Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pavement Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council over resurfacing issues; public works defends inspection approach
Summary
Residents raised patterned problems with pavement markings and rapid deterioration after pavement preservation projects. Public Works staff said they monitor the sites, suspect subsurface conditions rather than workmanship, and will adjust treatment selection and hold contractors accountable when workmanship issues occur.
At the April 24 work session several residents and advisory commission members asked the council to review the city's pavement management inspection contract and to explain recurring problems with resurfacing and striping.
Dale McKeel, speaking as a member of the Recreation Advisory Commission, said the contract ST‑335C for Pavement Management Services includes inspection responsibilities and that residents have observed pavement markings and resurfacing problems on Martin Luther King Parkway, Barbee Road and other streets. "When Martin Luther King Parkway was resurfaced... the pavement markings were not put back in the proper place according to the pavement marking plan," McKeel said, and he asked for greater contractor accountability.
Tasha Johnson, Public Works, responded for staff. Johnson confirmed the consultant slated for the contract has been used previously for inspection and project management. On the roadway stripping and peeling that residents showed in photos, she said the department is monitoring those locations but currently believes the failures are linked to “subsurface conditions that were not readily evident” when a treatment was selected rather than to simple workmanship issues. Johnson said staff are adjusting the selection process for future treatment types.
Council discussion and follow up: Council members asked what recourse the city has if workmanship is deficient. Johnson said the contract provides mechanisms to address workmanship problems with contractors and to pursue repairs that minimize cost to the city. Council asked staff to follow up on the specific buffer striping discrepancies McKeel described and to report back on whether the consultant being proposed for ST‑335C had worked on those prior projects.
Ending: The council requested a staff follow‑up with images, a contract history for the consultant, and a description of how the city enforces workmanship and warranty provisions when striping or pavement preservation fails.
