September 17, 2025, TC Meeting Minutes
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
42300 characters
1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING City of Chandler, Webex Meeting Wednesday, September 17, 2025, at 4:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL Chair Heineking called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. Ms. Sheri Passey completed roll call. Quorum present. Members in Attendance: Chair David Heineking Commissioner Timothy Johnson Commissioner Dianne Kresich Commissioner Dean Brennan Commissioner Luis Heredia – (Webex- 4:33 pm) Members Absent: Vice Chair Molly Olsen Commissioner Dan Henderson Staff Members Present: Jason Crampton, Transportation Planning Manager Nancy Jackson, Transportation Planning Program Coordinator Hezequias Rocha, Transportation Planning Program Coordinator Sheri Passey, Recording Secretary, Management Assistant Daniel Haskins, Capital Projects Manager John McFarland, Transportation Manager Ray Dovalina, Engineer Webex Attendee’s: Warren White, Assistant CIP City Engineer Public Attendee’s: Anne DeBoard, Kimley-Horn, Consultant Brook Beall - resident Ray Acuna Chris Woolery, Kimley-Horn Frank Henderson 2 Chair Heineking: We have one member of the public who wishes to speak after Item #4. We will hold that until then. SCHEDULED/UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES None. CONSENT AGENDA None. ACTION AGENDA 1. Approval of Minutes – May 21, 2025, Transportation Commission Meeting Chair Heineking: First item is approval of the minutes. Can I get a motion? Commissioner Kresich: I moved to approve. Commissioner Johnson: Seconded. Chair Heineking: There is a motion on the floor and a second. All in favor of approving the minutes say ‘aye”. Any opposed? None. The motion passed unanimously, 4-0. Chair Heineking: The next item is the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Regional Public Transportation Authority and the City of Chandler for transit services. 2. Intergovernmental Agreement between the Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) and the City of Chandler Mr. Jason Crampton, Transportation Planning Manager: Provided a brief background explaining Chandler annually renews an Intergovernmental Agreement with Valley Metro, also known as the Regional Public Transit Authority for bus, Paratransit and RideChoice transit services. This year’s agreement is the first in a new five-year cycle, effective July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2030, and replaces the prior agreement concluded in FY 2024–25. He introduced Hezequias Rocha and turned the time over to him. 3 Mr. Hezequias Rocha, Transportation Program Planning Coordinator: Thanked Mr. Crampton and the Chair and began his slide presentation which discussed: Agreement Terms Services Provided Funding Sources Proposed Motion He reviewed some of the agreement details, including Chandler’s 12 bus routes (11 local, one express), which collectively resulted in about 600,000 boardings annually. Outlined Paratransit services, mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act, which provide an estimated 25,000 door-to-door trips. And RideChoice, projected to deliver 39,000 trips annually through contracted providers such as Uber and Lyft. Mr. Rocha noted that RideChoice, unlike ADA Paratransit, is not federally mandated but provides flexibility for seniors and people with disabilities who may not require full paratransit assistance. The funding services are the Public Transportation Fund (PTF) which is Prop 479 which is a half cent sale tax. We also get funding from the Arizona Lottery Fund dedicated to transit as well as federal grants and the city general fund. Commissioner Brennan: Do you have the number of trips in Chandler? From the standpoint of passengers riding the bus per year? Mr. Rocha: Do you mean for the fixed route? Commissioner Brennan: Yes. Mr. Crampton: We have approximately 600,000 passengers boarding a year and it has been rebounding since Covid. Commissioner Johnson: How come we don’t get any lottery funds? Mr. Crampton: We do have lottery funds. The bulk of our lottery funds are allocated to Chandler Flex for this year. Commissioner Johnson: How much do we receive? Mr. Crampton: We collect about seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000) annually that can be used for transit. Commissioner Johnson: Do the lottery funds go to other areas in the City of Chandler or just for transportation? Mr. Crampton: This funding can only be used for transit. There are other proceeds of the lottery that go to the State, but I don’t know of any the city receives. This is a specific fund designated only for public transit services. 