Loading...
10-16-2014_CIACMaw City of Las Cruces P E O P L E N E L P I N 6 P E O P L E Capital Improvements Advisory Committee Minutes for the Meeting on Thursday, October 16, 2014 1:30 p.m. Utilities Center Conference Room 218 Committee Members Present: Lonnie Hamilton, Chair Max Bower, Committee Member Ronald Johnson, Committee Member Chrys Uhlig, Committee Member Committee Members Absent: Eugene Suttmiller, Vice -Chair Travis Brown, Fire Chief Carl Clark, Interim RESTS Administrator Justin Dunivan, Deputy Police Chief Jorge Garcia, Utilities Director Jaime Montoya, Police Chief Jessica Phillips, Utilities Office Assistant Senior Loretta M. Reyes, Public Works Director Jamey Rickman, Administration, Community Liaison Ted Sweetser, Fire Marshal Alma Ruiz, Utilities Office Manager Senior David Weir, Community Development Department Director Adrienne Widmer, Water Resources Administrator City Staff Present: Chair Hamilton called the meeting to order at approximately 1:30 p.m. 1. Acceptance of the Agenda Chair Hamilton asked for acceptance of the Agenda. Johnson motioned to accept the agenda. Seconded by Bower. All in favor. The motion passed. The Agenda was Accepted Unanimously. 4-0 2. Acceptance of the Minutes Regular Meeting of September 17, 2014. Chair Hamilton then asked if anyone had any problems with the minutes as read. If not, he would like to entertain a motion. Page 1 of 18 Capital Improvements Advisory Committee Page 2 of 18 Regular Meeting Minutes for October 16, 2014 Johnson motioned to accept the amended minutes. Seconded by Uhlig. All in favor. The motion carried. The September 18, 2014 Meeting Minutes were Approved Unanimously. 4-0 3. New Business No new business. 4. Old Business Utilities Department Projects Update: Chair Hamilton mentions that they will be hearing a proposal for the process for Impact Fee reviews and updates. Travis Brown, Chief of Las Cruces Fire Department (Chief Brown) presented to the committee. He started off with a background on the topic stating, that a couple of months ago he informed the Committee that City Staff had met and talked about the need to come up with a City wide process for the review and update of Impact Fees. Initially the Utilities Department was the only department that had Impact Fees, then the Parks Department got Impact Fees, now there are Public Safety Impact Fees, so there really needed to be something that is consistent. Board membership can change, as can leadership within the different organization, so we needed to come up with something that could be repeated each time a department needs to come forward and review and update their fees, so that we have a good process in place. That is why we are here today and that is why it says "Proposed Process for Impact Fees," not specific to the Fire Department. Since the Public Safety Fees are the ones that are coming up next, we're going to have some specific discussion in the presentation about that. What we are hoping to do is share with the committee some of our thoughts about how this process could work, get your input, and hopefully come up with a plan, that moving forward we can all accomplish what we want, which is getting these fees reviewed, and a recommendation from this body, moving forward to City Council within the deadlines that we need to and that way everybody has an opportunity to accomplish goals. Chair Hamilton said I agree 100%, that this is basically what we have talked about all year long. To try to get some uniformity. We have been through two processes at this point, one with Parks and Recreations and one with Utilities. This body has worked through these two and feel that we are getting more consistent all the time. The challenges have come when we have mismatched messages when we have made education processes in the past and we would go back and re -look at those things and would get conflicting information. Those are the kinds of things that we want to eliminate. We want to have a firm understanding of what you guys that bring information to us; that we are all on the same page. This is a good idea for us to review these things step by step. Since we have got everyone on this Committee now that has been here for at least a yearand been through the process twice, I think it is going to be good for the review. Some of the things that is going to come up, is going to come up at the changing of the guard time when we have new members come in. You know like we have had the Police Department have change in the main staff there, and so, going forward, we are going to be introduced to new faces and their understanding of the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee Page 3 of 18 Regular Meeting Minutes for October 16, 2014 process is probably going to come from a higher level than us, but by the same token we want to be on a consistent basis and understanding of what we are trying to achieve. Let me reiterate, this is not a big deal. I am just saying, that the reason that we started in January this year, we want to take each segment that CIAC is involved in of City Operations, related to Impact Fees, and get a review the first four months of the year, see where we are, if there are new projects coming in, of whatever else we need to be reviewing, give everybody a break. You will be reporting to this group twice a year, as to the progress that is being made from the time that we looked at the previous proposal to today, and see where we are in getting those things in place. It is a 10% completion deal; that is all we need to know. If it is 100%, we would like to know that, and what else was in our proposals that we have looked at early on, that are coming up, so we can be on top of that and not have to reinvent the wheel when that five-year span is up and CIAC has to look at each one of these individual departments again. So Chief Brown, with all that said, I appreciate you bringing this to us and giving us an opportunity to review. Chief Brown goes on to present addressing Chair Hamilton, saying Mr. Chairman, if I could I am going to jump right in the purpose we already talked a little bit about that. For a lot of the reasons you stated, you hit it right on the head. This current group now has been through two processes so we expect, for the Public Safety Fees, that is probably going to move much quicker than the Park fees did, and I think the Utilities Fees probably benefited from the fact, that you had learned some about overall process going through the Park Impact Fees. But as you said, people change, so potentially in three or four years it could be a completely different group. So part of what we wanted to do was establish internally a process within the City, that we would pretty much follow anytime we are coming up for review and update of Impact Fees considering the timeframe associated with that. We also felt that now that there are multiple departments involved, we internally and you as the Board, need to have a clear understanding of which departments have which responsibilities in this process, get your input on what we are doing, and also consider timelines and work backwards, because I think that this body, has every purpose and intent of trying to get your business done in a very thorough and complete way, and made your recommendation to City Council, so that they can take their action. And so we need to keep those timelines in mind as we are working through this and part of the way to do that is to make sure everybody understands what that timeline and those processes are. Chair Hamilton agrees. He goes on to say, when I came on board it was more like we