--------- Good morning everyone. I'd like to welcome everybody to the February 23rd meeting of the budget review commission. Um let's start with a roll call. >> Vice Chair Schwiker >> present. Commissioner Bado.
>> Commissioner Carla >> here. >> Commissioner Latiri >> here. >> Commissioner Newman >> here. >> Commissioner Polland >> here. >> Commissioner Stevens >> here. >> Thank you. Uh we start with the public comment. Citizens may address the
members of the budget review commission during the public comment regarding non-aggendaized items and on agendaized items when the item is presented. Arizona law prohibits the commission from discussing or taking action on an
item that is not on the prepared agenda. Citizens may submit one request to speak a public comment card per meeting to the city staff. Public testimony is limited to three minutes per speaker. Written public comment cards can be submitted to
the city staff at any time for items. card submitted after the public comment has begun for the item will be provided to the commission at the conclusion of the public comment on that item. Uh we have no comment or no request to speak uh for general comments. We do have one
request to speak on item number four and we'll address that when we get there. The first item on the agenda is u the nomination and election of the chair and vice chair. In accordance with the bylaws, the commission will elect new
officers at the first meeting of each year. The chair will be elected first, then the vice chair. The commission will receive nominations, including self-nominations for each officer and may consider statements from nominees. Newly elected officers will assume
duties immediately. So with that, the uh the acting vice chair would accept nominations for the chair for the coming year. >> I nominate the acting vice chair. >> Do these work >> as chair? I nominate Commissioner
Schwiker as chair. >> Is there a second for that? I'd second that. >> No one will be. >> Are there any other nominations? >> I'm looking for some. Come on. >> Uh >> oh.
Okay. Um, are there any comments? Otherwise, we will go to a vote. All those in favor, please say I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed. Now, we're open for nominations for vice
chair. Are there any nominations for vice chair? Uh, Commissioner Carla. >> I would like to nominate Commissioner Stevens if he's willing. >> It doesn't matter. I I actually would like to decline from doing that. I find that running a meeting is distracting
from uh focusing on the content. So, I would prefer not to have that role. So, if there's another nomination, I'd appreciate that. Other otherwise, I shouldn't say this. Otherwise, I will not decline, but I'd really like someone else to do it so I can focus during the
meeting if Dan's not here. Although, his attendance record has been stellar. Is there a second for Commissioner Stevens for vice chair? >> Second. >> Are there any other nominations? >> I nominate Commissioner Newman.
Is there a second for that nomination? >> Thank you. But I I have to decline based on some other commitments that I have. So, thank you though. So that one that one that one failed for lack of a second. Are there any other any other nominations?
Otherwise, nominations are closed. And all those in favor of uh Commissioner Stevens, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Okay, we're done with that. Thank you,
Mark. I appreciate you doing that. >> I almost said no. If Carla hadn't nominated you, I would have. >> Oh, >> okay. Let's go on to item number two, the approval of minutes. Um, are there any
changes, questions, additions to the previous minutes? Carla, I'm looking at you. >> No, it's Okay. Uh if there are no changes to the minutes, um the chair would entertain a motion to approve them.
>> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. All those in favor, please say I. >> I. >> I. >> Okay. Now we go to item number three, the budget review commission annual meeting report. The commission is
required to submit an annual report to the city for activities, actions, and other business conducted during the preceding year. Staff has compiled the main actions and activities in the required format for commission review and approval.
Does anyone have any comments on that hearing? None. Commissioner Stevens. >> No, I was just going to say I'll move that it be accepted if that's what we need to do. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> So moved. >> Okay. Commissioner Newman seconded it. >> Second.
>> If there's no other um comments, let's have a vote. All those in favor, please say I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. No. Motion carries unanimously. Now we go to the pre preliminary 2026
2027 5-year capital improvement plan. We do have a speaker on this one before we get started. So, I'd like to call upon Ethan Nolan. Good morning. Ethan Nolen, address on record. Uh, forgive me, these are not prepared comments. This is a little bit
more off the cuff, but I did want to take an opportunity to talk a little bit about the 5-year capital plan that you guys are uh having before you this morning. These comments are probably more directed to staff than to the commission because obviously I haven't heard the commission's views on the plan
just yet. U but you know, uh for 300 odd pages, I only printed the first 60 or so uh the summary spreadsheets. Uh I do have some experience reading spreadsheets. However, it would have been great to have some words of explanation uh for some of the choices. is obviously being made here. U that
leaves us kind of trying to come up with our own explanations for why these choices were made. And it's unfortunate because some of these choices really are policy choices. It's very clear that uh the the city's plan now is to not have a plan with regards to our water future.
You know, as recently as 18 months ago, we did have a plan for our water future. Uh we had a plan that incur uh included advanced verified recycled water, increase systemwide well recovery, implement automated water uh meter infrastructure, pursue additional water
resources like the Bartlett Dam expansion and joining in the Phoenix regional uh APRW facility and moving water north from the SRP region. So far as I can tell, uh, only the meters are currently supported in this new plan,
and some $287 million of projects in the water, uh, space have just simply been cancelled. I'm I I guess I'm wondering what the city's plan is for our water future. Is this giving every citizen a divining rod and saying good luck? Uh, you know, in
addition, this plan calls for basically the wasting of $31 million of money already spent on projects that are now being cancelled. To me, that looks like financial mismanagement. You know, there's probably in here uh line items that are littered with
federal and regional grants that are now just being dismissed. Uh those are opportunities lost for the city. Uh so I'm really kind of questioning what the motivation is here. you know, we've got 70% of our water coming from CAP, probably expecting a
50% cut in that uh water supply next year. What are we going to do between now and next year to have a real plan for our water future? You know, I I'd like to say there's some motivation here that is good and meaningful. I don't
want to, you know, ascribe a a bad rationale for why this was done, you know, but it does seem like it is a short-term game because the only thing that is being increased in funding in this plan for next year is paving roads,
you know. So, that's some short-term gain for us, but there's some long very long-term uh pain being associated with this revised five-year plan. Thank you very much for your time. >> Thank you. Thank you. Um, as we go into this, um,
item four, the, uh, Dre Kaitton, the city manager, uh, will present the city's preliminary 2026 27 capital 5-year improvement plan. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh thank you for the opportunity. Staff has a new
approach uh this year which uh we will walk through uh very briefly and hearing uh the commission's interest in the previous and most recent meetings about allocating significant amount of time for dialogue, exchange, Q&A. It's really
how we have structured today's meeting. So we have a very uh short presentation that really just speaks to the approach to the philosophy that uh we that guided our development for this proposed
preliminary plan. And as we enter into the discussions, keep in mind that to some extent it is still evolving. Well, here we are in February and present later this spring to city council. And reflecting back upon last year's
interaction with the commission, there was a tremendous amount of value gained from my perspective and from staff perspective that to have another seven set of eyes review this and a and a kind of fresh set of eyes. And so we look forward to that and your your questions
and your engagement. I'm really excited uh to present this capital plan. I think in many regards it's a realistic plan which is uh a little bit different than maybe some previous uh plans that had been presented and we'll talk through
that methodology and that approach and so without stealing any more of uh Allison Timu's uh presentation very short presentation talk through that methodology and then I'll come back wrap it up and then we'll get into the Q&A we'll have the departments uh come up to
this spot uh here. Uh so maybe be mindful of grouping uh some of as much as possible the questions. So we'll take ABC department try to get through those so we don't kind of have this lost time and back and forth and then we'll move on to the the next department uh
something that happy to start off with some overall uh questions uh as well too. So with that I'll turn it over to transportation and infrastructure senior director Allison Tu. >> Thank you. Um, so, oh, can you go to the
next slide, please? Okay. So, what I wanted to talk to you about was um our new CIP review process. So, this year we have a new review committee. It's made up of several members of u my staff in transportation and infrastructure as well as several
members of the city manager's office. And what we've been doing is we meet weekly with the intent of reviewing all of the CIP projects. So we're basically reviewing um currently approved CIP projects that are in the process. We're looking at those for readiness going
either from design to construction. So we're reviewing those at all steps. Um and we've also in that process we've tked the the departments to be prioritizing their projects prioritizing their existing projects against each other but also pri prioritizing their
new projects against existing projects. Um we have also reviewed all the projects that the departments have submitted through the FY 2627 budget um including new existing and revised. Um, with this changed approach, we're looking at fewer projects in the
proposed CIP. We're also looking to complete existing projects and get them off the books. Um, and we are focused on taking a more of a two-step approach going forward to our budgeting process. Um, whereby we're starting a lot of our new projects with a feasibility or an
assessment or a preliminary design phase. and we're holding off on the construction budgeting until we have a really good um scope and idea and some programming of the project and then we can apply some more realistic costing. Um so then that the construction budget
will come in a future uh fiscal year. Um and then just we have some examples of um the benefits that we saw from this uh review team. We had an existing project last year um within the that was submitted in the pre-budget development
process and it didn't make it above the line. So, it didn't make it into the proposed budget. It was below the line and it was a project at the Civic Center Library for some restrooms. Um there was a need in the western uh portion of the library for existing restrooms and the
project that was put into the budget was $810,000. And then this year through our review process, my in-house design team and estimating team met with the library and they looked at um the needs of the facility as well as some uh different options. They came up with three
different options for uh the library restroom. And we're moving forward this year in the budget with the chosen alternative which is making an office space into an ADA restroom for that area. And that is able to be funded this year. it is above the line and it's a
$363,000 project. So, I wanted to share that as an example of um some of the things that this committee has been helping. Um we've looked at a couple of other different projects within the budget that we've identified um as pushing off
to future years. For example, we had the um pickle ball courts at Puma Park, but that's tied to a big drainage project that is um tied to some uh flood control district of Maricopa County funding, and that funding has been delayed. So, we can't do the big drainage project until
we get that funding. So, we've basically pushed the pickleball court project out into future years knowing that we're going to get to it, but not taking up space in the budget this year. So, those are just some examples of what um our committee has been doing aside from
reviewing every single project in the proposed budget. >> Thank you. I just wanted uh emphasize a couple uh components there and then get to uh the Q&A and I I probably would be remiss if I didn't address the water comments a little bit because that is
certainly near and dear my to my heart. we've spent a tremendous amount of time on um talking about the the capital improvements needed and water infrastructure and then specifically all across the city. So, just to emphasize uh what Allison said there on that one
example of a project, it's a small project um but the restroom project that um was referenced a year ago didn't make it into the proposed but was a little over $800,000. I would call that in the old system. And then what we've done
with the new review system uh slow it down, do review, do thoughtful analysis of what's needed and now we have a project uh a little less than 400,363. So it's a small scale project, but you can kind of see the savings that can be
captured uh by the analysis upfront. So what you see and what you've already seen in the book uh from your review time is first year a lot of scope feasibility design and so let's take a step back and see the situation that we
inherited or prior to uh this year and prior to last year was a five-year capital improvement plan that in many instances had estimates uh for capital construction that was not vetted through the engineering uh staff or outside
engineers. And so what we had is some estimates in a number of areas, probably not all of the areas, but in a number of areas that was a best estimate, but the estimates were off. And as we proposed them, people saw those as a budget, as a
a proposed project. So then when we came forward with more of a realistic engineer's estimate, a consultant's estimate, actual project cost, we saw that those were not aligned and then the the capital project be project became
under criticism for that. So we wanted to revamp that based upon uh our analysis and obviously direction a year ago from this uh BRC. Also the I'll use the term that was uh coined last year, the tiger team. So essentially we
developed your suggestion of the tiger team and the tiger team is the review committee which really before it becomes a project we need to have feasibility scope design. So it's a little bit of a a slowdown to speed up. So let me
specifically take that and transition into our water our water uh and we have our water experts here uh and and I would imagine that there will be a good number of questions rightfully so in that area. uh capital investment is significant anytime and debt anytime you
you have a utility. So we have a six-prong approach as it relates uh to the decrease potential decrease in the cap allocation. Uh one is conservation in no particular order conservation Bartlett Dam advanced
water purification wells uh and new water supply. Let me dig in a little bit deeper on the AWP which was referenced earlier today, advanced water purification and uh the project changed significantly
approximately a year ago and this commission pointed that out to us through if you remember the capital investment uh was probably around 15 to 20 million somewhere in that range and then it increased significantly and what occurred was ADQ Q had developed some
regulations that significantly impact how we perform the advanced water purification. This group suggested rightfully so that we take a hard look at that uh option and evaluate it against others. So uh in
the spring of last year, we uh consulted with an outside engineering firm to do what I would refer to as a scope of feasibility. see the common theme here uh for this. It not only has capital costs, but it has operating costs. And
before we present that option for capital improvements to city council to you for consideration, we wanted to make sure and have a complete picture of what those expenditures look like. That work is still being completed. And so in my
estimation, to put a guess of capital improvements into the five-year plan would not be appropriate. One, it's a significant capital investment on behalf of water resources in the city of Scottsdale of which we do not know the
exact capital cost or the operating cost. So we are evaluating that. And then secondly, what are the alternatives? what other additional options for water uh resources to fill the cap and so we don't know those so we don't include that a guess into this the
other thing that I think is really important uh that sometimes we have bond projects that have costs for uh operations and I think that's been maybe slightly overlooked or not discussed to the level that is appropriate so for
example in this capital project significant capital expenditures but that's only a part of it. What are the operating expenditures? Again, giving this uh group a great amount of credit. A year ago, we had a capital project and so wait a minute, this feels like a new
area of business that the city's getting in. We'll talk in greater detail about that because we want to have some conversations with other boards and commissions that drive that service before we have uh that proposal for for those not only capital expenditures, but that also drive to operating
expenditures. So that addresses some of the comments uh of our earlier speaker and the rationale that we have. So a lot of scope work, design work, feasibility work throughout the entire organization, throughout the entire departments as we really prepare uh for those f those
exact costs moving forward for the capital projects. So with that um I I hand it over to you, Mr. Chair, and look forward to your your questions in the specific areas. Uh yeah, Commissioner Lati.
