HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012.1113.TCWSM.Minutresz:\council packets\2012\r12-6-12\121113wsm.docx age 1 of 15
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
MINUTES OF THE WORK STUDY SESSION OF THE
FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 13, 2012
* CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Mayor Kavanagh called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. in the Town Hall Council Chambers.
Present for roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Mayor Kavanagh,
Councilmember Yates, Vice Mayor Leger, Councilmember Brown Councilmember Hansen, Councilmember Dickey
and Councilmember Elkie. Town Manager Ken Buchanan, Town Attorney Andrew McGuire and Town Clerk
Bevelyn Bender were also present.
AGENDA ITEM #1 - PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION RELATED TO PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT.
Town Management Ken Buchanan addressed the Council and stated that the Pavement Management Program was
the number one priority item at the August 23, 2012 meeting. He highlighted a portion of a PowerPoint presentation
(Presentation available on line and in the office of the Town Clerk). He said that staff was directed to go back and
develop a proposal for the Council's discussion and consideration in the future. He asked the Council to give the
Pavement Management Program the same priority level as Public Safety mostly because of the 3.5 square miles of
asphalt that they have in the community -- the largest infrastructure they are responsible for in local government. He
noted that the proposal that will be discussed this evening can be funded with existi ng funds as far as pavement
maintenance and contains authorizations over the next eight fiscal years totaling about $9.7 million. He added that
staff is asking that the Vehicle License Tax (VLT) that currently is in the General Fund be moved over to a special
revenue fund to pay for the Pavement Management Program ($750,000 annually). He further stated that the proposal
requires reductions in the operational budgets for Community Services, Administration and Development Services
and requires the reclassification of one position from full time to part time and a reduction in force of five positions
starting in the July 2013-14 fiscal year (Administration (2); Community Services (1); and Development Services (2).
He explained that the positions in Development Services are HURF -- Highway User Revenue Fund/Streets
Department related). He added that the proposal also requires the reduction of some recreation funding in
Community Services, the transfer of the Economic Development Tourism Initiative funding into the Downtown
Excise Tax, and asks that the Contingency Fund be reduced from $300,000 annually to a funding level of $50,000.
Mr. Buchanan informed the Council that the Pavement Management Program is contingent upon the passage of an
$8.2 million road bond for the reconstruction of Saguaro Boulevard.
Mr. Buchan provided an overview of the Highway User Fund/Street Operations Budget and noted that from 2000 to
2011, the Town has spent approximately $9.2 million dollars on pavement maintenance. He reported that the
HURF/Street Program budget is approximately $1.3 million and noted the various program costs associated with that
(including administration, medians, 14 miles of storm drains, traffic signal operations, etc.). He noted that staff is
recommending that the Town's street sweeping operations be outsourced beginning in the 2013-14 fiscal year
(beginning next July).
Mr. Buchanan stated that the historical pavement management practices have consisted of crack sealing, surface seals
and slurry seals by maintenance zone once every seven years and funded through a combination of Highway
Revenue User Funds, General Funds and Capital Improvement Program Funds. He referred to a Stantec Engineering
report that was done in 2009 and noted that the work calls for a $2.8 million program and will be required to provide
an annual asphalt replacement mill and overlay process to 20% of each pavement zone as well as continued slurry
seal treatments to the remaining streets. He noted that the maintenance program for that is $1.2 million (that is the
figure the report called for). He also discussed the overall assessment rating of the pavement and advised that in
2009 that Pavement Quality Index was 67.1 out of a 100 rating scale that placed the pavement in the "good to
excellent range." He emphasized that it is important to maintain it and keep it at that level.
Mr. Buchanan reiterated that from fiscal years 2000 to 2011 the Town expended approximately $9 million on
pavement maintenance and said that needs to be "cranked back up" since 2011, which was the last project the Town
z:\council packets\2012\r12-6-12\121113wsm.docx age 2 of 15
did in Zone 5. He reviewed the various pavement maintenance processes, which includes crack sealing, tire modified
slurry sealing, the slurry sealing process (Type II), micro-surface sealing, cape sealing (combination of slurry and
chip seal processes), and commented on the various pavement maintenance zones (Zones 1-7). He provided a brief
overview of the Town's Roadway Statistics, including:
* 178 miles (390 lane miles)
* 3.5 million square yards of pavement service
* 7 Pavement Maintenance Zones
Mr. Buchanan informed the Council that staff has conducted an assessment of Pavement Management Zones 1
through 7 and identified various areas where certain portions of the asphalt and subgrade are failing. He said that
these areas are beyond pavement maintenance operations and need to be removed and replaced before any surface
treatments such as slurry seal can be effectively applied. He reported that the cost of the asphalt replacements for a ll
seven zones total $782,000.
Mr. Buchanan briefly reviewed the proposed eight-year zone rotation approach/costs and said that staff is
recommending that the work begin in April of 2013. He discussed the following:
Zone 6 383,811 square yards of crack seal and slurry seal and asphalt replacement at a cost of $867,000
Zone 7 665,910 square yards - Arterial Streets. Combination of crack seal, TRMSS, slurry seal, cape seal and
micro-surface. A $2 million project and staff is recommending tha t it start in July of next year. This
will be a two-year project.
Zone 1 712,026 square yards (First phase). Crack seal and slurry seal as well as asphalt failure patch
replacement. To be done in the 2014/15 and 2015-16 fiscal years with $1 million being spent each
fiscal year.
Zone 2 818,335 square yards of crack seal and slurry seal and 10,920 square yards of asphalt failure
replacement at a cost of $1 million. To be done in the 2016/17 fiscal year.
In fiscal year 2017/18, staff's proposal is to finish Zone 2 and start Zone 3; 289,044 square yards of crack seal and
slurry seal and 4,770 square yards of asphalt failure replacement. TRMSS new sections of Shea Boulevard. Total
cost $1 million.
In fiscal year 2018/19, staff's proposal is to finish Zone 3 and start Zone 4; 483,429 square yards of crack seal and
slurry seal and 613 square yards of asphalt failure replacement; TRMSS Saguaro Boulevard; Total cost $1 million.
Zone 4 483,429 square yards of crack seal and slurry seal. Work to begin in the 2019/20 fiscal year; Total cost
$1 million.