were managing by delay than we are managing through the process. So that is some of the things we are trying to correct, this maneuvering and get us on the right step. Chief Brown agreed and stated those are some of the reasons we are here, so we can start with Departmental Responsibilities, this is the concept that we came up with internally. Public Works have a lot of background and experience related to procurement, handling the request for proposals for consultants and so forth. So they are going to continue to do that and will put out the RFP (Request for Proposal) for a consultant for Land Use Assumption update, and/or for a consultant that is going to work on Public Safety Impact Fees, Park Impact Fees, Utilities Impact Fees. In essence, Public Works will handle the procurement aspect of that. Whichever organizations the fees are specific to, so with the next fee coming Capital Improvements Advisory Committee Page 4 of 18 Regular Meeting Minutes for October 16, 2014 up — Public Safety — the Police Department, Fire Department, will provide support to Public Works to help with that RFP, what are some of the things we think need to be there. Ultimately they will put it out, we will serve as individuals on the reviewing committee. The contract will be awarded; once the contract is awarded, then the responsible departments will step in. Community Development sends Land Use Assumptions, are really more that planning aspect; we felt that Community Development, Mr. Webb and his staff were really the ones, once the consultant is hired, to do the Land Use Assumption that Community Development needs to be the one that facilitates and works directly with that consultant, to get them the information they need, and handle the Land Use Assumption aspect of the Impact Fee review. Chair Hamilton stated, all of these things happen before we get involved, right? Chief Brown confirmed this. Chair Hamilton said that is the way it has been and he has no problem with that. Chief Brown continues stating, what I would say, knowing now that there is going to be somewhat of a sequential process, and where we are in that process, if there are things specifically that the Board thinks that we need to look at for Land Use Assumptions that maybe you feel that were not addressed in previous Land Use Assumptions. If Mr. Bower, a member of the Home Owners Association, knows some things about what is taking place, or the industry and changes in the industry that he thinks needs to be included in that, then we would welcome that input so that could be given to the consultant, to make sure that is included. So when that comes back to you, hopefully we have included specific information that you are going to want to see again. So now it gets to you and it is there as opposed to having to ask for that, us having to go back trying to gather that after the fact. So I think we are expecting interaction with the Board and input if there are things that you would like us to consider including as we move forward specifically. If that makes sense. Chair Hamilton agrees and says, as Max pointed out last time, is there an opportunity out there to trade lands? You know if it is more feasible to say this property is not working for the City's benefit, can you trade that for property with the builder, developer type person and make an exchange for other pieces. I think those are the kinds of exchanges that we need after the fact, so we now what the options are. That kind of input from you guys, helps us understand more clearly where we are trying to get to. Chief Brown continues presenting, with User Departments, which would be the Fire and Police Departments for Public Safety, the Parks Department obviously for Park Impact Fees, and Utilities Department for Utilities Impact Fees. Once the consultant is hired to generate the actual plan then that is where we will step in and we will take on that responsibility really owning that portion of the process. Very similar to what Mr. Johnston did with Park Impact Fees and Dr. Garcia and his Staff did with Utilities Fees. So as we move forward, we are going to see myself and Chief Montoya, or Deputy Chief Dunivan, Fire Marshal Ted Sweetser that's here; he is also going to be brought into the process, so that next time somebody is going through this and I am long gone, there will be someone internally within our organization that knows how this process needs to work. We as the User Departments will be the ones that are going to be working directly with the consultant, coming, presenting Capital Improvements Advisory Committee Page 5 of 18 Regular Meeting Minutes for October 16, 2014 information to you as the Board, going out doing whatever public outreach is required, public meeting scheduling, all of that, will be our responsibility as the Departments who are going to be benefit directly from those fees. Then Community Development, Public Works, will play a support role for us at that point as opposed to when they were taking a front we were supplying a support role to them. Chair Hamilton agrees, that makes perfect says. He says we really don't mind where the source of information comes from your departments. The Accounting Department is the backup that is going to be the consolidating funnel for all of this. As long as we have the documents as far as the cash flow scenarios to back up the progress, that we are making with the projects, I think is a good thing. Chief Brown agrees and says, part of the reason that this became rather important for us as a City to figure out, was because when the Public Safety Impact Fees were approved, it was actually a process of Public Safety Impact Fees, Road and Drainage. And Public Works was the primary organization and department that was handling that through the process, because two of the three fees were directly related to them. Once the Road and Drainage Fees were removed, then that started creating some questions. We have not quite two years to get our Fees back to City Council and so that is how all of this has come forward. We started internally asking some questions. Is Public Works going to be responsible for doing this? Is it us, is it the Police Department? Through those questions, that is where we decided that really we need to have a set procedure in place internally for us as Departments. Chief Brown continued presenting with the slide titled "Proposed Meeting Topics for Public Safety Impact Fees". What we have laid out here, is what we see as potential meeting topics for the CIAC. Some of this is specific to Public Safety, some of this Mr. Chairman goes back to what you said earlier, all the meetings I sat here and watched Mr. Johnston present and Dr. Garcia present, we tried to learn from those experiences and recognize it. We are not bringing you a new set of Fees, you understand the process a lot better than you may have earlier, but this is a completely new set of Fees. You as a Board, don't have the background how we came up with it. We anticipate you are going to have a lot of the same questions you had for the previous two Fees, just because you are trying to get that knowledge base to best informed decision you can. Part of our goal here is trying to now come to you and say, let us lay out a plan and a schedule that keeps us on track. Chair Hamilton had a question regarding the consultant report and the information it will entail and how it relates to the CIAC. Discussion followed. Chair Hamilton mentioned, we want to be as efficient with our time management as we can, so we can be helping you be time efficient on your side. Chief Brown stated that is