenance, fiscal responsibility, and innovative planning and improvement strategies. Our goal is to provide the highest quality service through an open and fair decision-making process to meet the needs of the traveling public in Mecosta County. We strive to enhance the quality of life in local communities by drawing on the expertise, creativity and commitment of our staff and partners. We recognize that our success is dependent upon the collective talents of our staff and community resources to meet the challenges. We are committed to attracting the best and brightest workforce, strengthening their skills, while nurturing diversity and encouraging innovation. Guiding Principles Promote openness and transparency in decision-making Road Commission decisions must comply with legal requirements and professional standards. We will ensure that the community understands these obligations in the decision process, and to the extent we can, we will exercise flexibility in the application of professional standards to address strongly felt needs of the community. As a public body we also have an obligation to comply with statutory requirements such as the Open Meetings Act and Freedom of Information requirements. We are committed to going beyond those requirements to ensure openness in our decision-making, make appropriate information available in a timely fashion consistent with legal requirements, reach out to the larger community through the media and other ways to ensure that the community is aware of the decisions we make and the basis for those decisions. Provide ample opportunities for participation by the public and local government We are committed to providing ample opportunities for public participation and input into decisionmaking processes. In addition to mandated public hearings we will make an affirmative effort to notify and engage residents in areas particularly impacted by proposed projects, and we will work to identify community concerns and needs and address those concerns, consistent with statutory obligations and professional standards. Be conscientious stewards of the public s money As a public agency, we use public resources from the Michigan Transportation fund, federal and state grants, as well as township and developer contributions to support our work. We are committed to being effective stewards of these resources, ensuring the long-term fiscal stability of the Road Commission, employing cost-effective solutions to projects, continuing to explore ways to reduce the costs of operations, continually striving to improve service delivery and productivity, and ensuring a high level of customer service in all that we do. 16

Value diversity We serve a diverse community, in terms of gender, geography, race and other characteristics. We are committed to serving the entire community, and reflecting the diversity of our county in our choice of employees, projects, vendors, and in our partnerships. Be sensitive to the environment Consistent with legal obligations and professional standards, we will be sensitive to the impact we have on the natural and built environment, seek to minimize that impact and, to the extent possible within financial and other constraints, seek to enhance and improve the environment. Where possible, consistent with the values of Mecosta County residents, we will make decisions and execute activities in a way that is a model of environmental stewardship for other Road Commissions. We will respect historical values reflected in the built environment to the extent we can and be sensitive to concerns regarding local and county objectives to minimize sprawl and protect open spaces. Value all employees We recognize that the success of our agency is largely dependent on the talents and skills of employees. We believe that every employee has a role to play in making a positive difference for the success of our agency. We are committed to hire and retain the best possible employees, evaluate them regularly, provide opportunities for professional development and advancement, pay them competitively, reward success and innovation, and treat them with dignity, fairness and respect. Provide leadership in transportation planning and road system improvement While we are responsible to the people of Mecosta County through the elected County Commission, we also recognize an obligation to share our insights, experience and expertise in transportation and in providing transportation services with others. We will support county, regional and state transportation initiatives through active engagement in the County Comprehensive Plan implementation, and the County Road Association of Michigan. We will continue to strive to be recognized as a source of innovation and cutting edge performance in everything we do. 17

4.2 Legislation, Policy, and Standards The MCRC hereby adopts by reference and incorporates in its procedures and regulations as if fully stated herein the most current editions of the following list of publications: AASHTO A Guide For Accommodating Utilities Within Highway Right-Of-Way AASHTO A Policy On Geometric Design of Highways and Streets AASHTO Roadside Design Guide APWA Position Statement, Public Rights-Of-Way Management, September 22, 1999 ATSSA Quality Standards For Work Zone Traffic Control Devices FHWA Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, Publication No. FHWA-RD-00-067 ITE Trip Generation Handbook ITE Trip Generation Manual McKenna Associates and the WDBC Group, Evaluating Traffic Impact Studies, prepared for Tri-County Regional Planning, SEMCOG and MDOT, 1994 MDOT Design Survey Manual MDOT Drainage Manual MDOT Geometric Design Guide MDOT Maintaining Traffic Typicals, Traffic and Safety Division MDOT Road and Bridge Standard Plans MDOT Standard Specifications For Construction MDOT, Reducing Traffic Congestion and Improving Traffic Safety in Michigan Communities: The Access Management Guidebook, October 2001 Michigan Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices TRB, Highway Capacity Manual The MCRC also complies with Michigan Public Act 199 of 2007, which requires: The department, each county road commission, and each city and village of this state shall annually submit a report to the Council. This report shall include a multi-year program developed through the asset management process described in this section. Projects contained in the department s annual multi-year program shall be consistent with department s asset management process and shall be reported consistent with categories established by the Council. Projects contained in the annual multi-year program of each local agency shall be consistent with the asset management process of each local road agency and shall be reported consistent with categories established by the Council. 18

