Attachment A - June 20, 2024 TIP Minutes

Phoenix City Council 
Transportation, Infrastructure, and Planning Subcommittee 
Summary Minutes 
Wednesday, Jun. 20, 2023 
City Council Chambers 
200 W. Jefferson St. 
Phoenix, Ariz. 
Subcommittee Members Present     
 Subcommittee Members Absent 
Vice Mayor Debra Stark, Chair (Phone)*       
Councilwoman Kesha Hodge Washington 
Councilwoman Ann O’Brien  
Councilwoman Laura Pastor (Virtual) 
CALL TO ORDER 
Councilwoman Hodge Washington called the Transportation, Infrastructure, and 
Planning Subcommittee to order at 10:05 a.m. with Chairwoman Stark, Councilwoman 
Ann O’Brien, and Councilwoman Laura Pastor present.  
CALL TO THE PUBLIC 
None. 
MINUTES OF MEETINGS 
1. Minutes of the Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee
Meeting
Councilwoman O’Brien made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 15, 2024,
Transportation, Infrastructure, and Planning meeting. Councilwoman Pastor seconded
the motion which passed unanimously, 4-0.
CONSENT ACTION (ITEMS 2-4) 
Items 2-4 were for consent action. No presentations were planned, but staff was 
available to answer questions. 
Councilwoman O’Brien made a motion to approve items 2 and 4. Councilwoman Pastor 
seconded the motion which passed unanimously, 4-0. 
2. Terminal 4 Lobby New Concept Selection – New Concession Lease
No councilmember requested additional information.
4. Retroactive Approval to Apply for an Arizona State Historic Preservation Office
Certified Local Government Pass- Through Grant for Federal Fiscal Year 2024 –
Federal Funding
No councilmember requested additional information.
Attachment A

3. Historic Preservation Demonstration Project Grant – First National Bank 
Building – 1506 (aka 1516 and 1520) E. McDowell Road 
No councilmember requested additional information. 
Councilwoman Hodge Washington opened the floor to public comment. 
Eric Nielsen supported the motion, highlighting the importance of preserving historic 
buildings like the old laundromat in District 7, and proposed maintaining part of the 
structure as a façade to integrate with new construction. 
Councilwoman O’Brien made a motion to approve item 3. Councilwoman Pastor 
seconded the motion which passed unanimously, 4-0. 
INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION (ITEMS 5-6)  
5. Public Works Solid Waste Financial Plan Update 
Public Works Director Felipe Moreno introduced Deputy Public Works Director Brandie 
Barrett and presented an update on the Public Works Department Solid Waste utility 
financial plans for Fiscal Years 2024-2029. 
*Chairwoman Debra Stark arrived at Council Chambers at approximately 10:15 a.m. 
Chairwoman Stark asked for an example of a regulatory change that might affect costs. 
Mr. Moreno provided an example, explaining that the permitting fee paid to Arizona 
Department of Environmental Quality (ADQ) for commercial customers is set to 
increase from 25 cents per ton to 58 cents per ton next year, representing a 132 percent 
increase. This regulatory change is beyond their control but must be complied with. 
Chairwoman Stark thanked Mr. Moreno, noting that having an example is always 
helpful. 
Deputy Public Works Director Brandie Barrett continued with the presentation. 
Chairwoman Stark thanked Councilwoman Hodge Washington for filling in due to her 
dentist appointment, expressed appreciation for the presentation, and acknowledged 
Councilwoman O'Brien's suggestion to discuss the topic publicly. She emphasized the 
importance of understanding future challenges and noted the value of similar 
discussions for both Water and Public Works. She then opened the floor for questions. 
Councilwoman Ann O’Brien thanked the presenters for the detailed information about 
future plans and the budget. She clarified that the annual minimum operating reserve 
balance of $25 million is not cumulative and asked for confirmation on this point. 
Mr. Moreno confirmed that the $25 million minimum operating reserve balance is a 
carryover and does not compound. It is set aside each year to maintain a good bond