4 Commissioner Johnson: I understand the Public Transportation Fund comes from a half cent sales tax and this is the projected funding of $14.77 million (potentially) this year. Can it decrease? Mr. Crampton: No. If the revenues come in a little lower, there is a Regional Surplus fund that’s been established that can cover a deficit. That number will be set. If there is a big shortfall in the future year it may have implications for services, or we will consider other funding options. Commissioner Johnson: The 58K on the federal grant, has that already been secured? Mr. Crampton: Yes. That is a regional grant that Valley Metro advocates for. Nancy has further knowledge of that. Mrs. Nancy Jackson, Transportation Program Planning Coordinator: Yes, Valley Metro applies and administers the 5310 federal funds we receive, which is a program to provide transportation for people with disabilities. Valley Metro applies the funding to each regional jurisdiction, including Chandler for accessible services. Commissioner Kresich: What is the cost per mile across these three? And capital costs aren’t Included…well, that’s because it’s not being covered by the funding in this Agreement. Can you explain the differences between Paratransit and RideChoice? I understand the difference in the nature of the service but is there a difference in eligibility for who can get either of those services? The descriptions for both describe persons with disabilities, but the cost for the RideChoice is a lot less. Mrs. Jackson: The ADA Paratransit service is a federally mandated service. There are strict federal mandated regulations on how we provide that service. The difference is the Paratransit service requires more intensive, door-to-door service for people with disabilities. RideChoice is also for people with disabilities and seniors but is more applicable for seniors who have more physical mobility. Sixty-five percent of those trips are provided by contracted rideshare subcontractors like Uber and Lyft. That is why there is a lower cost per trip. Commissioner Kresich: Your response affirmed what I thought, but I had forgotten one was mandated, and the city is obligated to provide it. You mentioned RideChoice offered medical transport, which shifted my thinking towards a more hands-on than I would think. Mrs. Jackson: When a participant signs up for any type of accessible transportation service, they have a choice of which service they want to use. If somebody wants to use RideChoice we do have providers with wheelchair accessible vehicles. They 5 are able to accommodate bigger or heavier wheelchairs, but they are not necessarily for medical transportation. Commissioner Kresich: Okay. I am assuming the cost for the medical transport vehicles is a lot more than what you pay. Mrs. Jackson: Yes. When people are signing up for services, we encourage them to enroll in both services even though the better fit right now might be RideChoice. But in a year or two they may need Paratransit due to a potential decline in their mobility. Our intent is to gear them for the better fit right now but ensure they are eligible for both services. Commissioner Kresich: I assume the fixed bus route services crosses city boundaries, correct? Do Paratransit and RideChoice also go outside the city? Mrs. Jackson: Yes, thank you. Both are Regional Services. There is a difference in the cost. For a standard RideChoice service: if you travel eight (8) miles or less it’s the standard fare. However, if you exceed eight (8) miles it’s a dollar or two extra per mile so those costs add up quickly. That is another reason why we encourage individuals to sign up for both services. If a rider is trying to go to Mesa or Scottsdale for a medical appointment, Paratransit is a flat rate of four dollars no matter where they go. If someone just needs to go to the grocery store or to Walmart for a same day reservation the RideChoice might be a better fit. Chair Heineking: Thank you for your questions. In order for the city to get the $15 million dollars, I will need a motion to city council. Commissioner Johnson: The contract start date is July 1st. Are we already two months under the contract? Is that the correct status? Mr. Crampton: Through the chair. It is July 1st. We have been working with Valley Metro for the last four or five months negotiating the terms of this contract since this is a new contract. There is language in the contract defining what happens if the contract is terminated and outlines what each party is responsible for. We finally resolved all the terms to bring this to the commission meeting. We are slightly behind but there is language in the previous agreement that states if a new agreement is not adopted in time, we will continue to operate under the previous agreement. So, operations and services are continuing. Commissioner Kresich: Was this based on a transit plan or something the city had prepared at some point, like the information at the base of it or was it Valley Metro? 