In Fiscal year 2020/21 staff's proposal is to finish Zone 4 and start Zone 5; 307,301 square yards of crack seal and
slurry seal and 339 square yards of asphalt failure replacement; Total cost $1 million.
Mr. Buchanan discussed the funding approach and staff's recommendations and stated that this year's funding would
be provided by the following:
* Contingency transfer from General Fund to HURF ($300,000)
* Economic Development General Fund budget savings ($80,000)
* Information Technology Online Storage Project - General Fund ($8,000)
* Highway User Revenue Fund ($100,000)
* Household Hazardous Waste Event - General Fund ($45,000)
* CIP project - Saguaro/Palisades signal deferral to 2014/15 ($256,000)
z:\council packets\2012\r12-6-12\121113wsm.docx age 3 of 15
* CIP Intelligent Transportation System Project Elimination ($53,000)
* CIP contingency ($25,000)
He noted that the above totals $867,000, which is the amount needed to do the proposed w ork for the current fiscal
year in Zone 6.
Mr. Buchanan also discussed the funding approach for the 2013/14 fiscal year, which included:
* The Pavement Management Program recommended is funded with existing funds.
* Requires the Vehicle License Tax (VLT) to become a special revenue for Pavement Management.
* Requires the reduction in force of five positions starting in the 2013/14 fiscal year.
* Requires General Fund Operations budget reductions of $750,000 (VLT)
* Results in a Planned Pavement Management Program expenditure in next nine fiscal years (2013 -2021) totaling
$9,700,000.
* The Pavement Management Program fiscal years 2014/15 thru 2020/21 is contingent upon the successful
passage of an $8.2 million road bond for the reconstruction of Saguaro Boulevard.
Mr. Buchanan further stated that in order to get the $750,000, they are looking at taking $585,000 out of
Administration/Court departments, $60,000 out of the Community Services Department and $105,000 in
Development Services' budget cuts for a total transfer to HURF pavement management in the amount of $750,000.
He highlighted the various proposed reductions in the three areas. Mr. Buchanan informed the Council that as far as
the effect of the proposed reductions (HURF), the following would occur:
* Outsource street sweeping program (one full-time position) $50,000
* Eliminate vacant street maintenance position $50,000
* Reduce HURF operations budget (programs) $75,000
* Current Pavement Management funding in HURF $50,000
* Drawdown of HURF reserves (maximum six years) $25,000 for a total of $250,000 in HURF reductions.
Mr. Buchanan said that they would add to that the dedicated VLT from the General fund to the Pavement
Management Program for a total of $750,000 and that would give them the $1 million for the total annual pavement
management costs.
Councilmember Dickey asked if staff is calling their pavement road development services HURF now (our
program)? She said it looks like they are calling their program HURF by looking at this.
Mr. Buchanan replied that they call it HURF because it is Highway User Revenue Funds but it is really the Streets
Department and that is how it is funded.
Councilmember Dickey stated that it is a little bit confusing because to her HURF just means the money from the
State that comes in and staff is actually referring to their own department as HURF.
Mr. Buchanan explained that they are using the revenue source for the Streets Department and reconfiguring some of
those expenditures to make room for that $250,000 out of HURF that funds that -- Pavement Management is going to
be part of Streets.
Councilmember Dickey said that there is reduced HURF operations funding and then current pavement management
funding in HURF (drawing down on HURF reserves). She added that she is used to looking at HURF as what is
coming in. She asked if they are calling their Streets Department HURF now and Mr. Buchanan responded no, they
are just calling it the revenue source that it is for the Streets Department. He apologized for the confusion. He added
that the report should not say the HURF Department, it should say the Streets Department - HURF funding.
z:\council packets\2012\r12-6-12\121113wsm.docx age 4 of 15
Mr. Buchanan advised that staff's recommendations are as follows:
* Authorize the transfer of funds in the current 2012/13 budget and CIP to fund the $867,000 for the Pavement
Maintenance.
* Authorize staff to proceed in the 2013/14 budget to begin funding the Pavement Management Program with the
dedicated revenue source of the VLT
* Authorize staff to take the necessary steps to eliminate/reduce/transfer funds in Administration, Community
Services and Development Services (HURF) beginning in the 2013/14 fiscal year (July) to adequately fund a
Pavement Management Program with at least a $1 million annual appropriation.
Mayor Kavanagh thanked Mr. Buchanan, Development Services Director Paul Mood and Deputy Town
Manager/Finance Director Julie Ghetti for putting the proposal together. She noted that a lot of work has gone into
preparing the proposal and said that it is a very comprehensive program.
Councilmember Yates also thanked staff for their hard work and stated that as soon as Mr. Buchanan assumed his
position he began working on this issue. He said that since they are outsourcing the street sweeping is there any
value in the street sweepers that the Town owns. He asked whether they could sell them to anyone.
Mr. Buchanan stated that they have strings attached to it because it is funded through the Maricopa Association of
Governments (MAG) -- they gave it to the Town so the manner in which it is disposed of has a process associated
with it and he is not familiar with the process. He asked Mr. Mood if he had anything he could add.
Mr. Mood addressed the Council and stated that that street sweepers are through a grant and it is either 80/20 or
90/10 -- it was confirmed that it is 80/20 -- and he said that if the Town sold the street sweepers and they had a value
of approximately $20,000 for example, the Town would have to return 80% of that amount.
Councilmember Yates commented that that would be more beneficial than trying to maintain them even if they don't
use them anymore and Mr. Mood concurred and noted that replacement of a street sweeper is approximately
$175,000 each if there was a grant so that would be on top of the $50,000 savin gs. He added that they would be
looking at spending another $175,000 two years from now and again three years from now to buy new street
sweepers if they didn't get a grant.
Councilmember Yates asked if there would be saving on some vehicle expense if they reduced the staff (could the
existing vehicles be sold as well?) He said that he knows they have internal triggers and are automatically buying
new vehicles every five to eight years so they might be able to stretch out some of the longevity of the veh icles and
save money on the purchasing. He added that once they reduce perhaps they could potentially save on insurance as
well.
