Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pavement Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pico Rivera receives five-year pavement plan; staff urges prioritizing residential streets
Summary
City Public Works director Noe Negrete presented a five-year Pavement Management Plan, saying the city’s Pavement Condition Index is about 50 and proposing to prioritize residential streets; the council received the report 4–0 and asked for follow-up on timing and targeted areas.
Noe Negrete, Pico Rivera’s director of public works, presented the city’s five-year Pavement Management Plan and urged the council to prioritize residential streets rather than continuing the traditional focus on arterials. Negrete said the city’s current Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is about 50 and framed options for different funding levels and their expected results.
Negrete described the study approach — an outside consultant (IMS) used a sensor-equipped van to collect pavement data citywide, then staff reconciled local knowledge with the consultant’s scorecards. He explained the four condition categories (very good, good, poor and very poor) and common treatments, from slurry seal to grind-and-overlay or full reconstruction. ‘‘Our report card right now puts us right dab in the middle. We’re a 50,’’ Negrete said.
The presentation included cost scenarios and targets. Negrete said maintaining a PCI near 50 requires just over $5,000,000 per year; the current CIP allocates $9,000,000 per year, which the presentation estimated would bring the city to about a 56 PCI over five years. Raising the target to 60 would require roughly $11,800,000 per year. Negrete gave practical examples — about $1,000,000 per mile to repair a typical residential street — and an illustrative $142,000,000 total to reach a PCI in the high 80s.
Negrete urged the council to give staff flexibility to group and reprioritize streets in the five-year window (for example, bundling adjacent residential blocks and accelerating slurry-seal packages) to reduce costs and disruption. ‘‘We are not advocating for that as a staff. So we took that report and said, we’re not gonna do that,’’ he said, referring to the traditional approach of deferring residential streets.
Council members pressed for details on selection and timing. Councilmember John Garcia asked how streets would be chosen and requested staff follow up with a resident (Vivian Kelly) on a Kelton View Drive regrading request. Councilmember Lutz asked for a written follow-up showing which categories and regions would be targeted in year one (a ‘‘part 2’’ presentation) and recommended adding an additional 10% to the budget as a hedge against inflation and to accelerate the schedule. Mayor Pro Tem Tim Sanchez suggested exploring commercial-vehicle enforcement or weight-inspection enforcement to recoup damage costs from heavy trucks; staff said they would investigate feasibility with law enforcement and CHP.
Negrete said the next project (CIP 50106) is ready to go to bid and staff were targeting an award in May with summer mobilization; he described the typical procurement timeline (advertise 35 days, review bids, 45–50 days to award and mobilize). Councilmembers asked staff to present a clear list of streets and timing so residents can be informed via social media.
The council formally moved to receive the Pavement Management Plan presentation as a receiving-file item; a roll-call vote recorded 'Yes' from Councilmember Garcia, Councilmember Lutz, Dr. Sanchez and Mayor Camacho, and the motion passed 4–0. The council requested follow-up materials showing the year-one street list, a proposed schedule, and options for accelerated slurry-seal packaging.
