Loading...
10-26-2006 CIAC Minutes for the Meeting on Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:30am City Hall Council Chambers Committee Members Present: Other Attendees: Kirk Clifton, Chairman Michelle Marshall Molly Kraft Glen Landers City Staff Present: Brian Denmark, Director of Facilities Mark Johnston, Parks Administrator Dave Weir, Community Development Director Marcy Driggers, Utilities Attorney Dr. Jorge Garcia, Utilities Director Dr. Mark Sutter, Financial Service Director Councillor Steve Trowbridge Klaus Wittern, PCS Angelica Hernandez, Admin. Spec. II Chairman Clifton called the meeting to order at 10:05am Clifton: Looks like we have a full (inaudible) we'll go ahead and call the meeting of the Capital Improvement Advisory Committee to order it is about 10:05 Oct. 26. Has the Committee had a chance to review the minutes for the meeting of August 17th? Molly: Yes Landers: I have not but I'm sure they're correct. Molly: I have had a chance to. I move we accept the minutes as Clifton: Okay moved and seconded all in favor Molly: Aye Landers: Aye Clifton: Chair votes aye minutes are approved. Okay we're gonna go ahead and move into Item# 2 Capital Improvement Plan, Park Projects and Park Fee Relevance. Since we got started a little bit later we're gonna remove Items three (3) and four (4) off the.Agenda and at the next meeting of the CIAC will discuss those items at that time. So with that I'll let Mr. Denmark take over. CIAC Meeting Minutes, 10/26/06 1 Denmark: Okay Just to give you a little status of where we are with Park Fee Legislation we have apacket Council Action Form with Resolution going before City Council November 6t' the regular meeting. To. heing_ contemplation of .-acceptance of your recommendation what I had mentioned is that going before City Council is the recommendation CIAC made in'July I believe recommending a Park Impact Fee increase that is going to Council on November 6th for a consideration. The proposal concludes an entire package it's required under the Development Fees Act and that means it's including the Park and Right Master Plan Land Use Assumption re-approval. The fee itself with the exhibit including all the information that was associated fee that being level of service the concepts behind what types of parts would have to build things of that nature. As well as the Capital Improvement Program, what the Committee did in there last meeting was make a formal recommendation to have that submitted to Council. However, they wanted to revisit the Capital Improvement Program prior to going to Council that's why we are here today. As a part of the Land Development Impact Fee Ordinance, we are required to go through a thirty (30) day public review process as well. We conducted that process through the month of October, it was advertised in the Las Cruces Sun-News and Bulletin as well as the Pulse three (3) times through out the month. We also had a public hearing, which I'm sure you attended Klaus, just soliciting impute that we received. To date we did not receive a single phone call or e-mail from anybody. We did have a couple of participants at the meeting however, all the information that we had collected over the past two (2) years is a part of the Master Planning processes and everything has been incorporated to the entire packet. That packet is I don't know if you have a copy of it but, it is quit large. Here's an example that's the package that's going to Council and with that the proposal is has an effective date of January 1 and the purpose of doing that is it makes a clean and neat as far as establishing when a new fee would be assessed. But it also provides and opportunity for the Council to post-pone action on it if they are not comfortable on November 6th. Meaning they would have four (4) regular meetings in which they can discuss and make a decision on how they'd like to proceed. So, ultimately they might not make any actions till, till December as an example with the effective date still being January 1. Also the way the resolution is written is all previously collected impact fee would remain with in the park districts that they where assigned to. So any new fee that is contemplated by Council would be under a separate account and would be collected differently and so there wouldn't be any mixing and matching of funds whatever funds are used from those pre-existing park districts without the remain in those Geographic Areas for the City. Any new funds are collected would have,to be identified as a part of the CIP. Just to refresh your memory this is talked to, Capital Improvement Programs that are shown here are the examples that where given.to you-as partof your packet your previous-rneetir}g& 'The first one was an example of is,an exampl,.