[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[5:52] Okay, I'm going to call this work session to order. Actown clerk, can we get a roll call, please? Sure. Mayor Fadel. Present. Vice mayor Earl. Present. Councilmember Cala Villanacca. Here. Councilmember Watts. Present. Councilmember Larabee. Councilmember McMahon. Councilmember Schillacorn. We have a quorum. Thank you. Rachel. Mayor, thank you. Before we begin, I want to briefly frame today's discussion and what we hope to accomplish.
[6:22] The question of how we address our long-term street needs is complicated and there's not
[6:26] necessarily agreement among the council or even among our community about what next steps
[6:31] should be.
[6:32] That's exactly why this work session is important.
[6:35] Today, staff will provide the council with background and context to help establish a common
[6:38] foundation for the discussion.
[6:40] Paul is going to be leading us through but we'll have David Janover as well sharing some details.
[6:47] It'll include a look at the town's history with street funding and previous bond efforts,
[6:50] the condition and needs of our roadway system, what we have heard from residents and some of the considerations and concerns that have been raised as we evaluate our options moving forward.
[7:00] The purpose of today is not to presume a particular outcome or funding solution.
[7:06] I want to be clear about that.
[7:07] It's to make sure that the council has the information needed to have an informed policy discussion.
[7:12] At the conclusion of the presentation and discussion staff will need clear majority direction for the council regarding whether and how you would like us to proceed.
[7:19] That direction will help us determine what additional analysis, funding scenarios, public engagement, or other works should come back to the council for consideration.
[7:28] Our goal today is to provide the facts, understand the council's priorities, and their concerns, and leave with enough direction to responsibly move the conversation forward.
[7:37] So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Paul. He'll take it away.
[7:40] All right. Mayor Vice Mayor and Council, thank you for another opportunity. Good afternoon.
[7:47] Like Rachel mentioned, we're going to have a comprehensive discussion today. First, we're
[7:51] going to talk about some historical information about road funding as well as some town survey
[7:56] results. And then I'll turn it over to public works to talk about current road conditions.
[8:03] So the town works with flash vote to conduct surveys of town residents. And we did conduct
[8:11] a road survey back in March, 452 respondents out of 809 enrolled at the time, and Flash
[8:19] vote indicates that the margin of error is plus or minus 5%.
[8:24] So they were asked if a road bond would speed up road repairs, would you support it or not
[8:29] support it in the next one to two years?
[8:31] So you can see the results on the screen, about 68% somewhat support or strongly support
[8:36] if you add those bottom two up, 31% and the 37%.
[8:40] There were, those that were against it, 9% strongly against, 9% somewhat against, and 10% neutral.
[8:47] And this survey was sent out to the full mayor and council, it's also out there for public consumption.
[8:56] So for this question, you could choose all that apply, but
[9:00] you'll see that 63% said they would want to see a clear explanation of how road projects would be prioritized.
[9:06] 32% also said that they would want to see a specific road repair list.
[9:10] And 19% said they think road repairs are the highest priority for the town at the current moment.
[9:15] There's also several other options so you can kind of read it I'll leave on the screen for just a moment.
[9:24] Yes, of course.
[9:27] Thank you.
[9:30] If I went through these questions, was there anything specific as to how people wanted to see exactly how it was going to be spent, not necessarily just on what roads would be repaired but
[9:43] But exactly how every dime ever it was going to be spent, because I know in the past that's been an issue with other bonds and why people said no, because they didn't have clarity on that.
[9:53] Yeah, so mayor councilwoman, these questions we drafted just to give people options so that kind of that second one, I'd want it to be tied to a specific road repair list was trying to get to that point, do you want us to put together a list if we try to go out with the bond initiative.
[10:10] There were also options for other, you see 10% chose other, and a lot of respondents put in comments, 160 or so, put in specific comments on the things they'd like to see.
[10:20] Thank you, and also I probably missed it, but what was the sampling?
[10:25] I mean, was it just in general for sending out to our residents, or how did you pick the sampling?
[10:31] It was all of the people signed up for our town-wide surveys, so we don't release the questions ahead of time.
[10:38] We just kind of send it out, and so we've done this a few times.
[10:41] This is just one of the surveys that we sent out.
[10:43] So at the time, they're about 809 signed up and 450 or so responded.
[10:50] It's the same people for every survey you send out?
[10:53] Everyone signed up for the flash vote that we contract with.
[10:57] Yeah, so every type of survey we send out, whoever signed up will get the link to that survey and have the opportunity to respond.
[11:04] Okay, so and how often do you advertise this that people could sign up?
[11:10] Well, Mike Pelham's not here unfortunately and Rachel might be able to chime in, but I know that he does put that out there.
[11:16] He's done several public postings about it being available for residents.
[11:20] I think it's part of his newsletters that he puts out as well.
[11:23] So definitely trying to engage with the residents and trying to get more people signed up, okay. Thank you
[11:31] Got it okay and Paul just to clarify. I don't know. I probably see a half a dozen from pelton
[11:38] Where he's announced it and I've signed up and answered the flash as well
[11:42] So it could be skewed because I answered okay, which one did you?
[11:50] Okay, how much to spend
[11:52] And if you recall, I think it was the last time we met about this topic.
[11:56] We talked about just some examples of $11 or $12, $22 million to repair some of our bigger
[12:01] roads in town.
[12:02] So we gave a couple other options.
[12:03] We did $0, $5 million, $11 million, $22 million, or $30 million.
[12:08] And as you can see, the results were pretty mixed.
[12:11] But the strongest support was the largest bond, the $30 million bond, with 21% of respondents
[12:16] choosing that.
[12:17] Second place was $11 million.
[12:18] And then there were people 11% of the respondents said that we don't need extra money for road repairs right now.
[12:25] They wouldn't be interested in a road bond at any price.
[12:31] Also at the bottom, just to point out, 14% responded not sure, maybe they weren't familiar with the topic.
[12:38] 8% chose other, which I'm not sure where that would be on the spectrum of these amounts.
[12:45] Again, 160 or so wrote in some comments, some with constructive feedback, some with positive comments on the things that the town has been doing.
[12:54] So you're going to get that disparate range in comments with any survey and we do have that within the survey results as well.
[13:02] The main takeaway of you want to tell you, majority do support a bond according to the result, 68% at least somewhat supported bond or strongly supported bond within the survey.
[13:12] Okay, for the most part the answers were generally consistent across demographics because we
[13:18] do have that information too, but it was interesting to see that men most strongly supported
[13:22] the bond and the higher dollar amounts as well in the survey results.
[13:36] Thank you.
[13:37] Thank you.
[13:39] Who gets to go first?
[13:44] How many residents do we have in this town that are of age that could answer such questions?
[13:52] Yeah, of course.
[13:56] Well, this is good, you're getting feedback, and as Councilwoman McMahon said, it's pretty
[14:01] much the same people, but we have hundreds of other thousands of other people that this
[14:09] will affect that didn't get to answer the question.
[14:11] So, it's good to get an idea, but I think we talked about that at the league when we do polling,
[14:18] it's such a small percentage of the actual people
[14:20] that it's going to affect,
[14:22] but just keeping that in mind.
[14:25] Absolutely.
[14:27] I think to your point has taken,
[14:30] ideally, this is giving you sort of a touch point,
[14:33] it is giving you a sense of that feedback.
[14:37] Now, granted, while it is statistically valid
[14:40] in terms of our population versus the input that we have,
[14:45] it is one touch point, right?
[14:47] It is only one element of the consideration and the discussion.
[14:55] I have the same concerns as I, you know, because of the 24,000 residents.
[15:00] Et cetera, and we're sampling less than a thousand. It seems like I have a big concern with that. However, it's good to have this information, because it is representative. But if the council moves toward doing a bond, et cetera, is there going to be, I'm sure you guys are going to have public community meetings about it, a larger reach for everybody so that we can test the waters and see at that time exactly, you know,
[15:29] You know, what the onslaught's going to be to, you know, to have it or not have it, et cetera, correct?
[15:36] So, go ahead, Mayor.
[15:38] I was going to say, I think the council can't decide.
[15:40] We would decide whether we want to give the voice to the residents to decide for this.
[15:45] So, they will have their voice.
[15:48] Ultimately.
[15:49] Correct.
[15:50] Yeah, if the council gives direction to move forward with this.
[15:53] Yes, there will definitely be public outreach.
[15:55] which, again, the survey was just one tool to sort of get a temperature check.
[16:00] It's not the end all be all.
[16:02] And yes, it would take a heavy lift from whether it's social communications, whether it's
[16:07] in-person meetings, whether, you know, there's not a one-stop shop for us here, we'll have
[16:11] to do multiple efforts.
[16:13] Yes.
[16:16] All right.
[16:18] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
[16:18] Oh, yes.
[16:19] Yeah.
[16:19] Just, I wasn't going to chime in on this, but since it's gotten such discussion, I'll give
[16:24] of my two cents.
[16:26] I was a political science major in college
[16:29] and I studied polling extensively.
[16:33] And the 5% margin of error, I don't think you can make a
[16:40] 5% margin of error claim based on a flashful that had
[16:45] 457 people.
[16:48] This is a very flawed poll.
[16:49] and I can't, in good conscience, take anything from it.
[16:56] It's not useful information to me, and I think my colleagues have the same thing.
[17:01] And so, as we go forward, you know, that was just with those 457 people
[17:07] had to say on one day, and I'm not sure the relevance of this body going forward
[17:12] and using that as anything other than anecdotal evidence.
[17:15] Yeah. Understood. Thank you. So maybe the last question.
[17:19] Yes, maybe not. I think it's important to understand that regardless of if the council moves this forward, it's going to go to an election, one, one cycle, either a special election or the general election, either or, but the public is going to have the last word.
[17:38] All we're doing is kind of condensing it to make it.
[17:42] It's very powerful for them to look at it and understand.
[17:46] So today, while it may not be relatively important to look at the numbers, the direction
[17:54] where we get there will be decided by the public.
[17:58] Yes.
[17:58] Just one caveat council member with a general obligation bond, which we've been discussing,
[18:03] that would go to the voters.
[18:04] If the council decided to switch directions and go down a pledge revenue obligation bond,
[18:09] that would not go to the voters.
[18:10] So that's just the distinction there.