rating and ensure structural soundness as a rainy-day fund, but it does not grow 
annually. 
Councilwoman O’Brien asked if vehicle purchases, and capital projects have been 
deferred for the last two years or longer. 
Mr. Moreno confirmed that over the last two years, they have scaled back on vehicle 
purchases and deferred non-critical capital projects to save money. The focus at the 
landfills is on developing cells to ensure sufficient airspace for garbage, which has led to 
the deferral of other projects to prioritize this essential task. 
Councilwoman O’Brien thanked Mr. Moreno for the information and expressed her 
appreciation to the chairwoman for allowing the presentation. 
Councilwoman Hodge Washington thanked the Vice Mayor and asked for clarification 
on the net effect of not being able to meet the obligations of the major unfunded Capital 
Improvement projects mentioned on slide nine. She requested further explanation to 
ensure a full understanding of the potential impact. 
Mr. Moreno explained that if the unfunded Capital Improvement projects are not 
addressed, it could result in a lack of space to bury garbage at the landfill, unsafe 
facilities for employees and the public at transfer stations, and an inability to handle 
waste on the post-collection side. He emphasized that while the public sees the daily 
waste collection trucks, there is a significant backend operation that ensures safety, 
responsibility, and long-term waste management capacity for Phoenix. 
Councilwoman Hodge Washington asked for clarification, noting that the projections in 
the solid waste financial plan, as shown on slides seven and eight, include anticipated 
growth for Phoenix but still predict a deficit. She sought confirmation on this point. 
Mr. Moreno confirmed that the projections do account for potential growth and 
necessary requirements in the forecast to ensure appropriate space at the landfill, but 
they still anticipate a deficit. 
Councilwoman Hodge Washington noted that the projections include anticipated 
increases in revenues but still show a deficit or shortfall, seeking confirmation on this. 
Mr. Moreno confirmed. 
Chairwoman Stark thanked everyone for the presentation and acknowledged the arrival 
of the interpreter. She then asked Carmen Cota to introduce herself. 
Interpreter Carmen Cota arrived late and introduced herself. 
6. New City Code Chapter 5D – Network Infrastructure Services – Fiber to the 
Home

Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua introduced Deputy City Manager Alan 
Stephenson, Street Transportation Director Joseph Brown, and Special Projects 
Administrator Kevin Sonoda. 
Chairwoman Stark thanked staff and asked about GigaPower's concerns regarding 
license fees and payment restoration, referencing trenching issues observed in Mesa. 
She inquired if discussions had been held with GigaPower about these problems. 
 
Mr. Sonoda stated that the installation in Mesa started in October 2022. Ongoing 
discussions with Mesa and Chandler have addressed issues and concerns with the 
microtrenching process. 
 
Chairwoman Stark asked if conversations with other cities showed that the procedure 
had become more costly and if they were changing their processes. 
 
Mr. Sonoda stated that the cities in the Southeast Valley have approved microtrenching, 
which was a condition for licensing with Google. He also mentioned that GigaPower 
favored this position, allowing them to use microtrenching for installation. All cities in the 
East Valley have adopted microtrenching from these companies. 
 
Councilwoman Hodge Washington asked if the other East Valley cities have similar 
restoration requirements in their code. 
 
Mr. Sonoda stated that the City’s pavement restoration code is the gold standard for the 
state. He mentioned that other cities have restoration requirements, but they are not up 
to the levels that Phoenix requires. 
 
Councilwoman Hodge Washington stated microtrenching runs parallel with the street, 
but every two to three hundred feet, a horizontal cross-street cut is needed. She asked 
if this means there would be an indentation or mark in the streets every two to three 
hundred feet. 
 
Mr. Sonoda confirmed that every two to three hundred feet, the fiber optic cable must be 
trenched across the street to serve customers on the other side of the residential area. 
 
Councilwoman Hodge Washington asked if there is any data or field research about the 
repair needs or proper methods for repairing microtrenches. She expressed concern 
about the potential impact on the integrity of the City's streets, given the significant 
investments made to ensure safe and aesthetically pleasing streets. She inquired if 
there is data showing that microtrenching will not undermine or reduce the lifespan of 
streets that are being repaved. 
 