-of.a CIP„ that would be more specific that you would specifically identify the,..projects - That actua4y. built over the next five (5) years based on projective revenues streams on._the,impact fees. that where assigned. The second concept was providing some flexibility in ,how these funds can be used because we really don't know what the specific projects are gonna be over the next five (5) years, based on your actions at your last meeting and the fact that you changed the recommendation to a $550.00 amount for the year 2007. That obviously adjusted the revenue stream so the third (3) or the bottom CIP is a reflection on that change in revenue. So if you notice for the year 2007-2008 there is a loss of about million dollars in revenue because of that change in the impact fee. So even though the fees theoretically may be collected as of January 1, 07, you've obviously would be starting CIAC Meeting Minutes, 10/26/06 2 with no funds what so ever to do any projects and so there is nothing recorded in the first sixth months or the last the end of our current fiscal year and therefore those revenues are summar-ized-with,if) -the �)7­08- So that's-a collection where realistically vour:_nc�t,�anna, start any design of projects until July where you have about a half years of revenues to collected for any type of improvements. Now we did Mark is gonna help me out here believe Mark brought this graphic to you all showing what the CIP's mean and basically based on the Land Development Fee Ordinance we have to identify how we are gonna spend the monies on. How we do that is I think in question and that's why we gave you two (2) different examples. This graphic kind of shows the geographic areas that are identified on the CIP and/or project or project aerial. We know there's currently development or plans in the work for specific parks and they stretch clear on the West side on Legends West where we have a twelve (12) acre proposed park in the planning all the way to the East Mesa where we have some issues out in the Mesa Village area where we've got a couple of developments that are negotiating with us now on the development of parks. So geographically, we got development through out the City what's different obviously is the amount of development that is occurring through out the City and looking at the different distributions Region "C" is obviously is where the majority of the development is occurring. Region "D" is changing dramatically because of the sewer extension that's occurred on the North side of 70, where buy it's spurred a wide development. But we're also starting to see a lot of infill development in the sensual core and then development on the West side. In addition to that we are also seeing a lot of annexation City Council just approved a two-hundred (200) acre plus annexation right here. Where about as adding an additional approximant twelve-hundred (1,200) dwellings to the city as far as our development pool. At this point and time we have several developments that are in negotiations with Mark and I on specific developments where about the developers wanting to build the parks themselves and have the fees waved. Couple of them out in the East Mesa, Mesa Grande Estates jut right here, just West of Orate High School, Sierra Norte has several development plans for parks. Where by there negotiating with us we also have Mascato as another example developing a park off one of the arroyos here with tennis courts, playground equipment things of that nature, so we have several examples of projects that are in the works right now that where by there negotiating with us to develop the parks. The problem that creates for us is, is that those parks might be developed with out the use of the Impact Fees. So if we identify them in the CIP today there not, its not gonna be a accurate reflection of how those funds will be used in the future and what it will do is. force;to again amend them the CIP. The concerns we have with amending the C]P���-following'tl e Ordinance, is the kind of a cumbersome process that we have to o throu h- 6,Ao that and ultimate) that is why we're strongly -, P 9 9 . Y Y . recommending that the secarid concep4 where by you, you look at the current amount that I is accruing`'through-out the -City. and �yo.L insure-that were. ever that develcapment is occurring" there are funds that would:- be Collected' for that benefit and that's what the second (2nd) and or third (3rd) concept do.s,'is that-even though your collecting the fees through out the entire City you're ensuring that where ever the development is occurring the funds would be utilized for that particular purpose. So, in reviewing that you'll notice that Region "C" is collecting its fifty-two percent (52%) of the revenue streams is being collected for the various projects and parts that we anticipate over the next five (5) years in that general area and then there's a pretty big drop off in the other areas because obviously when you look at the"mount of the development that's occurring there far less development in that area and so the revenue streams are different here. Now what that CIAC Meeting Minutes, 10/26/06 3 allows the Council to do is that when they get into there specific CIP as part of the budget process the can then define exactly what project it is with in that are that there gonna use those monies fo,. So as an example this iso �r.c rrerat Parks-Cil.anc as you can see fYs-a lot more detail and it covers all projects and all funding sources. What we're recommending is that CIAC involves itself in the budgeting