5 Decision Making 5.1 Evaluate Decision Process The MCRC takes a multi-disciplinary approach to determining the renewal, replacement, and improvement projects to implement in any given year. This process takes into consideration the condition of a pavement, stakeholder needs, and the changing needs of the area around a road. The decision process is focused around the following key areas: The general condition of the road, e.g. the pavement, shoulders, culverts, etc. The volume of traffic, or number of trips, found on the road. The ability to provide, or the need for, safety improvement projects. The ability to provide corridor continuity. The potential for improved economic development in an area. The ability to coordinate with other projects that may be disturbing the roadway, such as utility work, or improving the public right-of-way, such as county parks projects. The ability to partner with other jurisdictions and agencies, such as the cities and villages in Mecosta County or neighboring road commissions, to share the cost burden of a project. Once the MCRC establishes the initial potential project list for a fiscal year the actual field conditions of the project location are verified. The MCRC reevaluates the project list after completing the field inspections to reprioritize as necessary. 19

5.2 Basic Process Improvement Plan The MCRC has found several areas where improvements to the decision making process can be made. This section of the asset management plan documents these areas for improvement and provides insight into how the MCRC chooses to approach these changes to the decision making process. The current data collection policies hamper optimal performance of RoadSoft. Collecting all data in one calendar year, but two funding years, is better for RoadSoft. However, only collecting the data every two years hampers optimal decision making. The MCRC is currently considering ways to improve this data collection process. The amount of time between rating a road and actual construction of a treatment option is considerable. The unfortunate outcome of the delay to construction is that the treatment alternative selected may be misaligned to the actual conditions of the pavement when construction begins. The MCRC is interested in developing strategies to minimize the chance for misalignment. The ability to fund certain types of treatments limits the MCRC s ability to choose treatment types. For instance, an overlay of >2 inches of HMA will result in an increase in the project scope and the funding implications of the additional work on the shoulders and roadside has the potential to make a project unfeasible for the MCRC. The MCRC is working towards overcoming these limitations. The MCRC also finds the coordination of non-surface concerns to be limiting. The need to upgrade non-motorized facilities, address roadside concerns, and asses the needs of drainage and structures are all areas where project coordination is key. The MCRC needs to further work in this area. 20

MTF Funds Transportation Asset Management Plan: Pavements 6 Establishing Sustainability 6.1 Sustainability Assessment The MCRC continually monitors the needs of the roadway system and the status of income sources to determine the sustainability of near-term and long-term plans and goals. Currently the MCRC finds that the projected income will not meet the needs of the pavements under their jurisdiction. The MCRC will not able to continue to perform renewal and replacement work at the current levels that work is being performed. Additionally, the MCRC will not be able to meet its goals for pavement conditions. Pavements under the jurisdiction of the MCRC are expected to continue to decline. The following chart provides the historical revenue received from the Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF). 2010-2014 MTF Revenue $4,000,000.00 $3,500,000.00 $3,000,000.00 $2,500,000.00 $2,000,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $3,793,222.29 $3,845,183.40 $3,908,350.94 $3,989,115.02 $4,108,689.11 $1,000,000.00 $500,000.00 $0.00 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 MTF Funding Year 21

Percentage of roads Transportation Asset Management Plan: Pavements The MCRC has developed a goal of having 80% of all Federal Aid paved roads rated as good or fair. However, the projected revenues will fall short of the estimated maintenance funding required. The following charts provide the estimated funding required for the funding scenarios that would maintain the current good/fair/poor distributions raise the proportion of roads in the good/fair categories. Mecosta County Current Rated Road System Pavement Conditions 2015 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 57.97% 26.81% 15.22% Good Fair Poor Condition of Pavement 22

Percentage of Roads Percentage of Roads Transportation Asset Management Plan: Pavements Mecosta County Rated Road System Pavement Conditions 70% Good/Fair 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 55.39% 14.48% Good Fair Poor 30.13% Condition of Pavement (cost to achieve 70% Good/fair ratings = $31,000,000.00) Mecosta County Rated Road System Pavement Conditions 80% Good/Fair 100.0% 80.0% 60.0% 40.0% 65.15% 20.0% 14.48% 20.37% 0.0% Good Fair Poor Condition of Pavement (Cost to achieve 80% Good/Fair ratings = $38,000,000.00) 23

6.2 Program Coordination The MCRC currently works to coordinate renewal, replacement, and improvement activities with other agencies. The MCRC plans to continue this coordination in the future. Key stakeholders the MCRC coordinates with for design input and funding partnerships are: Townships Cities Counties Utilities The private sector Citizen groups The MCRC also seeks funding partnerships for federal grant programs, such as the Highway Safety Improvement Program and High Risk Rural Road funding programs, private sector funding opportunities, such as new developments and impact mitigation. One example of how the MCRC has accomplished program coordination in the past are: Buchanan Corridor (2012) The MCRC reconstructed about 5 Miles of road at this location. The project cost $1.1 million and was paid for through Federal, Township, and Road Commission funds. Funding Amount Federal HRRR $370,000.00 Austin Township $300,000.00 Morton Township $178,000.00 Road Commission $252,000.00 TOTAL $1,100,000.00 24