Mr. Sonoda acknowledged that it is a concern around the country and that 
microtrenching has been allowed in very limited areas due to these concerns. He 
explained that if multiple competing firms conduct microtrenching, it could result in 
several transverse cuts across the roadway, potentially every 3 feet. This could lead to

issues with water intrusion, bicycle safety, and pavement damage, which would be 
greater than those associated with current procedures. 
Councilwoman Hodge Washington mentioned that other cities, such as Las Vegas, 
have GigaPower, and Google Fiber in larger cities like Miami. She asked if there is any 
information on whether these cities allow microtrenching without assurances of 
indemnification for damage or how they are asked to restore the streets to ensure their 
continued durability. 
Mr. Brown stated that they requested records from Las Vegas but have not received 
them yet, though they suspect microtrenching was approved. He mentioned a 
nationwide push for microtrenching, but it is allowed on a limited basis. Research earlier 
in the year found limited examples of peer cities with microtrenching programs, with the 
best information coming from the Valley. 
Chairwoman Stark asked if the pictures of the microtrenching are available to show the 
public for better understanding. 
Mr. Stephenson asked if the PowerPoint with the microtrenching slides could be pulled 
up and requested Joe to explain the slides for the public. 
Chairwoman Stark noted that it's easier to understand the issues, especially for people 
on bicycles, when the public can see the images. 
Mr. Sonoda explained that the PowerPoint shows two photographs. The one on the left 
displays a truck setup with a large vacuum on the trailer and a blue hose connected to a 
saw. The saw has a 2-inch-wide blade that cuts a trench approximately 10 inches deep 
into the roadbed while the vacuum removes the rock and dirt. The next slide shows a 
closer photo of the cut and the crossing to the other side of the street for fiber 
installation on both sides. 
Councilwoman Hodge Washington asked for confirmation that the images on the screen 
show the microtrenching process but do not depict the restoration or the anticipated 
method for restoration. 
Mr. Sonoda confirmed that the images show the microtrenching process and explained 
that the restoration method used in Mesa and other East Valley cities involves mastic 
material, which is like a crack seal. This material is placed in the top inch and a half to 
two inches of the trench to seal it. 
Councilwoman Hodge Washington asked how the mastic seal compares to the slurry 
seal asphalt treatment required under the City Code at Section 31-49. 
Mr. Sonoda explained that the slurry seal is a liquid sealant with some aggregate that 
provides protection over the entire asphalt roadway. The mastic or crack seal is used to 
fill gaps or voids in the street before applying the slurry seal. In some instances, the

mastic or crack seal remains in the roadway for 6 to 12 months before micro surfacing 
or slurry is applied to allow for curing. When the slurry seal is applied, it bonds correctly 
to the asphalt and the crack seal. 
Councilwoman Hodge Washington presumed that the slurry seal asphalt treatment is 
more durable and less penetrable by water and other types of intrusion compared to the 
mastic seal currently used in Mesa. 
Mr. Sonoda confirmed that the slurry seal is a protective layer of sealant placed on the 
asphalt to improve its lifespan. It supplements any type of crack seal that is applied on 
the asphalt beforehand. 
Councilwoman Hodge Washington thanked Mr. Sonoda for the clarification and the 
Chair for the opportunity to speak. 
Mr. Stephenson added that since the City does not currently allow microtrenching, the 
industry would have to use a traditional trench, which is laid deeper in the pavement, or 
bore across the roadway. He compared the mastic used in Mesa to the City's top seal 
requirement, noting that one seals over the top while the other involves different 
methods for installing the cable. 
Councilwoman Hodge Washington thanked Mr. Stephenson for the additional 
information. 
Councilwoman O'Brien thanked Chairwoman Stark and stated that she wanted to back 
up a step to better understand why they must cut every two to three hundred feet across 
the road. 
Mr. Sonoda explained that cutting every two to three hundred feet is necessary to 
provide service on both sides of the road. They had asked companies proposing 
microtrenching to go down one side of the street, cross at an intersection, and then 
come down the other side, but this increased the overall length of fiber, making it not 
cost-effective. Therefore, the preferred method is to make cross cuts across the local 
street every two to three hundred feet to provide service to both sides of the road. 
Councilwoman O’Brien asked if the companies mentioned how much it increased their 
costs. She noted that they were more concerned about the total length of fiber that 
needed to be installed and did not provide calculations or case study information. Both 
companies expressed concern about the requirement to go down the entire length of 
the street, cross at an intersection, and then come back down the other side to avoid 
the cuts across the street. 
Councilwoman O’Brien asked if, after allowing microtrenching, a second company 
coming in two years later would use the same microtrench to lay their fiber in the 
neighborhood.