our goal as well Mr. Chairman. Chief Brown goes on to say, for us, these are some of the topics that we felt would be good for any process so if we could let's start with the first one: State law, CIAC roles/responsibilities, all of those sorts of things. As you just stated Mr. Chairman, you as a Board have become very familiar with that, you have a good understanding of that. We are looking at this now more from the sense, if we establish a process, we need to establish it Capital Improvements Advisory Committee Page 6 of 18 Regular Meeting Minutes for October 16, 2014 based on the potential that there may be a new Board member, next go -around. So our recommendation would be that when we get ready to kick off a review process, we start with an initial meeting, we bring the Legal Department back in and we go through that, so that if there are any new Board members, they have the ability to get that information, and, at least I'll speak for myself sometimes, if I have not heard it for a year, or honestly for a month or two, I may not remember it all. So I think a review is always a good idea. So our proposal would be that the first meeting will be bringing in the Legal Department, making sure that we are all on the same understanding moving forward with timelines and what our requirements are, and how the process needs to work. Johnson interjected saying, I am going to request, that we have a year-end review. This Committee with the Law Department, City Departments, and Mr Garza to ask their opinion of how the CIAC is functioning. Some of us have some concerns not with the client Departments at all; our opinion of them is very high. But there are concerns, Chrys has mentioned them during the process of what our role is, what we get to review, or don't get to review and you commented, clearly, that unlike RAC, which most of us here are on, we have some substantial power there. Here we can comment, we have really no authority, no field process, no way to get our message out. I think there are important messages that the Members have brought up over time that at least should be expressed to someone in a Work Session, not in a, excuse me, a Complaint Session. Chair Hamilton agreed with Johnson. He says, the thing that I foresee in that, is possibly, let Mr. Garza come in and give us a reflection of how the CIAC is working with the City, to be sure that we are giving the City back what we are supposed to be giving them back. And I think that is a very good point Ron, thank you for bringing that up. Johnson replies, I don't mean to impose work on these guys. Chair Hamilton said, I don't think it is, it is a request to City Management to bring us a report card so to speak. Are we doing our job, do we need to be doing things differently? How do we make things better? That has been our whole intent. Chief Brown goes on to say, moving on, our second topic that we will propose, I am sorry let me back up. You see we have the topics, then we put which department would be taking the lead in making that presentation at the CIAC meeting, and we have estimated, how long that would take. If we need one meeting, multiple meetings, so on and so forth. Again, the first topic of just reviewing, roles/responsibilities, timeframes, authority so to speak. That would be provided by the Legal department. A presentation you have cleared as a group a couple of times already. So if the body has not changed, it will probably be pretty quick. If there are questions then that you feel still are not answered in that area, it gives you an opportunity to ask them. If there are new members on the Board, it catches them up as we move forward. Same thing with the next one really would be Land Use Assumptions, which would allow the Community Development department to come in and talk about what is going to take place with the Land Use Assumption, the need for it, how that fits into the whole Impact Fee aspect of things that might end up being the Consultant, if the Consultant is on board by then. Again, just making sure everybody has their questions answered in reference to the Land Use Assumption aspect. Chair Hamilton said, I appreciate that Travis, but the thing is, I think what works out for us, is that we are familiar that you are representing Fire. The Police Chief or his representative is Capital Improvements Advisory Committee Page 7 of 18 Regular Meeting Minutes for October 16, 2014 going to represent the Police Department. Dr. Garcia is going to represent the Utilities, and Mark is going to represent Parks & Recreation. That was just an assumed thing that we took on, and then we find out that most of the things that you guys are doing, are reported up to other folks, such as Loretta. And then that is where our confusion kind of got out of hand with an understanding of the flow of information. We have no problem receiving that information from you, your hands on. You know, I am sure that Loretta is overseeing all that stuff. We have got everyone in the Accounting Department that is working with numbers, to make sure that they are in compliant. We are comfortable with hearing your side of what we are looking at through the Consultants eyes is giving you those reports and I have no problem with that, nor do we have with any of the others mentioned. The thing that we need to know going in, is that you are going to be our go -to guy. If we have questions, we are going to call on Travis for that, or we are going to call Police, or we will call Utilitiesand we need that contact person. If it is going to be Loretta for all of the entities, that is fine. We just need to know that. And I think that was the missing piece that created some confusion for us during some of those later meetings. We made those assumptions and they were incorrect. And now we got that clear, so we just need to know who that point person is going to be. Chief Brown says that is exactly the reason that we are trying to tell you what we think, moving forward with this update, and future updates, what those organizations should be, so we all know going in. So that you know, if you have questions about Land Use Assumptions or you want a presentation on where the Land Use Assumption work is at, then you are going to request that through Community Development and Mr. Weir or whoever he designates as his staff, is going to be the person showing up to do it, because the Land Use Assumption aspect of this process is going to be his to oversee and handle. If it is related to the procurement of the contractors, then you know you are going to be looking for Public Works to provide you that information. Where we are with the RFP, what criteria are you using, or if you have input, that is going to be routed through them. Part of the reason we are doing this also is for us internally, so that I know and Loretta knows that she is going to handle the RFP, and we are not both sitting back waiting and thinking she is going to initiate the process, and she is thinking I am going to initiate the process, and then six months before the deadline we go, well I was waiting on you and she says I was waiting on you. Chair Hamilton adds, in essence, we are not going to be involved at that point anywhere Travis. Discussion followed. Johnson goes on to say, we started out with where you laid out a template of what we do in a year. Ok the first three months — boom, boom, boom. Next period of time, nothing going on. Next period of time, reports again. Address Chairman Hamilton, Johnson states, what they have to do then is put their agenda on your template; so if we are not expecting to be here in June and