[18:12] Right, but today we're talking about the general obligation bond and we're not talking about an alternate, much like home rule or anything else that we could do that wouldn't need to go before the voters, but in this particular case, we're talking solely on general obligation.
[18:25] So Councilor, today we're talking more about the current road conditions and funding needs, but yes, the general obligation bond option was the primary one discussed at the previous discussion and still would be the leading recommendation for the council.
[18:39] Yes.
[18:42] All right. Well, that got all like more questions than I expected. Thanks, Mike. Thanks, Mike Pelton, for not being here today.
[18:51] So this is kind of a refresher based on our ongoing revenues for fiscal year 27.
[18:56] We projected about 4.5 million of revenues. That's a little bit less than the prior year.
[19:01] We actually brought in close to five million or around $5 million last year.
[19:05] And so from a revenue perspective, we bring in her revenues. That's our biggest revenue source.
[19:09] of course at $1.8 million, vehicle license taxes at $1.3 million, local sales taxes at $1.3 million,
[19:16] and about $100 to $200,000 of other revenues in this fund.
[19:21] So as we talked about from the expenditure side, when spending, we have about $2.2 million in the budget,
[19:26] as currently constructed for other streets needs, which includes things we've talked about,
[19:30] such as staffing, landscaping, rights away, maintenance, curb repairs, things like that.
[19:37] So all the other kind of things that we need to do as a town, that's budgeted there in that bucket, that's how I try to illustrate it.
[19:45] But based on our ongoing revenues, we only have about $2.3, $2.4 million a year to spend on road work.
[19:52] But we've been able to budget more than that because we've had available fund balances every year to do that.
[19:57] And a lot of that has to do with council decisions to transfer money into the streets fund from general fund access reserves and things like that.
[20:04] So for fiscal year 27, we did budget $6 million for road repairers, and I believe it was the last meeting where the council approved to proceed on that plan for fiscal year 27.
[20:14] Does that $6 million not include the 2.2 that goes to other things?
[20:20] No. So it's a full 6.7 million gesture roads.
[20:23] Yes, so I want to clarify just for the public because if they watch Jeff's presentation, the way him and I explain are a little bit different.
[20:30] What he said was exactly accurate, right?
[20:33] 6.4 or 6.3 million on roads.
[20:35] He's just combining some of those other little things
[20:36] from that 2.2 million to go into that 6 million.
[20:40] So 6 million is just for road repair.
[20:41] You add another three to 400,000 for things like striping,
[20:44] curb repairs and concrete stuff.
[20:46] So combined really, it's more like,
[20:49] what he says is actually probably more accurate
[20:50] than what I'm saying.
[20:51] It's like 6.3 to 6.4 million on the budget.
[20:54] And so combined, it's like 8.2 million dollars in the budget
[20:57] for streets for pair needs for this fiscal year.
[21:04] So we wanted to go in the history banks and archives and
[21:08] give you an idea of how we used to pay for roads.
[21:11] So in the 1970s prior to incorporation as a town, we had four special road districts here.
[21:17] And they were formed by the county and voters authorized up to $24 million road bonds.
[21:24] And $6 million bonds were actually issued to construct roads in the town pre-incorporation.
[21:36] upon incorporation the town absorbed those districts and took on those costs so the town was
[21:40] responsible for the road maintenance and repairs. And then as a town we did try to go out for a
[21:47] geobahn in 1991 and that was approved so we'll talk about that in a little bit. 2011 we did try again
[21:53] and that was not approved by the voters and then 2013 we did have another successful bond initiative
[22:00] of a geobahn for a Suwara boulevard.
[22:06] So road districts, this question comes up sometimes about road districts.
[22:11] They're not very easy or viable today.
[22:14] So municipal improvement districts, they're possible for smaller roads like Palomino
[22:18] Boulevard, for example.
[22:19] If a majority of the land owners that lived on Palomino Boulevard decided they wanted to
[22:25] create a road district and they signed a petition to form a district they could.
[22:29] It's a special taxing district, where they would pay the secondary property taxes to pay off the debt.
[22:36] So that is the possibility for some of these projects.
[22:38] But county improvement districts are not really viable because they're really only for
[22:42] unincorporated areas of the county.
[22:45] And it's controlled by the board of supervisors and the town would have no control over those districts.
[22:53] Does anybody have any questions about those?
[23:04] So, the special road districts in 1973, remember the voters authorized up to $24 million, but they only issued $6 million.
[23:13] That's a good example of what we talked about before.
[23:16] If the council did decide to move forward and we brought a voter authorization to the ballot, where we said, hey, we would like authorization to do up to $22 million of bonds.
[23:26] That doesn't mean we have to go do $22 million bond.
[23:30] We could do an $11 million bond issuance or $10 million, whatever is needed at that time.
[23:35] And then proceed and wait until it's needed again.
[23:38] But we could use that authorization to go out again and do another bond issuance as the need
[23:42] arises.
[23:43] That's kind of a good example of that.
[23:44] When you do that then does the property bill portion that the residents paid, is that fluctuate
[23:52] up and down then?
[23:53] It's not a set rate for so many years.
[23:56] It's based on when you take the money.
[23:58] Yeah, Mayor Councilwoman, it's when you issue the debt, let's say it's $11 million.
[24:03] Every year based on the repayment schedule, let's say it's a ten year repayment schedule.
[24:09] We would be levying a secondary property tax on the residents to pay off that debt.
[24:14] So it's just like your mortgage.
[24:16] You take out $11 million, let's say you owe $1 million a year.
[24:19] You levy attacks on the residents to collect that money and then you pay it off every year.
[24:25] If we decided to do another bond on top of it and that bond first bond was not paid off yet, it would overlap.
[24:31] So you'd be levying an amount to pay off both of the bonds and then the secondary property tax
[24:38] levy would go up to pay off the bonds.
[24:41] What you're saying here, like in 73 to 74, you only use 6 million of the 24 authorized?
[24:49] Yes, that's what they did as the special road districts at the time.
[24:54] That wasn't the town yet, sorry, I sort of spelled that out.
[24:58] So that was pre-incorporation.
[25:00] Then the town became incorporated in 1989.
[25:03] And then 1991, we tried for our first road bond initiative where the voters did approve it.
[25:08] And I'll show you the wording from that, the bond initiative in a little bit.
[25:13] But they approved $3.5 million and we issued $3.5 million of bonds.
[25:20] 2011, we asked for $29.6 million as a town.
[25:23] And the voters did not approve that and I'll show that example in a little bit as well.
[25:27] And then 2013, our third and most recent and our last bond initiative that went to the voters as far as I'm aware.
[25:33] where I was approved for $8.2 million for the reconstruction or improvement of Swarrel Boulevard.
[25:40] And we actually came in under budget on that one, we issued about $7.6 million of bonds.
[25:48] And that's the last bond that we did as a town.
[25:52] Yes, of course.
[25:52] So, when you were billing the, when the residents were paying on their property tax for the one from 2013.
[26:00] did they pay less because you didn't use the whole 800 or 8.2 million because you have a set rate that you're billing that's everybody's charged or added to their property tax.
[26:13] So what happens when you don't issue the full amount?
[26:17] So, I'll give a little bit of a long-winded answer, so forgive me.
[26:23] If the council approved us to go to the voters, and then the voters timed in, they said yes
[26:28] or no, if they did say yes, then we would actually go to the market and work with our municipal
[26:31] advisor and find the best terms for the town.
[26:34] And we'd bring whatever, basically it's like almost a procurement process, find the best
[26:41] either it's a direct placement or a bidding process to find the best terms for the town.
[26:45] we'd bring it back to the town council.
[26:47] So in this case, the voters said yes,
[26:50] 8.2 million dollars to do swirl, go ahead, do that.
[26:53] We went out and found the best terms for a bond
[26:55] and we brought it back to the town council
[26:57] at that 7.6 million dollars.
[26:59] So the 7.6 million is the key point
[27:01] because that's the actual debt that we took on.
[27:04] And then we, actually, you'll see in the bond initiative,
[27:09] I think it was for up to 15 years,
[27:11] but we did for five years at the time
[27:13] because I think the idea was just to pay it off quickly.
[27:16] It's pretty unusual when it comes to bonds,
[27:20] but that's what we did as a town.
[27:22] So we paid off in five years by 2020.
[27:25] And Paul, these were taxable bonds
[27:27] where they can they be crafted as tax-free
[27:30] but from the state and or the Fed?
[27:34] Mayor council member, most of these bonds
[27:36] were discussing are typically tax exempt
[27:38] and that's why they can be attractive to bond holders.
[27:42] is that state tax exempt or federal and state?
[27:45] Federal, I believe in state, but federal, yes.
[27:48] And if you had $22 million and you had certain tranches,
[27:54] certain ladders, $5 million for the next four and a half years or so,
[27:58] what would that do to the effective interest rate over the life of that obligation?
[28:04] Would it reduce it or it doesn't increase it, but I think it does reduce it somewhat.
[28:07] But could you clarify your question?
[28:12] Nope.
[28:14] I think so.
[28:15] I mean, if I have 5 million this year and 5 million next year,
[28:18] I'm paying down already, so I'm reducing the overall debt.
[28:21] So while initially your presentation assumes
[28:24] that 5% is for the total amount from day one through the end.
[28:29] But if you only have certain tranches of money
[28:31] that you would have at certain defined periods of time,
[28:34] does that, what does that do to the interest rate?
[28:36] And I believe that it reduces the effective interest rate over the duration.
[28:42] So Mayor and Councilmember, when you go, so
[28:45] I was describing earlier, when you go out to kind of like a bidding process to get the best terms for the town.
[28:50] You can look for particular terms like that, like an early repayment option that could reduce.
[28:55] But typically, geo bonds that we're talking about today, typically they do have a 10 year non-callable period.
[29:01] And I believe you can make additional payments to that principle with town funds, but you kind of have to
[29:07] Feel the market out and see what the market conditions are to look for those terms if that's what the council wants to do
[29:13] Well, I understand if it's non-collable, but if it's callable and we say we might pay them off earlier
[29:17] Then what does that do to the effective interest rate?
[29:20] And maybe that's a question that if we move forward we can look at and say what's the effect of callable bonds versus non-collable?
[29:27] Yes, exactly. Council member, we can work with our municipal advisor to create certain scenarios for some of those options that you might be interested in.