process which occurs in the springtime. There is a mandatory requirement by our City Charter to have a budget approved by the end of May and what we're recommending is that you participate in that yearly process to identify what Park Projects that should be done over that course of that next year. The first CIP showed some of those projects and are identified in this map that we are already aware of. We are already aware of Legends West as a twelve (12) acre parcel, we're aware of some existing properties and neighbor hoods that require some completion. The North Las Cruces Park or what ever it ends up being named, the park off of Lohman and Roadrunner, the Mission Hills Park which is a thirty-four (34) acre park. Those are projects that we are clearly aware of as well as the other ones I mentioned. The rest are somewhat vague because it's all gonna depend on the developers time line and when they actually get to that piece property and when they can develop it. Conversely so what we are suggesting is that each Spring the CIAC using there general format for there CIP would then be able to determined based on actual dollars ($), what projects we would be capable of doing. Because obviously two (2) years from now we don't know how much money we're really gonna be collecting and so each year we'll know what we've collected over the past year. You will then be able to identify what projects are out there on the books that need to be done and how that money should be spent. Specifically that would then get incorporated and the recommended parks CIP that goes to City Council for there review and recommendation and what that does is it keeps this CIP. This general CIP in compliance and it gives the City it ensures that the monies being spent per intended purpose which is the Development of new parks in developable areas but, it also gives you the flexibility identifying what that is. So, if we have a project we have projects where a developer ends up doing it and they wave the fees well the obviously that's a project that doesn't need to be on the CIP and that's why we support that particular document. It also keeps us it keeps it tied neatly with the City Councils Budgetary Process as well as there CIP. So, ultimately, it gives the CIAC the ability to make specific recommendations on specific projects on how the monies are spent and it gives us the flexibility to work with Council to ensure that those projects do get incorporated in the budgetary documents.and with that I would be happy to answer any questions Mr. Chairman. Clifton:"Any questions Kraft. Mr. Chairman; Mr.'Denmark d ' we have when you say we start with a zero (0); does that mean there are no other sources of funding at all there are no I see.on.this sheet here ,. . there's Bolhds'and`otheirthings but other {inaudible) its. So is that. the sole, sn.urce. of t funding`NewPark Development is:Development Impact Fees? Denmark: No, no, as you note in the current Parks CIP there's several funding sources, Legislative Funding, City Bond Cycling Projects, and Special Appropriations things of that nature. We can obviously take a project and use various funds depending on the definition of those funds and how those funds can be used. That's the reason.:why we rather go through the recommended` process we have cause we might have a project that has the ability to use some Park Impact fee funds but, it might have State Appropriations as well. CIAC Meeting Minutes, 10/26/06 4 An example might be the Mesilla Park Rec. Center where we have a park there. There is a desire to put up Half Way for the Senior Programs and others that are interested in Recreation and °Chat's apart of the-p ark< lt's not part of the Community Center and thait's. a new amenity to the park. Park Impact Fees could be used but the Council might not want to use Park Impact Fees, they might want to use State Appropriation Fees. So, Council would have the flexibility to doing that. We might have another park for example the Park Impact Fee would be more beneficial to be used cause it is in a newly developed area or something to that effect. So using this process we'd be allowed to identify those different funding streams for that project. Where under our Park Impact Fee CIP that's required as a part of a package we can't do that we can only show how those funds would be used. The second (2"d) caveat is the fact since we're starting from zero (0) we do have pre- existing funds of two-million dollars ($2,000,000) which sounds like a lot but it's spread out through eight (8) different districts and only a couple of those districts have enough money to kind of at least do a phase of a particular park. Other districts can't even build a park. Do to the fact that we can't mix and match what we can do is a couple of things. One (1) is we'll have to use those existing funds just directly within those districts or we'll, we could combine them with the new funds as long as it's still within that geographic area. So for example Legends West is a newly developed area, it's a new proposed park we could take the old Park District Funds from that Geographic area and match it with some of the funds