Mr. Mood advised that currently the Town has one person who is a full-time street sweeper and that person does not
have a dedicated truck, the vehicle is the street sweeper, and they have another person who can operate a street
sweeper if needed. He added that as far as vehicle replacement, they do have quite a few vehicles that are over the
ten years or over 100,000 mile replacement policy. He confirmed that with the elimination of the street sweeping
they will eliminate one position.
Councilmember Dickey apologized to Mr. Buchanan and stated that she is not getting "the HURF thing." She
referred to page 40 (Pavement Management Program Funding Alternative) "Effect of proposed reductions - HURF
Department" and said that is the Town's Streets Department. She added that it says "Total HURF Reductions
$250,000" but noted that the Town only gets $100,000 in HURF funds.
Mr. Buchanan responded no, and said that he will let Mr. Mood elaborate on that.
Councilmember Dickey further stated that at the end (under Staff Recommendations) it says, "Authorize staff to take
the necessary steps to eliminate/reduce/transfer funds in Administration, Community Services and Development
Services (HURF)" so it looks like staff is calling Development Services HURF and that is what is confusing her
because they are only getting $100,000 so how could they be getting $250,000 in reductions.
z:\council packets\2012\r12-6-12\121113wsm.docx age 5 of 15
Mr. Mood stated that Development Services, which is Facilities, Engineering and Planning, comes out of the General
Fund. He noted that as far as the Streets Department, which the Town Manager had a slide on previously, just their
general day-to-day operations is about $1.3 million a year and that is what they get from the Highway User Revenue
Fund (HURF). He said that in this presentation HURF and Streets are kind of synonymous except for what is up on
the screen right now (referring to the slide) and stated that that could say Development Services/Streets Department.
Mr. Buchanan added that the $100,000 is re-programmed money for this fiscal year and Mr. Mood concurred.
Mr. Mood stated that the Town carries $100,000 in the Streets Department budget for what they call street
maintenance but that includes the fact that they do about $20,000 in restriping pavement markings a year, curb
repairs, sidewalk and pothole repairs (that comes out of that money). He explained that this fiscal year the plan is to
take $50,000 out of the $100,000 and move it over to do Zone 6 and added that they also have some areas where they
had $10,000 for a bond post-mortem, which would be covered under the Citizens' Surveys so they can move that
over and they had about an $11,000 contingency that they can take and move to Zone 6. He noted that they are doing
some internal shifting.
Councilmember Dickey referred to the Hazardous Waste Recycling event and said that it appears that staff is using
the $45,000 for fiscal years 2013/14 and beyond. She stated that she can see that they can use it this year because it
was in the budget and they are not going to do the event they are going to put the money towards the roads but it
appears that it is also being counted in the future.
Mr. Buchanan explained that it is and because it is a priority staff is taking that money and moving it over into
Pavement Management. He noted that if monies are available for the other programs like Hazardous Waste, during
budget time they can talk about it at that point in time. He emphasized that he wants to make sure that they have the
$1 million in place before they start with all the other programs during budget time.
Councilmember Dickey commented that if they look at the part where they talk about 2013/14 anymore (Page 39) it
appears that they are adding it into the $105,000 that goes into the future and asked why it would be budgeted into
the future. She said that it was budgeted for this year but they don't do that every year so how are they able to get
savings from that same $45,000 every year.
Mr. Buchanan replied that it's not and asked Ms. Ghetti to explain this further.
Deputy Town Manager/Finance Director Julie Ghetti addressed the Council and advised that when staff started this
project they took a look at the current year's budget and then when they project forward, they take the current year's
budget and just project forward assuming the exact same budget but realizing that each year it may not be exactly the
same. She added that when staff looks at savings they look at what are the savings this year that will carry forward to
their assumptions that they made for the next few years. She said that next year's assumption was based on this year
exactly the way it was so if they took $45,000 out for this year they are taking it out for next year, the year after that
and the year after that. She asked if she had explained that clearly and reiterated that even though they may not do it
next year, staff uses this as the base.
Councilmember Dickey said that then the $45,000 is not something they would do every year. She stated that she
was trying to figure out what really is going to give because they are not doing it and they haven't been doing it so
where is the $45,000 really going to come from?
Ms. Ghetti reiterated that they used this year as a base so it was a $12 million budget and staff said okay, next year's
budget is $12 million, exactly the same with everything in it. She added that that is not the way it works every year
but for projections moving forward they don't get down to the level of taking things out. She noted that if they take
the $45,000 out of the $12 million that is $45,000 next year out of the budget and the year after and the year after.
In response to a comment from Counci lmember Dickey, Ms. Ghetti advised that moving forward staff is taking that
money out this year which means it is not going to be in next year -- there is no room to put it in next year unless
something else goes out. She added that if they want to change the structure next year during the budget process and
have the Household Hazardous Waste event then they would have to find $45,000 somewhere else and take it out for
that purpose.
z:\council packets\2012\r12-6-12\121113wsm.docx age 6 of 15
Councilmember Elkie said that Mr. Buchanan earlier made a comment about p lacing the Pavement Management
Program on a par with Public Safety and asked him to elaborate on that and what the implications are from a budget
standpoint.
Mr. Buchanan replied that when he looks at the budget every year he wants to be able, right off the top, to say "Here
is what our Public Safety funding is for the year and here is our Pavement Management Program for the year" and
then with all the available funding that they have left they will start talking about all the other programs.
Councilmember Elkie asked if by putting it on a par with Public Safety whether it would receive some type of
priority at that point and Mr. Buchanan advised that if the Council desires it to be up there with Public Safety it's
funded and stays with the number that is needed at that level. He added that then whatever money is available will be
programmed for the remainder of the programs.
Councilmember Elkie stated that he is very much in favor of figuring out and solving the pavement management
issue and having dedicated funding so they will know how much money will be allocated to this worthwhile project
every year. He said that hopefully future Councils will continue with that same program. He stated the opinion that
it is very much worth looking into placing it on a par with Public Safety and noted that it is not the single most
important aspect of the Town and what they do but it is certainly in the top three. He added that as far as using the
VLT year in and year out, he thinks it makes sense for those funds to go directly into some type of a fund for funding
pavement management. He said that getting down into the details as far as the cuts that they are talking about
making he is sure they will have to hone in on that a little bit more and talk about things like Ballet Arizona and the
Homecoming Parade, how those things are going to be paid for and what they are going to do. He stated that he
hopes that they are able to come up with something where they do have a dedicated fund for pavement management -
- something that is resolved. He noted that they hopefully have resolved the signage issue recently and he would love
for this Council to be able to resolve the Pavement Mana gement Program going forward and have this dedicated
fund. He asked what the amount is each year that the Streets Department is getting to maintain the roads and
pavement management.
