ACPA Quarter 1 2019

Concrete Pavement Progress www.acpa.org 8 1 0 0 % C O N C R E T E cost of repaving the road on which their homes or businesses are located, one resident complained that he had paid for the previous repaving and wanted to know what could be done to reduce the frequency of rebuilds. “The plan was withdrawn and engineers conducted a life-cycle cost for constructing and maintaining all roads with concrete pavement,” says Danielle Block, Village Administrator. Even though the initial assessment for concrete was more expensive, residents accepted the plan because a concrete road would last long enough that they wouldn’t be repeatedly paying for repaving a road every 20 years. Roads were scheduled for reconstruction based on a variety of factors that included not only the condition of the existing pavement but also the condition and planned replacement of infrastructure below the road, explains Block. “If utilities were scheduled for repair or replacement, we scheduled the pavement work immediately after the utility work was complete whenever possible,” she says. “This limited the amount of time that residents had to endure construction.” Tying road recon- struction to utility replacements also limits the likelihood that a 50- to 60-year-old pavement will have to be cut into for infrastructure repairs and replacements. Another tactic to protect the integrity of the concrete pavement is a re- quirement that a utility that must remove concrete for repairs remove and » continued from page 7 Rick Hermus, Village of Kimberly, says a few words after accepting the Harold Halm Presidential Award. “...Block checked with Rick Hermus, a previous Village Administrator, to see if any residents had complained about the assessment costs related to concrete street pavements. His response: “No one has ever asked us to go back to paving streets with asphalt.” Rick Hermus, Village of Kimberly; Gerald Voigt, ACPA; and Brad Werner, McMahon Associates, Inc., during the presentation of the Harold Halm Presidential Award.