[29:35] All
[29:38] right. Town bond initiative one. So as a town, this is the first time we try to do a road bond.
[29:46] This initiative, you can see the worry. Now it is kind of hard to see. I'm sorry. That's how I kind of had to do it to show it on the screen.
[29:52] But it was for $3.5 million to provide funds for the purpose of improvement, construction, reconstruction, maintenance of town streets.
[30:00] Highways. And you'll see at the bottom that it passed pretty easily 882 votes for with 332 votes against. So this one, this one was interesting because it was a longer time period. We paid it off 15 or 20 years for a $3.5 million bond. So that was kind of interesting to see that town bond initiative to you may have heard of this one. We talked about a little bit. We asked the voters to approve our authorized 29.6 million votes.
[30:31] dollars of bonds for road reconstruction, you'll see that the wording is a little broader
[30:36] to provide funds to design, improve, construct, reconstruct and rehabilitate the streets, avenues,
[30:41] alleys, and highways. So at the time, this did not get approved. As you can see, 2,980 votes for
[30:50] with 3,741 votes against. So after that, we came back to the table. We brought back another
[30:58] bond initiative in 2013 asking for authorization to sell bonds of up to $8.2 million and you'll
[31:05] kind of see in the wording there it's specific to provide funds to design and contract and
[31:11] rehabilitate Swarrel Boulevard. So it was a specific bond for specific purpose at a lower
[31:16] dollar amount. So those are just some key takeaways of that. It easily passed. The voters approved it
[31:21] 4,551 votes for, with 2,226 votes against at the time.
[31:31] And again, what I thought was interesting is it does authorize us a staff to issue a bond that shall not exceed 15 years from the day of their issuance, but what we brought forth to the Council was a five year repayment term rather than the 15 year repayment term.
[31:46] So
[31:50] where does that land us today?
[31:53] Option one, we can continue what we've been doing using our operating budget and finding
[31:58] ways to transfer mine streets fund to do more road work.
[32:01] So we have been doing that already, continue that, or option two, consider issuing a bond,
[32:07] whether it's a pledge revenue obligation where we restrict our current and future revenues
[32:11] to pay it off, or a general obligation bond, which would love you a secondary property
[32:16] tax to pay off the debt.
[32:20] So with that, I'm going to turn over to Public Works unless you have any questions for me.
[32:24] I do have a comment.
[32:26] Sure.
[32:27] So if we were successful in getting a bond approved by the voters, we still do our regular
[32:36] other maintenance as well as we've always done.
[32:39] This would be in addition to, so it's clear for people to understand that we're still going to do
[32:44] other road work with monies from the town.
[32:47] Yes, that's accurate.
[32:49] I just want to make sure that that was clear for people.
[32:51] And not only the other road work, but maintenance too.
[32:55] Maintaining the existing one has to be a key component of that as well.
[32:59] Absolutely.
[33:00] Paul, before you do, I just have one question.
[33:02] And I don't know that you can through it.
[33:03] I don't know if that's down here or not.
[33:05] But based on the years that they've eroded, it looks like they're all on odd years.
[33:09] So it looks like they were all probably done as a special election,
[33:12] not part of the standard election cycle.
[33:17] Is that accurate?
[33:18] That's my belief.
[33:19] I'm not 100% sure about the 91 election,
[33:22] but I believe you're right.
[33:25] I don't want to.
[33:26] Just checking just as a note.
[33:29] All right.
[33:31] Thank you.
[33:32] Have a question, please.
[33:33] Yes.
[33:34] Option number two.
[33:35] Yes.
[33:36] Page revenue obligations.
[33:37] Can you explain that a little bit later?
[33:39] Yes.
[33:39] Yes, actually this is kind of an interesting time.
[33:42] We're bringing forth consideration for the Council next week
[33:45] to close down the municipal property corporation,
[33:48] dissolve it.
[33:50] I'm kind of going off my tangent, but somewhat relevant.
[33:53] That was another financing source that we use
[33:56] to issue bonds to build town hall on the community center.
[34:00] And what we did at the time is we pledged our revenue.
[34:03] So we do have a history of pledging revenues to pay off debt.
[34:07] So we pledged certain revenues to pay off the debt for all of the facilities you're seeing around us and
[34:13] Once they were paid off in around 2018
[34:16] Then we the council decided to put that tax revenue into the streets fund and that's the point 2% that goes on the streets fund today
[34:25] But yes, the pledge revenue obligation if I went off on a tenant so I might be misremembering a question
[34:29] But yes, it's based on our existing revenues that we're saying hey
[34:33] Okay, we're not going to use this revenue for current road work.
[34:37] We're going to pay off the debt and take out a loan through the bond proceeds.
[34:41] And we'll be paying off from that revenue that's coming in.
[34:45] So that's always an option.
[34:46] The reason we did not recommend that as a primary option at the last discussion is because with such a large amount of road work that appears to be needed.
[34:58] Restricting revenues might not be the most preferable option as a town for us.
[35:01] Okay, thank you for that clarification because I thought we had discussed it a little bit before and that's why we're one of the reasons why we were looking going this way, you know, to consider the bonds. Thank you.
[35:15] Paul, do you know what the differences between including the bond on either a special election or on the next general election, what the cost differences.
[35:28] So mayor council member I know that the town clerk stated at one of our meetings when discussing this that would be around $50,000 to hold a special election.
[35:38] I want to say is there an incremental cost to add another question I'm not sure about if it would go to the general election or not but I know that the special election she stayed it was around 50,000.
[35:50] And the tax-free component of a general obligation bond really gives you, if you had a 5% rate on your bond,
[35:58] really becomes about a 6.5%, almost a 7% effective rate because of the tax-free component. Is that fair?
[36:07] Yes.
[36:07] Thanks.
[36:10] One more question on the election.
[36:12] If we were to share that election with another governmental body like the sanitary district or the school district, would we share the cost as well?
[36:22] Does anybody know?
[36:24] I believe so, and do you know off top of your head if we share that election?
[36:30] If it goes to the special election or the general?
[36:33] I do know from that if it goes to a general election, that the cost that we spend, we pray to the county,
[36:40] is minimal compared to if we actually hold a separate special election, but I believe
[36:45] if we do with the school, I have to get back to you. I think it is an off-cost
[36:50] it wouldn't be as much as if we did it on our own, but I'll get clarification.
[36:57] For me, it's just a cost of doing business. That's how I look at that, that election cost.
[37:05] Mayor
[37:16] Council, good morning, or afternoon.
[37:21] As we've had these discussions over the years, we're all familiar with how important
[37:26] pavement management is.
[37:28] It takes a lot of planning and a lot of funding to maintain arguably one of our most valuable
[37:37] assets.
[37:39] I would argue on behalf of public works in the last 15 years, thanks to cooperation from
[37:44] the elected body and management that we have made incredible progress in providing funding
[37:53] and tackling some of the challenges that we face in regards to payment management.
[37:59] The uptick or downtick or the minimal amount of movement in regards to the backlog are
[38:05] one of the things that we have discussed often.
[38:08] The challenge with a backlog as we are having a discussion five years ago to address this
[38:14] many streets, in this length of time, some of the ones that were marginal in that time
[38:21] have now fallen into the backlog. So that's when the data gets a little bit confusing.
[38:29] When we were preparing this sometime back on the latter part of preparing what you were
[38:35] about to see, and Mr. General was going to share with you, I was actually absent. Our oldest
[38:39] granddaughter graduated from Texas or from high school in Texas and so my wife and I were there.
[38:45] Mr. Solinger, Mr. Janover and Mr. Pierce, he was here, there he is, they worked as a team,
[38:52] an incredible amount of hours to bring you this accurate data and information that you're going
[38:58] to have. In light of that, Mr. Janover is going to do the majority of the presentations and answer
[39:04] the questions. I will certainly be here along with Paul and Mr. Pierce if you have any questions for
[39:09] us. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to spend an afternoon discussing pavement
[39:15] management. It is a long-term planning process that requires funding permanently, not just
[39:24] once here and there, but it requires funding ongoing. So even the stuff that is brand new
[39:29] right now is going to require maintenance in five to seven years, and a lot of that depends
[39:34] on the weather so it's not a one and done it is a continual process that requires funding so
[39:40] again thank you thank you
[39:51] bearing counsel management so everyone's very very happy to be here to
[39:56] continue our conversation on our payment management so the conversation is going to shift now from our
[40:05] funding history and the potential financing options to the actual condition of our
[40:11] roadway system, where we are today, and how we got here, and what the magnitude of that need looks
[40:18] like. And the purpose of these next slides, again, is not to identify a final bond amount today.
[40:24] That's not what we're looking to do. Our purpose here is to give counsel enough information to understand
[40:32] the condition of our network, and the scale of the problem so that you can tell us, you can tell staff,
[40:38] what you want us to do to, if you want it to continue evaluating a bond.
[40:43] So the town maintains,
[40:47] the town maintains approximately 168 centerline miles of paved roadway.
[40:53] A centerline mile is, that just means that we measure the length of the roadway down its centerline,
[41:00] regardless of whether it has two lanes, four lanes, six lanes, et cetera.
[41:04] But when you account for the actual paved width of our roads, we maintain almost 3.5 million
[41:13] square yards of pavement.
[41:15] So to put that into perspective, that's enough pavement area to construct a two-lane roadway
[41:22] from Fountain Hills to Las Vegas.
[41:26] PCI, you've heard this term bandied about many, many times.
[41:31] PCI stands for pavement condition index, right?
[41:34] And that is simply a standardized zero to 100 scale based
[41:38] on the type of severity and extent of our pavement
[41:42] distress that we see in a road.
[41:45] A hundred is essentially a perfect pavement, right?
[41:48] With no observed distresses, no observed cracking.
[41:54] A zero is a completely failed pavement.
[41:56] What you can see is crats.
[41:57] you can actually pick up a piece of the road which is crumbling in your fingers.
[42:02] Now, PCI is not simply a measure of how smooth the road feels.
[42:08] A road can actually ride reasonably well, but still have cracking or other
[42:14] distresses that actually lower its PCI.
[42:18] But for our purposes, the important break point we have is below 40.
[42:23] And you can see that, that line pointing to that 26 to 40 and 0 to 25.
[42:29] So once roads, these are the roads that we refer to as our backlog, right?
[42:34] You've heard that many, many times.