that would be collected under the under this new fee as long as it was done there. What we couldn't do is take the old district funds from that area and move it over to a park over here. So there's that flexibility in how we do that. The West side, the North side and obviously on the East side would benefit from that. The Core area there's not enough funds in that area of development occurring in that area to be able to address that so. Molly: Thank you Clifton: Is any one are more heavily loaded with free monies than the Park Fee monies or } is it pretty much spread out through out the Community? Denmark: The East side obviously has the, I forget what district it is do you remember? Johnston: As far as the most amount of money District two (2). Denmark- Well and see the problem is Mr. Chairman is the way the park districts are cut. District two (2) is the boundaries, is Hwy 70 so when you talk East side you think well that is where all the development is but its split by seventy (70), so got a lot of Development on E the North side that is getting split in Impact Fee flashes verses the South side. So we're E gonna through time see an increase on 'the 'North sides because of, all the approved 'Developmer t that is occurring verses the South side. So it doesn't current system doesn't he[ a itself because we wouldn't be able to cor ibine those funds. the Eastobviously is changing =quit dramatically to and as the State contin+.es to release !ands :that's gonna create a problem as well. Because you'll start seeing a shift, what we anticipate though is the pace on the Legislation is you you're required to make recommendations every five (5) years on a fee, change of fee don't change the fee what ever. The distribution is probably gonna change and so that's something that we'd be reviewing with in the next three (3) four (4) years cause you'll need that time frame to begin the discussion to determine you know does this geographic area still represent about fifty-two percent (52%) of the growth. Well it might not it might be Region "D" who knows. So those are the changes that might CIAC Meeting Minutes, 10/26/06 5 F S. } need to be made but, I think those are least controlled and we can monitor that it's a lot easier verses specific individual projects. Like I mentioned we have Mascato developing hg`s on Ix 'tt�ii:d (3�tl) phase ��f.R o Bn-. i.to.or Pueblos ,AlnmP a Ranch. He'S:.pSkJng fora �. waver of all three (3) fees to build the one (1) park. Well a park is all in the middle of his development so it makes sense. So he's gonna be able to wave all these fees. We also anticipate developers negotiating and wanting to build their own parks if their development is large enough because then they avoid and future potential increase in that field. Cause potentially we're saying okay the fees $515.07, it's $800.08 well by 2011 it might be $1,500 or $2,000 or what ever. They might want to say we'll just build the parks now and avoid all that. So, then they could control their development better. So, we would anticipate seeing the more. So our concern is we're actually gonna probably see less Park Impact Fees coming in based on number of permits because of that verses more. What we projected was somewhat conservative comes out to $6.8 million over that five (5) year period. But, what we're concerned with is that even if the fees where exactly as we projected we're anticipating not collecting 6.8 it might be 5.2. Because, developers X, Y and Z developed their parks thus have their fees waved and that's where our concerns is making sure the monies are going where the development is occurring and tie it into the yearly process. So you know what's occurring at that point and time how much money has been collected you can identify that specific parks and we can get your Committee involved with the Council in making those recommendations. So, that's kind of the problems that we're seeing now. Plus we're dealing with Water Annexation proposals as you know Mr. Chairman all of the entire City is already Master Planned. It already has approved development we know what's gonna happen it's just a mater of time. Right, but someone is gonna come in and start Annexing more land that we're not aware of and that obviously changes the characteristics. That's why if you notice in these color bands they go beyond City limits. So even though this is Geographic Area "C', now when Mr. Thurston had his Annexation approved here it's gets automatically included in that area and so he would obviously be eligible for negotiating with the City on Park Development and getting his fees waved or benefiting from the collection of fees for that particular area because it is a newly developed area. Clifton: What's 'gonna be the cut off if how are you guys gonna look at it if you have , Preliminary Plat Approval, Plan Plat Approval prior January one (1) isn't there subject to , the old Park Fee or how Denmark: Final-Plan . Clifton: Final Flat` Denmark. We'Ve `et!Cburuyed 'developers to nPgotrate witl� us causit makesite easier for us and them. They can' riogotiate conditions of the development prior to the end of tt�:e year then we'd honor that for