July, then they need to tell us, we need for you to meet in June and July, or May or August. We want to make them aware that we already have a template here of how the Committee agreed to workbut there are eight months where we work and four months when we are temporarily off. This needs to be voted on that, and I don't mind this. Chief Brown points out that the last slide is "Items for Discussion." He said you are right, we anticipate, in order for us to meet our deadline, working backwards, you are going to need to Capital Improvements Advisory Committee Page 8 of 18 Regular Meeting Minutes for October 16, 2014 start seeing us almost on a monthly basis in a lot of ways to talk about the update and review process, once we get the consultant on place and settle for it. Chair Hamilton stated, at the moment we are in a lull. We don't have fresh projects and compliance issues. When we get to that point, and it is more than a review process, yes — we will meet every month, related to those issues and hopefully there will be time to share updates at the end of that meeting, however, we need to do that, but keeping it within a time constraint that makes sense for everyone. The thing that we have to do is have a firm understanding of any new things that are coming up, so we can look into CIP's, and look at the due Impact Fees, we can look at the Land Use Assumptions, and give those recommendations as readily as possible, and that does not mean taking sabbaticals. But right now while we are in a review process we are just trying to be cognizant of the fact that we do not want to impact City Staff , we are just trying to stay on top of the implementation process and know where you are with projects that have already been approved. Chief Brown states, perhaps my use of the term review is creating some confusion. What I am talking about here, we as a City are saying, the lull is over. We have less than two years to meet our five year deadline for our Public Safety Impact Fees. So we are anticipating that process in order to do it what we think is right and give you as the Board plenty of opportunity to have input, see the plan. We are looking at it, we are probably, it is almost crunch time, and we will get to a timeline we have laid out. So when I say review, I am talking about the review that is required within that five year period statutorily for us to go back to City Council and say, the Fees should stay this way, the Fees should be increased, and here are all the new Land Use Assumptions. That is the process I am talking about, not the review process that the Board has been under for the last several months, however long it has been. So really we are looking at this is the start of our statutory required update that has to be done within a five year period. Chair Hamilton commented, he is on board with that. Discussion followed. Chief Brown stated, we are going to try to accomplish our goal collectively by giving you the opportunity to give your input and meet your charge as a Board, and get that to City Council prior to our deadline. We need to exactly how that is going to lay out so we can work within the Agenda, we can provide you with what we know what our timelines are. As you pointed out, a lot of those are internal crunches, but my goal that I have been going over with the staff, is to try to work with you, so that our internal crunches do not end up creating an external crunch for you as a Board, while we are coming to you, going come one, you need to get this approved, I only have two months left. We are saying let us get started well ahead of time, so we all have plenty of time to get through this. Chair Hamilton agrees, stating the thing that was an eye opener I guess, was when we were working Parks & Recreation. When I came on this Board that had been under sketch for over a year. Once we got things lined out, we turned that around pretty quickly after that. We were done by September, after we had a change in April. Then when Utilities came forward we were apprised of that particular aspect of review, and we did that pretty quickly. We were done in November of last year and I think we got started with that...I don't know ... June? Dr. Garcia do you recall what the timeframes were? Dr. Garcia said, I do not recall offhand. Capital Improvements Advisory Committee Page 9 of 18 Regular Meeting Minutes for October 16, 2014 Johnson stated it was six months. Chair Hamilton goes on to say, we condensed things down in timeframes to where with the information that was shared to us, we were able to review that and come back with a response pretty readily. I think that is what we are shooting for,to keep those turnaround times manageable. If we have enough leave time in there, it becomes a more relaxed environment but we still get a lot done, with an understanding, make recommendations to City Council with that. I do not think that we need to start two years in advance, you do. You have got to review what you did through that last process, where you are today, and that is what we are trying to keep on top of, is from the time that that last review process took place, it is called for every five years, where are we in staying with that particular model. Have we met those expectations, have there been delays because of money, has there been delays because of other things externally, that we might not be aware of. We need to know where you are and that is going to lead us to this next review process and make your scale. This is where all your internal stuff is going to come together. You are going to present that to a consulting firm, they are going to feedback, and that is probably at the point that we need to get involved. Since you have a breaking point in the middle of the year, your year-end, June 30th I believe, we need to be involved as early as you need us to be involved, so we can make the race for timelines. The thing we do not want to do is let this slip, and get behind the curb either to where we have 30-60 days that we have to get stuff done, because that makes it almost impossible. Chief Brown agreed. He said, that is our goal as well. As far as obviously from the discussion so far, I think there need to be some adjustments to the race at this point to where throwing out there, maybe some of those timelines Part of our thought was that while we have to do some of the things internally, as you pointed out RFP's and those things, that if there was an opportunity for us to also on a parallel path, be doing some of the more generic aspects of the required updates, so that when we get to that point we have the Land Use Assumption, we have the Consultant's report, maybe we have if there were, some of the questions that there might be for this being a Fee that you have not dealt with in the past. Then maybe if we could get some of those things done at a parallel timeline we would be even better position, to make sure that we have met our timelines. What I am understanding from you, we are perhaps trying to get here a little sooner than before you feel maybe we need to with some of these issues. Because our thought was, we should probably get started on this potentially next month and start having some of these discussions on these topics. While we are doing the RFP for the consultant, and so forth, so that we are way out in front of the game, in anticipation that when we get those reports done, it is only going to take us a couple of months to bring it to the Board for you to review it, and us to stay on track. Am I misreading your statement, that you thought maybe we are a little too far in front of the game and we