>> Okay. The original draft of the budget that I received had some negative numbers in it. C >> could you move the microphone a little bit closer for the people in the audience? >> All right. The original budget that I received have some negative numbers in it. When I asked for an explanation, it
said that you remove certain projects and you advance certain projects into the future. Now, the updated those negative numbers have disappeared and it's about a $20 million swing. And part of the explanation was that I
should refer to the tab on projects removed. So, what's changed and is that tab still relevant? The tab called projects removed because of the changes from the preliminary to the current draft. >> Um, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Lati, if
I may weigh in on that. Um, may I ask, are you speaking about the um program summary document that was provided at the beginning of this meeting? That that table right there? >> Yes, it's the new request line. >> Yeah. Um, what was what occurred with that table when we originally published
was that the the report was not pulling the entirety of the new requests into that column. And we've discovered that issue and rectified it. And the new number, the new document that was passed out reflects the corrected uh column there. So the numbers you see in that
report are now correct for the net new requests. Um >> so was it a function of your spreadsheet that they were bringing the numbers up or have things actually changed? >> Things have not changed. The looking at that report right now, I'm going to move this mic. The five-year budget has not
changed. Uh the numbers are exactly the same, but the new request column did change slightly, but that did not change the five years, five years funding for the CIP. All of those uh amounts are still identical to before. >> Thank you,
>> Mr. Chair. If I may, just one more. I was remiss in not mentioning another one of the approach and Allison mentioned it, but I just want to emphasize it is over the recent years, we've had a significant amount of carry forward on projects. of projects not being completed and so we keep adding new and
not and and this huge rollover of existing projects and so taking a realistic look at our staffing resources and quite frankly the capacity in the marketplace to produce capital projects and there is a sweet spot and I would
submit we've not found that sweet spot and so for example things have to go through procurement they have to go through design inhouse they have to go out to the market and we were taking more than we could consume and therefore what happens is it just gets rolled and
there are consequences to that rolling. The other approach that um was utilized because we have a multi-year capital funding program when we started a capital project if we didn't have the exact uh finite costs it was just added
in subsequent years. That methodology is no longer the case. we need to have a firm number before uh we start those projects. And so that's why the design feasibility that that front-end work is so critical uh to having us a a solid
project cost as we move forward. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you um Commissioner Newman and then Commissioner Carla. >> Thank you, City Manager Kaitton. Um, I I appreciate the incorporation and listening from last year because I I
felt like we had some we had some really good inputs and you've taken that to heart with especially with the feasibility because of the responsibil it's just responsible with this a billion dollars of capital doing that because I I went through the analysis and there was a bump in the rug every year. You know the bandwidth for the city to accomplish projects was about
two to 400 million and it's constantly a billion dollars rolling or or well 700 million rolling a year. If we can get that down even further that would be great you know. So I but I but I know this takes time to do and so the feasibility is absolutely critical. Just get good information in the front end,
get good design and alternative options that work. Uh what I what I love already that's coming through in this because I had the opportunity to tour the water plant on Friday. Team took us through I saw filters being replaced. Talked to talked to people down in the organization about 500 horsepower variable frequency drives that need
replacement. That's those are things that there I talked a little bit about the uh we talked a little bit about the uh advanced water systems and the need for that and alternative alternative programs there substation replacement things we talked about last year on that. So I'm confident that that team is
getting attention and labs replacement another project. Um I'm confident that that team is getting the attention that's needed in that and they're they're they're people are listening to what their needs are and I think the team is doing a fantastic job um they're around that in ter and and also with cognizant about what our capacity is
what our needs are and and how quickly projects need to come online. They're not asking for anything uh out of line uh and with the feasibility then their input gets there. Second thing what I what I like about what's in the budget right now is uh the emphasis on roads. These are these are uninteresting things
that don't get votes and things like that. Uh you know maintaining roads taking PCI back from the mid70s is now declined to the low 60s at low at 60 I believe you said last year we start getting road failures which now the roads budget goes astronomical and
people are complaining at the same time. So resurfacing roads and getting them back up into the mid70s and maintaining them is way cheaper than replacing them. So, I'm glad to see us taking an a true engineering capital management approach to the budget and you actually you
actually don't have to spend as much and so the numbers don't the numbers are less but you're getting more for that because it's it's spent it's spent more intelligently. So, I appreciate all that. I'm sure we'll get into the details around uh um these projects but I I I really like what I see so far.
>> Thank you, Commissioner Carla. Uh, first off, I want to say I like the way you're changing the approach because there's less guessing and more ready to go. Um, but I do have some questions. And the first question is because
Allison's up here now. Do you want us and we've been talking about water, do you want us to start with water or do you want us to get in alphabetical order and start with community facilities? I'll defer to the chair and the city manager. >> Sure. So, Mr. chair and Commissioner Carla, we can take it however you wish.
Um Allison will stay up here the entire time because she's all knowing on all of these. Uh and then we'll have the subject matter experts for the various departments. So, however you want to take them. >> Okay. Well, then I I'll start off with two community facilities questions. Um
both of which are bond 2019 projects. And I understand that the um programs, the merits of the programs, that's council's job, not ours. But I'm asking about how this fits in the budget
because on both of them, as we know, the longer you wait on something, the more it costs. Um, and both of these on page two, it's the first one, expand the Granite Reef Senior Center to meet demand for adult daycare center. And the
BRC talked about that last cycle, too. And I think some of the issue was that it wasn't clearly explained that the city isn't going into health care. We will work with a partner, maybe Honor Health that does that, but this is to
expand to be able to accommodate these services. And my question is because there's it's completely out of the budget now. Who makes the decision when this comes back in? When will there be community
discussion on this if it's not coming back in? Because it was approved in bond 2019. And it's a significant expense and in my mind a needed expense because in this area this need is only going to grow
with the seniors who have built this city and and need this service. So I just need to ask that process question to know when is this actually going to come back into the budget or is it not?
And then I have a follow up on P. >> Absolutely. So, we'll have Mary uh start us off there and then um I I can put a bow on it or add to it in a minute. >> Hello, uh commission members. My name is Mary Wikovski and I'm currently serving
as interim human services director and the Granite Reef, >> Can you hear me now? There we go. The Granite Reef Senior Center um adult daycare center is currently undergoing um review as a feasibility study in
partnership with Honor Health. We have um we do have preliminary estimates in terms of the cost, but we are currently working through feasibility about need in the community. >> Okay. So, the fact that
it's not in here, I mean, when do you estimate it's going to come back in the budget? >> Commissioners, we are currently working through the process. I would say at least six to eight more months before we'll have any determination with regards to that. >> Yeah, I can help address, Mr. Chair, if
I may just add to that. what I how I see this this is clearly a little new particularly at the bond and we have uh a few other items related to that that um are a little unusual because they feel like they're directed by voters and so I think we want to have some
discussions and the feasibility and then also with the decision makers and so recognizing that it's a bond project but how does that impact our operational expenditures and so sometimes there could be partners where it's neutral and sometimes there may not be partners ers
and this was the intent for us to expand. So I just take this facility. So there's expanding expanding because you need space for existing functions and then there's expanding for uh new and alternative programs is and that was it
seems like it was clearly stated in the questions but understanding the financial ramifications to that type of not only additional square footage but additional and a new program function. So we want to make sure that everybody has all of the information. So I would expect that these would work through our
commissions as they throughout the the current the upcoming fiscal year and then bring that back and and have that conversation at that point understanding the operational expenditures. >> Okay. Well, following up exactly on that thing, but in relation to Pyute, um,
because Pyute has now been shifted from 2029 to 2032, I believe. And this is one where it says very clearly in the staff followup that the buildings are in a state of
disrepair. I mean, they are literally falling down. So my question is is there any way to unshift this push off because in the case of Pyute I mean you're looking at health and safety issues. So
my other question is where else in the budget are you dealing with keeping it functional and is is it penciling out the amount of money you have to spend to keep avoiding health and safety issues
yet you keep pushing it off and again this is bond 2019 and I know there was a brewhaha about the having housing there and that kind of tripped it up a little but I understand that's gone. that's fine. Um, but you have a very, very
heavily traffked community asset that's falling apart and it keeps getting pushed off. So, what is that costing versus putting it back on track? >> I'm done. commissioners. The average is about
$144,000 a year in coming out of the facilities budget to upkeep. We did have roof repair to building 8 um twice in the last two years. The roof has blown off. Um and that has been completed, but there is an ongoing about 144,000 a
year >> and there's no option to shift this back on to its original timeline. Mhm. >> I'm going to defer that one back um to the city manager. >> Yeah. Um I hear the comments. We'll take
it under adisement. >> Thank you, >> Commissioner Newman. >> Just a question. Are we talking about two different things here? I agree that if facilities are falling apart, we have to take maintain them. That's one of the themes from last year. Maintain what we have. But we had a policy discussion last year around some of the added
senior programs that Commissioner Carla mentions here and the question I had in that is should Scottsdale be into those policy areas because there's other state and federal programs, things like that. I'm not I don't know those, but it was mentioned that there were uh other examples around the valley of this and I
said, "Well, why don't we go benchmark those and see what the pros and cons were of that?" And I think I if I'm if I'm wrong, stop me. I feel like we're talking about two different things here and I agree with the maintenance of facilities and and doing the nuts and bolts things that are needed. That's no question I would support that. But the
policy part of that and I think that's where the additional expense or should we even be in this area? That's probably to me that's where other commissions need to be involved to kind of say should Scottsdale be into those policy areas because that's that's what it felt like last year into the discussion we had and I think that's what's been
removed from the budget if I'm not mistaken. So I would appreciate comment on that clarification. >> Mr. Chair, let me introduce our deputy city manager, Kira Peters, to just add a little bit more context to this project.
>> There we go. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you so much, city manager and commissioners. Happy to be here, Carla. Nice to see you. Wanted to talk a little bit, just expand a little bit more on the work that Mary's talked about today, specifically as it relates to the Granite Reef adult daycare. Right now we really are taking a look at
programming at Granite Reef Senior Center and I know that this particular project is focused on kind of the healthc care aspect of it which is a little bit unique compared to what the city has done in the past and so just taking that under evaluation working closely with Honor Health doing a
feasibility on what it would take to do this type of work and how we would do it. Mary might have already mentioned talking with our human services commission and getting their thoughts on that as well. I think one thing I would say just with all my experience working in senior services, I think one way that the city can really work around this is
with our partner agencies and with our case workers to connect people to services in that field of work. And Honor Health is already doing a lot of good work in this area. So, as you know, we're a dementia friendly city. We've got case workers who know that we interact regularly with the aging
population. So, one thing we really already do and could probably do more of is connect seniors when they need that type of care. And I'm specifically talking about the memory care right now, which we're just seeing an increase in, you know, dementia type things. So, really being a dementia friendly city,
we've got a case worker, Jennifer Murphy, who works really closely with that already connected to partners. And the reason I'm talking about this is this is a project about adult daycare. And in my opinion, I think we've got a lot of resources on our table now while we evaluate this to make sure we're
connecting our vulnerable populations with the care that they need through our case workers. I think in my experience, City of Scottsdale is pretty unique in that we have a human services department with professional social workers, Mary being one of them, that really connects people to the care that they need for
what's that for what it's worth while we're evaluating this project. And as part of that aging population, I appreciate it. Um, and I agree with Commissioner Newman about the Granite Reef is a policy dis, you know, discussion, but Pyute Pyute's different.
It's existing. It's servicing a great part of our community and very well and it's freaking fallen apart on top of them. So, I appreciate you looking at perhaps shifting it back because it's an existing service and
It's not good as a person who's there often. >> Carla, I'm going to also just have a few comments about Paute because my office was there for a little bit. So, I've experienced a little bit about of the aging infrastructure there. I think one thing too is, you know, we've got a lot of partners on site, SARKC, Hirsch
Academy, Head Start. So, moving forward with Pyute, I think they're going to be involved in a lot of these discussions as well. Mary's in the midst of negotiating contracts right now with our partners on site. Um, so really I think we could leverage some of that work as we think about this project moving into
the future. And on that I do have to say we've got a strong relationship with facilities. So, um, they really are doing a good job. When Mary will bring something to the attention, she referenced the roofs. Um, I think last year it was a little bit of HVAC work that they stand ready to help maintain
that building um to meet the needs of our community. So really appreciate your attention to this. >> Right. Because as we learned in the assessment of the city in our first meeting back, you know, the more it's deferred, the more it costs. That's all. >> Thank you, Dr.