that year. So if there trying to avoid the $800.00 fee in Ota cause they anticipate the development is gonna be two (2) three (3) years. Then they would have to have the ability to do that and for us it's a little challenging cause we're fees structure is so low right now but, the proposed fee is still a drop in our level of service. So we're trying to 'come up with something that's middle ground where the developer` sees that's it's a benefit to them and we're=still getting some park or some park development built. The Legends West for example is so large (twelve (12) acres) we don't even have CIAC Meeting Minutes, 10/26/06 6 close of the amount of money necessary to do anything there. But, if we can get the irrigation system and get it seeded we can get at least get it grassed and then it can be used for Soccer Fields, it oan-=tic u sed for rack vents; for the schoois.,and .general picnic �. ;.. thing. Things like that and as monies come on we can even start adding some of the amenities that need to be added like playground equipment shelters things of that nature. So, other parks are smaller, Mascato had mentioned that his park is small it's an acre and a half (1 Y2 ) but, he has a lot of amenities in it. He's put two tennis courts in it, playground equipment, benches, walkways I mean it's an intense Urban Park. What we did in return will let you have for less anchorage because you're buying the Arroyo and obviously he's got higher cost per square foot. So we've been trying to balance that to where we think it's reasonable and the third (3rd ) thing that we trying to convey is we're really trying to address the market. Its you know what is the development trying to market is it starter homes for young families well then we know we're gonna have a bunch of kids, well then we need a park with grass and playground equipment. If it's for a retirement Community they might want more open space and trails systems in that the difference there, there's a lot we need more acreage to accommodate the open space but, the square footage cost are a lot less. As I mentioned to Council the other day some of our square footage cost for open spaces is low as 25 cents a foot but you can get up to $3 or $4 a foot with an intense park. So I think we all need that flexibility the developers need it, the City needs it and it needs to based on what's happening in that point and time. So there's a lot of differences in the development that we're facing. f Clifton: Okay anything else Landers: I somehow missed that there was going to be a comment period and that you where gonna be here. Did you try to communicate with the members of this Committee to let them now about that? it Denmark- No, I assumed because it was explained, in the past that the Committee was aware of that. We have received criticism in that but z Landers: Yeah we didn't know of the actual dates. Did the other members of the Committee know about this? Kraft: No i Clifton: The Public Hearing they held? , Landers. YPati Cfiftcin I 'ivasnit aware of it but, I hadn't picked up a News raper in a,white so. s Kraft: No, I wasn't aware of that until someone told me. i Landers: I'm kind of disappointed in that you know it would be very nice to be notified of actual Public Comment Periods and the Hearings that are taking place. Well in advance I'm sure we may have talked about to meet or something to be done. But I -would really like to have the actual dates or as soon as there determined so I can put that on my CIAC Meeting Minutes, 10/26/06 7 i F t 0 calendar make sure I know what's happening. Is there anything we're probably not gonna meet for another month? Is there anything I need to read in the Pulse. Kraft: There's one tonight-right? Clifton: No, the one tonight that was a mis-publication in the paper. There is not a meeting or there was not one scheduled for tonight. Kraft: I would just would suggest that the people that sign up for these the Public and the members of the CIAC, I think there's few enough of us to be notified by e-mail when there is a Public Hearing, wouldn't that be okay? Denmark: Yes Kraft: Thanks. Okay Clifton: Okay anything else. At this time I'll go ahead and open it up the for Public Comment. Michelle: Mr. Chairman I just have a few questions but, first let me say Bryan I just really appreciate what I've been hearing with regard to your willingness to be flexible and trying to work with the Developers I hope that, that is a process that will work. I just wanted to clarify in my mind new homeowners are probably paying the Park Impact Fees. I'm wondering about proportionality everybody will be able to use the parks with the fees that they pay? Is there any cause I know when Utilities are put in when Dr. Garcia figures all that out and figures well we're gonna need this much sewage to take care of all these new people to put this many toilets and you know it's not like people have to share their toilets with anybody. But, first there paying the fees the parks are being built and anybody can use them and it seems like to me the concept of Impact Fees the correct concept is that they shouldn't have to pay all of it. Now these extra funds that