don't need to be coming quite this early on. Chair Hamilton stated, Travis I think that you, Loretta, Mr. Weir, all the folks that are involved in the back room stuff, need to give us what you feel is a reasonable timeline. I think one of the things that we have experienced, is, getting back to your point, getting in early on I think gives us a little better basis for working through the process. The RFP as it stands, we are not going to actually be involved in that. And once you get that set up I would like to be introduced to it, possibly. Then we can start thinking about what your needs are. Am I reading that wrong? Capital Improvements Advisory Committee Page 10 of 18 Regular Meeting Minutes for October 16, 2014 Johnson interjects, I don't think that is public information. Chair Hamilton adds, if it is not, then maybe it is too early on. The things that we want to be involved in, after things do become public, that is the point, where I feel like, that we need to become real active, because at that point that is when all of your internal information is going to go to the consultant firm. If we understand what the Consultant is looking at, as we go through, we can build the case for ourselves; what your needs are, what the cost is going to be, what the Impact Fee is going to have to be to make this all work. I want us to get involved as early as possible to where it is efficient. I don't want to get us involved so early that we are impeding progress internal. I think that at that point where everything becomes public, is probably the point that we need to be introduced. Chief Brown stated, I think we are very similar in our mindsets. I think that when we get to the sheet that shows the proposed timeline, that may help. So, I will try through this, so we can move on. David Weir, Community Development Department Director, interjected, stating, one way to look at these items that are listed up here is more of a status report, so that you know what Staff is doing, we will not go into details, or ask you to provide input on that, but just so that you know what information we are gathering, what is taking place, so you will not feel like this was just thrown on you. This is what we are going through, so this is what we need to do but not inundate you with all the details. Chair Hamilton agreed, saying that is one of the reasons that we wanted these periodic updates from each one of the groups that report to the CIAC, and letting us review, and give feedback. That is the reason, with this process coming before, the things that we are talking about would be at next month's meeting. What you guys have done thus far, from the time that you got your last proposal approved to now, what has the progress been? How far out are we? What is going on, in steps, to get us to the point for the next major review to meet five year timeline requirements. I think that we are on the same page but I think that we're maybe just using a little bit different terms. Chief Brown agreed saying, I think our goals are very much aligned in what we are trying to do and what the wishes of the Board and you as a Chair are. Johnson commented, Mr. Chairman, if you look at that the groups, I don't disagree with the language or the steps, but a lot, like the first four steps are kind of generically, common to each other that deal with information history status, some of it has been given to us so well already, that a lot of that can be covered, and what we will do is while moving along, it will give us memory continuity. Some of us are a little bit older than others. And so having continuity would be a good thing. Discussion followed. Chief Brown adds that, that is exactly what we are looking for. Again, we, I said well maybe it will take this long, it is a guess. If you as a Board feel we can do those first four topics probably two topics in a meeting and get through this in two meetings; and that fits with that your trying to accomplish as a Board Chair and length of meetings, Mr. Chairman, right now Capital Improvements Advisory Committee Page 11 of 18 Regular Meeting Minutes for October 16, 2014 that is the kind of information we are looking for, because then we will go back and will change this to fit into it to what you need. Johnson added, it is an important meeting in itself to discuss stakeholders. Discussion followed. Chief Brown said there is four history behind this review of the current existing Capital Improvement Plan, which as you pointed out based on the regular reviews you are getting now, you know that so that may not even need to be a topic for discussion. Or that may be one that since the Board has not changed we can say we can skip that, let us go around. We may keep that in our internal process, so that if the Board changes, we know we need to come back and do that because there may be different members on the Board. The approach to engage the stakeholders that is something where we would definitely like to get input, feedback from the Board, as to who you think we need to be going out and visiting with and how many of those we may need to have because I think that is information that you want to have when you are making your decisions. What does the public and the people being affected have to say about this. Chair Hamilton responds, in the merge of process here, we just came off of a Ratepayer Advisory Committee (RAC), there are four of us on this particular Committee that serve on the RAC. One of the things that happened there, is that we had more public input at that particular juncture with that Committee, than previous RAC's have had pretty much combined. I think that is an important step, that we need to look at, because we need to know what people are thinking in the community because believe it or not, they are kind of running this town with their tax dollars and fees, you know the things that are going on out there. This step being an equitable balance, we have a City to run, and it costs money. We have tax payers we have to be sensitive to, rate payers, tax payers, citizens that have to be accommodated with those services and they have to pay for that. And where is that balance? That is where we are trying to get to so we can keep the infrastructure going, we can keep employees reasonability happy. I think that I heard one time that if you give raises the only way that you are going to see it meaningful impact is if you double your salary. So we have to keep people reasonable happy in their progress. Chief Brown agreed that could be one of the topics of discussion at one of the meetings, so we can hear that and get some direction from you so that when we go out and proceed forward and then we come back with our plan we can say you asked us to speak to the Homebuilders Association, the Relators, have three public meetings, etc; and we went and did all of that and here is what they told us, so that we can stay on track right from the beginning. We are all headed down that road knowing what end result we are looking for. The last couple ones, and then, this is where I think Mr. Johnson, you are talking about review of Land Use Assumptions, reviewing the final plan for recommendations this is where you now really now start to get hot and heavy into it. Again, we are anticipating potentially anywhere from four to seven meetings. There to get through that process and to give you an opportunity to listen to all of that. Going back to what you said Mr. Chairman, the last one took roughly about six months with Utilities from that point now we have an official Land Use Assumption and Plan. We can really start getting into the