Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDApacket__06-20-23_0410_506       NOTICE OF MEETING WORK SESSION FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL     Mayor Ginny Dickey Vice Mayor Peggy McMahon Councilmember Sharron Grzybowksi Councilmember Hannah Toth Councilmember Gerry Friedel Councilmember Brenda J. Kalivianakis Councilmember Allen Skillicorn    TIME:4:00 P.M. – WORK SESSION WHEN:TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 2023 WHERE:FOUNTAIN HILLS COUNCIL CHAMBERS 16705 E. AVENUE OF THE FOUNTAINS, FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Councilmembers of the Town of Fountain Hills will attend either in person or by telephone conference call; a quorum of the Town’s various Commission, Committee or Board members may be in attendance at the Council meeting. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to A.R.S. §1-602.A.9, subject to certain specified statutory exceptions, parents have a right to consent before the State or any of its political subdivisions make a video or audio recording of a minor child. Meetings of the Town Council are audio and/or video recorded and, as a result, proceedings in which children are present may be subject to such recording. Parents, in order to exercise their rights may either file written consent with the Town Clerk to such recording, or take personal action to ensure that their child or children are not present when a recording may be made. If a child is present at the time a recording is made, the Town will assume that the rights afforded parents pursuant to A.R.S. §1-602.A.9 have been waived.    AGENDA          1.CALL TO ORDER – Mayor Ginny Dickey      2.ROLL CALL – Mayor Dickey      3.REGULAR AGENDA      A.ROADWAY ASSET SERVICES: Town Council will receive a presentation on the town's Roadway Asset Services.    B.STREETS COMMITTEE: Town Council will receive an update from the Streets Committee.   4.ADJOURNMENT    4.ADJOURNMENT        CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF NOTICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing notice was duly posted in accordance with the statement filed by the Town Council with the Town Clerk. Dated this ______ day of ____________________, 2023. _____________________________________________  Linda G. Mendenhall, MMC, Town Clerk   The Town of Fountain Hills endeavors to make all public meetings accessible to persons with disabilities. Please call 480-816-5199 (voice) or 1-800-367-8939 (TDD) 48 hours prior to the meeting to request a reasonable accommodation to participate in the meeting or to obtain agenda information in large print format. Supporting documentation and staff reports furnished the Council with this agenda are available for review in the Clerk's Office. Town Council Work Session of June 20, 2023 2 of 2 ITEM 3. A. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 06/20/2023 Meeting Type: Town Council Work Session Agenda Type: Regular Agenda                  Submitting Department: Administration Prepared by: Linda Mendenhall, Town Clerk Staff Contact Information: Justin Weldy, Public Works Director Request to Town Council Work Session (Agenda Language):  ROADWAY ASSET SERVICES: Town Council will receive a presentation on the town's Roadway Asset Services.  Staff Summary (Background): N/A Attachments Presentation  Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 06/13/2023 09:07 AM Finance Director David Pock 06/13/2023 09:18 AM Finance Director David Pock 06/13/2023 09:18 AM Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 06/13/2023 09:24 AM Interim Town Manager Rachael Goodwin 06/13/2023 09:57 AM Form Started By: Linda Mendenhall Started On: 06/12/2023 01:33 PM Final Approval Date: 06/13/2023  PAVEMENT CONDITION EVALUATION RESULTS TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ Terminology •Centerline Miles –Town maintains appx. 166 linear miles of paved roadway •Paved Area –Over 3.5M SQYDS of pavement or enough material to pave a two- lane road from Fountain Hills to Las Vegas •Network Replacement Value –Over a $214M Dollar Asset (pavement only) •Pavement condition index (PCI) –score 0 to 100 •Preservation –Light weight and cost-effective treatment to extend design life •ASTM D 6433 –National guideline for evaluation of pavements Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Condition Description 86 – 100 EXCELLENT 71 – 85 VERY GOOD 61 – 70 GOOD 51 – 60 FAIR 41 – 50 MARGINAL 26 – 40 POOR 0 – 25 VERY POOR Purpose of Pavement Management $4 sqyd For Maintenance Here $40+ sqyd For Rehab Here •Extend pavement design life at lowest possible cost •Reduce the cost of roadway ownership •Improve the level of service over the roadway's life •Delay costly rehabilitation for as long as possible Benefits of Active Maintenance Roadway Asset Collection Van Global Positioning System (GPS) NCAT Certified 3-Laser Profiler -Roughness -Rutting Ladybug 360o Right- of-Way Camera Laser Crack Measuring System (LCMS-2) o two 1-millimeter resolution line scan cameras. o 1mm resolution is equivalent to over 4,000 dedicated laser points. o 32MP HD imagery o 100% contiguous survey & processing o Objective ASTM D6433 assessment o Panoramic 360 degree video o proven Ladybug camera technology o 32 mega pixel resolution. o Integrated with onboard DMI to increase relative accuracy o Processed every 15 feet o Utilized for asset extraction. Distance Measuring Instrument (DMI)Internal Inertial Measuring Unit (IMU) Road TRIP™-Technical Rating Intelligence Program ▪Sensor processing enhanced with AI to detect, classify, and quantify ASTM D6433 distresses ▪Detected distresses measured and overlaid on images ▪Distresses classified based upon geometry and density algorithm ▪GIS coordinates for each distress ties to images for location ▪Images available for QC and verification Onsite Pilot Field Review ▪Perform field visit with Town staff to review pilot data and results ▪Select Good / Fair / Poor roads for pilot ▪Perform QC on collected data in the field ▪Discuss conditions and expectations with Staff ▪Evaluate changes to historical data (if any) Centerline File Verification Pavement Condition Results Pavement Condition Results & Health Metrics Survey Network Average PCI = 69 Network Average PCI The average we see is a 60-65. Less than 1 