Mr. Sonoda explained that the second company would install their own microtrench. In 
Mesa, the standard is for the second microtrench to be a minimum of 3 feet away from 
the original one. The companies would likely have to make the same number of cuts 
across the street to provide service to both sides. Unless the second company followed 
the preferred method of going down one side, crossing at an intersection, and then 
coming down the other side, there would be multiple companies cutting across the 
street to serve customers on both sides. 
Councilwoman O’Brien asked if multiple companies are going into the same 
neighborhoods at different times in the East Valley. 
Mr. Sonoda stated that there are a couple of locations in Mesa where two companies 
are in the same street. 
Councilwoman O’Brien asked if the companies did the work at separate times, not 
together. 
Mr. Sonoda confirmed that the work was done at separate times, not as a joint trench 
where a utility company installs conduit for themselves and other providers. 
Councilwoman O’Brien asked if joint trenching was discussed with the providers. 
Mr. Sonoda stated that they discussed joint trenching with the providers, but the 
providers did not have any interest in sharing. 
Councilwoman O’Brien asked for more information about the sample trenching that was 
done in one of their yards. 
Mr. Sonoda explained that in April 2021, the City conducted a microtrenching trial with 
Crown Castle, a telecommunications company. They performed four sections of 125 
feet each, using different types of backfill. They cut a trench about 10 inches deep and 
filled the top 8 to 9 inches with half sack slurry, a mixture of dirt, gravel, and a little 
cement, which is the standard backfill for construction projects in the streets. They used 
different strengths of backfill and two methods for restoring the asphalt surface: Micro 
Trench Inlay (MTI backfill), an epoxy compound placed in the top inch and a half of the 
trench, and a 24-inch-wide mill and overlay, where they milled a 24-inch-wide area 
across the asphalt, inlaid it with hot asphalt, and rolled it with a roller. 
Councilwoman O’Brien asked if these were microtrenches or normal trenches. Mr. 
Sonoda confirmed they were microtrenches. 
Councilwoman O’Brien asked how those microtrenches are performing today. 
Mr. Sonoda stated that the microtrench analysis was done in January 2022. The City's 
materials lab recommended the 24-inch mill and inlay, also called a T-top, as the 
preferred method of restoration. This recommendation was discussed with the

companies wanting to do microtrenching, but they were concerned about the additional 
costs of milling 24 inches and restoring the asphalt. 
Councilwoman O’Brien asked if the microtrenching was done near the gutters, as 
shown in the pictures, or in the center of the street. 
Mr. Sonoda stated that the microtrenching was done more in the travel lane. This was 
done three years ago, before Mesa and other cities allowed microtrenching. They chose 
locations they believed to be logical. He explained that doing it near the gutter or where 
asphalt and concrete meet is problematic because stormwater travels there, and there 
is concern about water penetrating the roadbed, even with mastic or crack seal, which 
could undermine the roadbed. 
Councilwoman O’Brien thanked Mr. Sonoda for the technical information and 
apologized for moving on to another topic. She wanted to understand the structure for 
payment better, referring to slide nine. She asked if the fee of 3 percent on direct gross 
revenues or the $12 per residential unit is an either/or choice, and how they determine 
which one they are paying. 
Mr. Brown clarified that it is one or the other, whichever is higher. 
Councilwoman O’Brien acknowledged that companies want to go into neighborhoods 
with existing houses based on infrastructure needs. She expressed interest in 
discussing how to incorporate fiber installation into new street developments in District 1 
to avoid future street cutting. She emphasized concerns about street durability and 
drivability, particularly referencing Pinnacle Peak between 35th Avenue and 55th 
Avenue, which has been under frequent construction. She requested this topic be 
added to the discussion list. 
Mr. Stephenson stated that they will work with the industry over the summer to find 
ways to involve them more upfront, in line with Councilwoman O'Brien's suggestion, and 
agreed it is a great idea. 
Councilwoman O’Brien expressed her appreciation and emphasized the importance of 
providing residents with choices, noting her experience in neighborhoods with limited 
options. She also wanted more discussion on joint trenching, expressing concerns 
about having a trench every 3 feet in the street, which affects bike riders and road 
conditions, especially during monsoons. She asked if the proposed fees are comparable 
to what current vendors are paying in the City. 
Mr. Brown confirmed that the proposed fees are very similar to what Cox is currently 
paying. 
Councilwoman O’Brien asked who the other vendor is. 
Mr. Brown stated that the other vendor is Lumen.