6 Mr. Crampton: It is a little of both. We work with Valley Metro on Regional Transit planning, which includes service levels on each street operating in the city. Much of that comes from our Transportation Master Plan which feeds into the regional plan. MAG is just starting to get more involved in transit. Chair Heineking: Does someone want to make the motion? Commissioner Johnson: I move to recommend the City Council authorize an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Regional Public Transportation Authority and the City of Chandler to provide fixed route bus, Paratransit and RideChoice services in Fiscal Year 2025-26. Chair Heineking: Do I have a second? Commissioner Brennan: I second it. Chair Heineking: I have a second from Commissioner Dean Brennan. We have had a lot of discussion… A member of the public injected the bottom three totals are incorrect on the previous slide. Chair Heineking: They are correct on the right (Local Funding Sources) but not on the bottom totals (Other Funding Source PTF column and Total column). Many people talking: Summary - The PTF column should total $15,094,091 with the total of Other Funding Sources to be $15,152,787. The ‘Totals’ column should total $15,776,995. Chair Heineking: I have a motion on the floor. All in favor say aye. Motion carried unanimously, 4–0. Chair Heineking: Next item on the agenda is the Maricopa Association of Governments Project Overview for Kyrene Road. He turned the floor over to Mr. Jason Crampton. 3. Maricopa Association of Governments Project Overview Agreement – Kyrene Road Improvements Mr. Crampton: Mr. Chairman, I will be turning the time over to Ray Dovalina, a new member of our Capital Projects team who will be presenting on our upcoming roadway project. Mr. Ray Dovalina, Engineer: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, this project is on Kyrene Road north of Loop 202 up to Chandler Boulevard. A brief 7 overview of the project. This project was the result of a study completed five years ago. It is also identified in the 2019 Transportation Master Plan and approved by City Council in 2020. However, this project will revisit the data from the previous study to determine if there has been a significant shift in traffic factors, current trends and what improvements are needed moving forward. The previous study recommended enhanced mobility and capacity by widening the corridor from four to six lanes, adding bike lanes, ADA-compliant sidewalks, updated traffic signals, landscaping, and utility relocations. The slide presentation discussed: Project Limits Project Funding and Timeline Design Elements Added Features Planned Public Outreach Proposed Motion Commissioner Johnson: This overlay is where the new lanes will be? Mr. Dovalina: Yes, sir. Commissioner Johnson: Would we need to take over these homes? Mr. Dovalina: That is what we have to evaluate. There is room in that area but trying to do extensive right-of-way is going to be difficult in some of these areas where we have extensive neighborhoods as well as businesses. We will have to work with that and re-look at the traffic projections, and what elements do we need to identify to determine if we have the room. Do we have the ability to modify or minimize excessive right-of-way. We will be evaluating all of that. Commissioner Kresich: Is it still on the table that the additional third lane will not be done or is that absolutely determined? Mr. Dovalina: We have a study that makes that recommendation. We are going to go back to that study to re-evaluate that third lane and the traffic component of it and come back to the Commission and work with the community to identify the actual project elements that we need to incorporate based on updated information. This is based on previous information we had created 8 Commissioner Kresich: So, the answer is yes, it is still on the table whether that third lane will be needed. Mr. Crampton: In order for us to utilize the regional money that’s involved in this agreement you’re looking at tonight we would need to add capacity to the roadway. So, if the new traffic counts say the road is perfect and does not require a third lane, we would not be able to utilize the regional funding available for this project. There are mechanisms we can use to apply this funding to another project. To clarify it does not require us to add a third lane in each direction the entire way. It could be just an intersection improvement. Mr. Dovalina: We are proposing today to move to recommend the city council approve this project. Our overview agreement with the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) for the reimbursement of $13,816,338 in fiscal years 2026 ($1,381,634), 2027 ($4,144,901), 2028 ($8,289,803) of Proposition 479 funds for improvements to Kyrene Rd (Loop 202 to Chandler Boulevard). This is only the amount coming from Prop 479. We do have the funding allocated for the local match. Commissioner Brennan: If you are going through the reevaluation process why would the city put in place an agreement with MAG to pay for these costs? Mr. Dovalina: Mr. Chair and Commissioner Brennan. We must have an agreement to move forward with utilizing this funding based on the agreement when this project was established. But we have to reevaluate this corridor. There were numerous projects approved under Prop 479. Many of those projects have to be revisited to investigate current traffic patterns. Mr. Crampton: This agreement will allow us to begin design efforts before we get into construction. Historically we have approved these project agreements before we know exactly what the final look of the roadway will be. If the construction turns out to cost less than what was projected by this agreement, that unused funding can go towards another project in the city in the future. Commissioner Brennan: I understand, but it sounds to me there is a commitment to do this project and that is why we are going through this exercise. I keep thinking about why do we need six lanes when it looks like four lanes is enough. There is not that much service to the south and north of Chandler Boulevard, is it four lanes or six lanes? Mr. Dovalina: It’s four lanes. 