in 10 score above a 75 Percent of Good Roads 15% is about the average we see across the nation Percent of Backlog These are the Poor, Serious, & Failed roads. Less than 10% is ideal and 15% is a maximum manageable mark. 20% and greater is difficult to catch up from Asphalt Distress Breakdown Asphalt Distress Breakdown by Severity Type Low Moderate High Alligator Cracking 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% Block Cracking 4.3% 0.1% 0.0% Long / Trans Cracking 8.6% 1.0% 0.0% Patching 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% Potholes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Rutting 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% Weathering 84.5% 0.1% 0.0% Network Distribution by Pavement Type Condition Distribution by Pavement Type Pre-Incorporation Asphalt Average PCI = 56 Backlog = 14% Marginal/Fair = 51% Asphalt Average PCI = 75 Backlog = 1% Marginal/Fair = 11% Maintenance & Rehabilitation Treatment Options Pavement Type Classification Min PCI Critical PCI Max PCI Code Treatment Unit Rate ($/sy) Deferral Cost Priority Code Treatment Unit Rate ($/sy) Deferral Cost Priority Code Treatment Unit Rate ($/sy) Deferral Cost Priority Reset Type Reset Value Years to Next Selection Asphalt Local 85 97 100 100 Do Nothing $ - $ (3.50)5 100 Do Nothing $ - $ (2.50)5 100 Do Nothing $ - $ (1.50)5 Relative 0 1 Asphalt Local 70 73 85 202 Surface Preservation + Patching x2 $ 3.50 $ (1.93)4 201 Surface Preservation + Patching x1 $ 2.50 $ (1.93)4 200 Surface Preservation $ 1.50 $ (1.93)4 Relative 10 7 Asphalt Local 60 63 70 312 Slurry Seal + Patching x2 $ 5.43 $ (28.80)1 311 Slurry Seal + Patching x1 $ 4.43 $ (28.80)1 310 Slurry Seal $ 3.43 $ (28.80)1 Relative 20 5 Asphalt Local 40 43 60 402 Mill & Overlay + Patching x2 $ 34.23 $ (4.04)2 401 Mill & Overlay + Patching x1 $ 33.23 $ (5.04)2 400 Mill & Overlay $ 32.23 $ (6.04)2 Absolute 95 3 Asphalt Local 0 20 40 600 Full Depth Reconstruction $ 38.27 3 600 Full Depth Reconstruction $ 38.27 3 600 Full Depth Reconstruction $ 38.27 3 Absolute 99 3 Pre-incorporation Asphalt Local 85 97 100 100 Do Nothing $ - $ (3.50)4 100 Do Nothing $ - $ (2.50)4 100 Do Nothing $ - $ (1.50)4 Relative 0 1 Pre-incorporation Asphalt Local 70 73 85 202 Surface Preservation + Patching x2 $ 3.50 $ (1.93)3 201 Surface Preservation + Patching x1 $ 2.50 $ (1.93)3 200 Surface Preservation $ 1.50 $ (1.93)2 Relative 10 7 Pre-incorporation Asphalt Local 60 63 70 312 Slurry Seal + Patching x2 $ 5.43 $ (42.92)1 311 Slurry Seal + Patching x1 $ 4.43 $ (43.92)1 310 Slurry Seal $ 3.43 $ (44.92)1 Relative 20 5 Pre-incorporation Asphalt Local 0 40 60 610 Full Depth Reconstruction + Subgrade Prep $ 48.35 2 610 Full Depth Reconstruction + Subgrade Prep $ 48.35 2 610 Full Depth Reconstruction + Subgrade Prep $ 48.35 3 Absolute 99 3 Strong Road (<2% Load Distresses) Moderate Road (2% - 10% Load Distresses) Weak Road (> 10% Load Distresses) Why This Road And Not That One??? Let’s define selection criteria commonly used: Prioritization = Order of Priority Arrange from highest to lowest Financial Optimization = Maximum Financial Benefit Arrange from maximum to minimum Prioritization = Order of Priority Arrange from highest to lowest CRITICAL –Roads that will drop into a more costly rehabilitation category next year. This has the highest priority in the pavement management system Traffic/Classification –Higher volume roadways have higher priority Pavement Type –Asphalt typically a higher priority as it deteriorates more rapidly PCI / Condition –Typical uses in prioritization are “Worst First” or “Best First” and only used as a tie breaker in the system $1$5$18$26$48$64$72 $4$8 $16 $22 $8 $13 1256 4 3 7 TODAY’S Needs Of The Network Scenario Considerations: ▪Pre-incorporation roads are only 34% of the network by area ▪77% of the FIX ALL costs are Pre- Incorporation road related ▪75% of the FIX ALL costs are Pre- Incorporation Full Recon needs Budget Requirements & Needs Town Budget = $2.125M (does not include 15% for misc expenses) PCI Budget Requirements & Needs… Scenario Considerations: ▪Budgets exclude 15% misc costs for admin, engineering, inspection, etc. ▪Looking at PCI alone can be misleading ▪Controlling for PCI does not control for backlog Backlog Budget Requirements & Needs… Scenario Considerations: ▪Budgets exclude 15% misc costs for admin, engineering, inspection, etc. ▪Backlog grows at an alarming rate ▪Current funding does not control the growth in backlog Questions ITEM 3. B. TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS STAFF REPORT    Meeting Date: 06/20/2023 Meeting Type: Town Council Work Session Agenda Type: Regular Agenda                  Submitting Department: Administration Prepared by: Linda Mendenhall, Town Clerk Staff Contact Information: Justin Weldy, Public Works Director Request to Town Council Work Session (Agenda Language):  STREETS COMMITTEE: Town Council will receive an update from the Streets Committee. Staff Summary (Background): N/A Attachments Report  Presentation  Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 06/13/2023 09:06 AM Finance Director David Pock 06/13/2023 09:17 AM Finance Director David Pock 06/13/2023 09:17 AM Town Attorney Aaron D. Arnson 06/13/2023 09:24 AM Interim Town Manager Rachael Goodwin 06/13/2023 09:57 AM Form Started By: Linda Mendenhall Started On: 06/12/2023 01:38 PM Final Approval Date: 06/13/2023  CASC Report Page 1 Fountain Hills CITIZEN ADVISORY STREETS COMMITTEE REPORT June 20, 2023 A “FIX-ALL-NOW” PROGRAM CASC Report Page 2 The Citizens Advisory Streets Committee (CASC) was presented a mission at its first meeting on September 29, 2021, to address street conditions and funding options, and make recommendations to the Town Council. During the process of studying available data the committee concluded new information was needed to determine current street conditions and subsequently the Town authorized Roadway Asset Services in 2022 to laser-test the entire network. This Report represents the Committee’s evaluation of current data and provides recommendations to repair and maintain Fountain Hills streets. Contents I. Executive Summary II. Overview III. A Fix-All-Now Program IV. Funding Options V. Recommendations VI. Summary VII. Appendix A. Talking Points B. Pavement Lifecycle