you were talking about State Funds are those funds that would be used to answer that question of proportionality or you know what I'm talking about. Can you address that? r. Denmark: Yeah I do, yeah I think I do Michelle. But I think the issue is, it could still get back to level of service and the parks that are, it is my understanding of the recommendation that came from the Committee. They wanted the-fees to be used for newly developed neighborhood parks and when you talk about neighborhood parks and the fee that they recommended its actually dropping that level of service from two and,a_, half (2 '/2 ) acres per thousand (1,000) to one and a half (1 '/2 ) per thousand (1,000).. So, t at your service that's the service level you're creating you're building a park using.those - fees for that number 6V people. Ncw obviously that doesn't mean that more than 'a thousand (1,000) people from other parts of the City are not gonna to use that particular I park. But, when you're building multiple parks it's all inclusive. Now the Committee could have recommended the uses of fees for a different fashion such as a Community Park {; where by Bonding would be necessary because of the amount of dollars that would be r' associated with the parka d if the Community benefited and then the fee structure would _^ be different. But that wasn't the message that I received from the Committee and so its not gonna function like the Utility Fees unless, unless the directive is to change that level of i CIAC Meeting Minutes, 10/26/06 8 I i 4 i service back up and say "NO" we're gonna collect a fee of only $800.00 but we want the level of service to be five (5) acres per thousand (1,000). Well then obviously the $800.00 fee is riot gonna pay-for that park. It ;an only pay for a portion of, that .park, ,Given the s= recommendation its one (1) to one (1), its dropping it an acre in the amount of service t area that or the amount of park that you are building for that level of population. Michelle: You see I think a fee to build Community Parks on or whatever for the whole Community to use and devising some form of proportionality makes sense. But, this trying to do this fee to build neighborhood parks just I don't know I'm having a difficult time and you keep talking about level of service you know is that written in stone somewhere? I mean is that some Consultants concept done Denmark: It's in the packet it was Michelle: Yeah I know but it doesn't make to me it doesn't make sense. But anyway the I wanted to so proportionality is not an issue here and its not being addressed and I mean I guess nobody is concerned about that. 3 Trowbridge: If I may Mr. Chairman I think Mrs. Marshall might be touching on something. So the answer this directly correct me if I'm wrong Mr. Denmark there is no budgetary mechanism for the City to match the monies from Development Impact Fees. Thus there is no formula for policy that says for every $10 we collected Development Impact Fees for Parks we the City can refund a Legislature of funding will match you $2 representing the proportion of theoretically conceptual proportion of people around the area that we share in that amenity. I'm just I think that sort of an aspect of what your asking and I wanted just to let you know that there is no such funding mechanism for this. Denmark: Right t Michelle: Well I think there should be but, anyway thank you and I guess a lack of i proportionality here is okay with the Ordinance and State Law. Marcy: Mr. Chairman Yes, it complies with the State Law. It's up to Council if the Board remembers when the Impact Fees were first established, Park Impact Fees were only assessed to Residential Development not the Commercial or Industrial..Development. Just the Residential Development and the entire`fee was assessed and due when the building permit was-drawn whether the builder passed that fee on to the home buyer is. up,to.'Pe. builder. Funding for"Water and Wastewater Development Impact fees._whefe done a little different by Council back=in-1995 when theyestablished them. They split.the fees bet�reep three (3)"'groups approximately one half (1 Y/) of the Water and Wastewater.Development Impact Fees.'ar6 paid by the b�.filder when he or she pulls that permit. About one.quarter ('/4) is paid generally on an installment plan by the eventual homeowner or business ' occupier and about one quarter (1/4) is paid by the rate base and the payment by the rate base you know arguably addresses Mrs. Marshall's concern about proportionality. There l was a belief back in 1995 when the Council some believe that development should pay its ",rull way, that all the fees should paid by the builder. There was:also a feeling that no } growth was good for the City and therefore the City Rate Base should,pay for some of that. So they sort of split the baby into three (3) parts. Park Fees never got split there CIAC Meeting Minutes, 10/26/06 9 x. is r 1. i z totally the responsibility of the builder but, you also have to realize that the parks the fee is just assessed on Residential Development. Water and Wastewater it's assessed on Commercial,-Indus. trial so when yoil qo to use #hat