9 Commissioner Brennan: So why are we doing this one? I don’t know whether it’s a mile segment but changing from four lanes to six lanes - why is that needed? Putting down more asphalt, which absorbs the heat, especially in the summer, only enhances the heat island effect. Putting more asphalt down doesn’t make sense to me. There must be other ways we can address some of these issues rather than continuing to widen our four lanes to six lanes, noting that Chandler Boulevard north of the project area remains only four lanes. Are there other alternatives, such as intersection improvements rather than full corridor widening? Mr. Daniel Haskins, Capital Projects Manager: Prior to COVID, we faced significant issues in this project area. Kyrene Road is the only north-south corridor connecting the I-10 to Loop 202, with no alternative exits for westbound traffic needing to head north or south. As a result, drivers were diverting through the mall area, causing severe congestion during morning and evening rush hours. This led to backups on Loop 202 that extended into ADOT’s right-of-way, creating major safety concerns. This project originated from an ADOT request to help divert vehicles off the freeway. The proposed solution includes a new off-ramp from westbound Loop 202 to northbound Kyrene Road. This ramp will function as a through lane that bypasses the intersection, allowing traffic to exit the freeway and continue north on Kyrene— helping to alleviate the safety hazard. Another challenge occurs at Chandler Boulevard, where multiple traffic signals complicate eastbound movement through the park area. The plan is to synchronize these signals for northbound traffic, enabling smoother flow all the way to Chandler Boulevard. This will improve access both east and west, addressing the lack of alternative routes. Additionally, the existing sewer and water infrastructure in the area is outdated and needs to be overhauled within the next five to ten years. Our goal is to coordinate utility upgrades with road construction, completing everything in one comprehensive effort. This approach will streamline future maintenance, improve traffic flow, and eliminate current safety risks. Although the initial traffic study was conducted during the COVID period—when volumes were unusually low—we anticipate that congestion will return. Without intervention, backups could stretch from Loop 202 to Loop 101, Chandler Boulevard, and the I-10. We are working to accelerate this project to enhance capacity and safety in the region. Commissioner Kresich: This is not data oriented, but I know what you are talking about pre-pandemic but other than that this is a very likely travel route. This is my 10 neighborhood, I’m just north of Chandler Blvd. Mr. Dovalina, you said the design study is the next step, will you be re-asking these questions? I would hope we are not going in with a predetermined answer to those questions because the situation really has significantly changed. I know you have to project the future, maybe 2040 or even 2050 at this point. Are you looking at 2050 now? Mr. Dovalina: The original study looked at 2040 and that study showed a 48% increase in traffic based on what was evaluated back then. We are going to have to look at that and look at the projections and see what’s viable projection of the score, what are the traffic numbers to show the need for this project. Commissioner Kresich: You and Jason mentioned the process by which you make a different decision than the original one. If you decide to just widen the intersections or whatever the decision - is it an unpleasant, long or tedious process to shift those funds elsewhere? Mr. Crampton: It’s not really a difficult process. MAG simplifies the process once these projects are closed out and the cities have reconsidered the best use for those funds. Commissioner Johnson: What happens if the project is over the allocated budget? Mr. Crampton: The city would have to come up with more local funding. There is already a 30% local match requirement for these projects. Whatever the project costs beyond the original costs the city will make up the difference. Since the original project was from 2019, if we are going to widen this roadway the cost to the city will be more than 30%. Commissioner Johnson: Will that be general fund or bond in November? Mr. Crampton: It’s in one of the bond packages. Chair Heineking: Are there any other comments or discussion? Commissioner Brennan: I have a comment/clarification about the second page (General Project Information) Title VI section. The city has had a Non-Discrimination Program Implementation Plan for a number of years - It was amended in July 2024, not established. Mr. Dovalina: Thank you. Chair Heineking: Any further discussion or can I get a proposed motion? Commissioner Johnson: I recommend the proposed motion as listed. Commissioner Kresich: Seconded. 