>> Well, thank you. I think that was a good discussion and and city manager, I appreciate you looking into speeding that up a little bit. Uh, Commissioner Stevens, >> uh, thank Yeah, I want to get back to just an overview question I had and then also I I did provide 13 questions in advance so that people could be
prepared. We can go through them quickly if there's time, but I just want to make this one overall comment and then you can decide where you want to go. With respect to the initial opening, when you talked about the new format whereby we're no longer going to be putting in estimates that we can't be accurate enough about future cost, my concern is
going to run to uh uh fiscal responsibility and uh fiscal sustainability. We had a report last time uh that um uh uh Sonia, I'm not good at using these titles that the city treasurer uh gave us. And what it did is
it factored in a look at what's going on over the next 5 years to show that we are going to be able to meet our needs. Uh as I understand it now, we've now taken out things that are going to possibly occur in the future. Therefore, in my mind, there's going to be a great big gap in what's going to be coming in
and how we're going to fund it. So, in my mind, one of two things would have to happen, and you can clarify this for me. It either seems like you have to go back to putting your best estimate of the capital cost so we can look at what the 5-year projection's going to be and determine what our bond capacity is and
if it's adequate. Or we have to do something different. You have to go ahead and schedule out the five years and you almost have to then back into it by saying our bond capacity and our revenues would support this amount of extra capital cost in each of those five years and for us to remain financially
solvent. Uh and does that smell right? So I don't know if you all have thought through that, but to me there's kind of a disconnect in what we're there's a hole missing now when it comes to the five-year plan. >> Yeah, Mr. Chair and uh Commissioner Stevens, thanks uh for the opportunity
to address that. I see that in the out years as it is today, there would without including some of those projects that have not been uh exactly determined for capital construction
price. There is a the recognized gap and that's where we have an opportunity for more feasibility. The feasibility that we're doing now is in the early years and once we get those done it will continue into the outer years. So it is
a little bit of a short-term challenge to get those accurate numbers but that won't always be the case. So we have to do catchup if you will a little bit on some of those longer term capital projects. They will be reintroduced into
uh the long-term financial plan. We just don't have accurate numbers to do it in the near term. So it's important to identify uh that opportunity with CA cap or additional revenues over expenditures in those outer years and then that will
be filled by capital projects. >> Uh city treasur maybe I don't know if you can address this a little bit for me but a lot of people are really concerned about uh financial sustainability and you all got me convinced that this city is extremely well-managed and you have a
plan together that makes sense. To me, this is going to blind you on some of what you have to put together for that assessment in the future. So, do you have any thoughts on what needs to happen to close the gap because we now taken out a whole bunch of potential future costs that are some amounts going
to concur? And I agree with what you're I see what you're doing because why put in a swag number of the city's been criticized for all the overruns. Well, okay. uh here's why some of them are happening, but it seems like there needs to be some recognition of what the
potential might be. So, I don't know. Do you have any thoughts on how you're going to address that for sustainability, financial sustainability? >> Yes, thank you um Chair Schwikard and members of the commission. Thank you for that question. The city is a large complex city with um complex capital
improvement uh improvements. So, we do follow our policy of five-year financial plans, long-term financial plans. Some large cities also have 10-year financial plans. It is definitely something that we will continue to pursue. As city manager Kaitton said, this year is
unique because he is really exploring and fine-tuning and pulling out items that do not have are not ready with even an estimate. So, the the hope is that when we get to that point where we have the estimate, hopefully next year we
will have a more refined financial plan and hopefully with just a one-year um um revision um it would not um affect our long-term financial sustainability. We will still look to and work with the city manager's office to develop a um
more comprehensive long-term financial plan. >> If I may, Mr. Chair, I just add to Treasurer Andrews comments there too. And I also want to emphas feasibility number in that regard. But
there are are also projects that may not be needed. And um one comes to mind, I'll keep it a little vague to protect the uh uh department a little bit of this internal conversation. uh but there was a sizable capital project and it was
in the budget and it's anticipating a future expansion that may not demand may not force that expansion and so I asked the question is it really and it had been put in years ago and just kept as a placeholder just kept as a placeholder
we we see a lot of placeholders so we have gone through this everybody in this room uh and throughout the organization really leaving no stone unturned where we're looking at these projects and asking the question, does this expansion need to occur? And this very high level
person within that department said, "No, it likely doesn't." And so then we removed that project from and it had been in there and it was not small. And so we continue now at some point should demand push the need for expansion in
that area that we are looking at this every single day. then we can add that back in that. But I do want to point out there are some projects that have been removed because of some initial assessment that the projection of
expansion or projection of demand um is not coming to fruition at that level. >> Commissioner Newman, >> I just like to add to that the number one reason for cost overruns and poor projects is a zombie project like that's that's in the budget with an ill-defined scope cost schedule. Then they become
zombies, actual zombies, and you just spend and spend and spend, and the money just keeps coming in because it's taxpayer dollars. Well, we have a responsibility to this. The most the most cost-effective thing we can do is exactly what you're doing right now is to put a feasibility in place for rule
number one, feasibility, know what you're going to do, scope, cost, schedule, and then proceed forward. Then everybody's in agreement and and then the project can move. Contractors give you better quotes. People in agreement, there's no doubt later on. um it's the way to go and I it does take a couple of years to get through that transition. So
I I totally support what you're doing. >> Thank you. And you know I'm one of those people I I I don't think you can run government just exactly like you do private business. They're totally different animals but there are aspects of running a business and Commissioner Newman you're you're dead right about
what's going on there. Um Carla just second. I I I believe that uh Commissioner Poland first and then Commissioner Literary and then Carla. I have >> questions. Oh, and Skyler then too. Okay. >> No, I I agree that's uh the way it needs
to be done. What you're doing is very good moving forward and I thank you for for making the changes you had to make and follow up on things and make sure that you really needed these projects and makes a lot of sense. Thank you.
>> Just an overview question. Right. So you're predicting your streams of revenues from taxes and whatnot and you match that against your capital requirements. But if you don't know what your capital requirements are, how can you let's say make an attestation that
you're fiscally sound? >> I look to my colleagues over here in treasurer to and I'm happy to add from my perspective as well. >> Yes. Um, Chair Schwiker and members of the commission, you are absolutely right to um, Commissioner Literary, like the
comments from Commissioner Stevens, it is absolutely important that we know what our estimated costs are moving forward, not just for one year for, you know, for a large city, we do need multi-year financial plans and multi-year cost estimating. So we
understand and know our cash flows, our um bond needs and our funding needs and our financial sustainability um path to financial sustainability. And again, this is my understanding is this is the first year that the city manager Katon
is looking at the capital improvement plan and he's done a lot of work to really question whether those capital improvement projects are needed, whether those estimates are accurate. And to the extent that they are not needed and not accurate, he has removed them. And um there is still a lot more work to be
done because it's a multi-year, as you can see, $1.7 billion plan. Um there is a lot more work to be done to to identify and finalize or refine our five-year plan to ensure that we do have
accurate estimates going out the five-year or you know multi-year financial plan to ensure sustainability. Um we do operate with multi-year financial planning both on the operating side and the capital side. So, we will continue that path and continue working
with the city manager's office to ensure that financial sustainability and the alignment of revenues and expenditures. >> Thank you, uh, Commissioner Carla. >> Okay. Uh, thank you. Um, we're talking
about, you know, scoping, etc., um, projects and but I have a question in here, uh, regarding transportation. what happens when there's a major change to a project and I'm talking
specifically about page 112 um where it's Scottsdale Road Joeax to Dixelleta where we switch from a roundabout to a light and I want to preface this with saying this is not about whether good idea bad idea this is
about the numbers and understanding what this actually costs the taxpayers. Um because on page 112 it says, you know, the total cost is 43685. That's the same amount that was
approved, I believe, in September 2024 when the project was first done as a roundabout. And I'm having trouble wrapping my head around how all of the changes fit in this. And I'm asking, is there
somewhere in here where we can see a change order that itemizes things like how much land was purchased that we don't need now? How much new land has to be purchased? What's the cost of m
moving the utilities differently? Um, and how much does the delay add to costs? Did we get any fines? And then a big question is because we lost the federal money and we got the MAG money
instead, what other project was in line for the MAG money that now has to wait and what's it going to do to the cost of that project because I can't really identify what project got bumped off for
it. I mean, maybe it was what Cave Creek Road to Scottsdale Road. Um, and again, what are these costs and and how come I just it just seems to me like there are substantial budget
considerations from this change and I don't see where in here it shows that it actually evens out. Um, chair and commissioner Carla. So yeah, we've been looking at that project um recently and it is again it's
a twomile arterial project. It goes from Joeax to Dixelleta. I think everybody focuses on the intersection of Dynamite but that's really a very small portion of the project. Um you are correct. It's a $43.7 million budget which is has been the budget since September of 2024 when we
awarded the construction contract. Um there was a change from the roundabout to the traffic signal and um to date we are tracking on budget at $43.7 million. We were on on budget within the $43.7 million to accommodate the changes um as
well as proceed with the project. So um there were yes we did uh recognize some changes from addition there was a small amount of additional rightway needed. Um there were were some utilities that were relocated that had to be relocated
again. Um we had some design change costs because we had to pay our engineer to redesign the roundabout to a traffic signal. Um and then we did have uh construction costs because basically the contractor took the um the bid amount for the roundabout and deleted it and
added the bid amount for the traffic signal. But with all those changes, we are tracking within our $43.7 million budget to date. And will we be able to see that that breakdown? >> Um that's not something that's typically in the budget, but that's a breakdown
that um we can provide. >> We can request that please. And then what happened to the project that was going to get MAG dollars? So, um, on December 3rd when NAG made the switch, yeah, they switched the federal funding to regional and then we've switched, um,
it was the Carefree highway project that's now going to be federally funded, um, in place of >> So, it is >> Carefree. >> And is it going to cost more? >> Well, um, not necessarily cost more. um when we do a federal project, we're now
they now are administered through AOT. So there are some additional fees with from AOT to administer those contracts, but um it's not we don't anticipate it to be um a large amount >> and that will be in the budget that we can see.
>> Yes. Once we work through those issues with ADAT and determine the cost and we will show that in the budget. Yes. >> Thank you. Uh Commissioner Badenbach. >> Sure. Just I have a I have a a question just based off of curiosity. Um do you guys take a look at um where
specifically all these projects are within the city and and if how they sort of spell out equitably across the the greater Scottsdale area. >> Um I'm going to call Nathan uh Nathan Dome um because he can speak a little bit better about how the ALCP projects
are programmed um throughout the city. >> Yeah. Thank you. As uh Nathan's making his way up, it takes me back to a question a few minutes ago about the sustainability. And one thing I just want to kind of introduce uh for us to consider too is
fund the funds that we have and the fund accounting and how the city so we have the water and wastewater transportation capital expenditures is uh and so so that's always so there's not a blanket you know they all really blanket how is
this fund operating uh they're all operating a little independent if you will because of different revenue sources for example uh the enterprise funds that we have the enterprise operations that don't get the tax dollars. So those very independent the transportation as it relates to the
expansion as it relates uh to uh new growth areas taking a full circle. So it is a little compartmentalized in in that regard and a little bit unique in in given areas. >> Thank you. Um so when it comes to these
major arterial widening projects, we work with our regional partners. they give a regional tax to those arterial widings. So, it's specifically focused on arterials with regional significance. And then as we the regional tax for Prop
479 just passed, we went through the process of looking at projects that would comply with the county's or the the Baropa Association of Government's requirements for regionally significant arterials. We tried to balance that out
through the city. So Frank Lloyd Wright, sorry, um, Scottsdale Road for a large portion of the southern part is on there. Some of the middle sections of V Linda and 92nd are on that project list, too. And then several of the roadway projects up north going east to west are
on the new um tax. The previous tax, Prop 400, that was passed in 2004, primarily focused on Scottsdale and Puma going north south in the northern part of the city, but also had some projects in the southern part. So we try to balance as much as possible across the city but it has to comply with mags uh
arterials of regional regionally significant arterials along the for widenings. And do you guys have any do you have any data analysis around like where these projects are happening within the within greater Scottsdale like how much of this how how much of the prime projects or how much budget is
going to north Scottsdale as opposed to like South Scottsdale. >> Uh we don't have those numbers specifically but we can and we do a good job of trying to balance out both our CIP and our regional money through the different parts of the city. >> I want to maybe add here the AL CP that
one right. So, it's a list. There's a list that is um agreed to map. >> That's what I didn't see the map. >> I see some conversations. >> Great. Maybe there's a map in there that >> there's a map and a list. >> No, it's not it's not in the book, but but it's in it's on the website and on
the various >> project. That's what I was That's what I was looking for. >> It's kind of like previously agreed upon list and those are really major expansion which you we wouldn't find in more of the developed part of the community. Yeah, they're primarily on the green field, the new the newer
developed areas. >> I didn't I didn't seen the map. So, >> also since we're entering into roads, which is probably my second well, it is my first favorite topic actually and is is really the maintenance of existing systems. So, again, kind of compartmentalized. So, we have expansion
primarily up road up north where uh new developments, new expan new and we have traffic counts and so it's all based upon data and where we're seeing those and priorities. This is about priorities, right? And you always have more needs than resources. And so it
takes this whole team to really prioritize all those and look at timing. And then maintaining maintaining what we have is really been the emphasis particularly on the roads the last two year years. And our goal is to try to get to about a 40 million a year. Uh and
we've done that la in in spend. We did that last year and we're approaching that for for this proposed year as well. Just to kind of put that in context, there were some, it was probably the the low 12 millionish, probably the highest was about 15 to 20 million prior uh to
the surge of pushing it up to approximately 40 million the last few years. >> So, the status of Thomas Road. >> Yeah. So, Thomas uh which is probably Nathan's uh one of his favorite projects. And so, I just want I'm really pleased about the shifting of this and
to give Nathan and and Alison team. Great credit here. This was proposed to be kind of out of our maintenance fund, if you will, a few years ago. And I also want to take this opportunity to distinguish between deferred maintenance
and deferred capital and project. I think those are two different things. And and actually Thomas, I would submit for a period of time was deferred maintenance because we thought we were going to rebuild the whole road. when you defer maintenance, which I would submit we're not doing that at that
Pyute facility. We're just delaying the capital improvements, but we're maintaining uh the asset, not deferring maintenance. We can continue to invest in it. But back to the roadways. And so, it was going to come out of the maintenance bucket, if you will. And I
took the opportunity with consultation with my uh street experts and professional engineers to uh shift Thomas out of that uh maintenance bucket and utilize those funds. And that's how we were for the current fiscal year that
we're in. And that's how how we were able to surge to nearly $40 million is really reallocating that Thomas project. Then what we did is Nathan and his team went after a grant to do the Thomas
road. And so there's >> Yeah. So in the in the this current budget, we have a new project, an old project that is now a new project that is Thomas with federal funds looking for a local match to do those improvements.
