STREET REHABILITATION AND
MAINTENANCE PROGRAM UPDATE
Joe Ririe, PE, Pavement Engineering Inc.
Thomas Korman, PE, Public Works Director/City Engineer
January 15, 2026 | City Council Meeting
• Review pavement basics
• Review pavement management principles
• Review City’s current pavement system
• Review proposed 2026 projects
PRESENTATION GOALS
2 PAVEMENT BASICS
3 4
Pavement Deterioration Cycle
PAVEMENT 101
5 Asphalt concrete deteriorates in two ways:
Pavement Deterioration
Oxidizing effects of
sun and water
Fatigue from heavy
wheel loads
PAVEMENT 101
6 The Impact of Sun and Water
PAVEMENT 101
7 The Impact of Heavy Loads
PAVEMENT 101 8
Block
Cracking
Alligator
Cracking
Transverse or
Longitudinal
Cracking
Weathering or
Raveling
Common Pavement Distresses
9 Evaluating Pavement: the PCI
PAVEMENT 101
100 – 91 = Excellent
90 – 71 = Good
70 – 51 = Fair/ At Risk
50 – 31 = Poor
30 – 0 = Failed
Developed by the U. S. Army Corp of Engineers
during World War II and standardized by ASTM, the
PCI is an objective and rational basis for
determining pavement condition and establishing
maintenance priorities.
10 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES
11 Applying the RIGHT TREATMENT
to the RIGHT PAVEMENT
at the RIGHT TIME
using the RIGHT MATERIALS
PAVEMENT PRESERVATION
12 Pavement Preservation Timing
PAVEMENT PRESERVATION
13 PAVEMENT PRESERVATION
Pavement Management Strategies
• Best-First “Top Down” Management
• Worst-First “Bottom Up” Management
• Critical-Point Management
14 Pavement Management Strategies
Critical Point Management
PAVEMENT PRESERVATION
Critical-Point-Management
selects streets before they
deteriorate and need the
next most expensive
treatment.
15 Pavement Condition vs.
Maintenance / Rehabilitation Cost
PAVEMENT PRESERVATION
PCI
Range
Treatment
Category
Cost Range
(per SF)
90-71 Light
Maintenance
$1.18 to
$1.46
70-51 Heavy
Maintenace
$3.70 to
$4.47
70-51 Light
Rehabilitation
$10.74 to
$12.53
50-26 Heavy
Rehabilitation
$13.89 to
$19.22
25-0 Reconstruction $34.32 to
$44.88
16 REVIEW CITY’S PAVEMENT SYSTEM
17 City of Seaside System Data
• System Size
✓ 79.5 centerline miles
✓ 100.3 maintained miles
✓ 13,609,524 square feet of pavement
• System-wide average weighted PCI of 54
• Replacement value of $520,461,000
ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
18 Maintained Road System
ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
AREA PERCENT OF AVERAGE PCI AVERAGE PCI AVERAGE PCI
(SQUARE FEET) SYSTEM END 2022 END 2024 END 2025
Arterial 15.2 3,259,656 23.9% 75 73 70
Collector 17.9 3,551,952 26.0% 61 59 56
Residential 42.4 6475354.00 47.4% 52 46 47
Other 4.0 322,562 2.7% 27 7 5
TOTAL 79.5 13,609,524 100% 59 55 54
FUNCTIONAL
CLASS
CENTERLINE
MILES
19 ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
20 FUNDING NEEDS
21 Five Year PCI Trend Using Future Treatment Costs
BUDGET NEEDS
22 23
ONGOING FUNDING PRESSURES
EFFECTING PAVING PROJECTS
• Increased traffic volume
• Increased vehicle weights
• Increased construction costs
• Unfunded regulations
▪ Required ADA updates
▪ Post stormwater requirements
24 Funding Source Budgeted
FY 25/26
Estimated
FY 26/27 TOTAL
Measure X $300,000 $740,000 $1,040,000
SB 1 $860,000 $860,000 $1,720,000
General Funds $440,000 $0 $440,000.00
TOTAL $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $3,200,000
CURRENT SOURCES OF FUNDING
25 FUNDING PAVING PROJECTS
(What do others do?)