11 Chair Heineking: All in favor say aye – four commissioners confirmed. Any opposed? Commissioner Brennan is opposed. Motion carries, 4-1. That ends our action agenda. We will move on. We have three briefing items and some informational items. Mr. Crampton: I will turn the time over to Hezequias to introduce the Paseo Trail item. BRIEFINGS 4. Paseo Trail – Riggs Road Crossing Update Mr. Hezequias Rocha, Transportation Program Planning Coordinator: Thank you Mr. Chair and Commissioners. I would like to introduce Ms. Anne DeBoard of Kimely-Horn. She will present on the Paseo Trail Canal Shared Use Path. This project will look at the Riggs Road crossing in south Chandler. This project is part of our Design Assistance Grant through MAG last year. We are in the initial stage of design and Anne will provide you with more details. Ms. Anne DeBoard of Kimley-Horn: She presented the design study for extending the Paseo Trail Canal Shared-Use Path from Riggs Road to Hunt Highway. She reviewed alternatives and identified the preferred alignment along the east side of the canal on City-owned parcels, minimizing the need for agreements with SRP. Crossings include a full pedestrian signal at Riggs Road and a high-visibility crosswalk with RRFBs at 116th Street. The path would terminate near Elmhurst Drive and Hunt Highway, where City-owned parcels could serve as a trailhead with parking. Her presentation included: Project Location Project Purpose and Objectives Need for the Project Shared Use Path Alignment Alternatives Advantages/Disadvantages Crossing Alternatives – Riggs Road Crossing Alternatives – 116th Street Crossing Alternatives – Elmhurst Dr. Crossing Alternatives Matrix – Riggs Road Crossing Alternatives Matrix 116th Street Preferred Path Alignment Preferred Riggs Road Crossing Preferred 116th Street Crossing 12 Stakeholder Outreach/Project Meetings Project Schedule Mr. Crampton: Mr. Crampton asked Ms. DeBoard to clarify the difference between crossing alternatives. Ms. DeBoard: The Pedestrian Signal is a full traffic signal that when activated manages traffic. The Pedestrian Hybird Beacon sometimes called a HAWK - once activated, goes through a series of visual alertness. It does not completely stop vehicle traffic but provides warning signs if pedestrian or small motorized vehicles are using the crossing, so vehicles slow down or stop and wait until it is clear. Mr. Crampton: Provided further clarification on the Pedestrian Hybird Beacon: There is no green light. It is black until pushed/activated. It will flash red and stay solid red while pedestrians are using the crossing, but once clear vehicles can proceed. Commissioner Brennan: Is that like the one on Arizona Avenue in downtown? Mr. Crampton: There used to be one like that on Arizona Avenue, it has been removed but they are looking at reinstallation. That was an RRFP where it just kind of flashes lights on both sides of the road. Commissioner Brennan: There used to be one where drivers had to stop. Mr. Crampton: Yes, there used to be one like that and they are looking at putting it back. Currently, it’s the flashing lights. Commissioner Brennan: I must be thinking of a different one. Commissioner Kersich: There is one on McClintock between Guadalupe Road and Baseline Road. Commissioner Heredia: What’s the one located on Alma School and the Western Canal? Is that a hybrid or a pedestrian signal? Mr. Crampton: That is a standard pedestrian signal. We don’t have any pedestrian hybrid beacons in the City of Chandler. Most of our neighboring cities have them but we do not. Ms. DeBoard: Continued her presentation. Commissioner Johnson: Expressed that Riggs Road is much busier than Chandler Heights and Ocotillo Road and fully supports the proposed pedestrian signal, noting that flashing beacons would be insufficient on Riggs Road. 13 Commissioner Kresich: ADOT completed a research study while I was there. The study showed the Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons to be very effective in terms of safety but agreed that a signal may be warranted due to the speeds on Riggs Road. Ms. DeBoard: After discussion, Ms. DeBoard continued with her presentation. Commissioner Kresich: I’m trying to understand what this study is. Is this a design study? Ms. DeBoard: Yes. It goes through the basis of design, the need for the project, and some of the concerns associated with the project. We also develop the cost estimate which helps the city secure funding for the final design. Mr. Crampton: Through the chair. This is a barrier of the design study. We do not have funding identified for design construction so it’s feasibility efforts to see if this is something that can be done or should be done. If is shows it should be done, we will move forward and get this into our Capital Improvement Program, pursue grants and other opportunities for funding. Commissioner Kresich: What is