[42:36] By this point, we're generally beyond any kind of cost-effective preservation, and we're looking
[42:41] at reconstruction to address those roads.
[42:45] So we want to think of PCI, I like the analogy of thinking of it as a health score, right?
[42:50] For the pavement.
[42:50] So the closer we are to 100, closer we are to 100, the healthier the roadway is, correct?
[43:04] And as you get down below that 26-40 in the module towards the poor situation, that's when we have a situation where we have,
[43:17] have, we're past the point of preventative maintenance and we're into major surgery.
[43:37] So Council has established a level of service pavement condition goal back in 2018, right?
[43:44] So these are not new standards that we're talking about and that we're created for the
[43:48] purpose of our bond discussion tonight.
[43:54] We don't try to maintain every street at a PCI of a hundred, right, because that would
[43:58] not be necessary, nor financially practical in fact it would probably bankrupt us.
[44:06] Paving management is really about maintaining an acceptable condition at the lowest lifelike
[44:12] would cost, right?
[44:14] So the minimum acceptable condition varies by the roadway function.
[44:19] So we hold our arterials to the highest standards, right, because they carry the greatest
[44:24] volumes, and they essentially are the backbone of our transportation network.
[44:29] Then that's followed by collectors and then finally by the local residential streets.
[44:37] The targets that were established in 2018 were roughly 60 to 70 for arterials, 50 to 60
[44:43] for collectors, and 50 to 55 for local residential streets.
[44:49] Now, the objective is to intervene before the rows deteriorate below those thresholds.
[44:56] because once they reach that port condition,
[44:58] the available treatment changes.
[45:00] Pensions from our relatively inexpensive preservation to a much more expensive reconstruction. And again,
[45:08] these PCI values are essentially minimum service level targets, okay? The goal is to keep roads above
[45:15] these minimum levels and treat them before they become much more expensive defects.
[45:23] Now, you may
[45:23] remember that approximately $65 million figure from the 2022 pavement analysis that we did with
[45:30] the ad hoc street committee, it's important to understand what that $65 million represented.
[45:37] That was essentially a fix everything that was below its target condition scenario, okay.
[45:43] So that included everything from relatively inexpensive crack ceiling and slurry seals to
[45:50] millen overlay work all the way through to full depth reconstruction.
[45:54] So that $65 million was not a $65 million backlog, okay, I just want to make that clear.
[45:59] that was not a $65 million backlog that was for everything and it's not equivalent to the bond
[46:05] number that we're discussing today. Backlog roads requiring reconstruction represented only
[46:11] a portion of that original $65 million. And the analysis that we're discussing today is much more
[46:18] focused primarily on the roads that are either reconstruction, either require reconstruction now
[46:25] or are projected to require reconstruction in the near future.
[46:38] So over the last few years, the town has generally followed a very balanced pavement management approach.
[46:43] I'm actually very, very proud of the approach that we've taken.
[46:47] And this approach has been recommended by our pavement consultants, model runs.
[46:53] So as you know, we use this model called the boss system.
[46:56] And that's essentially what tells us which roads to treat and when and so forth.
[47:03] So, for roads that have already failed, we reconstruct them, right, it's that simple.
[47:08] But for roads that are still in reasonably good condition, we try to preserve them before
[47:12] they become failures, that's the whole point of payment management.
[47:16] So, two of the biggest enemies of asphalt payment are water and our environment, right, particularly
[47:23] the intense sun and the ultraviolet UV radiation, correct, exposure that we have here in Arizona.
[47:28] Once water gets through those cracks in the pavement and into the underlying pavement structure, deterioration accelerates.
[47:37] Over time, oxidation and that UV exposure make the asphalt binder harder and more brittle and that leads to additional cracking.
[47:46] And that's why it's so important that treatments like crack sealing and slurry seals take place because they help to protect the pavement while it's still worth protecting.
[47:56] That's a very, very important point.
[48:01] A crack seal is relatively inexpensive, right?
[48:03] We seal cracks all the time, and the reason for that is primarily to keep water from getting
[48:08] into that underlying pavement structure.
[48:11] A slurry seal is a thin service treatment, and that seals and protects the pavement and
[48:16] slows down the deterioration, but it does not add any meaningful structural strength to
[48:22] the pavement.
[48:23] A milling overlay is a more substantial treatment where we remove that deteriorated surface and
[48:29] we replace it with new asphalt while we still retain the underlying pavement structure underneath
[48:35] and that's still serviceable.
[48:38] And then when the pavement structure itself has reached the end of its useful life, well then
[48:43] that's when we move to a full depth reconstruction.
[48:46] And that's essentially rebuilding the entire roadway pavement section.
[48:49] So the reason for this comprehensive balanced approach, right, is that a dollar spent at
[48:54] the right time preserving a good road can postpone a much larger reconstruction expense.
[49:01] So if we simply followed a worst first strategy, and you know, you're saying like, well, let's
[49:07] just take care, let's just tackle all the backlog, let's just take care of all that.
[49:10] If we did that worst first strategy, we could spend everything rebuilding the roads, right,
[49:17] that have failed while the rest of the system is deteriorating behind it, so that's why
[49:22] we have to have this two-pronged approach.
[49:28] So our primary tool for selecting the roadway treatments is the payment management model,
[49:33] the boss system that we are using roadway asset services for, and there the consultant that
[49:38] helps us run that model time and time again.
[49:41] The model evaluates the condition of our entire network, and it helps us to determine how
[49:48] to use the available payment funding in the most financially and prudent and efficient way.
[49:55] So in other words, the model is designed to optimize our investment. Identifying which road should
[50:00] be treated, what treatment should be used so that the treatment provides the greatest value.
[50:06] So as a general rule, the annual payment program is driven by the recommendations that are coming
[50:10] out of that model. So each year, Steph uploads a list of the roads that we have treated
[50:15] that fiscal year to the pavement consultant, we do that at the end of each fiscal year,
[50:20] and they in turn update the model with the work that was completed, and then they rerun
[50:25] the model for the following year and subsequent years, and that tells us what is coming up
[50:30] next.
[50:32] Now there are occasions, however, when we intentionally deviate from the model based on other considerations.
[50:37] For
[50:44] example, Palomino Boulevard, Richwood Drive, and Thistle Drive.
[50:50] Those were advanced last fiscal year, based in part on Council direction and public input
[50:56] along with staff's evaluation of the conditions in the field and engineering judgment.
[51:01] But again, I want to emphasize that those are really the exceptions.
[51:05] The model remains the primary basis for us developing our paving program because it allows
[51:11] us to optimize the limited dollars across our entire roadway network. And we also continue
[51:16] to maximize the funding that council provides us by adding additional preservation work whenever
[51:23] contract pricing and remaining budget capacity allows us to do so. So you'll notice that
[51:29] many sometimes we have some funding left over at the end of each fiscal year and we take that and
[51:34] we advance we kind of tackle what's next in the queue to kind of get a beat on that. So we do whatever
[51:40] we can.
[51:45] Now this slide represents probably the biggest challenge that the town faces when
[51:49] it comes to payment management. That is our need to do two things at the same time. We
[51:54] need to one, reconstruct the roads that have already failed, while two, continuing to preserve
[51:59] the roads that have not failed quite yet. So our payment management strategy has done a relatively
[52:04] good job of keeping our overall payment network in relatively good condition and has protected
[52:11] our private investments. But time marches on, right, and roads continue to age. At some point,
[52:17] a marginal road crosses that line where another surface treatment is no longer economically
[52:22] appropriate, and full reconstruction is going to be required. And that's what this graphic on
[52:28] the right side of the page is really showing, right? We have about 14% of the network
[52:33] that is currently in this marginal 41 to 50 category. So those roads are the pipeline that's
[52:40] that's feeding our future backlog if they're not treated in time.
[52:45] And that's why simply eliminating today's backlog doesn't permanently solve the problem, right?
[52:50] There are always going to be additional pavement that's aging behind it.
[52:55] So a successful long-term strategy therefore needs one source of funding that's capable of addressing the reconstruction backlog
[53:03] while also preserving enough annual revenue to maintain our healthier portion of the system.
[53:09] So,
[53:13] this slide is probably the simplest way to visualize what we're dealing with.
[53:18] Think of our pavement network as a boat that's taking on water and that boat is captain
[53:22] by the very cute as a button, Justin Weldy, as you can see, he's, we love this, we love
[53:29] this graphic, anyway.
[53:32] So think of our pavement network as a boat that's taking on water.
[53:36] So we're bailing out water every year, right, by reconstructing the backlog streets, that's
[53:41] what he's bailing out.
[53:43] But at the same time, water's still coming in from the back
[53:47] of the boat there, because additional aging streets
[53:49] are continuing to deteriorate and enter our backlog.
[53:53] So if roads are entering the backlog,
[53:55] faster than we're able to reconstruct them,
[53:59] then that total backlog grows.
[54:01] Water is rising in the boat.
[54:04] Our backlog is growing.
[54:06] Even though we're spending millions of dollars
[54:09] on completing projects every year.
[54:13] So the objective is not simply to bail out faster one year, right?
[54:16] We actually need a sustainable funding approach that's going to allow us both to address and reduce the existing backlog
[54:23] and also reduce the rate at which the additional streets are falling into it, which is the water that's entering the boat.
[54:31] I just want to just stay on this slide for a few more minutes.
[54:34] Sorry.
[54:36] So this next slide actually illustrates the boat analogy pretty well.
[54:41] We've been successful in maintaining our overall condition of our pavement network.
[54:46] But at the same time, the amount of water in the boat, which our backlog has actually increased.
[54:52] So since 2022, the town has invested approximately $20.8 million in roadway repairs and preservation.
[55:01] So that investment has helped us maintain a relatively strong overall network PCI right or actually we've increased it slightly from
[55:10] 69 in 2023 to 69.8 in 2026. So we mainly held it held it steady. At the same time the percentage of the network and
[55:23] backlog you see that number down towards the bottom left there. The percentage of the network in
[55:29] backlog is actually increased from 5.44% to 10.41%, about almost a 90% increase.
[55:36] So at first those numbers may seem a bit contradictory, right?
[55:40] But let's remember that PCI is an average across the entire network.
[55:44] So by preserving and improving a large portion of our streets, we've actually been able to maintain
[55:48] that overall average even while a growing number of the individual roads have deteriorated
[55:55] into backlog condition.