Mr. Mood responded that the money the Town gets from HURF fluctuates every year and it has been going down.
He pointed out that the formula is tied to the Town's population. He advised that the day -to-day operations of the
Town -- landscaping maintenance of the medians, traffic signals, street sweeping, street replacement and stop signs,
etc. is in the $1.2 to $1.3 million range and it basically uses up all of the funding. He added that they do have
$100,000 in there that they use for restriping, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, etc. and they basically do not have any money
to do streets and maintenance out of those funds.
Councilmember Elkie commented that basically at present they have about 10% of what is needed to do what they
are discussing and Mr. Mood replied "at best."
Councilmember Elkie asked if this takes into account other work that needs to be done as far as the roads (asphalt
replacement) and Mr. Mood advised that it does not. He confirmed that they are still short of the $2 million a year to
do the asphalt replacement.
Mr. Mood agreed that while the proposal will not solve the entire problem it will help maintain the roads and added
that in the future they are going to have to talk about fixing Saguaro Boulevard and other roads and he will cover that
in the next presentation.
Mayor Kavanagh said that to clarify, these are just reductions in the recreational programs, not eliminations, and Mr.
Mood agreed.
Councilmember Yates commented that this type of program does extend the life of the roads to the tune of 20% to
30% and Mr. Buchanan stated that the thing he is concerned about is that the Stantec report talked about the age of
the asphalt and for that reason they have accelerated the degradation of the asphalt and so the faster they maintain it
the less degradation they are going to have.
Councilmember Yates stated that he is trying to show that along with what Councilmember Elkie was saying
spending this money now saves the Town big time because it extends the life. He asked if staff could quantify that.
z:\council packets\2012\r12-6-12\121113wsm.docx age 7 of 15
Mr. Mood advised that he can't quantify it but the curve for pavement drops off and as maintenance is done it extends
it out and out. He reported that typically in a perfect world they would be replacing asphalt after 25 to 30 years and
with proper maintenance that can be extended out somewhat. He po inted out that they can only add so many layers
of slurry seal onto a road so even after the next ten years there are roads that will have three or four layers of slurry
seal on top of them already so those will probably need to be milled down and, assumin g the base is still good, new
asphalt will be put down. He emphasized that this will definitely extend the life of the roads but it doesn't give them
that one big replacement chunk up front.
Councilmember Yates asked how long it will extend the life of the roads and Mr. Mood estimated by 20%.
Mayor Kavanagh stated that that also depends on the road condition and age and Mr. Mood concurred. The Mayor
said as soon as they put down a new road they have to start taking care of it and so now the Town needs t o play a
little catch up.
Mr. Mood advised that they do have some money in certain years to go and do the TRMSS on Saguaro assuming that
it gets reconstructed. He said that they want to do that a couple of years after it goes down. He added that as far as
the new stuff on Shea, they want to cover that as well.
Councilmember Dickey questioned why it would be contingent on the bond passing -- would they not even want to
have the pavement program in place even if the bond issue doesn't pass.
Mr. Mood replied that if they move forward with this this year this would do Zone 6, next year they would do Zone 7
and assuming the bond doesn't pass, they are probably going to have to spend at least $2 million to do Saguaro and
that is not the proper fix. He said they would basically mill and overlay it and then put a slurry seal over the top of it
but they will not be fixing the subgrade.
Councilmember Dickey commented then that makes what was supposed to happen not happen and Mr. Mood
concurred.
Councilmember Hansen said that she wanted to reiterate what the Mayor said earlier about the amount of staff work
that went into this and when they take into account all the years they have talked about the necessity of doing this
staff finally has found a way to make it happen. She added that this is a way of helping to reduce the proposed bond
issue significantly by taking maintenance out of that bond. She congratulated staff on their good work.
Councilmember Dickey advised that what they are looking for tonight since this is a Work Study Session is the idea
of initiating or having a program like this where the VLT will go immediately towards pavement management. She
noted that the way it gets made up for in the General Fund she thinks is that as years go on that is s omething that is
flexible so if they agree VLT, $750,000, whatever, is going to go towards this but some of the items themselves
would be a process of every budget year that they go through because there are obviously things here that maybe they
could reduce or change in the future and even if there is more revenue then maybe or maybe not. She added that she
sees this as an exercise to show that it can happen and a commitment for the VLT but not necessarily a honing down
on every single one of these items (there may be more discussion when they actually do budgets).
Mr. Buchanan advised that he has no authority in his capacity to move any of this around in the budget -- items will
need to come back in resolution form to the Council in detail for their cons ideration. He said that should the Council
decide that they want to move forward with this, he the Town Attorney and staff will put together some resolutions
that would put this into effect.
Mayor Kavanagh advised that if they do get fortunate in future years and the revenue increases then they can look at
what has been eliminated and pick what it is they want to put back (if it was the Hazardous Waste event they would
choose that first and then decide that way). She stated that as it stands now they ca n see that they are pretty bare
bones as far as the budget goes and Mr. Buchanan, Ms. Ghetti and Mr. Mood scraped every dime they could to get to
this $1.3 million figure. She reiterated that they have done a great job.
Councilmember Dickey commented that the reason she brings this up is because when they did the Sign Ordinance
change there was much discussion on enforcement and that some of the suggestions that were made suggested that
z:\council packets\2012\r12-6-12\121113wsm.docx age 8 of 15
they might actually need help in doing that. She said maybe they won't and she hopes not but in other words there
are some items that may be discussed again.
Mayor Kavanagh stated that the Council can't vote on this but it appears everyone is happy with what has been
presented and Mr. Buchanan said that there is a general consensus and staff will start working on the resolutions. He
added that staff will bring these forward under business items for the Council's consideration.
AGENDA ITEM #2 - PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION RELATED TO THE RECONSTRUCTION OF
SAGUARO BOULEVARD.