>> So it's about $24 million approximately. >> So what's the completion date? The completion date will start with MAG and AOT as soon as it hits the budget in July and then we can move very fast. We've pretty much finished the design of that project so that one can move as
fast as we move through the federal compliance requirements. >> So what are we looking at? >> A year and a half, two years um maybe sooner than that. We have we've got complete designs. So >> thank you. >> Thank you. So, we've been spending a lot
of time so far on kind of conceptual items and and how the city's looking at everything. We are halfway through our meeting. We have a hard stop at 12. So, um I I think if we want to have adequate time to look at individual products, um I would like to call on Commissioner
Stevens right now. >> Thank you. In fact, the first thing I want to do is I I want to look at one project, the fire station project that um uh that you provided me some detailed information for. And what I'd like to do is this is what I envisioned doing when
we did a review of some of the capital projects. So I'm going to walk through ask her a few questions that mostly I gave in advance. And I want you all to think about is this what a BRC should be doing and should we be reviewing projects in this fashion or we be doing
when it comes to our project review and just and I I have another way we can just ask highlevel questions. Okay. But um Allison, can can you put up the preliminary project budget sheet that looks like this or I think someone had it back there, right?
>> It's the um >> it'll be the one that comes with the 14 million that has all the >> fire station up there. It's the PDF file. That one >> because I'm going to ask a few questions on this and then Yes, that's the one. Okay. So, I I I just want to get this is kind of what I had hoped we'd break up
into groups and look at, but I'm told we can't do that because of open meeting laws. What I want to do is tell you walk watch me walk through ask a couple of questions and then let's decide if this is the kind of thing any of us want to dig into or if this is overkill and we just want to ask high level questions on
projects. Uh what I want I'm going to jump down to the $9 million. The biggest hard number or number in there is the 9 million five uh 357. Most of that's made up of an over $8 million number for construction cost and that's calculated
in the details as 12,000 square feet times $420 a square feet which can often be a way that you estimate certain contract type things. So my question is going to be is where did the 12,000 square ft come from? Is there a sketch, a design or something or is that the
current footprint or where did that come from? And then more importantly, where did the $420 number come from that's supposed to encompass all the framing, construction, finishing, whatever it's supposed to include? Where did that number come from? And if the source
you're using has been used before, how reliable has that been? So, it's like how confident are you in this number? >> Okay. So, um, uh, uh, Chair Schwiker and Commissioner Stevens, um, so what we do, uh, this is
actually, and I think I explained to you in an email that, um, this is our, our previous, this was a pre, this was estimated in a previous year because it's a current existing project. Um, and we've actually modified a little bit of how this project budget looks now. Um,
but essentially what we do is we come up with a projection of the construction cost. And specifically for this one, what we did is our in-house design team met with the fire uh department to determine their needs at this facility.
And they did do a schematic design. So that's where the square footage was based on was a schematic design um where they met with the fire department and determined, you know, how many people were staffed there, what what the needs were for for that amount of staff, the space, and um we determined a
construction a projection of what we thought the construction would cost. And you're correct. It's there. It comes down to a square footage cost, but basically um we broke broke it down. Our estimator broke down all the um things
that go into the facility, not just based on the square footage cost. He estimated um you know the amount of framing, the building, um the electrical, all that went into the estate estimate as well as site work. So we got the construction estimate at um
the nine I think it was the $ 8.8 8 million, but then we put it in an escalation factor. So that was in 2004 uh 20244 was that estimate and then he escalated it to the year that we think we would
construct it. And so currently it's in the budget right now. Um we estimated that construction would happen in this year and the following year. So that's the escalation factors that got to the 9.3 million. So what our estimator does is he uses um he has a database of costs
um that a lot come from our own projects um comparing to previous projects such as similar fire station projects. Um he also looks at other um municipalities in the valley and looks at their big costs as well. So we have a a database of cost estimating that he uses as well as um
you know some uh nationally published guidelines on cost estimating. So at the n $9.3 million was the construction estimate and then how we build our project budget is based on calculations
from the construction estimate. So we have the construction estimate we take 10% of that plus contingency and that's what we estimate to be design. We have post-design services that we estimate with a calculation. Um we're estimating the FFN. So um we know from other fire
stations uh roughly what that costs for FFN. Uh we have some city fees involved. We and this is the area where I was saying this is an older form older estimate. It's a CPM and salary salaries and allocation. We changed that last year. We're no longer doing that. We're
no longer charging salaries to projects. Um and then we have a component for public art and again the project contingency. So when we're at this phase of a project, when we were just in planning, we're anticipating a 20% contingency. Um we refine that as we go
through the um design and we get actually to um construction if we have a Seamar on board. So the phase that we're on in this project is we did do that schematic design, but currently we do have um a designer on board. We did go
to council and get the contract approved for um design services with an architect and they are in the preliminary stages of the design. Um that architectural contract was about 700,000. If you see up there, we're estimating about 112,000
for total design fees. Um because that's just one component of the design fees. So I know you were asking like what's a hard cost and what isn't. So right now our actual cost right now is just the design um contract. Our next step is we
are going to do the procurement for a CM at risk contractor. We bring the CM at risk contractor on board early. So they're working with the design team. They're able to look at value engineering. They're able to pro provide cost models. So that's where we get into looking at the actual cost of the
construction. And then eventually the SEMA will give us the guaranteed maximum price. And that's how we move through the project. >> Okay. The other thing I wasn't clear, so the 420 isn't a broad number you're using. You actually have details behind the 420 cuz all I had was a 12,000* 420.
There's actually more detail behind that that would show >> list. I think it was attached. >> No. Okay. I I didn't see the detail behind the 4920. >> I just saw the 4,920. That was the math on those two things. Okay. What what I'll share with you all in going through
this, there are a lot of contingent rough numbers and everything and and if I would have been permitted to meet with staff separately, I could have gone through some of this, ask better questions, then come back to you and said, "Hey, I looked this one over. Uh,
I think let's have them talk to us a little bit more about where the construction costs came from, and let's ask one other thing, and then that would have been efficient for us. But if I can't do that and we have to do this like this ain't going to work. And so I really would question whether we can add
much value when it comes to looking at construction. So that's what I'm struggling with. And then the final question I would have asked in here would have been to what degree has the fire department personnel looked at the detailed components of this. So you don't have the thing you've had before where someone goes, "Oh, wait. We forgot
to add this. We forgot to add that." So, have you gotten the fire department people engaged at a level where they have seriously looked at the components here to see that there's no material emissions? >> Um, Commissioner Stevens, yes. Uh, we did. We met our our in-house design team met with the fire department. We met
with Chief Shannon and his staff. We reviewed um a couple of different floor plans. They've had input into it. So, yeah, they were absolutely involved. And again, that's just a schematic design and a projection of cost. We now have the design team on board. They're
designing it and we design it hand inand with the fire department. They're on the project team. They're at all the design meetings. So, yes. >> Okay. So, I full I don't still fully understand exactly how the construction estimate came together, but we we've spent enough time on this and I guess what I'm going to go to now is I'll let
you all ask some other questions. the ones I would have had I would have changed my line of questioning now to more like um can you tell me about uh this particular project like pay well pavement overlay is $200 million so you can't ignore it I would have then gone
to more okay explain to us how you did the calculation for each of the years in pavement overlay without getting into details tell me conceptually how it came up with what what did you multiply times what for the biggest pieces and then if someone made an error in that How would
that have been caught? What level of review has happened in a fashion? And then, you know, maybe that's enough to do a review. So, I'll just pause at this point now for the rest of you. But, uh, I I I personally am not comfortable
saying I reviewed something unless I can do something similar to what I did in the fire department. But, if I have to do it in this forum, it can happen. and and I I don't want to take any responsibility for the construction projects. >> So, we have we have a couple
commissioners that want to jump in on this, but um would the manager or city treasurer like to have any opinions on on Mark's questions on how we can be sure that we're getting the information we need and how deep we can go on that?
I guess my initial thought is uh given the direction from the city attorney's office is uh spending time in the open session like this uh if there are questions that commissioners have then other people might have those questions
too. As you can tell as uh we've loaded this uh room today with staff. We're prepared to answer those and uh as many meetings as it takes. Uh we like to talk about the projects. I I think it's helpful uh to really talk about them to
answer your questions in the spirit of transparency. We feel really good about the numbers uh about the new approach as you can tell and so happy to discuss that whatever conceptual or whatever detailed manner uh the commission wishes
>> and um chair and members of the commission. I would also add that perhaps um like we did with this fire station project, Commissioner Stevens had requested all this information ahead of time and all that information were shared with all of you ahead of this
meeting. So, if any of the commissioners would like some details um like this one on construction costs on any of the projects, you're certainly welcome to email me as your um liaison and we are certainly um able to collect and gather
all that detailed information and send it to all of you. Um for for those of you who want to see the detail and for those of you who don't want to see the detail, you can just ignore it. So, but we are happy to send that information to you if you email us and request specific
information. >> Yeah. So, Commissioner Steven, is it the methodology that you want to get comfortable with? >> What what I proposed like months ago, what I wanted to do was I want to say I don't want to take all this time. Let me go
and some people look at the details of the projects they're concerned about. Gather the information, understand it, then come back to this group and report their observations to discuss only those items that merit discussion in a public
forum and to dismiss any that are just added information. You don't want to walk through and find, oh, how'd you come up with square feet? You guys all want to hear that in public forum. No, but you know what? I'd kind of like to know was that the old footprint or is that something new out of a schematic? I felt better known as a schematic. You
all didn't need to hear that, but this is the only way I can do it right now. Last year, we could do it a better way, but we can't do it that way anymore, >> right? So, so I think this is probably the way we're going to have to do it. And I encourage everybody to ask those questions of Sonia and she'll get the
information back and then if something pops up that we need to discuss in the public meeting, we can. Um, we have a couple of people that wanted to talk though. First of all, uh, Commissioner Carla. >> Um, thank you. And as much as I
appreciate Commissioner Steven's sharp eye and, um, Allison's details, I think unless a project, the number on a project looks way out of line that it's not our job to become
many Allison's. Um but if there is a question I think Mark has made his point very well about the process and we would you know somebody whoever has a question about the cost can highlight that Sonia
can send out the details and then again if it's egregious let's have the public discussion so the public can hear it too and we're following the law but other than that I don't think we're going through every project like this I don't
think we need to do that. Um, the other thing I want to say is, um, I want to make sure because we're at like 40 minutes left that we get to discuss water because we had a public comment on it. We have a council person here who's
very interested in it and I want to make sure we have plenty of time to do that. So, after you go through the list, I hope we can go back to water. Thank you. >> Yeah, we will definitely get back to water. Um, Commissioner Lati, >> I just have a kind of a topline question. In the presentation that we've
been discussing, this one here, >> it's presented as a deficit. So, does that mean it's an unfunded project? >> The fire station project. >> Yeah. The $14 million project that we were just analyzing. This one right over
here. >> Yeah. The presentation is that it's a It is a funded project. Um that's just the way we calculate it whether um it's we need additional funding or not. But this one is funded to the total project budget.