C. Additional Considerations D. A “Roadmap” Forward E. Cost Estimations F. Volunteer CASC Members CASC Report Page 3 Executive Summary The street network evaluation conducted by Roadway Asset Services, LLC (RAS) reveals that while pavement conditions in Fountain Hills are generally considered ‘good’ with an average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 69, nearly half of all streets fall below the average. The current annual funding level of $2.125 million is insufficient to address the backlog of streets with a PCI below 40, which is projected to increase to 15.2% over the next few years, surpassing an industry standard target backlog of 8%. The primary challenge for Town staff is determining needed repairs for pre- incorporation streets (1989), which impacts future funding requirements. It is important to note that at a certain point in pavement life cycle, maintenance preservation measures will no longer suffice, and more extensive rehabilitation, such as overlays, will be necessary and more costly. Given the current budget, the network’s average PCI is expected to drop to 67 over the next five years, highlighting the insufficiency of funds to achieve acceptable PCI levels. It is evident that “business as usual” will not yield different results in the future. To address these issues, the Citizens Advisory Streets Committee (CASC) recommends a comprehensive “Fix-All-Now” program that requires an additional $50 million in funds (including intersection improvements). This program aims to improve the street network to a “PCI 70-Threshold” level, ensuring that the existing $2.125 million street revenue sources are sufficient for future maintenance. The proposed amount considers the allocation of nearly $8 million in Federal Covid relief funds already directed by the Town Council to street repairs. Historically, funding for street improvements has relied on general funds, sales taxes, state-shared revenues, regional funds, and grants, but these sources have proven to be inadequate to prevent the deterioration of an increasing number of streets. The CASC suggests that traditional options like bonds should be considered, weighing the benefits of lower interest costs with a 5-year plan versus a higher annual secondary property tax, or higher interest costs with a 20-year plan and a lower annual tax. In summary, the CASC emphasizes the urgent need for increased funding and the implementation of a large-scale rehabilitation program. Failure to invest adequately in street infrastructure will result in significant future challenges and a continued decline in pavement conditions throughout the community. CASC Report Page 4 Overview During the past 20 months the CASC examined three street network reports: one developed in 2008 by Stantec Consultants, another in 2018 by Infrastructure Management Services (IMS), and a third in 2023 by Roadway Asset Services (RAS). During that time questions were raised, many matters were investigated, and on May 15, 2023, final CASC comments were submitted to generate this report. The Fountain Hills Street network has nearly 4.2 million square yards of pavement for which the Town has responsibilities for about 3.5 million square yards (85%), or 166 miles. The other 15% are in gated ‘communities’ where sustaining street conditions are the responsibility of a HOA. Before the Town was incorporated in 1989, many streets were constructed by developers before ‘standards’ were adopted, and many are now 34-50 years old. In the past decade maintenance/repairs have been a mix of activities totally dependent on the funds available which have varied from $1.7M to $3.9M each year. Since 2016, $14.8M has been spent on streets, nearly 70% having occurred in the past 4 years. For several decades, monies spent on streets and intersections have come from a combination of general funds including sales taxes, state-shared revenues, regional funds, and grants, but the total funds were never enough; streets continued to deteriorate. Following the Stantec Report, voters were asked in 2011 to approve an influx of new money, but a $29M, 10-year bond package was rejected 55-45. Then two years later, in 2013, voters did approve 67-33 an $8.2M, 5-year bond for the total reconstruction of a single project, Saguaro Blvd. And following the IMS Report, after the Saguaro bonds were paid off, voters were asked in 2018 to approve a $7M Primary Property Tax (PPT) with $4M being promised to be spent annually to repair and sustain the network, but it was rejected 60-40. Now, following the RAS Report, it’s de- ja-vu again; more street funds are needed. Using RAS PCI data, RAS square yardage, and RAS unit costs, the CASC has concluded that $50M of additional funds are needed (including intersection improvements) to position the community so the existing $2.125M street revenue sources will be sufficient to maintain the network thereafter. To accomplish that, an ‘outside-the-box’ 5-year “Fix-All-Now” program is suggested that will improve the street network to a “PCI 70-Threshold” level. (The $50M amount is after $8M in Federal Covid relief funds directed by the Town Council to the network have been spent, and continuance of the $2.125M annual allocation.) CASC Report Page 5 Cost Summary by PCI and by Street Category (See Appendix E for Detail) Without significant additional revenues street network maintenance levels cannot be achieved which means streets will continue to deteriorate, creating failing conditions from which the Town cannot possibly recover. A “Fix-All-Now” Program Deciding which streets to fix, and when to do it, is a complicated process because the rates at which streets deteriorate are affected by many variables such as traffic, vehicle weights, pavement materials, subsurface soil conditions, and weather, to name a few. As streets age, pavements deteriorate. Usually, the first signs of distress appear as longitudinal cracks along the direction of travel, then transverse cracks across the pavement, then alligator-style cracking and subsequent potholes. When street deterioration reaches the alligator stage, even in small areas, it may represent a failure of the underlying base materials which necessitates total reconstruction, including subgrade repair. To establish street conditions the