Town Manager Ken Buchan advised that Development Services Director Paul Mood will provide a presentation on
an $8.2 million proposal for the construction of Saguaro Boulevard.
Mr. Mood addressed the Council and highlighted a PowerPoint presentation relative to this agenda item (Presentation
available on line and in the office of the Town Clerk).
Mr. Mood informed the Council that in November of 2011 the Town's voters rejected a $29.6 million bond proposal
which provided for a comprehensive plan to remove and replace 20% of the aging asphalt in one of seven pavement
management zones annually for a ten-year period as well as improvements to Saguaro Boulevard. He noted that
subsequently staff was asked to bring forward a proposal for improvements to Saguaro Boulevard only. He listed the
items that are included for the reconstruction of Saguaro Boulevard, which included:
* Engineering and design and construction oversight
* Asphalt mill and overlay reconstruction
* Drainage improvements (Palisades Boulevard & Desert Canyon Golf Course areas)
* Valve & manhole adjustments
* ADA ramp modifications as required
* Curb repair & replacement as required
* Striping and pavement markings
* Avenue of the Fountains intersection allowance for a modified 3-way stop, traffic signal or roundabout
* Sidewalk improvements at key pedestrian locations
* Crosswalk improvements at key pedestrian locations
Mr. Mood reiterated that the bond issue was not approved by the voters (56% against and 44% for). He noted that
prior to and after the bond election staff met with various groups and made presentations on what was included in the
proposed bond and answered any questions that were posed. He added that after the bond was voted down staff
solicited feedback from these groups through an informal questionnaire and of the 103 responses; the main issues
related to the bond being voted down were as follows:
* Lack of support by local organizations
* Ballot language was too broad
* Avenue of the Fountain intersection improvements were not specifically defined
* Proposed $29.6 million bond was too large
Mr. Mood informed the Council that the majority of the respondents said that they would be willing to support a
bond in the $10 to $15 million range and for specific projects. He noted that the overwhelming theme from the
comments received as to why the bond was voted down were that the $29.6 million bond proposal was too large,
projects were not specifically defined and the Saguaro Boulevard improvements included "extras" such as sidewalks
and the potential for a roundabout at the Avenue of the Fountains. Mr. Mood advised that in June of 2012, the Town
contracted with RAMM Geotechnical Engineering to take core samples in order to determine the actual pavement
thickness and subgrade profile of Saguaro Boulevard from Shea Boulevard to Fountain Hills Boulevard. He reported
that the results showed that the pavement thickness and subgrade profile varied greatly. He said that the asphalt
z:\council packets\2012\r12-6-12\121113wsm.docx age 9 of 15
thickness on Saguaro Boulevard was typically between 1" and 2" thick over a 2" to 3" subgrade, which is far less
than normal standards of 4" of asphalt on 6" of subgrade.
Mr. Mood stated that due to the condition of Saguaro Boulevard, the RAMM report recommended full reconstruction
for the entire length, which consists of removing the top 10" of existing asphalt and subgrade, scarifying and
compacting the exposed subgrade and placing a new pavement section of 4" of asphalt on 6" of base course. He said
that based on the information and recommendations provided by the RAMM report and input from the various
groups staff talked with staff was instructed to come back with a proposal to reconstruct Saguaro Boulevard -- just
taking care of the necessities. He noted that the current proposal includes the following:
* Engineering design and construction oversight
* Asphalt reconstruction (full depth)
* Drainage improvements (Palisades Boulevard and Desert Canyon Golf Course areas)
* Valve and manhole adjustments
* ADA ramp modifications as required
* Curb repair and replacement as necessary
* Striping and pavement markings
* Avenue of the Fountains intersection 3-way stop modifications
* Traffic signal replacement at Palisades Boulevard (CIP Fund)
Mr. Mood added that coordination issues that they need to take into consideration include:
* Ashbrook Wash drainage improvements (2015)
* State Trust Land sanitary sewer (timing unknown)
* Fountain Hills Sanitary District
* Chaparral City Water
* SRP, SW Gas, Cox, Century Link, etc.
Mr. Mood provided additional details on the above listed considerations and informed the Council that the estimated
cost of design and construction is $8.6 million with $400,000 for the traffic signal coming out of the CIP Fund. He
said that they are including in the estimate right now the full depth replacement and added that once they get into the
design phase and do more testing some of the existing subgrade could be milled up and used as subgrade again and
that would represent a fairly substantial cost savings.
Mr. Mood referred to a map that showed the length of the project and the location of the drainage improvements. He
also advised that the intersection at Saguaro Boulevard and Avenue of the Fountains will be modified to provide
increased pedestrian safety. He said that reconstruction of the existing water feature is anticipated to be included in
the project. He stated that the improvements will not affect existing traffic flow; however, a more permanent
solution will be required as traffic volumes increase.
Mr. Mood referred to photographs that showed Saguaro Boulevard near the Desert Canyon Golf Course and said that
the inlets to various drainage structures on the west side of the street are undersized and do not allow for proper
drainage. He said that the Saguaro Boulevard reconstruction estimate includes design and construction of properly
sized drainage structures in this area to prevent standing water, which is not only a hazard to motorists but accelerates
deterioration of the asphalt and subgrade. He also showed photographs that depicted southbound Saguaro Boulevard
from Palisades Boulevard to Parkview Avenue after a rainstorm in October of 2010. He advised that due to the lack
of storm drains in this area, the water drains to a catch basin south of Parkview Avenue, which then flows into
Fountain Park. He pointed out that the Saguaro Boulevard reconstruction estimate includes design and construction
of proper drainage structures and storm drains in this area to prevent standing water.
Mr. Mood referred to a chart that showed the projected tax rate impact on residential properties as a result of an $8.2
million bond (on properties with full cash value of $100,000, $350,000, $500,000 and $1 million), discussed the
z:\council packets\2012\r12-6-12\121113wsm.docx age 10 of 15
different years for repayment (5 years, 7 years and 10 years) and advised that staff would recommend a bond with a
7-year repayment. He said that the average house with a value of $350,000 would cost an estimated $144 dollars a
year. He explained that staff chose the 7 years because typically the maintenance they are going to be doing is going
to have about a 7 or 8-year life span and when they get done with Saguaro they are going to start looking at
Palisades, Fountain Hills Boulevard, the parts out on Shea that haven't been done and 7 years after that they will have
to start looking at the collector roads and on and on. He also commented on the proposed timetable for a bond
election, which includes calling the election in February of 2013 and conducting voter outreach from February up
until the November 2013 election. Mr. Mood indicated his willingness to respond to any questions from the Council.