>> Okay. So do you need additional funding because it's presented as a deficit? >> No, we do not. >> Okay. Commissioner Newman. >> I think this discussion is informative. Um I too was approached about the roundabout discussion and I said we're
really not an audit committee and there's a fine line here between strategic budget review and looking at m and sometimes strategy and where the bulk of the money is going to that's obviously budget commission. There's gray zones where a major change to a project that costs a lot of money that's
probably worthy of that. But then we get we get in this area of the area where it's audit whether it's rearl looking or whether it's very detailed. I got to trust staff to certainly it's too big a budget to go and we don't have a form to do that. Certainly if you want to privately go through details and satisfy
that I think that falls there. But I would ask the chair to kind of traffic cop that and say hey we're really getting into over audit committee type of stuff and that's really a different forum and a different discussion than a strategic budget review. >> Correct. And the city does have an audit committee. So, so they look at those
things people approach me >> and you know if if we get back to what we talked about a year ago really what what we were interested in were budgets that were a million dollars or over and were over budget by 10%. Those were the
things that were really running the red flags. Th those were the criteria and I think that's where we should spend the majority of our time. Um, but but that's my personal opinion and I know we we have to abide by what the um legal
department tells us. Uh, as much as Mark and I enjoyed getting together with staff last year and doing those deep dives, um, apparently that's not allowed anymore. So, as far as I'm concerned, you know, the the doors kind of closed on that. Um,
>> I just Yeah. So, I just add, you know, the way that I' I've been looking at this is um trying to look at it from a high level and answer these questions. Um is this plan equitable? Um does it reflect the priorities of the
city? Does it mitigate the top three to five risks of the city? And does it balance the short and long term? And um to Carla's point about water and and I think um the comments that Ethan made earlier um made me think that water is
seems like it is one of the biggest risks of the city and that that that we should spend some time talking about that. >> So um Commissioner Carla talking about water. >> I'd be glad to kick off water here. >> Okay. Um, and if we go to the section
that says projects removed from the 5-year CIP, I have a couple of questions, but the first one is um the Bartlett Dam modification feasibility study and it it's looks like
we're out of there. Um I I need to understand does this mean are we no longer part of the feasibility study which is a regional issue and which would with the sedimentation addressed and then the raising of the dam would
provide water for 350,000 homes that isn't available now was what I read. Um, so the question is what does exactly does this mean if it's out of the five-year? Because if we pull out now and we want more water later, aren't we
going to have to pay more later? So, >> Mr. Chair and Commissioner uh Carla, let me introduce uh interim senior director of water resources, David Walby, to address this and we can have a good conversation about water and waste water. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Greg. Commissioner Swiker and commi commissioners. Yes, the uh Bartlett Dam feasibility study um has as you can see not been provided in the 5-year CIP. So
some of that goes back to manager has already kind of prefaced in terms of a new methodology and philosophy of making sure we have good accurate numbers before it reaches the CIP. We have participated in portions of the
current feasibility study with Bartlett. Those are ongoing still. Um there's no additional costs to date for those reports that they are continuing to look at. Um there's been some new developments with Bartlett Dam as it relates to available water access to us.
And so that we're looking to make sure that that is one of our six-pronged approaches as the city manager has referenced that still makes sense for us going long term. So right now, yes, it's not within the current 5-year CIP, but for sure as that continues to develop,
it will be then reint reintroduced back into the 5-year CIP. >> Okay. So, it's still one of our major prongs because in correct 2024 outline for where we're getting water, this was a major part of it. >> It was one of many. Yes,
>> I believe four. >> Yeah, correct. >> So, that's not many. It's It's getting less and less water. Um, so there's a possibility that when you have the numbers, or rather I would like to say a certainty when you get the numbers that
this is going to come back into the five-year CIP. It will absolutely have to. Yes, ma'am. Yes, >> it will absolutely have to. >> Well, if that >> I will say 99%. >> If it's one of four, to your point to augment and offset those cap reductions
that we're now looking at and anticipating, then yes. >> Yeah. And the cap reductions, are we up to truly 57% reduction? I hate to speculate uh what the Federal Bureau is really looking at and what is going to happen come in next year,
January. Um there are six alternatives currently in the draft EIS from the bureau and that is is one of them uh as it relates to shortages and that number is confirmed with Ammo as well as CAP, Central Arizona Project.
>> Okay. And is this the year or is it next year that Scottsdale it's getting its reacreditation you know for the you know amount of you know where we stand on our water security >> for we're still in the middle of that.
>> You're we're in the middle of it this year >> in terms of submitting uh documentation to reaffirm our 100red-year water supply. Is that what you're referencing? Yes. And there's many other cities in the valley that are cap cities that are doing the same thing. >> Correct. >> So,
and I read in the paper, and again, I take everything I read in the paper with a grain of salt, that city manager Kaitton said that a new approach is buying up more aotments, you know, that other people aren't using. But my
questions on that from a finance standpoint are if we're talking about solving our water issues by buying up other people's unused cap allotments, but cap is going to be cut more and more
and more. That's just reality. Doesn't the law of supply and demand say that those allocations are going to be more and more expensive? So how can this financially be a sustainable you know
approach and why this is my next question four spots down why is the APRW project out of the budget completely for five years and I know city manager Kaitton addressed it a little bit in the beginning but when we looked at it last
budget cycle it said this is a federal requirement okay and I know you're looking at numbers numbers and everything, but my question is, if we're not going to do the upgrades required by federal requirements, is RAPRW
still going to be up to snuff? And I want to make it very clear to everyone who says, "I don't like toilet to tap." Well, people, you've been drinking it for decades, you know, and it's and it's a higher quality than rain water. So, um, my questions, those are my
questions. how this actually works from a financial standpoint. >> I can start off and uh happy to tag team it with my colleague here. I just want to go back uh to the reference to uh the media. I think that fits under a new
under the six-prong approach new new source and supply and you may have uh seen we are at the beginning stages of t talking about rate increases for next year and one thing that we introduced for consideration for council's
consideration again we're very at the uh early stages of this was what I would refer to is a rate increase to cover normal uh operating expenditure if you will, in in standard capital. And then a and that's about three and a half% on
the water operations side and then a 1% rate increase specifically allocated for uh source and supply and that could be used in a variety of ways. Uh maybe support some debt service so on so forth. So I wanted to mention how we
connect uh this opportunity of acquisition with uh putting it into the budget. So again the news new new source is one of of the six referenced. Then I I want to just reemphasize and and again my my colleague has greater detail
obviously on this but speaking to the advanced water purification and the rule change or establishment of the rules which was approximately a year ago or spring of last year by ADAQ uh outlined the rules and regulations
and therefore we've started an extensive process to understand uh the capital investment that would be required And then also the operational expenditures. Those are really unknowns and quite frankly it they were placeholders. They were placeholders in the previous budget
and again fitting in with the previous um methodology or approach to the CIP. It's still of interest to us but it doesn't do us any good to have a number that we don't have any uh certainty behind. I think that's the situation that we ran into before and specifically
this project was brought uh we had discussions about it a year ago because again it was let's just say less than 20 million and then it's uh pushing a hundred millionish at this point in time and that had not even calculated in uh the operating expenditures. So, we're
developing a plan uh should that be considered to move forward that our policy makers, our governing body, city council can understand. Here are a variety of options uh to support uh water in our community. Here's option A, just what this looks like. Here's option
B. Here's some operating expenditures and some capital expenditures and do that analysis. That uh analysis is still being worked on now. Is not complete. When that is complete, we plan to bring it forward to city council for consideration and discussion. I expect
probably around the springtime for that to be complete. So, it was not uh prepared or we don't have the number to include in this year's budget, but it is one of the six as referenced the AWP. Um, so it is on our radar screen. It is
an area of interest for us, but I don't have definitive numbers to put in the budget at this point. But real quick before we get to the next one, but is are these ADQ, you know, that the new requirements, are they necessary within a certain time frame to keep our
existing APRW up to up to snuff? >> Thank you, Commissioner. Yes. So try to I know we're we're going to be short on time if I go into an hourong dissertation about the rules and impacts
and nomenclature. So I just want to be very >> drink recycled water. >> We we will be able to Yes. So you had referenced AWP and so that's a technical term now that is defined by ADQ for advanced uh water purification. What we
currently do in the city of Scottsdale at the water campus and what we have been doing for 30 years is what we call advanced water treatment. So just slight differences there. What that entails is advanced treatment.
Those treatment processes now is allowed for other utilities and Scottsdale as well to use to enhanced uh reclaimed water to a level that is now drinkable potable water. We have 80% of that already built
and in-house. What we still need to do is enhance our operational structure, our uh rehabilitation of certain processes that now meet this new level, this new threshold that we we have to meet with a new rule.
So from a financial standpoint, AWP for the city of Phoenix, Puria, there's other cities out there that are looking at it and we've heard some very significant uh costs associated with that. We've been blessed here in the
city of Scottsdale with some very forwardthinking prior leaders to get us to where we are today. So from that standpoint, overall investment is going to be far significantly less than what we hear in uh the news and with other cities. So I
wanted to state that first. It won't impact our current operations though to your to your question of AWP. What we currently do will not uh stop if we don't continue to um move into AWP.
We will still have our treatment processes producing very very high quality water. It's not drinking water, but it's very very high quality water. So from that standpoint, we're in a very very good shape in terms of our overall water strength and health.
AWP will add to it as the city manager has described as a another prong or a leg within our water portfolio. So it'll it's going to absolutely help going into the future, but not moving into it is not going to impact what we currently
do. So it's there's some differences there with what we currently do and the new rule. The new rule is optional. It's not being mandated. Meaning if we don't do AWP, be very clear about this, it's not going to impact our current
operations. If we do go down the road of AWP, yes, absolutely. We're going to have to have some new treatment processes, new certifications from our operators, additional regulatory requirements and monitoring that we'll have to do. Yes. So I
>> Okay. So >> I'll pause. >> North of Shay, we send our waste water to Phoenix, right? >> Uh so >> for the their regional treatment facility. So, regional treatment to the city of
Phoenix or what we would call Shrog. Um, uh, pretty much everything south of Indian Ben Road, we don't capture. We don't have the infrastructure to capture it and convey it back to the water
campus. So, a little bit further south than Sheay. >> Okay. And so, we're sending it to Phoenix >> and that goes to the city of Phoenix. Correct. >> And then they treat it. >> And they treat it. Correct. and it doesn't come back to us. >> Correct. >> Okay. Do we get money for the fact that
they're now making new water out of our waste water? >> We currently do and we will going into the future. So that's there a nuance there. So we do pay for treatment but we on the back end when we reconcile at the end of the year for the water that then
goes to two places currently Palvery Nuclear Power Plant and Trace Rios. So the volume of water that goes to power verie nuclear power plant we do reconcile the books at the end of the year and we do get money back. >> Okay. Final question. >> Sure. >> Because water is becoming so scarce and
they're going to use it for drinking. >> Do we make a profit on it? >> Commissioner, no we will not be making a profit on it. But what would happen and what's being now developed is a IGA an intergovernmental agreement of how we would do that water exchange.