nitty-gritty of what this is. Where saying to us we probably need to account for roughly about seven meetings for you to get all Capital Improvements Advisory Committee Page 12 of 18 Regular Meeting Minutes for October 16, 2014 that information that you need, take a vote, make a recommendation and then for us to move forward to City Council. Does that sound reasonable? Chair Hamilton agreed it does. And the thing that we are also cognizant about is once we give you our recommendation and our white paper that says, these are the things that we see in this, we feel like it is important for the City to analyze in the final decision making. You have steps that once we clear that, that you have to meet, and it takes roughly four to six months to get that done. If we have the stuff from the second period of that fiscal year, and then you have another fiscal year, in there, we probably have enough time and that is roughly an 18-month timeframe. Chief Brown commented that is what we are approaching on. Chief Brown asked the Committee, where there topics that you feel we did not to cover that you think need to be a part of the process? Obviously as a Board you can request topics be added at any point as we move through this. But is there anything that stands out at you at this point that we missed? Johnson said, my experience from Dr. Garcia was having the Consultants face-to-face in at least one meeting is very useful to go through. Chair Hamilton agreed. Johnson continued by stating, talking, reading reports and then getting back to the Consultants that is very difficult. Chief Brown commented that is an excellent example of the type of information that is required for the RFP; knowing you want to meet face-to-face with the Consultant at least one time, that will be written into the RFP. Discussion held. Chief Brown addressed Chair Hamilton regarding the timeline, there are three sets of Impact Fees, so our process of reviewing, updating, getting to Council, is really going to be a continuous circle, because with three fees, and it taking potentially 16 to 18 months for each so that part of your timeframe for one of those fees is pretty much going to come up almost every 18 month. The 5-year deadline for the Public Safety Fee is August 1, 2016, so we are less than two years out from that fee needing to have action taken by City Council. Discussion followed. Johnson asked Loretta Reyes, if we have any idea when the RFP will be out on the street. Discussion followed regarding RFP wherein Reyes explained the current status, next steps, and that they will try to move that along as quickly as possible. Next Chief Brown presented a slide with a specific timeline and stated we are trying to achieve. We will need to be initiating the Public Safety process, which we started internally, and now need to get to you in a much quicker time, because our Fees have to be to City Council by August 2016. The Parks Department have to have action by City Council prior to June 2018. We anticipate that the process for the Parks Department would need to start around June 2016. Some of that is more the internal process, but that is when we are going to try moving forward with that. Utilities Fees were just approved, action is not required until January 2019, but Dr. Garcia said that with the second phase of the Fees that are going in in 2016, he wanted to evaluate those and see how it was doing. Once we get in this process, for the most part we are going to be in a reoccurring situation internally as a City, Capital Improvements Advisory Committee Page 13 of 18 Regular Meeting Minutes for October 16, 2014 coming back and working with this body in order to get those Fees reviewed, updated if necessary and so forth. Chair Hamilton stated I totally agree this is the way it needs to be — on a continuum but for some reason this process has been out of step. I'm going to change the terminology instead of calling what we are doing this year as a review, I'm going to call them interim reviews. Discussion followed. On the next slide, Chief Brown presented the proposed Timeline for the Public Safety Impact Fees, going over the proposed timeline, and specific internal deadlines, to meet the August 2016 deadline. Johnson had a follow up question about the possibility of being able to see the RFP once it is made public. Chief Brown stated, I do not know why that would be a problem and offered to bring it to the Board as soon as it is readily available. Discussion followed about what should be on the RFP and the possible consultant(s) they will be using. Chief Brown goes on to say, to make it to the August 1, 2016, City Council meeting to get adoption there, we are on some fairly tight time frames. Regarding the Land Use Adoption, we are potentially looking at April/May 2015 where we would start reviewing the draft Land Use Assumption report. Involvement from this group would be expected at that time and we are hoping to get that to you as soon as we can. Chair Hamilton suggested, but you think it will be September before you will have it to us. Discussion followed regarding the possibilities that might influence that timeframe and the goals. Johnson pointed out it looks like we are issuing two RFPs, and after Brown confirmed the possibility, suggested issuing a joint RFP both for Land Use and Impact Fees, to save time, which he addressed to Reyes. Discussion followed, wherein Chief Brown explained that the Land Use Assumption must be issued before the consultant can get started, Reyes confirmed that it is possible to issue them together. Chief Brown suggested, Ms. Reyes, Chief Montoya, and myself can sit down and discuss the possibility. Chair Hamilton stated that would reallocate 8-months out of that process and that would really be helpful, if it can be done. Chief Brown stated I anticipate having a report for the committee by next meeting as to where that is at. Johnson stated this is an excellent presentation so we can see what is going on, this is well done. We may be critical of it but that doesn't mean it isn't well done. Chief Brown commented, we want the feedback. Ms. Reyes commented, it think also what would be helpful as well, maybe on this timeline and maybe we call it post -timeline; is under where we are adopting the Land Use Assumption, that maybe we insert the dates that we would meet with the CIAC so that everyone knows. I know we have the 9/17/15 date but maybe we may need to meet with you more frequently. Bower handed Chair Hamilton a handwritten proposed meeting schedule. Chief Brown points out two dates on the "Timeline for Amending Public Safety Impact Fees" slide, 5/1/2015 Begin review and 9/1/2015 Final report complete, stating that this is definitely a timeframe, in which they plan on meeting with this body and presenting to them, getting their input to getting that finalized, and having their recommendations. Due to the Committees familiarity with the process and the Land Use Assumption, it may very well be less than four months. Capital Improvements Advisory Committee Page 14 of 18 Regular Meeting Minutes for October 16, 2014 Chief Brown commented, lastly, the things we felt we needed to get to you, to get some clarification were addressed and clarified throughout the presentation for the most part. What I have gathered through our discussion, the concept of getting started early, keeping you informed, trying to lay out the timelines, and the timeframes so that we can all stay on track. We need to go back and combine some of these meetings and continue to provide updates on where we are, the specifics about our process internally. One