Mayor Kavanagh stated that as she has been going around to the different organizations inevitably the road bond will
come up and under $10 million seems to be what was talked about by the groups as being acceptable to them. She
added that now that staff has gotten the figure down even lower than that she sees this as being very positive,
especially paying it off in 7 years. She noted that keeping it just with Saguaro is what they are hearing from the
people (not doing a lot of extras). She further stated that she is also glad that they are addressing the Avenue of the
Fountains and Saguaro, doing some safety changes there but also doing the work at the least possible cost. She stated
that she thinks the improvements to that intersection look very good.
Councilmember Elkie said that assuming they do get an $8.2 million bond approved he would like to know what
would they be paying back including the interest.
Mr. Mood responded that the estimated interest is 5.25%.
Deputy Town Manager/Finance Director Julie Ghetti advised that she doesn't remember what the exact amount is but
estimated it to be about $12 to $13 million.
Councilmember Elkie referred to Mr. Mood's comment about if the bond does pass the 7 year repayment would be
the preferred recommendation and then they can look at bonding again. He said as he understands it the Town has
not done this in the past for roads and asked whether this is correct.
Mr. Mood replied that he believes there was a bond back in the 1990's (before his time) to do some dirt roads.
(Members of the Council indicated it was back in 1991, the original bond to pave the roads).
Councilmember Elkie commented that because of the condition of Saguaro Boulevard right now he believes this
work is needed. He added, however, that he does have some concerns about setting into motion a program for the
Town to bond every 7 years to take care of the roads. He indicated that he would prefer something that they would
pay for as they go and stated that he knows they will need about $2 million more for the asphalt replacement
program. He added that his concerns center around bonding for $8.2 million with a cost of approximately $4 million
and then doing that every 7 years or so. He reiterated that he believes that the work needs to be done right now but
he has concerns about a program that goes into place. He added that he is sure that the f uture Councils and voters
will decide what will happen with that. He thanked staff for their hard work.
Councilmember Brown stated that staff did a great presentation and expressed appreciation for their efforts. He
noted that the only item that he would like to look at a little more closely is the 3-way stop at Saguaro Boulevard and
Avenue of the Fountains. He advised that instead of doing a temporary fix on it he would like to go ahead and
examine this issue and see what it would cost to do a roundabout or tie it all together.
Mr. Mood said that staff did hire an engineering firm last year to look at that and they analyzed the 3 -way stop, a
traffic signal and a roundabout and the one caveat was when they were doing this they were following the Downtown
Vision Plan, which narrows the road down to one lane with on-street parking so all of their calculations assumed one
lane and on-street parking. He added that their cost estimates include money to do that as well. He noted that the
Downtown Vision Plan actually calls for a traffic signal, low level pedestrian lighting, on -street parking and larger
sidewalks so they are working with that. He advised that he would have to have an engineering firm work on
revising those.
Mayor Kavanagh stated that she believes the reason they also weren't considering this is because of the survey that
was done and how that was one thing that caused people not to vote on the bond issue -- even if they liked the bond
they didn't like the roundabout -- so they voted no because of that. She added that the idea here was to keep it as
z:\council packets\2012\r12-6-12\121113wsm.docx age 11 of 15
simple as possible and not to put in any extras. She further stated that the vote was pretty close with 56% voting
against it and some didn't like the extra traffic signals that were included and there were a lot of extras. She noted
that they ended up with a small group that didn't like one thing here so they voted against it and then another group
didn't like something else so they voted against it. She reiterated that the whole idea is to keep it as simple as
possible and say they are just going to do Saguaro and at the least cost possible in order to get the road fixed and in
much needed improved condition. She said it would be nice to be able to do other things but this is the most
economical fix they can do.
Councilmember Dickey commented that as far as hiring an engineering firm, as the Council knows they have
received some offers from people with experience in this area to help them look at a roundabout. She said that a
roundabout wouldn't necessarily be an extra because of all the work that they are already doing in the intersection.
She added that improving pedestrian safety would not be the stop gap method that this would be so it's not an extra --
it is actually being more prudent with their spending money on something they wouldn't have to undo later. She
noted that it would require education of course but they have people who are willing to educate them without any
associated costs. She stated that she looked at the survey and everything and the one question indicated that people
had problems because it wasn't specific what they were doing with the intersection because it had three choices so
she thinks some of those people said no because of that. She added that they might not have liked the idea of a traffic
light but if they look at the 57 comments only two of them said they didn't like the idea of a roundabout. She added
that she doesn't think it helps them to not want more information so she would like to have more informatio n and
they have had offers from many people, including professionals, to help them look at this in a way that at least they
would know that they were intelligently making a decision. She point out that the money part of a roundabout would
be a lot if they weren't doing all of this already so she doesn't think they would hurt themselves to get more
information particularly from the professionals who have offered to provide it. She advised that she first started
looking into this when they were discussing doing it by the Post Office and at that time quite a few people were
actually in favor of that. She said that she would hope that they would not eliminate this because it is something that
they can look at intelligently and then make a decision when they know the money and all of those things.
Councilmember Dickey also discussed the light at Palisades Boulevard and stated that they were talking $256,000 if
they were doing it this year and asked if the reason why it becomes $400,000 in the potential bond has to do with the
timing of it or is it just some other contingencies that are built in just for that little bit of a different of $140,000.
Mr. Mood responded that they have always carried $400,000 in the capital projects. He added that they are not usi ng
it this year so they can use $256,000 of CIP money and they still need approximately $400,000 for the traffic signal.
He said they are not taking it away from the traffic signal.
Councilmember Dickey stated that they could not use $400,000 to go towards the pavement management and Mr.
Mood answered that they could but the money would have to be taken away from some other project.
Councilmember Dickey said that they are taking out $256,000 this year to do pavement management and asked why
that is not $400,000.
Mr. Mood replied that it could be -- they would have to find another $140,000 somewhere else.