[55:56] So both things can be true at the same time.
[55:59] Over all that work can remain relatively healthy
[56:01] while the number of roads at the bottom of that condition scale
[56:05] continue to degrade and continue to grow, actually.
[56:09] So if we take a look at that other number in the middle there on the left,
[56:13] the percentage of roads in good or better condition has also declined a bit
[56:17] from 69% to 63.52% between 2023 and 2026.
[56:24] That's another indication that more of the network is moving down that deterioration curve.
[56:35] So, these numbers were actually put together, I believe it was like last May, I believe in May.
[56:41] So, but we can kind of, for intends and purposes for today's discussion, we can consider this still pretty much the same as it, and call it today's numbers.
[56:50] So this, our model today, identifies 221 roadway segments that are already in backlog,
[56:58] that's that number on that red line, and that's requiring reconstruction.
[57:04] Right, the estimated reconstruction cost for those existing backlog segments,
[57:07] those 221 segments, including an inflation assumption, is approximately 20.1 million dollars.
[57:16] But that's only a snapshot, this is today's backlog, right, taken right now.
[57:24] The model also identifies another 249 segments that are currently approaching the threshold
[57:30] and are expected to fall into backlog over approximately the next three to five years.
[57:37] The estimated reconstruction cost for those additional near-term backlog segments is approximately
[57:42] $28.2 million.
[57:44] So
[57:47] the planning level five year need is essentially 20.1 million plus 28.2 million or 48.3 million dollars adjusted for inflation.
[57:58] So that 48.3 million dollars represents the estimated reconstruction need for roads that are either already in backlog or projected to reach backlog condition over the next three to five years.
[58:11] Now, the $48.3 million should not be viewed as replacing our annual pavement program.
[58:17] Under the funding network, that's reflected in the presentation, the bond proceeds would
[58:22] be directed only toward eligible capital improvements, primarily just really the full reconstruction
[58:30] of roads that have reached the backlog condition.
[58:33] The bond would not eliminate the need for our ongoing streets fund pavement program.
[58:36] Right, bonds can only be used for reconstruction.
[58:39] Our other revenues will be used for pavement preservation.
[58:44] So, we still need that annual funding for crack ceiling slurry seals, mill and overlay
[58:49] work, and any other preservation work or treatments that's necessary to keep those good roads
[58:53] from becoming a future backlog.
[58:56] So, that is the basic strategy.
[58:59] Oh, yes.
[58:59] Yeah, the ones that are soon to in the next three to five years need reconstruction.
[59:05] Is there any maintenance you can do on it to any preventative maintenance on those well if that's if nothing's done to that. Yes mayor and vice mayor if we were to
[59:16] Address those then we do have other other
[59:21] Rows that are going to be also falling into backlog behind that so what our what our what our approach here was was to say take a five-year
[59:29] time frame, look at everything that's going to be either in backlog now or going to be in backlog
[59:35] and address that with the bond proceeds while we use other other funds to address preservation.
[59:45] Because as we're doing this other roads are going to be falling from preservation that we don't
[59:51] get a chance to preserve, I'm going to fall into this other marginal category right behind these.
[59:56] So at some point we just had to kind of pick a number like okay over five years.
[1:00:00] Where are we going to be? Let's address all those and get those done now while we're preserving the rest of our healthier roads. So I understand where you come from. Let me just ask you again. Yeah. The ones that are at the three to five years. I mean, you're basing this on we do nothing, nothing preventative on those, but is there a possibility of those that are soon to be backlogged? Any preventative to keep them from becoming not needing to be reconstructed? That was my question. Yes.
[1:00:32] Yes, the short answer to your question is yes, something can be done to those, but we
[1:00:37] have to kind of pick a point in which we say, okay, because if we were to address those
[1:00:43] and put the money into those, then we are taking money away from other roles that needed
[1:00:52] as well.
[1:00:53] Well, these are already almost, they're about to slip into the backlog, and our thought
[1:00:58] was, well, if we address those with the bond money, then the rest of our network, the
[1:01:09] more healthier part of our network, we'll be able to put the money revenues into that
[1:01:12] for payment, treatment, for maintenance, extending the life of those, yeah.
[1:01:20] Yeah, these are almost at the end of their end of their life.
[1:01:24] So putting another pavement treatment into these, another maintenance treatment into
[1:01:29] these, will get us a couple of years more.
[1:01:32] So where our thought was that we'd rather put the right dollars towards the right roadways
[1:01:40] and the right treatments.
[1:01:42] So again, we were trying to pick a year and trying to pick a time frame to say this is
[1:01:48] Is when these roads are going to, oh, did you want to say something cool?
[1:01:51] I just felt someone behind me.
[1:01:57] So that was essentially, we just had to pick a time frame to say, okay, in three to five
[1:02:03] years these are going to be in backlog, and these are going to be in backlog.
[1:02:06] Let's get those on the queue to take care of them, because we're going to take care of them.
[1:02:11] Anyway, again, we're not going to take care of them all right now.
[1:02:14] We just don't have the funding to do it all right now.
[1:02:16] So we're anticipating with a bond that those will be at the point where we need to take
[1:02:23] care of them.
[1:02:24] And again, if we don't put the maintenance money into the other roads to protect the
[1:02:29] access, want to call it healthier roads, then those are going to degrade as well.
[1:02:34] So we just kind of have to draw a line in the sand if you will.
[1:02:45] Along the same lines, if you addressed some of these roads that are in that sub 40 category,
[1:02:52] is there anything you can do, and if there is something you can do based upon the aggressiveness
[1:02:59] of the approach, whether it's crack seal, slurry, mill and overlay, how long could each of
[1:03:04] those incremental treatments extend the life of those streets and bring them up to a more
[1:03:10] are palatable, marginal, fair, good.
[1:03:13] And I think for stalling some of this might make some sense
[1:03:18] by doing something as an intermediate.
[1:03:19] And if you're telling me that everything below 40,
[1:03:22] it's not salvageable, there's nothing we can do.
[1:03:25] That's one answer.
[1:03:26] But if there's something we can do
[1:03:27] to extend the life of those streets
[1:03:29] or it minimally improve it, that's another answer.
[1:03:33] Good point, Mayor.
[1:03:34] Council member Watts,
[1:03:35] I'll let public works director Weldy discuss the chip deal with the Cape, which we've done actually as a pilot project, so I'll let him discuss.
[1:03:47] Can we go back to his slide?
[1:03:49] It's kind of like having a poster made of it.
[1:03:55] So, Mr. General was doing an excellent job of explaining it.
[1:03:59] So the marginal roads continue to degrade at a percentage based on their life and
[1:04:06] the weather. We simply don't have enough funding in the bucket to use one of Paul's metaphors
[1:04:12] to address all of them. The question is from the vice mayor, can we address some of them
[1:04:19] in the marginal? Absolutely. Is there something that we can do to extend their life? Sure, we've
[1:04:26] been before this body before and ask for permission to do an edge mill, a chip seal with a cape.
[1:04:32] And we've been successful with that, some certainly, some lessons learned, for the three of them that we've done two different locations now, one of them is fairing incredibly well, a section of Chama, the other section not so well.
[1:04:47] So yes, there are less expensive alternatives to bringing them back just above 40, and the intent of that alternative was to allow us more time for planning and funding scenarios.
[1:05:01] But each of those treatments has an incremental increase in life.
[1:05:05] So if I went from the crack seal up to a slurry seal or a cape and overlay, then what would
[1:05:13] I get in return?
[1:05:15] How many more years of life out of that street if I could do it?
[1:05:17] And each one has an incremental increase in life expectancy.
[1:05:21] So each one of the segments are slightly different.
[1:05:24] So just to do a vague, we could probably move that out two and a half to three years max
[1:05:31] before we would have to address it. And having moved it out two and a half or three years
[1:05:36] until we could address it, it is now in the area that it's going to need a milling overlay or
[1:05:41] full depth reconstruction. So we can move it out slightly, but we can't save it.
[1:05:48] So assuming we did the bond, how much is this going to change in a year to two years?
[1:05:53] Is it going to get progressively worse?
[1:05:56] Are we going to hold our own at that 69.8% or how far are we going to slip?
[1:06:03] The intent with this discussion in regards to direction is that we would have enough funding
[1:06:10] to move over the next several years to address the backlog and use the funding that is currently
[1:06:17] allocated for maintenance.
[1:06:18] So we would gain substantially, the backlog number would go down substantially with bond funding provided we still had adequate funding to continue to do maintenance to keep us back into the above 40, 50, 60 or even up to 70 PCI range for some of the other roads.
[1:06:36] So our backlog would drop substantially.
[1:06:40] So you're really pushing us to the 20 million plus level and you're going to hold on the
[1:06:47] soon to fall into the backlog with what we've got currently.
[1:06:51] The intent is not to push the council in regards to funding.
[1:06:54] Those were just different options that Mr. Solinger presented.
[1:06:59] So we don't want to back you into a corner here.
[1:07:01] We are simply providing accurate data and information that would allow you to make a decision to either move forward or stop based on these different scenarios.
[1:07:12] I didn't mean to phrase it as backing us into a corner. It was more along the lines and that's the reality that we're looking at.
[1:07:17] The reality is that in order to get the backlog back up above 40 and get it into a fair condition, I would say at a minimum, you need the 20 million plus.
[1:07:28] I would not argue with that estimate.
[1:07:33] Justine, give me some numbers as far as time frame.
[1:07:38] A full depth reconstruction will last us what, 20 or 30 years if we're lucky.
[1:07:46] Mr. Mayor, and so it's not a very complicated process.
[1:07:49] We live in a relatively dry with the temperature fluctuations going the opposite direction and most of that on the planet.
[1:07:58] We go from the 60s and 70s into the hundreds.
[1:08:00] But it's the thaw-free cycle that really degradates the integrity of asphalt overall.
[1:08:06] So a brand new road full depth construction, we could really be looking at 20 to 25 years
[1:08:12] provided.
[1:08:13] There was adequate funding at the five to seven year mark to do crack-billum preservative
[1:08:17] seal.
[1:08:18] So we've actually been able to get up to 30 years out of some.
[1:08:22] Okay.
[1:08:23] So a mill and overlay, what kind of lifespan?
[1:08:26] a million overlay extends the life approximately two-thirds of a lifespan, so it would be 16, 17 years.