of the next things we are looking for is directions as far as how do we incorporate this process that needs to get started and everything that it entails, with what you have been trying to accomplish what I call the Quarterly Project Updates. eventually we want some direction from you on how do we want to incorporate those now that this business is in front of you; how to incorporate this process into the one you already have. Hamilton responded, that once these projects heat up, this is the most important business on hand for us. As we move forward, this might be a moving target. The thing that we want to do is stay in touch with the other entities that are reporting to this body and that does not have to be a singular meeting. Discussion about general direction followed. Johnson mentioned everyone might want to have a look at the proposed timeline Bower created. Chair Hamilton asked Ms. Phillips to make copies for attendees. Chief Brown goes on to address the Committee, asking, would you ultimately like to have the opportunity to give your recommendation, two, three, or six months before it has to go to City Council, or what would be ideal, and then we will try to work towards that as best we can. Uhlig and Chair Hamilton both agreed, we need it prior to public input and then after the fact we need to know what the consensus is. Chair Hamilton goes on to say, it also depends on how long it takes you to get certain things to City Council and get all those things in place to make the final presentation. If we have this finished at mid-FY, with our recommendations it does not take much to get a white paper comment together, to submit to City Council. But then how many meetings/steps did you have, to get this in its final form, and submit to City Council to stay on your timeline? If it is not mandated by FY-end 2016, then you have that two month interval back there, maybe we could take a couple of months more in this process if needed. But the quicker the better for everyone, so City Council can respond at the appropriate timeframe. We need to know what that timeframe is. Johnson mentions one key thing that was discussed in the past that I think is great on here. We need to know when you are going to have the stakeholder process. Not the public hearing. Chief Brown commented again, I want to make sure that we are not using the same terminology in different ways. By stakeholders, what we meant by that, very specifically in the last process, we met with the Homebuilders Association multiple times, as well as the Realtors multiple times specifically; then we had public meetings. At this point that is not outlined in here. That was part of what we wanted to get some input from as a Board. When would you like to see us start reaching out to them and start having those discussions? Johnson had a question regarding the public meeting process, which you have occurring on 7/14/16 with the approval having to occur the next month. That strikes me as a little tight there. How are you taking the reflection, I'm not sure. Chief Brown addressed stating there Capital Improvements Advisory Committee Page 15 of 18 Regular Meeting Minutes for October 16, 2014 is a mandatory meeting required by stature that we have to have within 30 days of it going to Council for action. Our intent is to have others, more frequent and earlier than that, however, that one is a specific benchmark for us. Discussion followed. Bower directed everyone's attention back to the timeline he had written down on a piece of paper, which Ms. Phillips just distributed to the attendees. There is bullet point one that is part of the graph and that represents the proposal meeting topics. The first meeting, Statutory/Ordinance review, CIAC rules, that is kind of wrapped into one. That would also be an opportunity to have City Management, as far as Brian or Robert being here, because we might not need to take up the whole meeting on the first two - that is when we can complain to Brian and so forth. Moving on to the second two meetings, and I am looking at that strictly through Public Safety right now, two more meetings for review of the Impact Fee history, existing Infrastructure B, that is probably one or two meetings, or one and a half meetings, reviewing the planned new items, and then maybe the last half of whatever the last meeting is; whether it is the second or third meeting discuss stakeholder ideas. Meetings four, five and six, that is a good spot to get the consultant into here first, so we can all get our heads wrapped around what he is trying to do. And then you guys pretty much pick it up from there, so we are not wasting a bunch of money. Meetings seven and eight that is when we are actually going back and reviewing everything. If the consultant needs to come back that is probably a good shot, if it's even needed. Then meeting nine, present the final plan, that could maybe be nine and ten, or maybe a draft, and then it comes back around and we vote on it again. So if you take that and look at the graph if you will, what I am doing is taking the drop dead dates for Public Safety Fees in this; example, August 2016, backing was meeting then, and we can adjust that all the way back to now with the idea that if you need to, somewhere between meetings three and four, disengage from it, because we have got to let the public input stakeholder part take place. Maybe there is a gap there somewhere, you can move it up to May 2015 or something. Johnson commented, it looks like you have some flex time in there, correct. Bowers agreed, and continued stating, this is Public Safety, so now using this as a guide, just back in the other presentations, and so on meeting, 10/15 we know we have got to, or rather 11/15, we have got to take care of this on Public Safety, this on Parks, and some Utilities, or none or more, or whatever. Johnson commented, I saw you have enough flexibility in there. Bowers agreed and stated, to spread it out a little, if you need to because this follows what you are already doing. Chair Hamilton stated, this is a good plan. Chief Brown stated, looking at this Mr. Chairman, some of these dates are very much in line with what we are seeing and fitting into our timeframe. This is very much in line to what we were looking for. I think moving forward, part of the goal is the Land Use Assumptions that are done for us those could also be used by Parks and potentially even by Utilities depending on when that timeframe is. So when we do move onto Parks, hopefully we can almost cut out that entire section of the Land Use Assumption because you would have already heard it and it would be the same exact report they will be using from the consultant and that whole piece may be removed. As we move forward and work together on this process, we are going to find ways and areas we can streamline it to make it more efficient. Capital Improvements Advisory Committee Page 16 of 18 Regular Meeting Minutes for October 16, 2014 Chief Brown stated, I recognize it is getting late, so at this point I will offer to take this information, I can go back and try to put it together in a couple of slides or something that can be presented to the Board. If there is another direction that you would like us to take, in order to finalize this moving forward understanding that it is always going to be open to change and alteration, then please provide that to me. Uhlig commented, since this thing is so flexible at this point and time, it seems to me that it would not be worth the effort should try and go into much more detail that deviates any kind of a very fine point. My