Mr. Buchanan explained that they have future funding in the CIP that the money is going towards so staff only took
$256,000 of the $400,000 this year that was programmed for it but they still have to have the $400,000 that is for the
whole project that they reprogrammed as mentioned earlier (that has to be reprogrammed in the CIP). He added that
they would still have to take the money away from some other project so staff is revamping for the Council's
consideration the CIP itself and what money they have available.
Councilmember Dickey asked if the $256,000 was taken out for the light and Mr. Buchanan said yes, it was
programmed for this fiscal year to be put in (the $256,000 was taken out of the $400,000). He noted that they still
have that balance and have to go back and reprogram the CIP.
Councilmember Hansen said that she thinks Councilmember Dickey is questioning why a light costs $256,000 here
and $400,000 over there and Mr. Mood advised that the original budget in this year assuming the bond had passed
was $400,000 for a traffic signal. He added that since it didn't pass $256,000 of the $400,000 was reprogrammed to
do pavement management this year and they still have to do $400,000 in two years for traffic signals to do the light.
z:\council packets\2012\r12-6-12\121113wsm.docx age 12 of 15
Councilmember Hansen advised that she agrees with Councilmember Brown relative to the intersection at the
Avenue and Saguaro. She added that one thing that they are not really addressing is the connectivity between the
Avenue and park and that was one of the top priorities of the Swaback plan -- getting people between those two
areas. She said that she would hope that they could have more discussion on what they are doing there and added
that obviously narrowing Saguaro in the Downtown area is the easiest way to slow down the traffic and get people
across the street. She further stated that before they launch and say "this is the plan" she would like them to look
again at what else could they do -- could they add the on-street parking back in and consider how to just slow it down
--maybe only in that two-block area from Parkview to Paul Nordon rather than Palisades to El Lago. She said they
should just have that dialogue because if they go forward with this they are still going to have the four -lane freeway
through the Downtown where people just whip up and down and don't pause to enjoy the park or the Avenue.
Vice Mayor Leger asked if they were to carve out the reconfiguration at the Avenue and Saguaro whether they have a
cost on that and Mr. Mood responded that right now it would be the cost of the median work, some media ns, the cost
of redoing the asphalt and the costs associated with that fountain.
Vice Mayor Leger said that if he recalls from the previous study that was referred to earlier, and this might dovetail
into what Councilmember Hansen is talking about, he thinks there were some costs for those three options. He added
that there was a cost for reconfiguration, which is pretty much what they are looking at here, there was a cost for a
roundabout and a cost for a traffic signal. He stated that his thought process is that they had about $400,000 in that
report, which he thinks is a little high, for the solution that is before them. He added that if you look at what the cost
for a roundabout was (close to around $800,000 in the report) and you carve this out that is a delta of about $300,000.
He expressed the opinion that they need to look at it in that context and whether they go with a reconfiguration or a
roundabout, and he also thinks they need more information on that. He said that he would propose that they carve
out that piece of the project from the road bond and actually reduce the road bond by that cost. He added let's say the
reconfiguration for the intersection as proposed is $200,000 -- they had $800,000 set aside for the median project that
he doesn't see being used any place else and they also have $2 million in the Downtown fund. He stated that he has
heard the concern about doing that work having an adverse effect on the bond and he has stated this on several
occasions -- if they want to have a good solution there they may want to carve it out of the bond and for the sake of
discussion if carving that out as is costs $200,000 then carve it out of the bond and they will have just reduced the
bond to $8 million and given where the median project is at, $1.3 million -- and they are looking at $2 million, they
could basically reconfigure that with the Downtown funds. He noted that they have had a Councilmember on this
dais on a number of occasions talk about using that Downtown fund to do some road work and he agrees -- and that
could be a section that could be targeted for the Downtown fund. He reiterated that if they could carve that out they
could reduce the overall bond and probably come up with a better solution particularly if they keep the median fund
at $1.3.
Councilmember Elkie advised that he concurs that they need to address whatever connectivity is going to be there
and with the discussions they have been having on the median itself, it makes sense to have this conversation. He
noted that Vice Mayor Leger previously talked about using some CIP funds for improvements to the median and then
they changed the conversation and talked about using the Downtown Development funds to do the improvements on
the median. He stated that he has concerns himself not about repairing Saguaro but this becoming about what the
intersection at the Avenue of the Fountains and Saguaro is going to look like and it becoming a much bigger issue
because of that as opposed to the issue of repairing Saguaro and he d oesn't want their residents to lose sight of that.
He added that perhaps the discussion as far as the bond is concerned should be Saguaro only and then they have a
separate simultaneous discussion about using other perhaps CIP funds or if there are monies in the Downtown
Development funds to do something with the Avenue and Saguaro intersection with those monies so that what is
going on with the bond is not tied to what that intersection is going to look like. He said that this is for Saguaro and
they are going to have a discussion about funding simultaneously about what is going to happen at the Avenue and
Saguaro. He added that he knows there were only two out of the surveys but people are very passionate about things
and he would hate for the bond to become an issue about that intersection.
Councilmember Yates stated that to chime in with what Councilmember Dickey said he knows that the Maricopa
Association of Governments (MAG) has several different grants. He pointed out that one specifically is the Safety
Sustainability Grant, which talks about shared-use paths and they love roundabouts. He said that along those lines
they do have some resources and the Town could ask them to come and make a presentation. He further stated that
one way to get the residents to vote for the bond is to have the intersection paid for whether it be all or in part. He
z:\council packets\2012\r12-6-12\121113wsm.docx age 13 of 15
added that he is asking for that opportunity and questioned what their key time triggers are before they have to call
the election on February 13th -- how much time do they have to do this resource finding and make some
presentations to see if they even qualify for some of these grants.
Town Clerk Bev Bender responded that the 120 day deadline for calling the election is July 8th but their meetings in
July, which are usually cancelled, would have been on July 4th and 18th with a Work Study on July 9th. She said
that staff was looking to have it called before in June (June 6th or June 20th).
Councilmember Yates commented that they would need something in pl ace before June and Ms. Bender stated they
would have to have a resolution to call the election. Councilmember Yates added that he is asking that they follow
up and offered to lead the charge and make some of the calls and see if he can get a representati ve from MAG to
come to the Town and make a presentation. He noted that he has also spoken with the Department of Transportation
and there are some credits out there but he hasn't gotten something finalized.