[1:08:34] And how about cap and chip?
[1:08:38] A maximum of five to seven years, and that's again just moving something, kicking the can down the road is how I've described it.
[1:08:44] Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Vice mayor?
[1:08:53] There, I am muted. Sorry, now I'm learning the mute button.
[1:08:57] And Paul, my question is, so we get 20 million, we get caught up, but in three to five years,
[1:09:05] are we going to be back here asking for another bond?
[1:09:07] That's what it looks like to me here, if we.
[1:09:10] Good question.
[1:09:11] So mayor, vice mayor, I want to point out when I was nervously pacing back and forth,
[1:09:16] I kind of want to say a few things about the data because, you know, from my perspective,
[1:09:20] a finance perspective.
[1:09:21] to. So, one thing that we really should hedge on is these are estimates. We haven't had
[1:09:28] this PCI data collected in about four years. So, we're just using predictions at this
[1:09:33] point, predictive methodology to predict what we are today. It could change if we actually
[1:09:37] did another full measurement, but it's relatively accurate. I think anywhere in the plus
[1:09:42] of 10 percent range is probably where we are as far as the backlog numbers that we're
[1:09:47] today. I just wanted to make that clear. This is just for discussion purposes. As far as
[1:09:53] bonding goes, the other thing that I wanted to mention is what was really interesting
[1:09:58] is the pavement management program for this year. It's all focused on red smaller residential
[1:10:03] roads in the town. And if you look at the backlog number, what kind of stands out, that $20 million,
[1:10:08] the $15 million is for our local roads. Our look from my understanding, Justin can touch
[1:10:14] on this, but a lot of our local roads have not been touched or reconstructed in so long
[1:10:19] and many of them are pre-incorporated. So you can see as a backlog number most of it is local
[1:10:25] roads and this year we are addressing almost entirely or I think entirely local roads. So everything
[1:10:31] we're doing this year is mitigating or reducing that number. Say we do five to six million dollars
[1:10:36] this year that directly reduces that backlog number. So actually our backlog number is starting to
[1:10:41] look pretty good. It's right around $15 million today. The challenge is that $28 million
[1:10:46] come and do in the next few years. And most of that is in the next three to five years,
[1:10:52] where another $28 million, and most of that is local roads as well when I look at the data.
[1:10:58] A similar percentage falls into that backlog as well. So if we were to do a bond, you know,
[1:11:04] what we would do, you know, I don't want to speak for them, but from a budgetary standpoint,
[1:11:11] If the council does still continue to authorize a million or so, two million dollars of transfers into the streets fund, that's how we could get there. That would be a challenge though. That would be really some navigation.
[1:11:23] And if we did that, we could really substantially reduce the backlog ourselves. But then the soon to be backlog is what we cannot address with just our operating budget.
[1:11:31] that. So if that's what the council want to do is really correct or fix most of the backlog,
[1:11:39] bonding is pretty much our only option to do that. If the council or the residents are happy
[1:11:45] with the road conditions today and maybe some marginal improvements, then we just, I'd say,
[1:11:50] continue what we're doing today with our operating budget.
[1:11:58] Paul, can I ask you one clarifying question, Mayor? If that's okay with you.
[1:12:01] What I heard you say was, and this is directly to your question, Vice Mayor, so if the bond was approved and we moved towards that, we would work kind of congruently with our operating budget to continue to address, so let's just say the bond goes towards those that are under 40.
[1:12:24] The allocated budget each year would go towards preventing anything else to fall into that.
[1:12:29] So we would kind of run, can, can grow an effort so that we're not back here in three to
[1:12:34] five years, ideally, if that, but we have to make sure that we have the funds available
[1:12:38] to do that.
[1:12:38] That's obviously highly contingent on our budgeting process and our revenues and other things
[1:12:43] like that.
[1:12:44] Is that what I heard you say?
[1:12:45] Yes.
[1:12:45] That's an excellent way to summarize.
[1:12:47] That's a probably good option is to, if the council do want to move forward in a bond,
[1:12:51] use that towards the current backlog and then start using the operating budget to try
[1:12:58] to address everything that's going to start falling into the backlog.
[1:13:00] That's probably a really good idea, a good way to approach it in that conversation.
[1:13:04] And another point that we've talked about in the past, but just as a reminder, bond proceeds
[1:13:09] and spending the bond proceeds does not count towards the expense limitation in our budget process.
[1:13:14] So we could say, hey, we're going to use $6 million of road work from our existing revenues.
[1:13:19] And if we did take out a $20 million bond, we could budget another $20 million that next year, on top of our budget, to do as much road work as possible, without any impact to our expense or limitation.
[1:13:31] Can we get that road work done?
[1:13:37] Justin, or David?
[1:13:41] I was briefly absent to discuss an issue with EPCOR, catch me up real quickly.
[1:13:46] So if we got a bond, as Paul was saying, for $20 million to get all these substandard
[1:13:52] roads taken care of, can we get what's the time for him to get that work done?
[1:13:58] realistically probably five years plus or minus.
[1:14:02] It's a lot of road work.
[1:14:04] Just before you sit down, I had one other question.
[1:14:07] Mayor, if that's okay with you.
[1:14:08] Go ahead.
[1:14:08] When you mentioned, you were sharing with the mayor
[1:14:11] the different applications and preservative applications
[1:14:13] and their projected lifespan, what they add to the road.
[1:14:17] Meaning if you did a million overlay versus a chip seal
[1:14:22] and a cape, they offered different things.
[1:14:24] I wanted to make sure, does it matter
[1:14:26] when they are applied, i.e., if the road is so far is so degraded to, let's just say, a 30,
[1:14:33] and we decided to do a chip seal in a cape. Does that still add five to seven years,
[1:14:40] or does it matter when it's applied? And then that's an excellent question. So the answer to that
[1:14:46] question is it just kicks the can down the road. It just buys us some time and a chip seal in a cape
[1:14:52] is such a type of treatment that it fills a lot of the voids, but a good example if you want to see one is half a trauma.
[1:15:00] This pre-incorporation, the other was posed on the pre-incorporation. It looks wobbly and you can see reflective cracking, but it's not as bad. So that's what it would buy us as time. But it would not rejuvenate. In regards to the others, the proper treatment at the proper time does actually extend the life to the expected life expectancy of that roadway section. Thank you. I thought that I wanted to double check that because I know when we were talking about the earlier question about can we can we extend it?
[1:15:29] Yes, you can, but I think it matters, you know, you're timing if it's it's too far gone, you know,
[1:15:35] it's just a bandaid, but doing it on a timely basis is what we're trying to get to.
[1:15:39] Get airing our roads to that point where we can then take some of these more minimal cost measures
[1:15:45] to extend those as opposed to always having to reconstruct.
[1:15:51] I just want to add one thing, Mayor. So with the five-year timeline that Justin mentioned,
[1:15:56] And when you issue a bond, you have to reasonably expect to spend it within a three year period, so that would be a consideration if we couldn't do $20 million of road work additionally in the next three years, we probably want to go for a smaller bond or if we went to get the voter authorization, then issue a smaller bond to be realistic with what we can do in that three year period.
[1:16:17] Yeah, I agree with that and I think it would be a good test case to see how how it all worked out
[1:16:24] Right, so I'm not sure if this goes to David or to Justin
[1:16:26] but in the aggregate if we did a $20 million bond and we did our $6 million worth of work
[1:16:34] We got $26 million worth of ongoing work with three primary streets with between palisades found in those boulevard
[1:16:42] So I don't believe that you can get enough contractors to be able to do that work even in three years.
[1:16:50] So I think it would have been less than $22 million.
[1:16:53] I don't know that you could get it all done in five years because of the maintenance aspect and then the reconstruction aspect.
[1:16:59] So can you get it done and if so, what time period?
[1:17:03] And you really ought to have a time period for each of the bond amounts.
[1:17:06] So there are several smaller questions in there to unpack.
[1:17:10] In fact, the reality is there are several contractors available to do that type of work for BID, not all of them are necessarily what we would use under cooperative agreement.
[1:17:23] A good example is the Savoro reconstruction. We got a large number of BIDs from qualified contractors for that that were all in the ballpark.
[1:17:33] So, I'm confident that as each segment comes up and we set that out for bid, direct selects
[1:17:40] a little bit more challenging, that we would have a series of contractors and it's going
[1:17:46] to take a little bit more than five years and then the latter part, the maintenance would
[1:17:51] be separate.
[1:17:52] So, the contractors that would be doing the maintenance would typically have either
[1:17:58] a second crew if they were going to be bidding on something or they would have subcontractors
[1:18:02] that we've been on it.
[1:18:03] So we would separate the two.
[1:18:05] We would not have the same contractor
[1:18:07] or the same crews working on bond work versus maintenance.
[1:18:10] We would break those two apart.
[1:18:12] Yeah, but I hear what you're saying,
[1:18:13] and it can be two different entities,
[1:18:15] but by the same breadth, you're disrupting traffic.
[1:18:19] Somehow, you're gonna be disrupting traffic,
[1:18:20] whether it's on some of the arterial streets,
[1:18:23] whether it's gonna be on some of the feeders,
[1:18:24] wherever it's going to be,
[1:18:25] you're gonna have a lot of,
[1:18:27] I would call monkeys in a barrel at one time.
[1:18:29] And that is gonna be a challenge
[1:18:31] with the feedback, the pushback that we get from even on the
[1:18:35] Shay, that's going wonderfully and we still get a lot of heat on that one.
[1:18:40] Can you imagine shutting down one of the primary streets into town
[1:18:43] and then more of the size streets as well?
[1:18:47] And to your point, and these are all valid.
[1:18:49] I have lived through each of those scenarios.
[1:18:52] So I've said this often there is no convenient time per construction
[1:18:56] because you cannot start and stop during seasonal.
[1:18:59] and it's also, and this makes people a little uncomfortable,
[1:19:02] Founding Hills is one of the only municipal governments
[1:19:05] that pays a convenience fee.
[1:19:09] And let me explain that in a little bit of detail.
[1:19:12] In order to keep shade moving in two lanes,
[1:19:15] we had to pay a little bit extra,
[1:19:17] which all of the contractors factored in there,
[1:19:21] knowing that they would only be able to do a part of it
[1:19:24] at one time instead of just reducing it to one lane.
[1:19:26] The same applies to our basic maintenance and treatment.