one question is on the Impact Fee on the Capital Improvement plan is there going to be any sort of reassessment as to the Impact Fee themselves, as to whether they will be raised? The Utilities is the one that comes to mind because they went through an elaborate, involved process. Discussion was held about the past Parks process. Johnson mentioned we are all new and were not involved with the Parks process. Chief Brown commented, that is why we thought we may want to get started a little bit sooner so that you have the ability to get some of that history because no one was on the Board at that time. And to answer Uhlig's question, yes, the consultant that puts together the plan will be based more on our level of service similar to Parks. They will be able to explain to you how they came up with that level of service and the corresponding fee that they are recommending — that will be part of that plan. Chair Hamilton stated, Travis, I think it might be very good if we fill in here with the previous consultant report that was presented, if you don't mind making a small presentation on that next month maybe that preempts the interim -update. Johnson commented, or at least a summary. Chair Hamilton agreed a summary may be good. Chief Brown stated by the meeting topic of History and Background that is exactly what we were thinking. We needed to provide you an opportunity you see that report, discuss it, and answer questions. Johnson stated, Mr. Chairman, I would like to see the report on projects next month, which is what we thought we were going to get this meeting. Then if they update this stuff, at least on some of the stuff that Max has said, we will be all set, so that in the end we are ready to start in January. Uhlig asked, since you are going to get a new Land Use Assumption update, which involves new subdivision work, more Wal Mart's, and this sort of thing. Is there going to be some kind of prognostication as to what your Impact Fee may look like? Do they do that, I do not remember that. Chief Brown responded, yes that is all part of the process. The Land Use Assumptions help drive what we are projecting, what the fee should be, and how much we would get over that. Last time it was a 10-year Land Use Assumption. I think for Parks they used a 5-year this go -around as opposed to ten. So yes, that will be part of that process that will be brought back for you to explain how they came to that information. Capital Improvements Advisory Committee Page 17 of 18 Regular Meeting Minutes for October 16, 2014 Chair Hamilton asked, does anyone have a problem from the Committee's stand as to what Travis has brought forth today, and outside of the discussion items we brought forth. Excellent stated Uhlig. Bower encouraged them to use some of what he had provided if they wanted to them to help figure out the timeline. Johnson commented, along with that Max, we will know that in January we will have an update from Parks and them. In February, we would hear from Solid Waste and them. Then you would start folding in the next updates down the line. Discussion followed. Chief Brown thanked the Chair and Committee for their time and said I apologize for the length I was not expecting it to take that long but I am very appreciative of all the feedback and discussion, and I am very excited to be working with this group along with, I know I speak for the Police Department as well, we are anxious to work with you moving. forward, and getting this update done. Chair Hamilton thanked him and said I think this has been very helpful. Loretta, thank you for your input. Police Department, we look forward to hearing from you, and thank you so much for being here today. Chief Montoya thanked him as well. 5. Committee General Discussion. Hamilton asked if there were any things that needed to come before the Committee this afternoon. Johnson stated, along the line of what Max said, I was hoping that somehow we could have a meeting with Mr. Garza and the Law department. A separate meeting or a special meeting for our discussion, discussing where we have been and where we should be going. Some of it should probably be required, to amend the Statute in the long term, as to what our rules are, because there are some things, like having to meet every month, that maybe we can clarify. Also rules of what we are supposed to be looking at, which came up previously. That meeting, I don't care if it's a meeting as a whole, but I do not want to take up the Department's time. Chair Hamilton asked, would you want to do that in form of a Work Session instead? Johnson said it's got to be a public notice, but whenever we can get that, but a Work Session yes. Chair Hamilton suggested I guess we can post a Notice of a Potential Quorum and call it a Work Session without inviting the public. How do you do that Alma? Ms. Ruiz answered, I will check with Ms. Driggers. Chair Hamilton asked, would you do that for us. Does this need to happen right away or do you think after the first of the year? Bower responded, I think we probably ought to jump into it pretty quick. Maybe the way to look at it is, just make sure there is nothing on the Agenda except Review with City Management. You know, just because we are all the same group that has been on the Committee now for a couple of years it will give us the opportunity to kind of just, look at the whole picture. Chair Hamilton added, that is the reason I think that maybe a Work Session rather than tie these folks up at the same time. Alma, if you can check with Marcy and possibly check with Robert on how his scheduling might work. I would like to have Robert in the meeting, but if it is not possible, then maybe Brian could do it with us. I just think it would be meaningful if we could have Robert in to really sit with us and discuss all of these things that we have Capital Improvements Advisory Committee Page 18 of 18 Regular Meeting Minutes for October 16, 2014 questions of. Ms. Ruiz asked the Chairman, what timeframe are you looking at. Chair Hamilton responded, we need to clear their calendar first, but if we could do it in early November, I think that would be helpful to give us a head start. Because it sounds like to me that, timing wise, right on the after of the year, we are going to need to start cranking up. You guys will have your stuff done, probably by the first quarter. I know it says May, we are hopeful it might move a little quicker than that. I would like to have a head start and let us talk about the things that we have experienced, what we are looking to going forward, give us a report card, we will give the City a report card back, and have a meaningful conversation about that. Discussion followed. 6. Next Meeting Date. Chair Hamilton stated that the next meeting date would be November 20, 2014, at 1:30 p.m. Chief Brown added, that the action to purchase a Fire Engine with Public Safety Impact Fees, are scheduled to go to City council on November 2nd, I believe it is, the first week in November, so we are looking at about $400,000.00, and it will be purchased from this Impact Fees process. Chair Hamilton asked, it takes what about 18 months for delivery? About a 330 bill date, said Chief Brown. Chair Hamilton asked, where will this new equipment be housed? Chief Brown said at the East Mesa Public Safety Complex. Discussion followed. 7. Public Participation. None. 8. Board Comments. None. 9. Adjournment. Johnson motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Bower. All in favor - Aye. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at approximately 3:03 p.m. L. nnie Hamilt n D to CIAC Chair