best approach has proven to be by using laser technology to assign numerical values to ride comfort and pavement distresses. In doing so Pavement Condition Indexes (PCIs) are created. The first time this was done in Fountain Hills was 15-years ago, and then again in 2018, and in 2023. After extensive reviews of all the data collected in each test year the conclusion reached is that PCIs collected in one year cannot be compared to those in a later year, because no two streets are alike, each deteriorate differently. CASC Report Page 6 Streets fall into 4 classifications, Arterials, Collectors, Locals, and Alleys. Arterials are the streets with the highest traffic volumes, followed by Collectors that take traffic from intersecting residential streets to a connection with Arterials, and then Locals that are in essence residential streets. Alleys (less than 1% of the network) are often found in business areas, but in a few situations Alleys act like Locals as they are the only access for some residents. In June 2020 the Town Council established ‘minimum’ PCI goals for Arterials of 60-70; Collectors, 50-60; Locals, 50-55. Using PCI numbers street conditions can also be characterized in terms of five letter-grade categories that closely match maintenance/ repair options: • “A” are those streets with PCI ratings between 100-85 and labeled as ‘excellent’. • “B” streets between 85-70 PCI ratings are referred to as being in ‘good’ condition. • “C” (70-55 PCI ratings), a ‘marginal’ category. • “D” (55-40 PCI ratings), a ‘fair’ category. • “F” (below a PCI rating of 40), considered a ‘poor’ category. Pavement management falls into three major categories: (1) maintenance, (2) rehabilitation (repairs), and (3) reconstruction. The reason for these categories is that State Statutes restrict ‘low interest, tax-free bonds’ to be used for one-time ‘rehabilitation/reconstruction’ projects, not ongoing/annual ‘maintenance’. • Maintenance is usually associated with “A” and “B” streets, down to a PCI rating of 70, and consists of crack filling followed by protective or slurry seals. (Recent example, Shea Blvd. Costs in the maintenance category are estimated to vary from $1.60 to $3.70 per square yard.) • Repair/Rehabilitation usually occurs with “C” and “D” streets (PCI ratings between 70 and 40) and consists of some panel replacements followed with a slurry seal or chip seals with cape. And mill & overlays, some for the full pavement width, and in some very wide streets, just the travel lanes. (Recent example, El Lago Blvd from Palisades to Ave of the Fountains. Costs in this category vary widely between $3.70 and $53.00 / SY.) • Reconstruction is normally associated with “F” streets (PCI ratings between 40 and 25) and consists of mill & overlay with major panel replacements. PCI ratings below 25 usually necessitate full-depth replacement. (Costs in this category vary extensively and could approach $70.00 / SY.) Once streets are ‘fixed’ PCI values are ‘reset’ until the next laser test results. Assumed values are: For Maintenance: crack fill with seal coating: PCI 85 CASC Report Page 7 For Repair/Rehabilitation: slurry, chip seals with cape: PCI 88. Mill & overlay (including isolated panel replacements): PCI 90 For Reconstruction: PCI 95 But these values do not last forever; all streets begin to deteriorate immediately. To keep pavements above a PCI 70-Threshold, maintenance activities must be repeated every 6-7 years. But each time that’s done the ‘reset’ value diminishes somewhat, and after maybe three maintenance applications (20 years) streets will need to undergo more extensive treatment. To determine deterioration rates, it is suggested that laser tests be conducted every five years. Pavement Maintenance Life Cycle Funding Options Over the years funding options have not changed. Three options are available to supplement current existing Town revenues: • Bonds are often considered first since they have a sunset provision that appeals to many voters. However, bonds include interest expenses; dollars paid that do not make it to the streets. Depending on bond retirement schedules, a 5-year plan will have a lower interest price tag but a higher annual secondary property tax, while a 20-year plan will have more interest but a lower annual tax. (Bonds are like home mortgages or vehicle loans when cash reserves are not available.) CASC Report Page 8 • A Primary Property Tax is a cash reserve alternative to bonds (no interest expenses). Based on a 5-year “Fix-All-Now” program, $9M will be needed. Then, after the entire network is fixed, property tax revenues could be used to pay for fire, police, etc. and the local sales tax rate could be cut to 1.2% thus making FH more attractive to businesses and consumers. • Local Sales Taxes are another option (they do not require voter approval). The Town’s current 2.9% sales tax rate is expected to generate $15.4M in 2024. To produce another $9M to fix the street network, the rate would have to increase 58% to 4.6% (and when combined with State Sales Taxes it would mean that FH would have the highest sales tax rate in Maricopa County). Inasmuch as no decisions will be reached for a while, the months that follow would be a great opportunity to assess how voters would like to proceed. Then in the fall the Town Council will be in a better position to arrive at a consensus on how to address the street network going forward. Recommendations The CASC recommends a “Fix-All-Now” strategy to bring all streets up to a PCI 70- Threshold level using municipal tax-free bonds as the financing source. Two bond alternatives are suggested, either a combination of “packages” by street category, or one overall issue. Either alternative is designed to be a “Fix-All-Now” program, where the monies available from General Fund commitments and from bonds are combined to complete all necessary repairs over a seven-year period. Funds for the first two years, FY23 and FY24, are already committed by the Council. Bond funds will be needed for FY25 though FY 29. Then when the program is completed in 2030, the currently available $2.125M annual revenues should be sufficient to sustain “maintenance” activities for the foreseeable future. Alternative 1: Comprehensive single bond package: $50M, 20-year bond program