your anticipated usage compared to other trails in the valley? Ms. DeBoard: I do not have comparison information for other valley trails but stated they did take counts on the east side path use on a Saturday in April 2025 from 6 a.m. to 6 a.m. Total count was 228 users. The breakdown was 126 pedestrians, 102 cyclists. One hundred and two (102) heading southbound did cross Riggs Road Commissioner Kersich: What month or time of year did you do that count? Ms. DeBoard: It was on a Saturday in April. Commissioner Johnson: It was a Saturday mid-April? There is more use during the week. I was just out this morning and there were a lot of folks using the path. Maybe doing a count during the week as early as 5 a.m. Chair Heineking: We have a member of the public who would like to comment on this agenda item, Mr. Brook. Welcome. Public Comment Mr. Brooks Beal: (Introduced himself and provided his address - also completed on a Public Comment Card) I am opposed to this project. I have been walking the canal starting at Ocotillo down to Elmhurst for the past two years every day/every other day. During that time, I have filed 500 criminal complaints with the Chandler Police Department for motorized vehicles on the canal. They do nothing about it. You are required by contract to do something about this because you have a contract or license agreement with SRP, and they specifically prohibit motorized vehicles including e-bikes. No e-bikes are allowed. It doesn’t matter if 14 pedal power is being used, it doesn’t matter, it is not allowed. The police claim to be doing educational information. Of the 500 complaints I have filed there have been two verbal warnings. The Chandler police chief refuses to accept this is a serious concern. The mayor did nothing to correct it on April 5. The woman who spoke before him, said it was okay for you to ride on the canal if you are not in power mode. This is not true; it’s a violation of federal law. The vice mayor was also there. She did nothing to correct it. There were also six Chandler police officers on bicycles present. They did not issue any warnings and did nothing about it. This is a problem that needs to be resolved and until it is resolved, I am opposed to it. You’ve got a problem with Frye Road improvements to dump onto this same trail. You have nothing there to stop motorized vehicles from going onto the trail. As a note…right now the most usage on the east side of the trail is ATV’s and gas- powered motor scooters. Those are my concerns. I am going to try and convince SRP to deny your permit. You also have work planned on the Western Canal and I am also trying to convince them to decline that application. Until you get police chief Chapman to do his job and enforce the law, I don’t see why you should be expanding your services on the canal. Thank you. Chair Heineking: Thank you, sir. As a reminder this is not an action item. Are there any other comments or questions about this presentation? Commissioner Brennan: As a member of the local bike group – I am excited to see what you propose here. I think it makes sense, and I hope that some of the connections will exist. Commissioner Kersich: This is my second meeting and I’m still learning the ways of the commission. My question is if you are allowed to change your previous vote on the matter that’s already been addressed? Mr. Crampton: Is your questions on one of the action agenda items and you would like to change your vote? Commissioner Kersich: If I can. Just listening to things carefully. That’s okay. Ms. Sheri Passey, Recording Clerk: I do have to post the results tonight, but I can talk to the clerk’s office tomorrow… Commissioner Kersich: That’s okay. It’s personal integrity. Chair Heineking: Anything else about this presentation? Moving onto Warner Road. Mr. Crampton: I will turn it back over to Ray who will present. 5. Warner Road Improvement Project (Price Road to McQueen Road) 15 Mr. Dovalina: This project was included in Prop 479. There are two project numbers associated with this presentation. One project is a study to look at the Warner Road corridor identified in the Transportation Master Plan. And the second project is design for intersection improvements at Warner Road and Arizona Avenue. The presentation included: Project Limits Project Funding and Timeline Design Elements Added Features Consideration of Added Features Planned Public Outreach Commissioner Kresich: Is there a legend for the colored lines (referring to the Project Limits slide)? Mr. Dovalina: (No legend on the slide) The Bluish lines are the six lane corridors that were established in the 2019 Transportation Mater Plan. The green lines are the four-lane corridors, and the magenta lines are the corridors that were shown as six-lane corridors. Commissioner Kresich: Does that mean they are currently six lanes? Mr. Dovalina: No, the Master Plan shows the green as four-lane corridors, except the magenta lines, which are six-lanes. Commissioner Johnson: Are you looking twenty (20) years from now? Mr. Dovalina: Anything beyond 2046 which is the Arizona Avenue to McQueen Road was not funded due to MAG’s established