El Mirage council adopts five‑year capital improvement plan after residents urge focus on streets and parks
Loading...
Summary
Council approved Resolution 20542 adopting a five‑year capital improvement plan that lists 45 capital projects totaling about $64.07 million; residents at call to the public and council members pressed for prioritizing local street repairs, park safety and scrutiny of vehicle replacements.
The El Mirage Common Council on April 15 adopted Resolution 20542 approving a five‑year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for fiscal years 2026–2030 that lists 45 capital items and a five‑year total of $64,074,000, city staff said.
Macy, a city staff presenter, summarized the CIP and said staff removed city hall and police station expansions, removed several projects tied to other grants, increased the neighborhood traffic-calming program, raised park and Sundial Park renovation estimates, and removed phases of trail and road projects that did not receive grants. The presentation included an item described as the “1201st Avenue roadway” (presented as “A Hundred And 20 First Avenue”) that carried an associated federal/state grant of about $835,000 for construction; staff said the grant money is earmarked for that road and that ADOT manages the awarded funds.
Multiple residents used the meeting’s call to the public to urge attention to infrastructure and other priorities before the council vote. Jim McPheeers, a resident, criticized a planned water‑meter replacement program and said a replacement could cost “almost $8,000,000,” arguing the city could replace meters as they fail rather than proceed in bulk. Steve Gilliam, a long‑time El Mirage resident, said Sundale Park is “unbelievably small and unbelievably in a dangerous situation” and recommended installing a barrier or fence to keep people from the wash out of the park. Public commenters praised recent traffic‑calming installations on Varney Street.
Council members questioned specific CIP allocations and vehicle replacements listed in the plan. Council member Gentry asked why a low‑traffic road with roughly 75 cars per day was included in a grant project and urged reallocating funds to other local streets in greater need; staff said the project met the grant criteria and that the grant funds are restricted for that location. Council member Gentry and others also pressed staff on the vehicle replacement line items and asked for a vehicle‑replacement policy review. City staff said the CIP is a roadmap — each capital purchase would still return to council for authorization — and committed to bringing a fleet‑policy work session forward.
On questions about vehicle‑replacement thresholds, staff said the older policy was 10 years or 100,000 miles; staff told council that the threshold had been revised in later years, but did not provide a single, clear current mileage or year threshold during the meeting. Staff offered to return with specific vehicle mileage and age data for the items listed in the CIP.
Council member Winston moved to adopt the CIP; the motion was seconded and the plan was approved on a voice vote with one council member opposed. Staff said several projects had been removed because they did not secure grants, and the CIP does not itself authorize each project’s construction: final contract or purchase authority will come back to council as projects move to implementation.
City staff provided a five‑year total of $64,074,000 for the CIP and said 45 capital items are included. Council members asked staff to explore cost‑saving options for the grant‑funded roadway project (including county closeout funds and lower‑cost construction alternatives) and to supply more detailed vehicle and infrastructure schedules at a future work session.