to improve all streets, including intersections. Alternative 2: Street “Packages” – 4 separate bond packages: $5M, 5 to 20-year bond program for Arterials only. $9M, 5 to 20-year bond program for Collectors only. $26M, 5 to 20-year bond program for Locals/Alleys only. $10M, 5 to 20-year bond program for Intersections, Pedestrian, & Bicycle Safety only*. CASC Report Page 9 *(La Montana/Palisades, La Montana/Saguaro, Palisades/Palomino, Palisades/Golden Eagle, Palisades/FH Blvd, Saguaro/FH Blvd, Avenue of the Fountains/Saguaro + sidewalk infill, Crosswalk Safety Improvements, adding turn lanes, installing traffic and/or pedestrian signals, adding bicycle lanes.) The advantage of long-term bonds is the annual ‘tax’ is the least and some of the indebtedness will be paid by those who move to Town in later years. Costs used to generate the bond amounts are based on recent street bid prices, plus reasonable contingencies for unknown surprises, and 5% annual inflation. The CASC recommends Alternative 2 on the belief this bond referendum approach provides voters an opportunity to choose what they believe are most important. The CASC also recommends that a referendum be presented to voters in November 2024. Summary Throughout this decade and before, monies to fix Fountain Hills streets have come from a combination of general funds including sales taxes, state-shared revenues, regional funds, and grants. Because streets have continued to deteriorate using these limited funds should be proof that relying on those monies alone is not enough. The recommended “Fix-All-Now” 5-year program will eliminate the need to ask voters for more funds every 5-7 years, and after streets are improved to a PCI 70-Threshold level, the combination of existing general funds should be sufficient to properly maintain the street network for the foreseeable future. Other considerations: 1. The “Fix-All-Now” solution differs considerably from the RAS recommendation, where instead of an “average” PCI as a goal, the “Fix-All-Now” uses a PCI 70- Threshold goal. (Adopting an “average” approach means some streets will not meet the Council’s ‘minimum’ conditions.) 2. The CASC believes an across-the-board “reconstruction” strategy for pre- incorporation streets included in the RAS report is not warranted, or affordable. (Using a previously proven hybrid repair on pre-incorporation streets that served the community for at least the past 34 years (since 1989 incorporation) is recommended.) 3. Before bond amounts are finalized consideration should be given to reclassify some streets and make a thorough review of future intersection needs, including pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements. (Traffic warrants may already justify signals at several locations, and as the community grows in the next 7 years, more improvements will be needed.) CASC Report Page 10 4. After extensive reviews the CASC is convinced that there are no short cuts to fixing the streets without a significant amount of new revenue; conditions will only worsen. Even if the Town could allocate an additional $1M each year, that would not be enough. (It’s unrealistic to believe the Town could allocate as much as $50M over the next 7 years … $7M every year.) 5. Since 2008 two different professional street consultants have concluded more funds are needed, and now in 2023, a third consultant has concluded the same. But only once have more funds been provided, and that was 10 years ago when $8M was approved to reconstruct Saguaro Blvd. (The $29M rejected by voters in 2011 and the $4M annual rejection in 2018 would have reduced today’s price tag considerably.) 6. Catching-up with street repairs to overcome ongoing deterioration seems paramount. To accomplish that requires significant additional revenues so existing revenues can be used to maintain the network at levels acceptable to residents and businesses. Failure to invest adequately in street infrastructure will result in significant future challenges and a continued decline in pavement conditions throughout the community. To help resolve the street issues it’s suggested that public open forums be initia ted this fall to give residents ample opportunities to voice their opinions. CASC Report Page 11 Appendix A. Talking Points Overview: The streets in Town are falling apart; half the network is substandard. Even streets that are in good condition are subject to deterioration and must be maintained. The problem today is the result of ignoring what should have been done years ago and without an influx of capital, continual deterioration will exceed the Town’s ability to sustain the network. Support statements include: 1. Infrastructure Improvement: Investing in the bond issue will significantly enhance the overall infrastructure, leading to smoother, quieter, and safer travel experiences for residents and visitors. 2. Long-Term Cost Savings: By proactively addressing streets through the bond issue, further damage can be prevented, and more expensive repairs can be avoided. Investing now will help save money over time by reducing the need for extensive street reconstruction projects. 3. Enhanced Safety: Upgrading and maintaining streets is crucial for ensuring the safety of motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists. By addressing current street conditions and intersection needs through the bond issue, accidents and potential injuries can be minimized, creating a safer environment for everyone. 4. Economic Growth: Well-maintained and reliable infrastructure is vital to attracting businesses, promoting tourism, and stimulating economic growth. By investing in the bond issue, it demonstrates the community’s commitment to attracting new businesses and creating job opportunities. 5. Preserving Property Values: High-quality streets contribute to the overall appeal and desirability of the Town. By funding street repairs through the bond issue, property values will be preserved and potentially increased, thus benefiting property owners and ensuring a positive real estate market in the long term. 6. Limited-Time Opportunity: The urgent need for street repairs combined with the availability of the bond issue presents a unique opportunity. By acting now, necessary funding at favorable interest rates can be achieved. 