cutoff. Commissioner Johnson: If that project is done before 2046, we are funded? If it’s after it’s unfunded? Mr. Dovalina: No, that project is currently unfunded. But the portion from Price Road to Arizona Avenue, which is the second phase, is funded in FY 2033 to 2035. Commissioner Kresich: These projects are based on a 2019 plan using data at least a year or two old. Is this like the Kyrene Road Project where you are going to reassess the data based on current need? You said the Kyrene study would do that. Mr. Dovalina: Yes, we are going to have to update traffic data, what’s being developed in the area because there are some undeveloped County areas and 16 evaluate the corridor with current and projected traffic data to make the appropriate decisions. Commissioner Kresich: I’m just trying to get a solid view of the project scope. Mr. Dovalina: We will be completing a corridor project assessment to understand what we need. Validating what was previously looked at. Updating the traffic data and new cost estimate for the project and final design for the Arizona Avenue intersection. Commissioner Kresich: Which is the cost of the corridor? Mr. Dovalina: We do have some budget but typically it is off approximately a quarter of a million dollars or more depending on the elements added to the project. Commissioner Johnson: Are you outsourcing it? Another company is going to be doing that? Mr. Dovalina: Yes. Going back to what we looked at before there is a corridor that has a third lane and bike lanes. Some areas of the corridor the bike lane does not run the entire leg. In the Master Plan it had segments at the intersection of Warner Road and Arizona Avenue and then toward McQueen Road. However, not all the corridors have bike lanes. Mr. Crampton: Currently, there are no bike lanes through the whole corridor but once the project is completed the corridor will have bike lanes. Mr. Dovalina: Continued with his presentation. Commissioner Brennan: When the corridor becomes six lanes will the bike lanes be continuous? Mr. Crampton: Yes, that is the plan. Commissioner Brennan: Will it be on the street or separate? Mr. Crampton: The current plan and the Master Plan was for a bike lane on the street. Commissioner Brennan: Nobody rides or uses those bike lanes. I guess you can say we have bike lanes, but nobody uses them on arterial streets. Commissioner Kresich: Terrifying riding on the arterial streets. Mr. Dovalina: Continued with his presentation. Additional questions or comments? 17 Commissioner Brennan: I don’t think we need six lanes on Warner Road. There were no public meetings in this area when the Transportation Master Plan was being prepared. People who live in the area have no idea what is being proposed for Warner Road. Houses back up to the street, which is unfortunate and there is a very tight right-of-way. You can’t get six lanes there without taking out some of those residential structures. In addition, adding more asphalt increases the urban heat island. It’s a bad project – maybe not as bad as Kyrene. But on that project, you have the water and sewer problem. Chair Heineking: Thank you. Next is the Chandler Boulevard Improvement Project. Mr. Crampton: Ray Dovalina will also be presenting. 6. Chandler Boulevard Improvement Project (Price Road to Dobson Road) Mr. Dovalina: Presented on Chandler Boulevard improvements. This corridor is designated in the Transportation Master Plan for potential widening and mobility enhancements. This is a new program, recently approved by MAG through Prop 479, which will use federal funds to do arterial rehabilitation and restoration for one-mile segments. Presentation included: Project Limits Project Funding and Timeline Road Safety Assessment (RSA) Planned Public Outreach The study will update traffic counts, evaluate ADA sidewalk compliance, consider bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and assess potential landscaping and signal upgrades. Commissioner Kresich: This project is reconstruction of the road, not just rehab? Mr. Dovalina: What was submitted was a mill and overlay, but we will have further discussion to ensure that is the appropriate treatment. Commissioner Johnson: The funding of $4.2 million in 2027 is coming from the federal government. If we go through and find out the project costs more, is the city covering the difference? 18 Mr. Crampton: Typically, that’s how it will work, although there are Close-Out opportunities through the OSMR program through MAG every November, but this is a new program so I am not sure that this one will work. Chair Heineking: How was this section of roadway selected? That’s actually the worst pavement in the city! Mr. Crampton: We worked with our streets group to identify what segments of streets are in poor condition as well as what street we have opportunities to enhance. We submitted two applications to MAG. One for Arizona Avenue from Ray Road to Warner Road where we were looking at changing the median and making some significant improvements and that project scored very well. However, the quantitative review, because of the improvements being proposed and streets