[1:19:30] They know that we're going to have to make accommodations to allow people to do certain things on their road or in their neighborhood.
[1:19:39] And there's a fee associated with that.
[1:19:41] If you go anywhere else in the state or the valley or even other states, you will note that Pima Road is down to one lane for 24 months.
[1:19:52] and this is the way it is and that's you have to live with it if you're in that
[1:19:57] jurisdiction. We're considerably more accommodating here and we would have to
[1:20:02] make those accommodations and each one of them cost a little more and it
[1:20:06] takes a little more time. I would say that even with the convenience fee and the
[1:20:12] time delays or constraints that we have we've still been able to manage relatively
[1:20:15] well in the 20 or so years that I've been here but yes there are logistical
[1:20:20] challenges. Absolutely. We certainly want to pick one section of town and disrupt all of it at
[1:20:26] one time because that also has a very negative impact on first responders response,
[1:20:31] trash collection, school bus pickup and drop off. There's a lot more impacted than just the folks
[1:20:36] that get up and go to work every morning. And you're going to be here for the duration? No, sir.
[1:20:48] So
[1:20:53] mayor vice mayor, I'd just like to get back to that that your earlier points and I think the
[1:20:59] discussion we've just been having kind of gets gets back to that. Obviously we
[1:21:05] don't have the ability to say okay the let's the touring 21 backlog roads okay
[1:21:11] they're fixed okay now at that point we can just do it right away sure we can
[1:21:15] we can do we can do what we need to do to those soon to be backlog roads and and
[1:21:19] treat those but honestly if we we figured when we did this analysis when we
[1:21:25] started it we said okay it's gonna take us time to get through the backlog
[1:21:28] We can't do them all in one year or two years or three years.
[1:21:31] So let's say, okay, three to five years is going to take us that much time to get through the backlog that we have right now.
[1:21:38] And so during that time while we're fixing the roads, we're fixing now.
[1:21:42] We have other roads that are entering the backlog that we want to capture and incorporate that into the bond proceeds also.
[1:21:49] So we can address those already in plan for that.
[1:21:52] So that's really the reason why we had this scenario like this,
[1:21:56] three to five year horizon. It's not that we're saying like you know what screw them we don't want to do
[1:22:01] them right now. We'll take care of our current but we have to think about those because as we're
[1:22:05] addressing our backlog now those are going to fall into the backlog. We just don't have the time
[1:22:12] to it would be great if we just like just snap our fingers and it was done but we know it's going to
[1:22:17] take time to address them. So anyway getting back on track. We know that
[1:22:24] But there is one important thing finding that we found from our analysis here.
[1:22:31] Probably 75.6% of our current backlog is actually associated with local residential
[1:22:37] streets.
[1:22:39] By comparison, arterial accounts for approximately 6%, collectors about 9.2%, and alleys
[1:22:48] about 9.3% of that current backlog reconstruction cost.
[1:22:54] Now because most of that backlog is on local streets, council may want to consider whether
[1:22:58] the program should simply follow PAPIN condition or do we want to place additional emphasis on
[1:23:06] certain types of roadways.
[1:23:08] So if we simply address backlog based on the PAPIN condition, a large portion of the reconstruction
[1:23:13] constructed reconstruction program that we're going to be working on will naturally occur
[1:23:17] on the neighborhood streets because that's where most of the existing backlog is.
[1:23:22] Alternatively, Council could direct us to evaluate prioritization based on roadway classification
[1:23:30] or geographic distribution or some other combination of factors.
[1:23:35] But if Council is interested, we can also model alternative funding horizons such as seven
[1:23:41] year or ten-year scenarios in addition to the five-year estimate that we're showing here.
[1:23:48] And again, I want to iterate just like Paul did.
[1:23:51] These are planning-level estimates, right?
[1:23:54] They're not construction bids.
[1:23:56] We don't have a final project list, but if a council would direct us to proceed, we would
[1:24:02] refine the modeling costs, right?
[1:24:03] We would sequence those, sequence the roadway reconstructions before returning with any kind
[1:24:10] a recommendation.
[1:24:14] Mr. Jammer? Yes.
[1:24:16] Let me just discuss the addressing like for $20.1 million the backlog for and using
[1:24:23] the bond for that. Yes. Okay. So instead of like saying payment condition or certain
[1:24:31] types and certain types of roads. So if council decides to move forward with this, but I'm
[1:24:38] hearing and maybe I'm not hearing it all 100% is that we really want to address the backlog
[1:24:43] because that's the problem and the drain that's happening and it's getting worse and
[1:24:47] worse and worse and they're getting below 40 etc and so that's well because we're always
[1:24:53] going to be playing catch up no matter what we do even if we had enough money we're still
[1:24:58] going to be playing catch up on the roads are still going to deteriorate so what we want
[1:25:02] to do is best use of funds best use of funds it sounds to me like it's addressing the backlog
[1:25:07] Because that's the problem and then using the budget funds to maintain, you know, other more
[1:25:14] You know higher rated streets, etc. Correct. Yes, Mayor councilmember McMahon. Thank you. That is correct
[1:25:20] That's correct and what I was talking about was how we address the backlog. Do we want to address it just by?
[1:25:26] Do we want to prioritize them by
[1:25:29] The type road road reclassification
[1:25:31] Or do we want to take care of everything in the north northeast or the northwest first or right?
[1:25:36] It's just different options of how to approach addressing the backlog.
[1:25:41] Right, but in the prior page, it let it say that the largest percentage was the general roadways,
[1:25:47] like the residential ones, that really are what our residents are complaining about,
[1:25:52] you know, like kings or offshoots and things like that.
[1:25:56] So in looking at that particular diagram you had, you know, selecting that highest percentage area,
[1:26:03] those streets might be the best use for the bond if this moves forward at all.
[1:26:08] Thank you.
[1:26:09] Thank you.
[1:26:10] Hi.
[1:26:14] So because this is for discussion.
[1:26:17] And I know we're not all the way there yet we have a ways to go today.
[1:26:21] But I came on this council saying never no way a bond for roads until I see all these details.
[1:26:29] and then I said not residential roads because not everybody's on them just the
[1:26:36] main arterial and feeder roads but I see there's the big need in the
[1:26:43] residential roads so my what I will be suggesting is that we do the 6% of the
[1:26:52] arterial roads and the 9.2% of collector roads and what we need to do on the
[1:26:57] local roads as well with that but we'll talk about how we do the bonding down the road but I
[1:27:04] like the idea of Paul saying if we have to spend it within three years you know we talked about
[1:27:10] which what I'd like you to look into is the 11 million that 11 million dollar bond for 10 years
[1:27:20] but if there's a way to do two of them I don't know how you do that because even the percentage
[1:27:24] when we do a 20-year loan, we're only putting $6.2 on every dollar into the road the
[1:27:32] rest goes to the bank. If we're doing a 10-year loan or bond, $0.77 goes to the
[1:27:39] road. This is just figures there and the rest goes to the bank and I'd like to
[1:27:43] see more of it go to the roads than to the making the banks rich. So if you're
[1:27:47] looking into it. Paul, I'd like you to figure that out for us. That's possible. I think you said we,
[1:27:55] you know, approving the 20 million, but it would be laid out, you know, two different ways about
[1:28:03] how that works. But yeah, so mayor, vice mayor, so we provided in the options and the survey, we provided
[1:28:11] those options to the survey respondents, and then we provided some, you know, estimates to the council as
[1:28:17] well. One of the options is the $11 million and over 10 year repayment period. And if
[1:28:22] that's something that we can get a majority discussion on, then we could definitely prepare
[1:28:27] that or if it's multiple scenarios that you're interested in, we can definitely do that.
[1:28:31] $11 million over 10 million or 10 year repayment period is pretty typical. You could extend
[1:28:35] it, but to your point you would be paying more interest over the life of the repayment.
[1:28:39] You could, we could bring you a five year repayment period scenario. That's what we did
[1:28:46] the last one, you're going to pay less interest in the five years than the 10 years but on the payment
[1:28:54] on the taxes for the taxpayer will go up per year because of you can't. Oh, when you get this
[1:29:00] second part, just but if we can't, if it has to be done within three years and we can't do it within
[1:29:05] three years, why would we take out a pond if we can't, what happens there, that's my question there
[1:29:13] too. And the other thing which I'm I want the general public to know when we're
[1:29:18] talking about determining what goes on your taxes. The value of your home is a lot
[1:29:26] less than what your house sells for. So a lot of us do fall within the range of
[1:29:32] the which you were calculating these numbers on is around 500,000. As the what
[1:29:39] you caught the limited property value or LPV?
[1:29:43] Yes, so I didn't really look at that before.
[1:29:49] Yeah, no problem. I can state it.
[1:29:51] So it's very similar to what we presented in February,
[1:29:55] just kind of looking at the average taxpayer or resident
[1:29:58] that owns a home.
[1:30:00] In Falon Hills, it's pretty close. It's an estimate, but it's pretty close. In that $11 million
[1:30:05] scenario over a 10-year repayment period, it would be about $110 a year of secondary property
[1:30:12] taxes. That's the starting point. It could slightly go down year to year, depending on
[1:30:16] the development in the town and things like that. But that's an estimate of about how much
[1:30:21] it would impact. And commercial properties and landlords, you know,
[1:30:26] with apartments and stuff, they're paying property tax, too, aren't they?
[1:30:30] Is it at a different rate?
[1:30:31] It would be paying towards the bonds besides just the residents?
[1:30:35] It's based on the limited property value based on the assessor's assessment.
[1:30:39] So if there's an assessment by the assessor and there's a limited property value
[1:30:43] on the building or property in town, yes, the tax would be spread out or levied.
[1:30:49] So it's not just on us residents?
[1:30:52] Well, commercial buildings as well.
[1:30:53] Yeah, any tax pair is on villains in town that's the levy would go but is but is commercial is helping to pay towards the bond is what I'm saying
[1:31:03] Yes, right, okay
[1:31:08] So that's only a hundred nine dollars is fourteen dollars and before dollars and seventeen cents a month
[1:31:16] Not too bad
[1:31:19] Does everybody hear that out there? It's why I support bonds now
[1:31:24] Maybe
[1:31:31] I said it's $109 a year, works out to $4.17 a month, but you pay most of us, well I think
[1:31:40] I do anyway, I pay mine twice a year.