• Taxes
• Bonds
• Franchise fees
• Value engineering
• Self perform repairs
26 CURRENT APPROACH
Competitive Bid
• Slurry Seal Project
• Heavy Rehab Project
City Forces to self-perform
• Crack Sealing
• Minor Hot Spots
27 PROPOSED EQUIPMENT PURCHASE
• Compact Track Loader
• Cold Planner
• 8’ wide Asphalt Drag Box
28 PROPOSED EQUIPMENT PURCHASE
Track Loader and Asphalt Drag Box
Track Loader and Cold Planner Equipment Cost Estimate:
Track Loader & Trailer - $150,000
Cold Planner - $ 20,000
Asphalt Drag Box- $15,000
29 PLANNED 2026 PROJECTS
30 Auto Center
Coe Avenue
Proposed Treatment:
Digouts, Type II Slurry Seal, Striping
Estimate Cost: $1.6 M
31 Marin Neighborhood Ord Grove and San Pablo
45 25 44
26 Proposed Treatment:
Thin Maintenance Overlay Proposed Treatment:
Digouts, Leveling Course, Overlay
22 21
PCI XX
Estimate Cost: $1.6 M
32 Proposed Schedule:
Slurry Seal Project to Bid: February 2026
Heavy Rehab to Bid: June 2026
33 QUESTIONS?
34 ITEM 9.A
DISCUSS THE COMMUNITY
SOCIAL SERVICES GRANT
January 15, 2026 | City Council Meeting
Greg McDanel, City Manager
• Established in 2000 (FY20/21)
• To enhance community and social services
• “including, but not limited to education, recreation, social work, public health, public safety, mental health, youth development, elder care, community building and restoration, homeless and housing advocacy are eligible for funding”.
• Impact of May 25, 2020
• Eligible applicants include community and faith-based organizations serving Seaside residents
• Grass-roots organizations must apply with established non-profit Program Origins
2 • Significant annual investment in social services
• Direct impact on vulnerable and underserved residents • Strategic Plan Alignment:
• Pillar 2: Vibrant Local Economy
• 2.3 Advance Workforce Development
• Pillar 3: Diverse, Inclusive Community
• 3.3 Foster Greater Civic Engagement
• Pillar 5: Community Safety & Quality of Life
• 5.1 Enhance Public Safety, Crime Reduction &
Emergency Preparedness
Strategic Plan Alignment
3 • Funding: $320,000
• Competitive RFP process
• Ad-hoc review committee
• Public presentations by applicant
• Scoring on published criteria
• Recommendations presented
• Council award of $320,000
following committee
recommendations
FY20/21 FY21/22
• Funding: $320,000
• Competitive RFP, Ad-hoc
committee, public presentations,
published scoring
• Designate 1/3 of funding to new
programs/organizations
• Council awarded $320,000
following committee
recommendations
• Additional award of $105,459
Award Process
4 • Funding: $500,000
• Competitive RFP, Ad-hoc
committee, public presentations,
published scoring
• Removed 1/3 funding to new
programs/organizations
allocation
• Council award of $500,000
following committee
recommendations
• Additional award of $110,000
FY22/23 FY23/24
• Funding: $500,000
• Removed RFP, committee,
presentations, scoring
• Allocated funds during budget
process
Award Process
5 • Funding: $510,000
• Removed RFP, committee,
presentations, scoring
• Allocated during annual
budget process
• 4 new awards
totaling $260,000
• FY23/24 carryover
of $250,000
FY24/25 FY25/26
• Funding: $420,000
• Reinstated application process
with minimal requirements
• Staff application review for
completeness
• No recommendations or scoring
• Council deliberated and allocated
all funds in open session
• 12 awards with no applicant
receiving full funding
Award Process
6 • Awards to date
• 43 grants totaling $2,535,456
• 19 community based organizations have received funding • Community Partnership for Youth (CPY) $527,784
• The Village Project $518,604
• Building Healthy Communities $459,502
• Palenke Arts $340,784
• Community Human Services (CHS) $250,000
Funding Snapshot
7 • Clear and predictable process
