Question #30: Are there opportunities associated with the Pavement in Parks Capital Program to expand permeable surfaces to meet storm water obligations?

FY 2018 Question #30: Are there opportunities associated with the Pavement in Parks Capital Program to expand permeable surfaces to meet storm water obligations?

Page updated on Jun 16, 2017 at 9:49 AM

Question:

Are there opportunities associated with the Pavement in Parks Capital Program to expand permeable surfaces to meet storm water obligations? What additional funding would be required to do so?

Response:

The Pavement in Parks capital program could provide opportunities to install permeable pavements in place of traditional impervious surfaces. The program addresses roads and large parking facilities within the City’s park system, many of which are at the end of their lifecycle. Permeable pavements, such as permeable asphalt or concrete, require approximately 50% more funding for the initial installation and approximately 50% more funding for maintenance of the surface. Additional funding would be required on a case-by-case basis to install underdrain systems during resurfacing to address major wet weather events. These systems are site specific and can cost up to 50% of a traditional repaving project. The City does not possess the specialized equipment required to maintain large expanses of permeable pavement. Such maintenance activities would likely be contracted until the City reaches a threshold to justify purchasing the equipment.

In FY 2018, the Pavement in Parks program will fund the western parking lot expansion and partial driveway resurfacing project at Joseph Hensley Park as recommended in the Citywide Parks Improvement Plan (2014). The project is anticipated to cost $250,000 using traditional impervious pavement. If the pavement were changed to pervious surfacing, the project is anticipated to cost $125,000-$200,000 more based on initial estimates; a total of $375,000-$450,000. The additional funds would cover the higher cost of the pervious material, an underdrain system, and the higher labor costs associated with the installation. These initial estimates are not site specific and would be refined through engineering and design.

Recreation, Parks & Cultural Activities has had some discussions with Transportation & Environmental Services regarding the benefits of expanding permeable surfaces to meet stormwater obligations and whether stormwater funding could be used to cover the additional costs. In the future, the two departments will work together to look at projects on a case-by-case basis and determine the project’s pollutant reductions and whether stormwater funding is appropriate.

Recreation, Parks & Cultural Activities has had some discussions with Transportation & Environmental Services regarding the benefits of expanding permeable surfaces to meet stormwater obligations and whether stormwater funding could be used to cover the additional costs. In the future, the two departments will work together to look at projects on a case-by-case basis and determine the project’s pollutant reductions and whether stormwater funding is appropriate. If review of the case shows that a quantifiable pollutant reduction is realized in the post-construction condition, then stormwater funding may be appropriate.  For instance, if a case included the removal of existing impervious paving materials and replacing with permeable, then the case may be a candidate for stormwater funding as the post-construction condition would reduce pollution from the existing condition.  If the case involved the new installation of permeable materials and water flowed onto the permeable paving from an impervious area, then there may be a quantifiable pollutant reduction and stormwater funding may be applicable. However, if a case installed new pervious instead of impervious and there is no quantifiable pollutant reduction, then stormwater funding is likely not appropriate. 


Printable Version 

Top