[1:31:43] If you have it on your mortgage, it's not going to be very much of an increase.
[1:31:46] Okay,
[1:31:57] so just to summarize, and just to be clear, we are looking, staff is looking
[1:32:04] for direction tonight or today, but we're not asking council to, again,
[1:32:11] select the final bond amount. The first question is simply, does council
[1:32:17] want staff to continue evaluating a potential railway bond? And if so, we
[1:32:22] like some guidance on the time horizon should be model of five-year program as we discussed
[1:32:28] here today or would you like us to develop a seven-year and or even ten-year alternative.
[1:32:35] And finally does council want us to evaluate different prioritization strategies. For
[1:32:40] example, whether materials, collectors or local streets should receive priority versus addressing
[1:32:45] the backlog just primarily based on the condition basis or a married basis and when it should
[1:32:51] should be done when it's next up in the queue.
[1:32:54] And if Council wants us to move forward,
[1:32:56] staff would take that direction
[1:32:57] and we'll further develop the scenarios and return
[1:33:00] in early 2027 with some refined costs,
[1:33:04] alternatives and recommendations.
[1:33:06] So in essence, what we're seeking tonight or today
[1:33:09] is just enough policy direction to know
[1:33:12] what alternatives Council would like us to come back with.
[1:33:16] And with that, that concludes the public works portion
[1:33:19] of the presentation, and we'd be happy to answer any questions about paper and conditions,
[1:33:26] the backlog, estimates, the treatment strategies, or potential scenarios.
[1:33:31] More importantly, we're interested in council's thoughts on whether you would like us to
[1:33:37] continue with this analysis, and if so, what type of scenarios and priorities would you like
[1:33:41] us to bring back?
[1:33:42] So with that, we have a question.
[1:33:47] Thank you.
[1:33:47] The capital well is not here, but we do have Paul, myself, and Jeff Pierce isn't here, so it's just the Paul and Dave show.
[1:33:56] Thank you.
[1:33:58] If you go back to slide, and you said five years or whatever, there's no amount of money in this.
[1:34:05] So I think part of the, in looking at this, and looking at what Paul gave us,
[1:34:10] looking at the backlog at 20 million, etc.
[1:34:13] then I think that maybe if we direct them to take a look at basically, I think all of this is going to be included if we decide on a bond, etc. in order to do the right strategy and stuff because then you can depending upon the roads or what is chosen, then that will determine the amount of money as well in the long run.
[1:34:39] Yes, Mayor, Councilmember, so what we're doing is we're really going to dive down on the actual analysis on the real numbers and we're going to come back with an actual list of roadways and we can actually come back with projected cost estimates and actually get some vids on those to see what we're really up against.
[1:35:00] So, your presentation, thank you for your presentation.
[1:35:05] I think it's been very well written and it explained concisely what we're looking at.
[1:35:11] And you summed it up very well, request for direction, but I kind of think, and maybe
[1:35:17] I'm wrong, that if we direct them to continue to do this, it's really going to have to take
[1:35:22] into all that consideration.
[1:35:23] So an educated, a better educated decision can be made later on with more, not more succinct
[1:35:31] but more directive information as far as the condition of the roads, et cetera.
[1:35:36] So that's my thinking on it, and thank you both for your presentation, I appreciate it.
[1:35:43] Just to chime in on what Councilmember McVan just said, there's a little bit of the information
[1:35:48] that we won't be able to provide you.
[1:35:50] We won't have a condition assessment done again before a decision has to be made.
[1:35:56] We're actually going the other way around and asking to know what your temperature check is on an amount.
[1:36:01] Not us coming back and saying we need this because really it's about a tolerance level from this council of what number can, does this council support?
[1:36:13] And if it's 11 million, if it's 20 million, whatever that is, we can run the scenarios based on those numbers.
[1:36:19] but ultimately it's about what you guys would like to see us come back with.
[1:36:25] That's what we're trying, we're looking for you guys to put those guardrails in parameters
[1:36:28] so that we come back with something that's viable, not something that we come back in,
[1:36:33] the council goes where the heck did this come from?
[1:36:36] Right, but to me, and maybe I'm wrong again, I don't know.
[1:36:39] I mean, I've heard that we really want to address the backlog, but that's really been the problem.
[1:36:43] It's been the big drain about everything
[1:36:46] everything and what's in the back everybody's mind all the time and it's getting worse and
[1:36:51] as it gets worse it gets more expensive so yeah I'm for looking at the backlog and looking
[1:36:58] at moving forward with that.
[1:37:05] So Paul where did we get the 11 on the 22 million oh so mayor council member we were providing
[1:37:12] just examples it was an easy example not necessarily us recommending that we should be arbitrary
[1:37:17] numbers.
[1:37:18] Well, not necessarily. We looked at Founhall's Boulevard and Palisades. Boulevard, they're
[1:37:22] similar in size. We got a quote from one of our current contractors. We had some contingency
[1:37:28] to that to give you a conservative estimate. That's where we got the $11 million. For the
[1:37:32] last time we talked about it, we were talking about Palisades and Founhall's Boulevard.
[1:37:36] The conversation has shifted a little bit to more like, hey, should we look at the backlog?
[1:37:41] We can always go back and look at those. But it was kind of interesting to see in the data
[1:37:45] that there are certain portions of those roads that are in really bad condition but there are
[1:37:49] portions of those roads that are in pretty good condition. So, you know, it's kind of a hard
[1:37:55] decision, it's more of a policy decision, do we want to go down that road and make it easier
[1:38:00] to just issue a bond unless we do a policies boulevard or found hills boulevard or do we want to address
[1:38:07] what's currently in the backlog based on the data which is mainly our side streets, our residential
[1:38:11] roads. I think looking at it, King Street's a great example because half of that road is in good
[1:38:17] shape and half of its fallen apart. So a good example. But I think that if I looked at it and I
[1:38:22] said, I took the arterial, a collector, the locals, and in aggregate, that's about $12 million.
[1:38:30] It's pretty straightforward there. But on the other hand, you're going to have a continued
[1:38:34] degradation of the streets over the next year to two years. By the time we put this all together.
[1:38:38] right so you're going to have some more that you're going to have to anticipate and I don't want to go back to the public again
[1:38:43] and say we need more money. So I'd be a supporter of the $20 million for a 10-year time frame just to give you some idea of
[1:38:52] guidance where I would fall. Okay so 20 rather than 22 as the original example. Okay but you're interested in more of a
[1:39:03] a shorter repayment period, like a 10 year repayment period for something like that.
[1:39:07] Yeah, I don't think that the $219 based upon the option three is that painful.
[1:39:19] So even if it goes to $400 a year, you're talking about less than $50 a month.
[1:39:26] So I don't go to Starbucks once a week.
[1:39:33] So just to reiterate, and I want to know if I was clear before, I would like to see that we do the bond that's the 20 million that would be taking care of all the back load, back load, back log, sorry, it's a load isn't, it's a backlog and my calculation on that one is, would you estimate it would be, it's the, it's like $18 a month.
[1:39:58] If we're thinking of that, that would be people that are on their mortgages or it's the what was it here at the 10 years at the 10 years would be about $219 a year.
[1:40:13] So and then in the meantime, the monies that we do, I want us to continue to pull together as much as we can to take care of what we have now and we might be able to get some reconstruction.
[1:40:24] instruction, I don't know.
[1:40:25] I need capital improvement projects or any,
[1:40:30] did I make that clear?
[1:40:32] Am I okay?
[1:40:33] Okay.
[1:40:34] So by 20 million or so.
[1:40:36] But 10 years.
[1:40:36] But 10 years.
[1:40:37] 10 year repayment period.
[1:40:38] I want more of the money to go to the roads instead of paid an interest.
[1:40:42] Okay.
[1:40:42] We don't want to make the banks richer than they need to be.
[1:40:45] We want to make the town richer with the nice roads.
[1:40:49] My only concern is can we get the work done
[1:40:52] taking $20 million.
[1:40:54] So I think to Justin's point earlier, Mayor, we could, if that's the route you want to go,
[1:41:00] what we would do is ask the voters to authorize us to do 20 or 20 million of bonds and probably
[1:41:04] issue an initial bond to do three years with the road work, whether that's $10 million, $11 million, $12 million,
[1:41:11] and we'll make that decision at that point.
[1:41:12] Then we come back, we go out and do the process to find the best option for a bond for the town and we bring it back to the council.
[1:41:20] But first, we need that voter authorization to do that.
[1:41:25] Okay, good.
[1:41:28] So I think you have some direction if I'm not mistaken, or do we?
[1:41:33] Right now, I've heard definitively from the vice mayor, from Councilman Watts, and that's three.
[1:41:40] I'd like to hear from the other two up here if possible.
[1:41:43] Oh, I'm all in.
[1:41:44] Okay.
[1:41:44] Yeah, yeah,
[1:41:53] yeah, I'm with my colleagues on this one I do prefer the shorter payment the 10 year
[1:41:59] So we get more bang for our buck. I think less of the banks was my colleague stated and
[1:42:04] As far as palisades and fountain hills boulevard, you know, we're gonna get some if we have more patients
[1:42:09] We're gonna get county money from that like 10 years or whatever 13 years from now
[1:42:13] So I think we should put those projects off with this bond money and go for the
[1:42:19] the under 40, the backlog, the people in our residential neighborhoods that have been waiting for this for so long.
[1:42:26] And so I would like to hire figure so we can just really tackle this from once and for all.
[1:42:32] And if the voters want to have done, this is a chance to get it done and done right, and not just half measures, so yeah, I can curve.
[1:42:44] I'm good with the 22 because even the million dollar difference by the time this is done it's
[1:42:49] going to increase and we'll if we and it's just probably just part of it and if that's
[1:42:56] what the estimate is I'm for doing it that way.
[1:43:00] So it sounds like we can prepare some scenarios specifically with our municipal advisor.
[1:43:08] Is there any other scenario that the council would like to see when we bring it back or it
[1:43:12] It sounds like we're all pretty set on the $20, $22 million
[1:43:15] number.
[1:43:16] OK.
[1:43:18] All right.
[1:43:21] I think that leads us, unless there's any other final questions.
[1:43:23] I think we are.
[1:43:25] We've got a direction.
[1:43:27] Thank you, everybody.
[1:43:29] Thank you.