• Defined roles for Council and staff
• Balanced access for established and emerging organizations • Efficient Council deliberation
Program Improvement Goals
8 • Community Social Services Grant Policy
• Establishes eligible program areas, allowable expenditures, funding requirements, submission process, reporting (static)
• Annual RFP with updated scoring matrix
• Evaluation criteria and weighting may be modified annually based on local needs or strategic council priorities (evolving) • Evaluation
• Evaluated by city staff using adopted matrix for funding cycle • City Council to consider staff recommendations as baseline • Council to adopt or modify recommendations at its discretion Recommended Hybrid Process
9 • Define priority/eligible program areas
• Desired number of awards or maximum awards
• Set-asides for new or pilot programs
• Annual scoring matrix
• Staff scoring and recommendations to serve as baseline Discussion Items
10 • Staff incorporates Council direction
• Develop draft policy similar to Mayor’s Youth Fund (Feb.) • Adopt policy and budget allocation for program (Feb.) • Draft 2026 RFP and program guidelines (June)
• Launch 2026 application cycle (July)
Potential Next Steps
11 Discuss the Community Social Services Grant, receive staff recommendations, and provide direction to staff.
Recommendation
12 ITEM 9.B.
January 15, 2026 | City Council Meeting
Dan Meewis, Assistant City Manager
ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A BUDGET
TRANSFER OF $250,000.00 OF SHORT-TERM
RENTAL REVENUE FUNDS FROM THE LAGUNA
GRANDE PARK SYNTHETIC TURF PROJECT TO
THE LINCOLN CUNNINGHAM PARK IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT
• Short-Term Rental (TOT) Revenue Funds
• Revenues support recreation, neighborhood improvements, and quality of life
• Projects allocated during annual budget process in
partnership with the Neighborhood Improvement
Commission
• FY 2025 / FY 2026 allocations approved on June 12, 2025 • Laguna Grande Synthetic Turf Project - $250,000
Background
2 • Conversion of event lawn from
grass to synthetic turf
• Project Objectives:
• Reduce maintenance
demands
• Improve durability of event
lawn
• Address recurring sanitary
impacts from waterfowl
Laguna Grande Park Synthetic Turf Project
3 • Project Constraints
• Event Lawn: 40,486 sq ft
• Estimated at $13-32 per sq ft
• Total Cost: $530,000 - $1.3m
• Prevailing wage trends higher
costs
• Project added as CIP Project
Laguna Grande Park Synthetic Turf Project
4 • Identified funding shortfall
• 5-12 year old playground
equipment purchased and
onsite
• Additional funding required
for installation ($70,000 +/-)
• Additional funding required
for 2-5 year old playground
Lincoln Cunningham Park Improvements
5 6
Lincoln Cunningham Park Improvements
• Authorize the Finance Director to transfer $250,000 from Laguna Grande Park Synthetic Turf Project CIP (342-
8910-9569) to Lincoln Cunningham Park Improvements
(342-8910-9578)
• Completes improvements to Lincoln Cunningham Park
• No impact to General Fund
• Laguna Grande Park Synthetic Turf Project to remain as long-term CIP
Request to Reallocate Funds
7 • Pillar 3: Diverse, Inclusive Community
• 3.3 Foster Greater Civic Engagement
• Pillar 4: Enhanced Physical Infrastructure & Abundant Water Supply
• 4.4 Maintain Infrastructure, Public Facilities, & City Assets • Pillar 5: Community Safety & Quality of Life
• 5.1 Deliver High Quality Recreation Services & Amenities • 5.3 Promote Vibrant Well-Maintained Neighborhoods
Strategic Plan Alignment
8 • Adopt a resolution approving a $250,000 budget
transfer of Short-Term Rental Revenue Funds from the
Laguna Grande Synthetic Turf Project to the Lincoln
Cunningham Park Improvement Project
Recommendation
9