Councilwoman Hodge Washington thanked the speaker for the information, noting that 
joint microtrenching is not feasible and would require being three additional feet from 
the last microtrench. She mentioned that while much discussion has been about 
microtrenching, it is not the only method providers are considering. She asked for 
information about the horizontal bore process proposed by other companies. 
Mr. Sonoda explained that horizontal boring involves drilling under the roadway and 
pulling conduit into the drilled hole. This method is currently used for installing utilities 
such as electrical, gas, and telecom in the right-of-way. The two companies with 
temporary construction licenses have agreed to use this method and the installation 
procedures currently allowed in City streets. Additionally, they will examine using aerial 
fiber in neighborhoods with existing aerial infrastructure, installing cables on poles to 
serve residents. 
Councilwoman Hodge Washington asked if the department agrees that the horizontal 
boring process preserves the structural integrity of the streets and meets the restoration 
requirements in the city code. 
Mr. Sonoda confirmed that the horizontal boring process preserves the structural 
integrity of the streets and meets the restoration requirements in the city code. 
Councilwoman Hodge Washington summarized that the proper methodology for fiber-
to-the-home has been identified, but some vendors are requesting an additional 
methodology and exemptions from restoration requirements. She expressed concerns 
about maintaining street integrity and noted that granting exemptions could lead to other 
partners, like home builders and developers, requesting similar exemptions, leaving the 
City responsible for restoration costs. She asked if this summarizes the concerns. 
Mr. Stephenson confirmed that Councilwoman Hodge Washington's summary is correct 
as it relates to microtrenching. 
Councilwoman Hodge Washington thanked Mr. Stephenson for the clarification. 
Chairwoman Stark emphasized the importance of the City's investment in the pavement 
management program. She mentioned the long discussions with utility companies about 
tearing up newly paved streets and the solutions that were reached, despite initial 
resistance. She hopes that, over the summer, all council members will be involved in 
discussions about the steps and issues. She appreciates the presentation and stressed 
the need for both affordable internet access and good road maintenance, as road 
quality is a top complaint from residents. Ensuring compliance with existing standards 
while making others do the same is crucial. 
Councilwoman O’Brien asked for clarification on whether the structure for the other 
vendors is the same as what is being proposed for these vendors or if the net cost is 
approximately the same.

Mr. Sonoda asked Councilwoman O'Brien if she was referring to the structure of the 
construction process. 
Councilwoman O’Brien clarified that she was referring to the payment structure from 
Cox and CenturyLink for having their cables in the streets compared to what is being 
proposed here. 
Mr. Sonoda explained that under their current license, Cox Communications pays 5 
percent of cable TV revenues only. Telephone and internet services provided by Cox 
are not subject to any license fees due to federal regulations. Lumen is exempt from 
any fees because of their status as a telecommunications provider, which is the same 
for other companies granted a certificate of convenience and necessity from the 
corporation commission, exempting them based on state statutes. 
Councilwoman O’Brien acknowledged that the comparison is not like comparing apples 
to apples and thanked Mr. Sonoda for the clarification. 
Mr. Stephenson added that staff anticipates when Cox's agreement expires in the next 
couple of years, the provisions agreed upon now will likely be applied in those 
discussions. He mentioned that they will ensure to visit with all council members over 
the summer and early fall before presenting a revised proposal regarding this item. 
Chairwoman Stark opened the floor to public comment. 
 
CALL TO THE PUBLIC  
Jessica Dodd opposed the unauthorized dumping of unfiltered debris in March 2020, 
stating that the Office of Environmental Programs (OEP) was misled by the Parks 
Department, and described the situation as sloppy or criminal. She invited people to 
visit the site to see the impact. 
 
Tim Sierkowski opposed the unauthorized dumping, expressing concern that a ranger 
would not have opened the gates without permission from the Parks Department. He 
raised issues about unscreened dirt and the potential for recurring illegal dumping, 
mentioning that the EPA might review all dumping activities from the past four years. 
 
Eric Nielson asked about the planning part of the Transportation Infrastructure and 
Planning (TIP) Subcommittee and how the federal government could impose a consent 
decree on the City. He mentioned that Police did a good job. 
 
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 
Chairwoman Stark mentioned a two-month break and wanted to add infrastructure and 
state land areas as topics for future agenda items. 
 
ADJOURNMENT 
Chairwoman Stark adjourned the meeting at 11:25 AM.

Respectfully submitted, 
 
Kat Consador 
Management Fellow