meaning we're going to continue to provide that sewer water because we can't capture it based on our current infrastructure. And if they do go to AWP processes, there will be an exchange of water. Now, how that looks and works, we're still in the very beginning stages of of what
that is, but it won't be a monetary thing. It'll be in my mind what I've been advocating for is wet water. And so, how we work that out will have to come out through the through the uh IG. >> Okay, I lied. So the question is, is
there even a feasibility or thinking of a feasibility study in the future to actually be able to do recyclable with all of our water so we can then use it as new water in our
city. >> Those conversations are being had and looked at as back to infrastructure. Uh we have looked at adding additional what we would call pumpbacks or sewer lift stations to convey that water up to the campus and the costs just haven't
penciled out for us yet. But we continually we continue uh to look at those options because yes we to your point and I've said it you know wet water is what we're looking at and thank you. The other thing I would just briefly add to that is understand our
portfolio is a little bit different in various parts of the community. >> Just I'd like to add just based on what I learned on Friday and touring the water plant. Great great tour. I'd encourage anybody to do it. But it just seems like what what we're what we I said earlier is this is how zombie
projects end up occurring. Big numbers. They're just languishing on and there's not a clear definition as to what you want to do. I think what you're doing is you're saying we want to step back. Let's define this. We've got time to do it right. And we've got six different six different um access points here. And
we are not currently doing toilet tap. It goes into the ground and gets filtered naturally by the ground and then pumped back out and processed. That's the way we've done it for years. Is that correct, >> Commissioner? Yes. >> Okay. So, we're a long way from the pure
toilet totap type of thinking around that. It's it's really adding the capacity to keep our waste water in Scottsdale so we can reuse it, but it gets filtered naturally just like all the other water we get from other places. I would argue that cap water is probably more contaminated coming down
the canal than what comes out of our comes out of our wells >> because it hasn't been filtered. So just keep things in perspective. I think the language is important there um in terms of water because it can get emotional for people and let's deal with the facts. Thank you. And good point. And you know,
I think we all see that, you know, the articles about Gilbert having to raise their water rates 25% a year for three years. I I I'm encouraged that the staff is looking into this so that they're being ahead of the game. Um, and I drank some of that water up at the uh
treatment plant 30 years ago and and I'm still here and I'm not glowing. So, I I think we're kind of ahead of the game. Uh, Commissioner Stevens. >> Yeah. Can I jump on something off water? >> Yes. >> Okay. But two things. One, I just want to call your attention staff to there's
one thing called new capital project 25. It's an exact million dollars a year for each of the next five years to fund studies to solve local drainage complaints. To me, that sounds like an operating cost. I don't see how an asset comes out of that that goes on the books. So my observation to you is just
to consider whether or not that that's in the right veggie category and also are there any other feasibility type things that are in the capital program that belong in operating. I I'll you can just do figure that out on your own. >> Okay. Or do you you're dying to answer it? >> Yeah. >> Um
>> okay, >> Chair Schwiker and members of the commission for the uh capital improvement plan, we do have costs that are funded by capital funds. So for the drainage, those are funded by our storm water fees and also flood control
drainage funds and we do consider those capital funds for the reporting that complies with GAAP. And when we do the audit and the financial reports, we will claw back those capital projects into the operations where we look at projects
from a capital standpoint when they're funded by capital. >> So some of these capital projects could be operating expenses. Okay. Absolutely. And then the other thing for the group to consider is we haven't even talked about the couple hundred million dollar pavement overlay program. That was one of the things I'd asked for detailed calculations on, but it's probably too
involved for that. Is it is it possible to have a twominut discussion of how that's derived just so we can have some level of diligence on that because the numbers so big. >> Well, I I think that's a good idea because we spent a lot of time last year
on pavement. So if we can Yeah, I I need to save probably what five or seven minutes, Sonia, for the very end to look at future projects. >> Yeah. Okay. So, so if we could talk maybe 10 minutes about the pavement
right there. No, >> as we're pulling the appropriate slide up, let me give a little bit of an introduction here. I do believe the number that's articulated in the book has some carry forward and and so really what we're looking for is about an annual appropriation of approximately
$40 million. And so that's what we're trying to get here. And I I will use this opportunity to say we're going to get there in a couple different ways. Um uh one of which is this year I Nathan will have and Allison will have the exact number, but we have been
evaluating on the outsourcing. So, we've historically outsourced with the exception of some a pothole crew that was about half uh filled, if you will, which um kind of left the potholes about half filled, I think. Um pun intended
there. And really, we through new leadership have viewed the opportunity to bring a a component of the street maintenance spectrum of tools in house. And we have a liquid road uh
program that we're going to introduce uh through some small capital investment vehicles, things of that equipment within the existing fiscal year and also utilize some vacancies to uh prioritize a small crew to do this new effort. uh
we have done some analysis internally of what we can do it for versus outsourcing and it's a significant savings to to do that component inhouse. So I wanted to introduce that as a supplement still a lot of work going on uh out uh for
contract work and happy to add more on that in a few minutes but with that I'll hand it over to my colleagues. Let me just real quick. This looks like funding sources. Is your idea here's how much I'm gonna do. I'm going to do whatever I can with this dollar amount. So, you're not going to go over budget
or do you have projects underneath that that roll up to that dollar amount? >> Um, uh, Commissioner Stevens, yeah, that's correct. Uh, we're going to do up to this dollar amount. And we do have a plan. Um, we have a a model that's determining how what resources we need
to get our PCI up. Again, it was 63. We want to get into the high 70s. It's going to take several years. We're hoping to fund at around 40 to 45 million a year like we have this year. We're so when you look at the forecast budget in the future years, we're hoping to also bring that up to the $45 million
range. Um we do have various treatments that we do to bring that um the PCI up and we identify the roads and what condition they're in and what is needed. Um as far as treatment goes, uh we have another slide. It probably um is in a
different presentation, but it just it it breaks down our plan for the year. Um what it's basically how much we're going to do in all of our different treatments. We have milan overlay, we have micro seal, we have double micro seal, we have liquid road, which Greg
mentioned. Um we have fog seal. These are the treatments that we do. We also have um incidental costs built into our budget. So at 45 million we're projecting to do about um 36 million of actual pavement whereas um we got about $9 million of the incidentals which we
have to go in and do concrete work and sidewalk work and ADA improvements when we touch the road. Um we have to do patching and structural repairs, traffic control, and then our striping and marking. So um that's another approximate 9 million that goes into the 45 million. But um we do have a list of
projects that we're intending to hit next year. Um, we do have to have some flexibility in that list of projects. We might have to switch things around as we go. We, um, typically look at our fall paving season. We go out and identify everything and get our contractors going and then we get into our spring paving.
We're just kicking off our spring paving this for this year. We've had our pre-construction meeting with our contractors. So, yes, we will be working in this budget, the 45 million budget. >> Thank you. And and um I think one of the things for those of us who were in the
commission last year, we encouraged the city to look at like construction and road maintenance to see if there were things we were outsourcing that we could get more for the same dollar by bringing in house. So I'm very pleased that you're looking at that. Commissioner Newman,
>> just a question um because it's the if you with this investment profile, when does our PCI get back to 70 then 75 plus? That would be my question. And then secondly, if we didn't do this, when would we start seeing road failures? >> So, um, Commissioner Newman, what we're
looking at right now is, uh, we are still testing the PCI on some of the work that we've done this year. Um, we are currently at we were came into this season with we um, estimated 63 and what we're estimating at the end of this year, at the end of our spring season before the next fiscal year is that
we'll get up to a 66. So, we are um progressing um, we are getting that PCI up. So, it's just going to depend on um how many years we get the appropriate funding level to when we actually hit the target of I think was 7778 was our target, right? >> Is it fair to say every5 to$10 million
gets you a point? >> Um I I can't say that for sure. Again, uh we do have a consultant that is coming back in and measuring our PCI and we're putting that into the model. So, we're actually seeing um what our PCI was before we did the treatment and then what our PCI was after and then the
model is going to help us to determine that. But we're still working through through that. >> And then if we didn't accelerate the program, when would we start have seen when would we start seeing road failures? >> We we would have to analyze that as well. >> Okay. >> Let me just add add a little bit to the conversation. So um once we have the
surge funding, there will be a natural sweet spot that is less than the surge. Um, we're still determining that and it does depend on the goal of the PCI and just for the audience purposes, pavement condition index, zero is low, 100 is a
brand new road and we were at about 63 as referenced uh before and most communities that have uh roads that you really can't tell uh that they're deteriorating that they think they're in good shape is in the 70s somewhere. Uh we're shooting for approximately mid70s
at about 75 or so. that is a considerable investment uh to maintain it at that level. So we'll have to have a community discussion about the appropriate level for us once we have the surge just to put it in. So what is the overall impact? What are we trying to achieve? It's hundreds of millions of
dollars and so that's what the hole literally that we've dug ourselves into here to the question about failed roads and uh Thomas is a is a great example and what happened and why I had suggested switching is we are
uh at a time where a number of other roads are potentially failing and so our infusion of resources into those are critical and so what I had submitted a year ago which again was backed by the the experts was that Thomas today or a
year ago was failed one year later it's still failed all you'll have is inflationary additional costs but the failed to failed is the We have roads now that can be treated with a lighter touch. And that's really the goal when you talk about street
maintenance. You need to be regularly doing maintenance on these roads. You don't just kind of put in a a brand new road and then come back 20 years later. It doesn't work that you'll have to rebuild it 20 years later if you do it that way. If you properly maintain it along the way, then you can extend the
life of that roadway. Also what we're looking at is treating each and every road with what it needs. So we do a specific assessment of each road and then the particular treatment is applied to address that and in certain um
treatments can impact the pavement condition. So you might imagine if it's failed in a certain area and then you do a a complete rebuild, then you're going to get a higher number out of that. it's going to take up more of your budget versus a a lighter treatment that may have a smaller impact but give you a
good five to 10 year stretch in extending that life. So there is a lot of science um and art behind this initiative uh that we've been doing and we now with this leadership team and some more resources have an amazing team working on this. So we have the right
team, we have the right people and we have allocated the resources to invest. This is critical infrastructure and if you don't invest in it, it will deteriorate as we saw our roads get in that situation. Thank you. >> Our goal is to be a premium community and tourists come here and if you have
bumpy broken roads, they're not going to do that and the residents aren't going to be happy. So, this has to be done. >> Yeah. The other thing that you noticed in my last uh comment is you noticed that historically the the point too speaking of the fund the way we fund has
been utilized only exclusively for this. Now we have some general fund dollars that are helping us get to the level of investment that is needed. So that that is a shift in saying we need to go beyond uh just this one source of funds,
broaden out the source of funds in order to support this as a priority. So just wanted to recognize that from a a high level is new. Well, and I think that's very important because, you know, at our I think our very first meeting a year ago, it kind of two of the topics that came up were,
you know, hey, how come these projects cost more and and never get done on time and how come there's so many potholes? So, I think the city's doing a very good job of addressing all those things. Um, wonderful discussion. We're running out of time. Uh, I do think it's time to
move on unless there's anybody else with any um pertinent questions right now on the CIP. Now, Mark, I know we could talk for the next four weeks, 24 hours a day. Um, but I think the methodology we're we're
beginning to figure out how they're looking at that. So, I think that'll help us a lot. But just to keep on time, I think we need to go on to items to be presented at upcoming meetings. I'll turn that over to the city treasurer.
>> Thank you, Chair Swiker. Just waiting for the presentation to come up. It's just one slide. Item five is right there. Uh the item five items to be presented. Yes. Okay,
next slide, please. So, for the March 9th meeting, we can have some um time for follow-up items from this preliminary CIP review if needed. We do have the general fund
revenue projections that we are ready to share with the commission. We also uh can preview with the commission some major uh budget assumptions and requests uh for our fiscal year 26 27 budget. We are in the process of going through
those requests with the city manager and his team. We will also have the budget and actual financial report for the second quarter to go over with the commission. And the fifth item uh may or may not um be we may may or may not be able to present it depending on the time
we need to review that. Uh we have a um MPA intern that's been working on this. Back in October, Commissioner Newman had mentioned in order for us to be financially sustainable and long-term sustainability, we really need to look at our AI efforts and continue to
explore those AI efforts. So, our MPA intern has spent a lot of time working with the uh departments and the IT team to explore and put together a presentation and report for the commission on the AI efforts that's going on citywide. We certainly need to
make sure that the um our CIO Bianca has reviewed the report first. So to the extent that we can get that done, we can provide that on on March 9th as well. Thank you. And that's all I have. >> Great. I I think that's good. Mark, do you have any of those that you would
>> No, on future agenda. >> Okay. Okay. Um yeah, I think as many of those as we could get for the next meeting would be beneficial for all of us. Um, if the AI is not ready for the next meeting, hopefully we get at the meeting after that because as near as I
can tell, it's changing about everything that we're doing and it'll be interesting. Um, so now we're down to item six, identification and approval of possible future agenda items. Uh, Commissioner Carla.
>> Uh, yes. One is a comment and then one's an actual future agenda item. Um, regarding the discussion we had on water, I I look forward to a city council work study session on water very soon, sooner rather than later. Uh,
future agenda item somewhere down the road in in our first meeting again the, you know, status report on our finances and everything. What was identified was the fact that we're deficient in upkeep,
maintenance, and somewhere down the road, if we could look at how this budget is going to help address that. Um, sort of a synopsis of that because I see some of it in here, but but because
that was such a a big thing that jumped out at a few commissioners, I'd like us to be able to look at that down the road. Thank you. Um, city treasure chair, can we get that added at some future point? >> Yes, Chair Swer, members of the
commission. Yes, we can add that to the future items. >> Great. Thank you. Um, good meeting everyone. I think we're getting Oh, Commissioner Stevens. >> Yeah, two potential future agenda items. Uh, one is we are supposed to do a report eventually on our findings. One
of the things we had to think about, I don't know if I want at the next meeting. I'd kind of like anyone to put down their ideas, send them to Sonia, and have that as an attachment for us to discuss at the next meeting, potential uh report items uh from the BRC. Not
that we're going to vote on them, just to get them out there and get initial reactions. So, if that's of value, we can do that. Or we can just make that an agenda item to talk about how we're going to do that. And then my other thing is I'd like to talk to this group in the future. So decide if it's going to be an
agenda item. Staff's not going to like this necessarily and I'm you're going to think I'm all wet, but it's going to be a FTE idea whereby discuss and putting the FTE information together whether there's any merit to doing things like
uh look at current open positions and having first look at how restructuring can take away some of those positions by realigning duties. Also looking at planned retirements that are coming up and not necessarily assuming the positions will be replaced but use that as an opportunity to realign some of the
departments. And then finally when a person leaves to think about rather than just immediately replacing them think about whether there's a reassignment of duties because I think if you talk to your people you might find they're doing things that aren't necessarily adding value and if they could discard some of those things they might have more
capacity to take on work. So this is something your if I'm you your initial reaction is oh no I don't want to do that but uh I'd like us to at least talk about whether that might be a recommendation. So the so the recommendation for future meetings would just be discussion of potential FTE
management uh ideas. And if you guys want to go ahead and do any of that, just go do it and then we don't have to talk about it. >> At the risk of uh the city attorney's office to the right, my colleagues getting me in trouble to answer because
it's not agendaized. I would say that that um uh I look forward to that discussion when we roll out the operating budget. Okay. >> Because we've already done some of that. Look forward to that discussion. I think it's a a very worthy discussion. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Uh if there's nothing else on the agenda, uh the chair would entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I. Thank you everyone. Part: 2
Everyone uh welcome to the uh meeting of the uh citizens bond oversight committee and the hour is 508 and we will begin the meeting and u first item of business I'll ask to call the role, please.