7. Community Well-being: Investing in the Town's streets is an investment in the well- being of its residents. Smooth and well-maintained streets improve accessibility, reduce noise levels, and minimize traffic congestion, resulting in a higher quality of life for everyone. CASC Report Page 12 8. Environmental Benefits: Upgrading streets can include implementing environmentally friendly practices, such as incorporating sustainable materials and improving drainage systems, thus reducing the carbon footprint, and contributing to a greener future. 9. Increased Civic Pride: Addressing Street problems through the bond issue demonstrates commitment to a sense of pride among residents, fostering a stronger community spirit, and a shared responsibility for the Town's development. 10. Transparency and Accountability: The bond issue provides a clear and transparent mechanism for funding street repairs, ensuring the funds are dedicated solely to the intended purpose. Implementing oversight and accountability measures to promote trust and confidence among residents are doable. B. Pavement Lifecycle Program CASC Report Page 13 C. Additional Considerations 1. Based upon Town growth in the past decade and current traffic, some streets may need to be reclassified to the next higher category. Prior to finalizing any bond packages, each category should be visited to determine which streets should be reclassified to a higher level; examples are included below. from to Collectors to Arterials Golden Eagle Palisades Sunridge Sunridge Dr Palisades Golden Eagle Locals to Collectors Gunsight Saguaro La Montana LA Montana El Lago Arroyo Vista Arroyo Vista La Montana FH Blvd Chama FH Blvd Gunsight Sierra Madre Sunridge Sunridge Verde River / Paul Nordin Palisades Saguaro Panorama Saguaro Saguaro Bainbridge FH Blvd Golden Eagle Inca FH Blvd Kingstree Monterey Shea Saguaro Del Cambre Grande El Sobrante Hampstead / Fayette Palisades Fairlynn Saguaro Business Frontage Panorama Colony Thistle Palisades Mountain Side Mountain Side Thistle Palisades 2. A Town-wide “speed limit assessment” should be conducted to ensure that by category streets are consistent; that speed limits are posted the same in both directions; that general signage upon entrance to the Town informs drivers that the local speed limit is 25 mph on any street not posted. 3. The Town should investigate and identify options for private (HOA) properties to be able to use Town negotiated prices so cost savings can be passed along. 4. Throughout the program of street repairs, the Town should consider addressing wide streets with pavement markings that allow for a left-turn lane, parking lanes, and/or bike lanes by narrowing the travel lanes appropriately to help “manage” posted speed limits. 5. All Arterials and Collectors should have centerline markings. 6. All Local streets at a minimum should have traffic control stop signs/stop lines when intersecting with Collectors and/or Arterials. 7. All frontage streets should be clearly marked and/or signed as two-way. CASC Report Page 14 8. Additional radar activated speed limit signage should be placed strategically throughout the community on Arterials, and on all streets ahead of entering a special enforcement area. 9. Prepare an ‘Intersection 10-Year Improvement Plan” addressing primary intersections; considerations are shown below. Facility Cross Street Existing Recommended Description Palisades Palomino 4 way stop New Traffic Signal Complete planned improvements Palisades Golden Eagle 3 way stop Traffic Circle Eliminate 3 way stop with circle Palisades FH Blvd Existing Traffic Signal L Turn Queuing NB to WB & EB to NB turn lane ext Palisades Ave of the Fountains Existing Traffic Signal Do Nothing - Palisades La Montana 4 way stop Traffic Circle Eliminate 4 way stop with circle Palisades Saguaro Existing Traffic Signal L Turn Queuing NB to EB turn lane extension Saguaro La Montana 2 way stop Traffic Circle Eliminate 2 way stop with circle Saguaro Ave of the Fountains 3 way stop Traffic Circle Eliminate 3 way stop with circle Saguaro El Lago Existing Traffic Signal L Turn Queuing NB to EB turn lane extension Parkview Verde River Drive 4 way stop Traffic Circle Eliminate 4 way stop with circle FH Blvd El Lago Existing Traffic Signal Do Nothing - FH Blvd Saguaro 1 way stop Traffic Circle Reduce traffic conflicts with circle El Lago La Montana 4 way stop Traffic Circle Eliminate 4 way stop with circle La Montana Parkview 1 way stop Traffic Circle Eliminate EB stop sign with circle Other Concept Sidewalk Infill Downtown/Arterials x ft Speed Controls Radar Speed Limit Signs x number of controls Pedestrian Crossings Signal Controlled Crossings x number of crossings Bicycle Lanes Arterials/Collectors x number of miles CASC Report Page 15 D. Ju n e Ju l y Au g Se p t Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l y Au g Se p t Oc t No v CA S C Pr e s e n t F i n d i n g s - S o l u t i o n s t o T C / S t u d y S e s s i o n 20 CA S C F i n a l P r e s e n t a t i o n / S t u d y S e s s i o n ? X Ho s t P u b l i c O p e n H o u s e ( Q / A ) X X X X Or g a n i z e P o l i t i c a l A c t i o n C o m m i t t e e ( P A C ) 7t h X X X X X X X X X 5t h TO W N P U B L I C R E L A T I O N S Co m m u n i c a t i o n s F H T i m e s X X X X X X X S o c i a l M e d i a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I n s i d e r X X X X X Ge n e r a t e F u n d i n g S u r v e y ( B o L a r s o n ) X X X X Pu b l i s h S u r v e y R e s u l t s X Pu b l i c I n f o r m a t i o n O u t r e a c h X X X X X X X X X 5t h TO W N S T R E E T D E P A R T M E N T Re c l a s s i f y S t r e e t s X X Fi n a l i z e I n t e r s e c t i o n N e e d s X X Fi n a l i z e F u n d i n g N e e d s X X Pr o v i d e S t r e e t U p d a t e t o T C X X X X X RE S I D E N T S Pr o v i d e F u n d i n g I n p u t X X X Q/ A O p p o r t u n i t y ( O p e n H o u s e F o r u m s ) X X X X De c i s i o n T i m e ( V o t e ) 7t h X 5t h TO W N C O U N C I L Me e t i n g s 0 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 2 2 CA S C F i n a l P r e s e n t a t i o n / S t u d y S e s s i o n ? X Pa r t i c i p a t e i n P u b l i c O p e n H o u s e X X Po l i c y / F u n d i n g D e c i s i o n s X X X Re f e r e n d u m L a n g u a g e ( d u e d a t e ) X 4t h 20 2 3 / 2 4 E l e c t i o n D a t e s 7t h 2 5t h CA S C R e p o r t P a g e 1 5 20 2 3 20 2 4 Ac t i v i t i e s / T i m e D. A " R o a d M a p " F o r w a r d CASC Report Page 16 Le t t e r - G r a d e PC I R a n g e Re p a i r s / P C I R a n g e s Ar t e r i a l s Co l l e c t o r s Lo c a l s All e y s Art e r i a l s Co l l e c t o r s Lo c a l s All e y s Art e r i a l s Co l l e c t o r s Lo c a l s All e y s Art e r i a l s Co l l e c t o r s Lo c a l s All e y s 20 2 3 U n i t C o s t s $4 . 