Agenda - Council - 10/26/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CASE REPORT ON WORKMANSHIP ON STREET SEALCOATING PROJECTS By: Steven J. Jankowski, City Engineer Background: At the last Council meeting during improvement project assessment hearings on the annual street maintenance program, several residents expressed concern over various elements of the program. I was asked to review this year's program and report back to Council. I have reviewed all 12.54 miles of roadway that was crack filled and sealcoated. The following is a synopsis of concerns expressed at the public hearing and my observations and response. 1) Cleanup sweeping of sealcoat aggregate. Concern was expressed that the pea gravel aggregate was left on the street for an excessive amount of time and was swept incompletely when sweeping did occur. The specification called for sweeping to be completed within two weeks of sealcoating. Sealcoating was performed on July 16, 19 and 20. Sweeping began during the week of August 16th and was completed on or about August 25th. The wet summer delayed many contractors this year. Upon review of the streets, some loose pea rock remains. The heaviest concentrations occur on sharp curves and at intersections where turning or breaking tends to loosen and dislodge the aggregate. Most of the loose aggregate pieces show evidence that they were at one time bound to the pavement. There were comments to the effect that sealcoat aggregate remains along the edge of the pavement in lawns. Since the majority of the streets sealcoated this year do not have curbs, it is unavoidable that traffic will work excess aggregate off the edge of the pavement. Where dense lawn exists adjacent to the pavement, the migration of the aggregate was stopped within a few inches of the pavement and the sweeper removed any visible evidence of this material. However, where depressed areas adjacent to the pavement have thin or nonexistent turf, pea gravel aggregate remain in these low areas. It is my opinion that the level of clean-up sweeping provided by the Contractor was acceptable. 2) Areas of pavement not sealed. It is the intent of the specifications to completely seal the pavement from edge to edge. Several residents complained that areas of pavement along the edge had been missed. In viewing the sealed areas, I noted five locations where bituminous had been extended beyond the edge of the pavement to accommodate drive areas for mailboxes and to check erosion. The need for these extra paved areas would be unnecessary if mailboxes were placed at the specified distance bom the road. I also observed four locations where the edge of the seal drifted from the edge of the pavement as follows: 2 - 5" for 50 feet 2" for 50 feet 6 - 8" for 150 feet 2" for 25 feet 3) Holes and cracks not patched. I observed one hole, 12 inches by 3 feet long, at the edge of the pavement which was not patched. Not all cracks were intended to receive crack f'flling. Generally, large working cracks between one-fourth inch and one inch are to be crack f'flled. Cracks larger than this require pavement