>> Vice Chair Coughlin, absent. Um, committee member Davis >> here. >> Chair Deo, >> present. >> Committee member Fischer >> here. >> Committee member Holland >> here. >> Committee member her
absent. Committee member Kamasu >> here. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Erin. Uh looking at the uh agenda this evening, uh the first item on the agenda is the uh consideration for approval of the last minutes for
November the 18th. Uh all committee members were furnished a copy of those uh minutes prior to the meeting and I assume everyone has had an opportunity to look at the uh meeting minutes and review them. Uh so at this time, unless
there are questions, uh the chair will entertain a motion to approve those minutes as presented. Is there such a motion? >> I'll motion it. >> April. Thank you. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Second, Darl. Thank you. Uh it's been
moved and seconded to uh accept the um amendments as presented. And so at this time, I'd ask everyone to signify I if you approve. >> I I >> oppose. Nay. Uh seeing no nays, the motion is passed unanimously and the
minutes will be approved. With that, moving to the second item on the agenda, the nomination and elect election of a chair and vice chair for the committee for the upcoming year going forward. And for that, I'll defer to Erin and ask you
to handle that item for me, please. >> Absolutely. Um, as we do every year at our first meeting, um, this committee elects a chair and a vice chair. Your chair and vice chair can serve for two years consecutively, um, by as noted in
our bylaws. So, at this time, I would like to take nominations for chair. >> If if I may, I would uh nominate Joe Dubo. He's done a fabulous job. I think he could do it again for another year. All right, we have a nomination for
Chair Dubo to excuse me, Dubo to continue as our chair for another year. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All right, we have a second. All right, all those in favor? >> I >> I. >> Any opposed?
All right. Congratulations, chairman. You are stuck with us for another year. So, we congratulate you in that honor. Thank you for serving us. I think you're stuck with me actually. As long as I don't have to make a speech, that's uh that's good. >> All right. And with that, I'm going to
turn the nomination for the vice chair back over to you. >> All right. Thank you, Aaron. >> Thank you. >> Uh all right. At this time, uh the chair will entertain uh nominations for the office of vice chair for the upcoming year. Are there any nominations? >> Mr. Chairman, I
nominate someone who's been here consistently and I think he's doing a good job. Daryl Kesso. >> All right. Uh, the nomination has been submitted for Daryl Kamasu. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second by committee member uh Davis. And
um at this time, unless Daryl wants to make a speech. Uh we will vote. All in favor of Daryl Kamasu as the vice chair for the coming year, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed? Nay.
Seeing no nays then Darl congratulations and you'll be the vice chair for the coming year. >> Thank you. All right that's the last of the housekeeping. Um we can now move to item number three on the regular agenda which is the presentation discussion and
approval of the citizens bond oversight committee 2025 annual report. And for that item I would call on Aaron Walsh public works communication supervisor for presentation. Thank you, chair. Um, this is an item that you guys are
familiar with because you have all been with us for a year, which is very exciting. Um, this is our annual report. This format is used by all city boards and commissions um to report to the city council and the city clerk what has happened over the course of a year. We
all use the same format and we all use the same template. Um, it talks about the number of meetings we've held, any public comments we got, we've gotten over the course of the year, our major topics of discussion, and any action taken. It also has a record of every
single person who served over the course of the year and their attendance record. Um, and then any notes. So, with that um with that summary, I'll turn it back over to the chair um to vote on approval
or mod, excuse me, ask any questions. >> All right. Uh are there any uh questions from any members of the committee with respect to the proposed annual report? Seeing none, uh then um I believe we
need to approve that. So, the chair will entertain a motion to approve the 25 uh annual uh report as presented. Is there a motion? >> A motion. >> April. A motion. And is there a second? >> Second.
>> Member Kamasu seconds it. Any questions on the motion? Seeing none, the chair will then call for a vote for approval. All in favor of approving the annual report as presented, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I.
>> Opposed? Nay. Uh there being no nays, the motion is approved unanimously and the report is accepted as presented. Uh, next item on the agenda is item number four, which is the update on the
bond 2019 program, including question one, parks, recreation, and senior services. Question number two, community spaces and infrastructure, and question number three, public safety and technology. And for that uh
presentation, I will call on Allison Timku, city engineer. Okay, thank you chair and committee members. Um, this is the 2019 bond program um, update. Next slide, please.
So, again, I'll just be going over the three questions. Question one, which is parks, recreation, and senior services. Question two, community spaces and infrastructure. And question three, public safety and information technology. Next slide, please.
Okay, so this slide shows um the projects in the current fiscal year for question one. The first one is expand um project number 13 expand Granite Reef Senior Center to meet a demand for adult daycare. Um this funding as previously mentioned has been moved to fiscal year
2627. Um the rationale for moving that funding a year out is because we are undertaking a feasibility study right now actually with honor health on what it would look like for the city to operate an adult daycare center. Um the next project is 21 expand via Linda senior center to
meet demand for senior services. This project is proceeding with design and cost estimating. We're still at preliminary schematic design at this point. We're doing a a lot of programming of the space and cost estimating to make sure that we're staying within budget. So, we don't
actually have um any preliminary designs available yet, but we will probably um in an upcoming meeting. I could probably show um where we're we're at on the slides. Uh number 22 is build new swimming pools and replace building at Cactus Pool. Uh we're currently
undertaking a feasibility study for this at the moment and we're targeted to complete that in September of 2026. Um question uh project 41 install solar heating system for Elorado pool. So um the recommendation of this committee in
November was to eliminate the project. Our next steps will be to present that to city council which we are planning to do this spring. Uh 42 is add a dog park to Thompson Peak Park. Construction is proceeding on this project and we're targeting summer completion.
Project 60 is double solar power generating capacity at Appaloosa Library. Uh we're currently evaluating the concepts for this and um we will be likely coming forward to you um for a a
budget transfer. So again, if we have any scope changes such as we did with or eliminating of the project such as we did with the um heating system for Elorado Pool. Also, if we're transferring funding from one project to the next, uh we come to you for um
approval and this project as it stands, double solar power generating capacity Appaloosa library is very um much underfunded for us to do anything meaningful there. So, as our uh design bill manager is looking at concepts, depending on the cost, we'll likely come
back to you to recommend moving some of the savings from the install solar heating system project, the one that was eliminated, some of the savings to this project to make it viable, but that's a presentation for a future meeting. Um, and then 61 is purchase land and expand Pinnacle Peak Park lot staff office and
restrooms, renovate hiking trail, and construct an interpretive trail. So again, as I've said in the past, this land is um the land that we would need to expand this is actually Arizona State Land Department land. So we're waiting on that to either auction, but in the
meantime, we are p preparing a conceptual plan so we can see exactly what we need um as far as land for the proposed expansion. Um so we are moving forward with that, but we're still on hold for any a land acquisition for this project.
Okay, Allison, before you move on, u number 41, uh you said that that'll be presented to uh the council in the spring. Can you be more specific? Do you know uh when it will be presented? >> We don't have a date scheduled for that yet, but um we can let you know when it
is. >> Okay. And then number uh number 60, uh you said it's underfunded. Uh why and how is it underfunded? How much? Um, I don't have the numbers with me, but I believe it's funded at
it's definitely under $50,000. So, it's a real small um funding amount. So, there's nothing meaningful that we could do to double the size. It would cost at least double that to to do what the intent of this um project is. So, we'll bring that to you in a presentation and
give you all the details. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh member uh vice chair Kamasu. >> Um Allison, so I've got a question on number 60, I guess, in terms of like the um various concepts. Is it decided by a
city council which concept to select or is it just internal department discussions? >> Um uh chair and committee member Kamasu. No, that is determined by um by staff by the departments. Yes. >> Okay. Thanks.
>> Okay. Next slide, please. And here is again our implementation schedule for um projects within question one. And um we're showing projects that are currently in design and construction for the this fiscal year as well as um
projecting out the next few fiscal years. Next slide, please. This slide shows um question two fiscal year 202526 projects. Um number 15 is build the 200 space parking lot off 75th Street to serve the city court and
Scottsdale Stadium. So this construction um at the stadium we we're normally constructing after spring training so during the gap of um when it's busy. And this project, the construction actually is delayed um probably one more fiscal
year. And it's due to um where the parking lot is located. There are some EPA issues with some ground contamination with some previous um industry that was there several years ago. So EPA is making a final ruling on what we can and can't do in that area.
So we're waiting on that until we can proceed with that project. before you move on. So, um the EPA issues, will that be a u an issue faced by the um the tenant at the stadium or
is that going to be a city uh issue? The issues are that there's some um ground contamination, some soil contamination under where the project where the parking lot is and the EPA is making a determination of whether our project is going to disturb it too much
and if there's any um requirements for remediation and there are private companies that were involved in that which would have responsibility for that. >> But it's a joint project. >> The the project is a city project, >> not with the uh the baseball tenant. Oh,
with the baseball tenant. Yeah, but this actually this project itself, it's a bond project. It is a city project. So, some of the stadium projects, yes, are joint with the baseball tenant. >> So, I guess what I'm getting at, if there's a remediation problem that we hadn't foreseen up till now, is that
does that have the potential of being an unforeseen cost that uh would impact the bond spending or no? Uh, Chair Deoce, yes, it's possible, but we believe that we can accomplish the project within the EPA requirements without having to do
additional remediation. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um, project 18 is build roadway and pedestrian improvements along Second Street from Drinkwater Boulevard to Gwater Boulevard and we are currently proceeding with concept design on this
project. Um, project 19 is build roadway and pedestrian improvements along Marshall Way north of Indian School Road. This project is new this fiscal year. We actually have um a project meeting scheduled uh early in March to start um planning this project.
23 is repair lakes and irrigation at Vistadel Camino Park in the Indian Ben Wash and construction on this project is proceeding with lake lake work within the uh Vistadel Camino area. 32 is renovate and modernize stage 2 theater at SCPA. This is planned with the future
expansion by Scottsdale Art. They have a donor for a new theater and this project is planned to occur at the same time as that. 45 is renovate horse barns to increase rentable space. We just completed two additional barns in time for the Arabian horse show. So we have
nine barns total to date. And um within the scope of this project, it was 10 barns. So we have one more pro one more barn to complete um to meet the actual intent of this project. I I know Westworld would like to continue funding
uh with tourism funds or with their other fund funding sources, additional barns, but once we hit the 10, that's the end of you know the intent of the bond program. So we would remove this from the list. 58 is installed parasol solar shade at
city hall parking lot. That project was awarded um back in October by city council with um the GMP for construction and they've been ordering equipment and were targeted to start construction in April with um completion in September.
59 is install solar systems at the Civic Center campus. This project actually the location that we're evaluating for this solar system is actually that first project 15 build the 200 spaces. So that will be in tandem with that project.
62 is build a bridge on Thompson Peak Parkway over Riata Pass. And this project is currently in design. We're at about 60% design. And 63 is build parking structures in Oldtown Scottsdale. And we have our third um
public meeting scheduled for March um second week of March. I think it's March 12th, right? So we're having another public meeting that on that our final public meeting and then we'll be moving forward with um GMP for construction in the summer.
Next slide, please. >> Committee member uh Fischer for a question. >> Yeah. Uh Alice, just just a couple of questions if I may. >> Sure. >> Um >> so I think we talked about this before that the horse barns handle I think there's what uh 40 stalls
or something in each one. >> Um I apologize I don't actually have the number of stalls within each barn. >> Well, we made a lot of progress and and certain times of the year that gets a lot of use. >> Yes. Um so is it is the um facility there you said
once we hit 10 that's it are they limited by space because there's a fair amount of land out there or is some contract >> so chair do um committee member Fiser uh there are several barns up there and what the bond project identified was the
ones that um were in the worst condition and needed repair and replacement. So they they identified 10 in the in the pro in the question. So there are more barns out there that they do want to replace, but my intent was that um once we replace the 10 that were included in
the original bond project, then I'll I'll stop reporting on it because then they're just doing other barns up there, aren't there, that aren't related to the bond 2019 project. >> That feels that would fill fulfill the bond >> Yes. >> requirements and then but then they're they're prepared to start paying
themselves. That's correct. >> Oh, that's great. Um, just one other question on the parking structure in Oldtown because parking structures have I think they've gotten some controversy here and there, you know. Um, what what are you hearing from the public meetings on this particular site?