7 3 $3 . 6 0 $3 . 6 0 $3 . 6 0 $3 6 . 2 1 $2 7 . 1 9 $1 8 . 7 2 $2 7 . 1 9 $6 7 . 6 9 $5 0 . 7 7 $3 3 . 8 4 $5 0 . 7 7 $7 0 . 3 5 $5 7 . 1 1 $4 0 . 1 8 $5 7 . 1 1 w/ p a t c h i n g $6 . 8 3 $5 . 7 0 $5 . 7 0 $5 . 7 0 $3 8 . 3 1 $2 9 . 2 9 $2 0 . 8 2 $2 9 . 2 9 $6 9 . 7 9 $5 2 . 8 7 $3 5 . 9 4 $5 2 . 8 7 $7 1 . 4 0 $6 7 . 6 9 $5 0 . 7 7 $6 7 . 6 9 Av e 2 0 2 3 U n i t C o s t s / S Y $5 . 7 8 $4 . 6 5 $4 . 6 5 $4 . 6 5 $3 7 . 2 6 $2 8 . 2 4 $1 9 . 7 7 $2 8 . 2 4 $6 8 . 7 4 $5 1 . 8 2 $3 4 . 8 9 $5 1 . 8 2 $7 0 . 8 8 $6 2 . 4 0 $4 5 . 4 8 $6 2 . 4 0 5% 20 2 5 I n f l a t e d U n i t C o s t s $6 . 3 6 $5 . 1 2 $5 . 1 2 $5 . 1 2 $4 0 . 9 9 $3 1 . 0 6 $2 1 . 7 5 $3 1 . 0 6 $7 5 . 6 1 $5 7 . 0 0 $3 8 . 3 8 $5 7 . 0 0 $7 7 . 9 6 $6 8 . 6 4 $5 0 . 0 2 $6 8 . 6 4 11 3 , 4 3 6 12 , 3 3 9 28 , 9 2 0 16 , 3 6 5 17 1 , 0 6 0 $7 2 1 , 2 2 6 50 5 , 7 2 6 $ $2 , 1 8 6 , 7 5 7 $1 , 2 7 5 , 8 5 6 $4 , 6 8 9 , 5 6 6 $4 , 6 8 9 , 5 6 6 15 6 , 1 2 6 70 , 1 6 6 90 , 7 6 8 0 31 7 , 0 6 0 $7 9 8 , 5 8 4 $2 , 1 7 9 , 2 5 1 $5 , 1 7 3 , 9 5 8 $8 , 1 5 1 , 7 9 3 $8 , 1 5 1 , 7 9 3 41 5 , 7 1 8 23 3 , 3 7 9 45 0 , 9 1 9 95 , 6 0 4 1, 1 9 5 , 6 2 0 $2 , 1 2 6 , 3 9 8 $5 , 0 7 5 , 2 9 3 $1 7 , 3 0 5 , 8 2 0 $4 , 7 8 2 , 3 5 1 $2 9 , 2 8 9 , 8 6 2 -$ 8 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $2 1 , 2 8 9 , 8 6 2 4,6 3 1 - 15 , 0 8 3 15 , 7 0 1 35 , 4 1 5 $2 3 , 6 8 8 $0 $8 5 9 , 7 6 1 $1 , 0 7 7 , 7 1 7 $1 , 9 6 1 , 1 6 5 $1 , 9 6 1 , 1 6 5 1, 7 1 9 , 1 5 5 $7 2 1 , 2 2 6 $7 9 8 , 5 8 4 $2 , 1 2 6 , 3 9 8 $2 3 , 6 8 8 $5 0 5 , 7 2 6 $2 , 1 7 9 , 2 5 1 $5 , 0 7 5 , 2 9 3 $0 $2 , 1 8 6 , 7 5 7 $5 , 1 7 3 , 9 5 8 $1 7 , 3 0 5 , 8 2 0 $8 5 9 , 7 6 1 $1 , 2 7 5 , 8 5 6 $0 $4 , 7 8 2 , 3 5 1 $1 , 0 7 7 , 7 1 7 $4 4 , 0 9 2 , 3 8 6 $3 6 , 0 9 2 , 3 8 6 IM P R O V E M E N T C O S T S $4 4 , 0 9 2 , 3 8 6 -$ 8 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 $3 6 , 0 9 2 , 3 8 6 Br e a k d o w n b y S q u a r e Y a r d s 20 2 5 20 2 6 20 2 7 20 2 8 20 2 9 1.0 5 In f l a t i o n F a c t o r ST R E E T R E F E R E N D U M 5 $7 , 2 1 8 , 4 7 7 $7 , 2 1 8 , 4 7 7 $7 , 5 7 9 , 4 0 1 $7 , 9 5 8 , 3 7 1 $8 , 3 5 6 , 2 9 0 $8 , 7 7 4 , 1 0 4 $3 9 , 8 8 6 , 6 4 3 $4 0 M Re f e r e n d u m P a c k a g e s AR T E R I A L S 2 $2 , 3 4 4 , 7 8 3 $2 , 3 4 4 , 7 8 3 $2 , 4 6 2 , 0 2 2 $4 , 8 0 6 , 8 0 5 $5 M CO L L E C T O R S 3 $2 , 7 1 7 , 2 6 4 $2 , 7 1 7 , 2 6 4 $2 , 8 5 3 , 1 2 7 $2 , 9 9 5 , 7 8 4 $8 , 5 6 6 , 1 7 6 $9 M LO C A L S / A L L E Y S 5 $4 , 6 5 0 , 2 0 5 $4 , 6 5 0 , 2 0 5 $4 , 8 8 2 , 7 1 6 $5 , 1 2 6 , 8 5 2 $5 , 3 8 3 , 1 9 4 $5 , 6 5 2 , 3 5 4 $2 5 , 6 9 5 , 3 2 1 $2 6 M IN T E R S E C T I O N S 3 $2 , 9 8 3 , 3 3 3 $3 , 2 8 9 , 1 2 5 $3 , 4 5 3 , 5 8 1 $3 , 6 2 6 , 2 6 0 $1 0 , 3 6 8 , 9 6 7 $1 0 M PA C K A G E R E F E R E N D U M $9 , 7 1 2 , 2 5 3 $1 0 , 1 9 7 , 8 6 5 $1 1 , 4 1 1 , 7 6 0 $8 , 8 3 6 , 7 7 5 $9 , 2 7 8 , 6 1 4 $4 9 , 4 3 7 , 2 6 8 $5 0 M FO O T N O T E S : Up p e r ' I m p r o v e m e n t C o s t s ' C h a r t : Lo w e r ‘ C o s t S u m m a r y ’ C h a r t : · On l y s t r e e t s b e l o w a 7 0 P C I a r e i n c l u d e d · Re f e r e n d u m p a c k a g e s f o r e a c h s t r e e t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a r e e x p e c t e d t o v a r y · Le t t e r - g r a d e s : C , m a r g i n a l s t r e e t s ; D , s t r e e t s i n f a i r c o n d i t i o n s ; F , p o o r ( b a c k l o g ) A r t e r i a l s … 2 - y e a r i m p r o v e m e n t p l a n ( 2 0 2 5 - 2 6 ) · Su g g e s t e d r e p a i r s a r e i d e n t i f i e d f o r e a c h P C I r a n g e C o l l e c t o r s … 3 - y e a r p l a n ( 2 0 2 5 - 2 7 ) · Un i t c o s t s a r e ‘ a v e r a g e ’ f o r 2 0 2 3 ; 2 0 2 5 u n i t c o s t s a r e i n f l a t e d 5 % L o c a l s / A l l e y s … 5 - y e a r p l a n ( 2 0 2 5 - 2 9 ) · Sq u a r e y a r d a g e a n d i m p r o v e m e n t c o s t s a r e s h o w n f o r e a c h s t r e e t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a n d e a c h l e t t e r - g r a d e I n t e r s e c t i o n s … 3 - y e a r p l a n ( 2 0 2 7 - 2 9 ) · Fe d e r a l F u n d s a r e s h o w n t o b e s p e n t o n L o c a l s ( a c t u a l d i s t r i b u t i o n w i l l v a r y ) · 5% i n f l a t i o n i s i n c l u d e d f o r e a c h p l a n y e a r To t a l s le s s F e d e r a l F u n d s Fu n d s N e e d e d 69 - 6 0 59 - 5 5 54 - 4 0 39 a n d B e l o w Mi c r o S u r f a c i n g w / p a t c h i n g , S l u r r y S e a l w / p a t c h i n g (P C I r a n g e : M i n = 6 0 ; C r i t i c a l = 6 3 ; M a x = 7 0 ) So m e S l u r r y S e a l So m e M i l l & O v e r l a y (g r a y - z o n e c o m b i n a t i o n ) Mil l & O v e r l a y w / p a t c h i n g (P C I r a n g e : M i n = 4 0 ; C r i t i c a l = 4 3 ; M a x = 6 0 ) Su r f a c e R e c o n s t u c t i o n w / p a t c h i n g ( P C I ra n g e : M i n = 3 0 ; C r i t i c a l = 3 3 ; M a x = 4 0 ) F u l l De p t h R e p l a c e m e n t w / s u b g r a d e p r e p a r a t i o n ( P C I ra n g e : M i n = 0 ; C r i t i c a l = 2 0 ; M a x = 4 0 ) C ( 6 9 - 5 5 ) D F CO L L E C T O R S AR T E R I A L S LO C A L S AL L E Y S $3 , 6 6 9 , 8 9 6 $7 , 7 6 0 , 2 7 0 $2 5 , 5 2 6 , 2 9 6 $7 , 1 3 5 , 9 2 4 40 % 18 % 34 % 7% ST R E E T T O T A L S 68 9 , 9 1 1 31 5 , 8 8 4 58 5 , 6 9 0 12 7 , 6 7 0 CO S T S U M M A R Y Im p r o v e m e n t F u n d s Ne e d e d Co n t i n g e n c y To t a l s Im p r o v Ye a r s Av e A n n u a l Co s t s Im p r o v e m e n t Y e a r s 1.0 5 1. 1 0 1.1 6 1. 