doing a good job of maintaining the pavement, we couldn’t compete with other cities with poor pavement conditions. We did not get that one. The Chandler Boulevard Improvements were approved because of the high traffic volumes, the connection to the freeway and the poor condition of the pavement by Chandler’s standards but regionally not terrible, but the project was approved. Those were the two projects we felt were competitive for federal funding and would have an impact on reducing our street maintenance and local budget. Commissioner Brennan: This is good news. I was just driving down Chandler Boulevard this past weekend and noted the city needs to fix this. Chair Heineking: It’s one of the few places in the city, at least arterial roads needing to be fixed. Mr. Haskins: Because this was a CIP maintenance project and we are now using federal funds we can put that money back into the pot in case the project exceeds the allocated funding. Mr. Crampton: Mr. Chairman, I have new information on Commissioner Kresich’s question from earlier. If you want to go back and change an earlier vote you can’t do that. But you can make a motion to revote on an item that’s already been adopted. If you do want to go back and change your vote, you can make a motion to revote to whichever item you were considering changing your vote on. We would need a second and then approval from the commission. If you would like to. It’s your choice. Commissioner Kresich: I appreciate that. The reason I’m not going to do that and this is on the Kyrene project is I obviously don’t feel like I have enough information to have voted on it and what I have heard I wish I did. 19 Chair Heineking: Next up is information items. Mr. Crampton: Hezequias will provide an update on the MAG Active Transportation Plan INFORMATION ITEMS 7. MAG Active Transportation Plan Mr. Rocha: This is an update from the MAG’s Active Transportation Plan for 2020 and updated in 2025. The plan is to look at convenient and safe ways to connect places by integrating bicycles and strolling (walking) by non-traditional vehicular modes of transportation. It’s evaluating non-motorized infrastructure, planning ahead for future year of sidewalks, pipelines, multi-use paths and networks across jurisdictions, prioritizing regional trail connections, and identifying funding sources. The benefit of the plan is to reduce congestion, improve our ozone layer as well as public and physical health of the population of our region. Project Schedule Commissioner Kresich: What are they referring to on the Performance of activities? Mr. Rocha: They are going to look at the performance of what we have right now, and how they can perform in the future based on future plans and new infrastructure that can be put in place. Commissioner Kresich: Usually recommendations are based on that. Mr. Rocha: That is why they end together because the recommendation will come at the end of the evaluation process. Commissioner Brennan: I attended a meeting this morning on this specific topic. Kay Borke, the project manager for the active transportation plan provided the presentation and included this slide and additional slides. I suggest if you are interested to take a look at the email I sent out this morning which included her PowerPoint presentation. It was very interesting. I believe this is very critical for those of us who enjoy and like alternatives to automobiles. I think it is something we should focus on and give it a lot of thought. I asked what kind of public comments do you want and if I send you a comment on our arterial streets. Based on the information from bicyclists in Chandler, nobody feels safe riding on those. She stated that is exactly the kind of information they want. They recognize that we need to do something to change the existing system to make it safer for people to ride their bicycles. Whatever thoughts you have about the 20 existing system or suggestion you might have for improving or things to do in the future, provide those to MAG. Chair Heineking: Thank you. We look forward to future updates. Project Status is up next. 8. September 2025 Project Status Update List Mr. Jason Crampton: Since we have had a fairly lengthy meeting I won’t go through each project unless there is something you would like to highlight. There are construction projects taking place, so beware as you are traveling around the city. Mr. Haskins: Stated we have some new projects on the list. Commissioner Brennan: Are the retention basins on the list? Mr. Haskins: No. Would you like the xeriscape on the list? Commissioner Brennan: I think people might be interested in it. Chair Heineking: Thanked members for their input. He asked for the date of the next meeting. MEMBER COMMENTS / ANNOUNCEMENTS Ms. Passey: Our next meeting is on November 19, 2025, at 4 p.m. in this room. Also, as a reminder in your packet I placed an updated contact list of the commissioners and of staff due to changes. There is the flyer to the 17th annual domestic violence event coming up on September 23. If you are going to attend, please let me know. Chair Heineking: Meeting is adjourned. 5:32 p.m.