Mayor Kavanagh stated that a lot of great sugges tions have been brought forward. She added that they are in favor
of the plan and she likes the idea of taking the intersection out, particularly if they are thinking about doing
something more than just a small amount of changes. She noted that she stil l has reservations about the roundabout
only because the Swaback plan, when that was discussed, the connectivity as Councilmember Hansen mentioned was
brought up (that roundabouts would cause a problem with the connectivity to the park because the pedestri an
crossing would have to be moved down the street on both sides). She pointed out that the Swaback team said that
usually that causes people not to cross (if they have to walk down a certain distance to get to the path and cross over).
She added that they had mentioned some expensive ways, if they wanted a roundabout, like a bridge or a tunnel to
get people across the street. She noted that they did say that if the goal is t o connect the park with the Avenue then
they didn't want to move the pedestrian crossings further down on either side. She stated that there is an awful lot
that they have to take into consideration and a lot of research will need to be done with information presented to the
Council. She further advised that overall the Council is in favor of going ahead with this as they see it but also
possibly looking at the intersection as a separate entity and reducing the bond by that much. She added that they also
looked at possibly using the Downtown fund, which they would have left after doing the Avenue, for the intersection.
She said that whether they end up going with a roundabout or whatever else, they could do more of an in-depth study
on what would be the best thing for that intersection.
Vice Mayor Leger concurred with the Mayor's remarks and said that he would like to add that Mr. Mood referenced a
report that they paid for and he had the opportunity to request a copy and review it and it does contain the alternatives
-- a reconfiguration as Councilmember Hansen mentioned, there are two options with two lanes, a roundabout with
two lanes, another option with the two lanes coming down to one lane. He stated that as he recalls, if they go from
two lanes down to one lane and they don't do on-street parking, they can keep the crossing a lot closer to how it is
designed now (in the slide they were shown). He added that when they keep the roundabout at two lanes then they
push things back so he would like to recommend to the Town Manager that t hat information and report be shared
with people. He commented that at the end of the day he wasn't trying to complicate things -- he understands all of
the implications and believes that the best solution is to carve it out and, as Councilmember Elkie implied, you make
it a separate project and talk about it as a separate project. He noted that they have a study and they have options and
costs and he thinks the costs are rather high. He said that he thinks the on -street parking really went off the chart and
he was wondering why that was the case but evidently that would require a lot of utilities being moved, etc.
Councilmember Elkie agreed that Vice Mayor Leger accurately summarized his comments. He stated that he just
doesn't want this to become something it shouldn't as far as the bond because it is obviously needed and they
shouldn't complicate it as far as a discussion regarding what that intersection is going to be like. He reiterated that
that will be a different discussion and a different item as far as the agenda. He said that the last thing he would like
to suggest and they haven't talked about this much is the fact that staff recommended a 7-year repayment and if solely
for the reason they will be looking at bonding again, he would recommend paying it off sooner -- in 5 years -- so they
save money on interest. He added that although it will cost more annually as far as the residents are concerned it
would be more fiscally responsible to pay it off in five years.
Ms. Ghetti addressed the Council and noted that she has prepared the costs for each bond at $8.2 and that might
change but she reported the following:
z:\council packets\2012\r12-6-12\121113wsm.docx age 14 of 15
5-year bond the interest would be $1.275 million
7-year bond the interest would be $1.827 million
10-year bond the interest would be $2.989 million
Ms. Ghetti reported that on a 5-year bond for a $350,000 house, the annual tax would be $192.50. On a 7-year bond
for a $350,000 house, the annual tax would be $143.50 and for a 10 -year bond for a $350,000 house, the annual tax
would be $112.00.
Councilmember Elkie noted that there would be approximately $600,000 savings if they paid the bond off in 5 years
versus 7 and if there is no other value other than the pavement management cycle in that process he thinks that
paying it off sooner would be a much more frugal way to go.
Mayor Kavanagh commented that they have to take into consideration the economic climate right now and it might
not seem like very much to some people to pay that little bit more but to others it might make the difference between
them not wanting to go with the bond. She stressed the importance of thinking about how much it is going to cost
people and the economic situation right now doesn't seem too exciting.
Councilmember Elkie pointed out that the difference in paying the bond off in 5 years versus 7 on a $100,000 home
annually is $12.00 and roughly $50.00 annually for someone who has a $350,000 home so he doesn't think that that
would break the bank. Mayor Kavanagh said that he would be surprised at what people will not vote for.
Mr. Buchanan informed the Council that staff is hearing that the Council wants to proceed with further discussio ns
on the Saguaro road bond and reconstruction of the road. He added that there are some things that need to be brought
back for further study, namely the intersection and its design and the bond terms (length of repayment). He said that
staff will place those items on a future agenda for the Council to discuss. He asked if there were any other items the
Council would like staff to delve into further and bring back for discussion.
Councilmember Yates asked if Mr. Buchanan had included carving out the intersection as discussed and said that he
will bring the grants to a head in the interim.
Mr. Buchanan confirmed that carving out the intersection is included in the direction provided to staff.
Councilmember Dickey commented that MAG also has a Walkable Communities Grant that Councilmember Yates
might want to look into.
Councilmember Elkie said that when they do cross the street from the Avenue to the park there should be something
that they actually cross down into so they don't have to go to opposite ends to actually get down into the park (instead
of slipping and sliding down the hill).
Mayor Kavanagh stated that Mr. Buchanan is already working on that.
AGENDA ITEM #3 – ADJOURNMENT.
Councilmember Yates MOVED to adjourn the meeting and Councilmember Dickey SECONDED the motion. The
Work Study Session adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
z:\council packets\2012\r12-6-12\121113wsm.docx age 15 of 15
TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS
By __________________________
Linda M. Kavanagh, Mayor
ATTEST AND
PREPARED BY:
__________________________
Bev Bender, Town Clerk
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Work Study Session held
by the Town Council of Fountain Hills in the Town Hall Council Chambers on the 13th day of November, 2012. I
further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present.
DATED this 6th day of December, 2012.
__________________________
Bev Bender, Town Clerk