Um, so Chair Deo, uh, Committee Member Fischer, we've had two, um, meetings, public meetings for this project. And, um, we get I don't know, would you want to chime in on that, Erin? Sure. Um,
what we've really taken out to the public are design options. Um when the city council approved the project, approved the design contract um and the city council considered several times um this project as many of you have been
following. U as staff we were we were told to take a design out. So really our public meetings focused on what the structure would look like um how it would function, what circulation would look like. Of course, we get all kinds of comments at public meetings um that aren't, you know, that it went beyond
that scope, but really the first meeting was really parking structure 101. How did it need to operate? Were we going to put counting systems in it? You know, how tall did it need to be? What did the circulation need to be like for it to function well? Um and we asked folks
what they wanted it to look like. We gave them some inspirational photos to comment on. Um our second public meeting, we took two different designs out there. One was, I believe, called Adobe and the other one was Western. So, we really were getting feedback on what they wanted the exterior of it to look
like and that was what the majority of our comments were on. Um, this last public meeting, we're really focusing on the final design and um, we're going to talk to them about construction and what they should expect and what that's going to look like moving forward. So, that's generally what we asked and what the
majority of our comments were on if that's a good summary. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Of course. >> Uh, one other quick one before we move on. U and, and this is, uh, relates to, uh, uh, Rudy's question regarding the
horse barns. So, we anticipate that that we will get the 10th one done. Um, is there any sense for whether or not once we've done that, there will be funds left over or we've expended all those funds? And I asked that question um only because I was concerned about whether or
not there will be funds left over that will be subject to a transfer perhaps to another project within the question. >> Uh Chair Deo um actually we have expended the bond funding on this project. We added general fund to this project and we've also already added
tourism funds. So yeah the bond funds have been expended for this project already. So we we wouldn't be coming to you to transfer bond funds. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. Okay. So um this slide shows the implementation
schedule for our question two projects and again it just shows um where we are in the schedule for both design and construction for our question two current projects. Next slide please. Um these are our question three fiscal
year 2526 projects. First one is project five modernize computer equipment rooms to protect city servers. And we are actually moving into the final phase which is the HVAC for that project. Project nine is install fiber optic infrastructure to reduce operating
costs. And this project is in multiple multiple locations in the city and in various sta stages of design and construction. Uh 14 is replace obsolete planning and permitting software. This permitting software went live on January 6th and the team is now focusing on
implementing reporting capabilities and secondary supporting systems. Project 17 has obtained a citywide data management and analytics solution for databased decision-making and they are finalizing the data management architecture requirements for that project. Project
26 has replaced deterior deteriorating vehicle training track for the police and training fires police and fire training facility and that training track project is in design. 33 is renovate via Linda police station to increase efficiency. Um a portion of
this project the jail renovation is actually just wrapping up and that was in in support of the bond project 40 listed below. 34 is build a new fire station at 90th and via Linda to replace aging facility. This project project is at the early design stages. 39 is
renovate the foothills police station to increase efficiency. This is another new project this fiscal year. And 40 is renovate and expand civic center Jail and downtown police facility to meet demand. this uh the design on this project is progressing and we are
anticipating to move um to a construction uh guaranteed MA maximum price later this spring. And then the implementation next slide please. Uh and the implementation schedule for question three is shown here with um the various uh phases of
design and construction in 2526 and 2627. I know I had a question about um project number 17 obtain a citywide data management um that that wasn't shown in here and I guess historically we showed
more um design and construction rate related projects in this implementation schedule and the IT related projects were left off if they didn't have um like a design or construction component to them but I can certainly add that going forward and then next slide please.
The this here is a list of our completed bond 2019 projects. Um question one, we've completed six out of 14. Question two, we've um completed six out of 20. Next slide, please. Um and question three, we've
completed 14 out of 24 projects. We have eliminated um one project. Actually, I need to update this to make this eliminated, too. But we'll have to wait until council actually authorizes that to um make that additional change. >> And then with that, if you have any
other additional questions, I'm happy to answer them. >> I have one. Uh the asterisk projects um shows uh that those are projects that are completed but not yet closed in the
um CIP budget. Can you uh elaborate on that for me? What does that mean? >> Yes, Chair De Boyce. So, when we finish a project, for example, when we finish the um number 28, which uh is build a new fire station near Hayden Road in Loop 101 to improve response times. So,
we count the project as finished when um we're occupying it. It's open. The firemen are using the station. It's an active um facility. Um, but we actually haven't closed it out financially yet because we do have um punch list items
that come up or um we have uh maybe some lag lagging payments for whatever reason. So when we close it out financially is when we actually remove the asterric. That's something that we worked out with budget because we would say that the project was done because it's open and they'd say, "Oh, no, wait.
You still have u money on the books here." So um that's what the asterisks mean. >> All right. Thank you. Any questions? Right. I don't believe that uh there's an action that that's an action item from the uh from the committee. So, I'll
thank you Allison for the presentation and then we'll move on to uh number five on the agenda, which is a presentation, discussion, and possible action on the bond 2019 financial report. And for that, I would defer to Scott Seline, the
budget director for his presentation. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Um, I do want to point out that there uh have been some slides added from when from what you were originally provided. I believe you have the printout of the new slides in front of you. I just want to make sure there
should be eight in total. Um, once again, good evening, members of the committee. Uh, Scott Selene, city budget director. Happy to be here with you this evening. Could we go to the next slide? This is the same slide that we start off with every time. Um the total budget for
the bond 2019 program is 319 million split up into three questions. You see the totals for the three questions uh listed on the slide there. And each project within the bond 2019 program belongs to only one question. Could we
advance? This is the slide that we showed uh showing the financial status at our most recent meeting. Um the data was accurate as of September 30 of 2025. Uh for questions one, two, and three, we show the actuals in kind of the
yellowish, the amount committed, and I'll call it copper, the remaining budget in bright blue, and then future funding in kind of the dark blue with the white dotted lines. Um um in future meetings I'll make sure to include the uh previous report just as a
point of comparison. So if you could we go to the next slide please. So this slide shows the financial status as of December 31st of 2025. You will notice some change in each of the four categories for each of the three questions.
This is extremely normal um for I mean as projects go there are expenditures which changes the actuals bar. there are new POS issued and payments made against those POS which changes the committed amount. Um the remaining budget can also
change. What's less common to change is the future funding section. Um that doesn't typically change as much unless uh there is a change to a project budget. And you'll notice that the future funding between the three questions decreased by about 500 or
600,000 in each question. And I'll explain that here in just a few moments. Could we go to the next slide please? This slide here uh that you're seeing with the four bars um shows the net change for the actuals, the commitments,
the remaining budget, and the future funding. Um note to self, I'll have to I think it's hard to read that red text in future uh meetings. I'll make sure that that's not read. I apologize for that. You'll notice that for the actuals there was a net change of about $5.6 6 million
um from the last from the end of September to the end of December. There was an increase in commitments of 7.6 million between the three questions and for a combined total of 13.2 million between those two uh categories. Then
the other two categories are show a decrease by an identical amount between the remaining budget which is a decrease of 11.6 million and future funding which is a decrease of about $1.6 million. Uh there was a request to show the uh itemization of the change in commitments
by project down at that level. We're still uh verifying those numbers. We will send it to you all after this meeting once it's completed. Um that work is in progress right now. Can we go to the next slide, please? So in a previous uh committee meeting, I
committed to kind of walk you through any change in future funding because it can be very confusing. So, what you have in front of you is a table that describes how that changed. And if you don't mind, I'll just kind of walk you through this real quick. Um, since we
last met, the city council approved the use of bond 2019 interest proceeds on six projects. Um, in four of those cases, I should say five of those cases, that resulted in a change in the future funding. So, I'll just go question by question and just kind of describe what
happened. Uh since our last meeting um on question one, there was a shift in funding on project 42 add a dog park to Thompson Peak Park, there was $515,000 in bond 2019 interest funding and we reduced the general fund by an identical
amount. So what happened there was that by using bond 2019 interest funding that increased the bond 2019 funding for the project which caused the future funding to decrease because we had more budget in the project. Um, I hope that makes sense. Happy to explain that again if I
went over that too quickly. Uh, if it's okay, I'm going to skip question two and go down to question three and explain what happened with those projects and we'll come back to question two. So, question three for project 33, renovate the via Linda police station to increase efficiency. We allocated 1.2 million in
bond 2019 interest funding, but we replaced it. We were replacing bond funding with that interest funding. So there's no change in the future funding for that particular project. I did just want to point that out. But when you go to the next project, project 40, we
replaced 300,000 in general fund funding with bond 2019 interest funding. So that would cause the future budget to decrease by $300,000. And then finally, project 27 to modernize and expand the police and fire training facility. Similar situation. uh
291,000 in interest funding replaced 291,000 in general funding. Now, if it's okay, I'll go back to question number two. Um so, project number 15, build the 200 space parking lot off 75th Street. This is a little
bit unique. The proposal was to replace bond proceeds with bond interest. So, in theory, that change should not have affected the future budget. Um, however, the entirety of that project's budget was in year two of the five-year CIP. So, it wasn't being counted. So, the
council action that authorized us to utilize the bond 2019 interest funding moved budget into year one. So, that caused it to change uh the future funding. And then the next project, project 23, repair lakes and irrigation. It's
another simple interest funding for general fund swap. So the aggregate total of those changes is what caused the future funding bars to change on the previous graph that we were looking at. With that, I'll go to the next slide. >> Any questions before we move on?
>> Yeah, I I'll stop for a second, I guess. >> Yeah, I I just to uh I'm going to make you walk through it one more time. So, >> uh whenever you take bond interest funding and add it to a project, is that what we're doing here? That's what question
>> in in Mr. Chair, members of the committee, we took bond 2019 interest funding and we replaced a different funding source with that interest with those interest proceeds. So whether it was general fund or just other bond proceeds, there was a swap for the
interest funding. So by but we actually applied the interest that had been generated on for example uh project 42 on question one and then so we applied that interest and does that mean that then it looks like we got a credit
because it's in parenthesis I assume that's a credit in the general funding source. >> Yeah Mr. Chair, members of the committee thank you for that clarification. Yeah the the parenthesis means a reduction. So on that particular project, we were able to reduce the general fund budget
for that project by 515,000 because we had 515,000 in bond interest proceeds that we could apply to that project. >> So basically we weren't required then to use the general fund uh monies because we were able to apply the interest. Yes, Mr. Chair stated that's what we're
doing, right, >> Mr. Chair? That is correct. >> Uh any other questions the members? No. >> All right. >> Okay. Can we go to the next slide, please? This slide has not changed from the last time that we showed it. We just show it to uh I guess reinforce 319 million in
voter authorized bond 2019 expenditures. We've issued 240 million in debt. So far we there is a future issuance to occur in FY2627 in the amount of $79 million. And um I think if we go to the next slide, I believe that's it. I'm happy to
entertain any questions that that you all may have. Any questions by members? >> No. Uh, Vice Chair Komasu, >> um, just a question on the future issuance for fiscal year 2627.
So, has has kind of a target month been identified or is it still just too far out? >> Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, I don't believe a date has been targeted yet. I will check on that and I I will follow up with you if there is a date targeted. My understanding is it's still a little too far out >> because because I assume that once you
target that date and it's set, that three-year clock starts ticking from when when it's when the data is set. >> Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, that is my understanding. >> Okay. >> Any other questions?
All right. Uh if not, again, there's no uh action required on uh on this presentation. Uh so thank you, Scott. Very well done. And uh we'll move on to the public comment part of the uh meeting. And uh if you will indulge me,
I'll uh read our public comment uh requirements for the uh so we'll have a clear record. And uh under the public comment section of the agenda, citizens may address the members of the citizens bond oversight committee during public comment. This
public comment time is reserved for citizen comments regarding non-aggendaized items. Arizona state law prohibits the Citizens Bond Oversight Committee from discussing or taking action on an item that is not on the
prepared agenda. Citizens may complete one request to speak a public comment card per meeting and submit it to the city staff. Public testimony is limited to three minutes per speaker. Written comment cards are being accepted for both agendaized and non-aggendaized
items and may be submitted to city staff at any time. Cards submitted after public testimony has begun will be provided to the Citizens Bond Oversight Committee at the conclusion of the testimony for that item. The Citizens Bond Oversight Committee cannot discuss
or vote on items that are not on the agenda, including items brought up as public comments. If action by the committee is needed, the items should be placed on the next meeting's agenda to be consistent with the Arizona open
meeting law. And uh at this time, I would inquire, do we have any public comment requests, cards? >> Sher de Boyce, we do not. >> Okay. All right. Uh with that then uh it appearing that the um agenda items have
been completed and uh at this time the uh chair will again thank staff for your assistance this evening. Thank you for being here and uh we'll entertain a motion to adjourn at this time. Is there a motion? >> I'll motion. >> Member Holland. Is there a second?
>> Second. Member Fischer. Uh and uh are there any questions regarding the motion? Seeing none, all in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Oppose. Nay. >> All right. It's it's it's a it's a majority. It's a uh unanimous that we're
going to adjourn. Uh time being uh I make it 5:47. The meeting of the bond oversight committee is hereby adjourned. Thank you very much.