2 2 5- Y e a r F u n d s N e e d e d $4 , 6 8 9 , 5 6 6 $0 E. Co s t B r e a k d o w n $8 , 9 5 0 , 0 0 0 $0 $8 , 9 5 0 , 0 0 0 $4 5 , 0 4 2 , 3 8 6 $0 $4 5 , 0 4 2 , 3 8 6 $4 , 6 8 9 , 5 6 6 $8 , 1 5 1 , 7 9 3 $0 $8 , 1 5 1 , 7 9 3 $2 3 , 2 5 1 , 0 2 7 $0 $2 3 , 2 5 1 , 0 2 7 Bo n d F u n d s 0% $3 6 , 0 9 2 , 3 8 6 $0 $3 6 , 0 9 2 , 3 8 6 CASC Report Page 17 F. Volunteer CASC Members Jerry Butler, Kim Colenso, Gregg Dudash, Mark Graham, Buck Haworth, Bernie Hoenle, Dean Hughson, Jeffrey Kerr, Karl Manthe, Joe Mueller, Chris Plumb, Gary Salavitch CASC Background Experience 45 years - Business Management Leadership 40 years - Transportation Planning 36 years - Design / Construction Industry 33 years - Civil Engineering 28 years - Roadway Construction 25 years - Project Consulting 20 years - Home Building Industry 15 years - Project Management 8 years - Design / Roadway Management *** A special debt of gratitude is extended to Town Hall staff for guiding us through the community’s complicated street maize, and for their patience. Without their leadership this report would not have been possible. Thank you. Grady Miller, Retired Town Manager Rachael Goodwin, Interim Town Manager Justin Weldy, Public Works Director David Janover, Town Engineer Andy Whisler, Assistant Town Engineer Jeff Pierce, Streets Superintendent Angela Espiritu, Executive Assistant TO WN O F F O UNTAIN H ILLS WWW.FOUNTAINHILLSAZ.GOV STATUS REPORT FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL CITIZEN ADVISORY ON STREETS COMMITTEE 4 th UPDATE June 20, 2023 WWW.FOUNTAINHILLSAZ.GOV •Introduction and History •Committee’s Process •What we have learned •How did we get here? A combination of factors. •Options / Recommendations Agenda CASC Findings WWW.FOUNTAINHILLSAZ.GOV Introduction •CASC is pleased to provide Council and Residents with an update of the committee’s work and to bring forth what we believe you will find informative and helpful regarding the Streets of Fountain Hills. •Citizens only, no bias except to find solution to our failing street problems •Members experience: •Civil & municipal engineering, Transportation, Roadway Construction, Public Sector, Infrastructure and Repair / Replacement, Business Management. •Met regularly, for past 20 months, in person and often in sub groups via phone and virtual •Our work is not just for Council and Staff, but for the entire community •Committee’s Assignment •Report back to the Town Council with recommendations to address streets and funding options. WWW.FOUNTAINHILLSAZ.GOV Committee’s Process •Studied and learned the history of the streets. •Analyzed previous studies and data from past street analysis & recommendations. •Physically inspected numerous street conditions and learned the composition of streets and treatments. •Analyzed previous street standards. •Analyzed previous street funding options. WWW.FOUNTAINHILLSAZ.GOV What We Learned With every bump, crack, and pothole, our streets are telling us what is needed…attention. What we didn’t know -the seriousness of the problem and how and why it’s growing. Past and present studies •2008 Stantec •2018 IMS -Infrastructure Management•2023 RAS –Roadway Asset Services WWW.FOUNTAINHILLSAZ.GOV How did we get here with our streets? A combination of factors. 1)Underfunded for years. 2)Early FH Streets…low quality. 3)Lower standards were put into place. 4)Streets deteriorate as soon as completed, and need constant maintenance. The older they are, the quicker they deteriorate. 5)Citizens have not approved several past proposals to address. 6)How funds have been spent and prioritized. 1)Attention and monies spent on arterials and collectors 1)Good news, Bad News –most arterials and collectors with higher PCI’s, skews overall FH road condition report 7)Now is the time for solution and action WWW.FOUNTAINHILLSAZ.GOV Streets of Fountain Hills PCI Classification A PCI (Pavement Condition Index)a numerical index between 0 and 100, which is used to indicate the general condition of a pavement section. Very Good > 70 PCI Fair 40 –70 PCI Poor < 40 PCI WWW.FOUNTAINHILLSAZ.GOV Town Standards PCI 2020 Town Council Established PCI Goals Arterials 60-70 Collectors 50-60 Locals 50-55 2023 Citizen Advisory Committee on Streets Recommended PCI Standard Excellent A 100 -85 Good B 84 -70 Marginal C 69 -55 Fair -D 54 -40 Poor -F 39 - WWW.FOUNTAINHILLSAZ.GOV Now is the time for a solution & action “If You Always Do What You've Always Done, You'll Always Get What You've Always Got.” Henry Ford WWW.FOUNTAINHILLSAZ.GOV Options / Recommendations •$ is only part of story, we need a plan! •Do nothing the status-quo •Streets will continue to deteriorate •Increase annual maintenance budget •Influx of funds from Fed, State, County, not sustainable or guaranteed. •Where will the required money come from and how much annually? •Cut to Town services, payroll, other capital expenditures, and maintenance •Cuts would have to be annual for many years. •A slower process that we can never catch up as streets decline •Backlog would continue to grow. •Is any backlog acceptable to those living on and using those streets? WWW.FOUNTAINHILLSAZ.GOV Committee’s Recommendation •Fix All Now •What does this mean? •Repair streets below a 70 PCI threshold •With streets at this level and above, annual town budget of $2.125M can continue. •Repairs and rebuild over 5 years beginning in 2025 •How much will this cost? WWW.FOUNTAINHILLSAZ.GOV CASC Cost Summary C (70 –55) D (55 –40) F (40 –0) Less Fed Funds Funds Needed Micro Surfacing, Slurry Seal w/patching Mill & Overlay w/patching Surface Reconstruction w/patching $11,400,000 $25,500,000 $7,100,000 ($8,000,000)$36,000,000 Intersection Improvements $9,000,000 5% Inflation (5-year Program)$5,000,000 TOTAL PROGRAM COST $50,000,000 ARTERIALS $5,000,000 COLLECTORS $9,000,000 LOCALS / ALLEYS (less Fed Funds) $26,000,000 INTERSECTIONS (w/inflation)$10,000,000 TOTAL PROGRAM COST $50,000,000 WWW.FOUNTAINHILLSAZ.GOV Options for funding •Cuts to current town budget •Sales Tax increase •Property Tax •Bond Funding WWW.FOUNTAINHILLSAZ.GOV The Reality of Streets WWW.FOUNTAINHILLSAZ.GOV Summary •The CASC concludes, the Town must adopt a Fix All Now approach. •The only realistic way to catch-up, or street conditions will worsen. •Once complete, the existing $2.125M annual street maintenance budget should suffice. •Greatly reduces total reconstruction of Pre-Incorporated Streets •Better streets means happier citizens, improved safety, and a more attractive community. TO WN O F F O UNTAIN H ILLS WWW.FOUNTAINHILLSAZ.GOV Questions/Comments?