restaurant and the restaurant isn't,. n., your area are using that toilet, that water and even though you don't live in that area. So, there is a different funding (inaudible) but remember that Wastewater and Water are assessed for all Water and Wastewater connections. Parks just assessed a Residential Development and Multi-family. I believed it's assessed for Multi-family apartments. Denmark: Just pure Residential nothing else z Clifton: Dr. Garcia Michelle: I did understand how that works so Jorge: Let me clarify Mr. Chairman the description is correct at the last time we had a recommendation for bond issues from this Committee different membership of this Committee and the City Council. Direction was given to look into the Rate Base Share of project, by project bases and we're doing that. So, you what she described is w►at we have today next Spring when I come to you I'll be showing you what the benefit to the f Rate Base is on a project, by project basis and that's where we're recommendation that 4' we will hopefully go all the way to Council. So, we're changing the Law as per direction of the Committee and the Council. Last time we had this discussion well we shouldn't have i (inaudible) contribution yes we should have the decision was we do it on a project by project bases. We'd be able to show how (inaudible) benefit the existing customers the i value of that benefit and therefore the (inaudible) would have to match that on a project bases not of i a every fee, like we do right now. (Inaudible) Direction has been given to t change that model to replace project by project. Denmark: In addition to that there's always been a concern that the City is not matching or achieving the same level of service. Well if you look at the City's Park CIP is $27 million. i Your recommended CIP is only 6.8 and it's a very small portion of the overall pie of how E much money is actually going towards the Park System. So, we're way over covering the level of service that we're required to do. What your recommendation done is though is has more narrowly defined it than what it has done in the past. It was always kind of loosely interpreted how to use those Park.Impact fees. Your recommendation is a lot more specific its to.be used for newly developed,parks in newly developed areas. At least where development is .occurring so, I think that helps- clarify a lot of that ;issues and then obviously :Park Impact -Fees can't be:treated as the same as Utility Fee cause we're flpt billing people Park Fees every month etcetera. So, has to be treated differently but, I think, the narrowing of the definition in clarifying,how.that monies used and Council understands that there understand that there is only a small piece of the overall pia when we,talk about the entire Park System. a Michelle: Thank you if 1 may continue I just have a couple of other things. You mentioned Commercial and I was wondering why it might not be appropriate when there is Commercial going into some of these nt-w ureas. Why Commercial doesn't pay some of } the Park Fee after all they are part or the entire scenario and if I were working in is CIAC Meeting Minutes, 10/26/06 10 Commercial and had an opportunity to use that park I would go and use it and also Commercial draws other people to see that park. So, what has that ever been addressed? a Denmark: We have contemplated that issue however I think because of the fact that our fee was so out of fine with the level of service parameters and the current cost we were more concerned in just trying to address that issues at least to some degree. But, maybe with the next Revision Cycle we'll take a look at that and at least present that as information to the CIC. We're anticipating them to come back depending on what Council does. If Council does adopt a new fee we'll have to come back in about two (2) to three (3) years and begin process anyway cause it will take them a year or so to review all that data and maybe at that point and time they can consider other non-residential land users participating in that thing. Obviously, from a legal point of view we've got to take a real strong look at that to make sure it would be in compliance with the Ordinance but we can definitely look into the issue. Michelle: I thank you Bryan and then I have one more thing. The funds that are in the current districts why are they going to stay there and what are they gonna be used for? f Denmark: They would be used for the same thing. The Development of new parks and or additional amenities to existing park, which is an allowed under in the Ordinance and we get into a legal issue I guess it's really what it boils down to. If we start pulling, those funds out of that Park District and start using them in a different area. Because we had essentially adopted resolutions that did not define what the policy is and so we feel if we pull those monies out of a certain district and put it an use it in a another area then we're in conflict of that particular resolution so. It seemed cleaner and easier to us and in compliance with legal issues to keep those funds in those particular park districts. Marcy: If I may follow up with Mr. Denmark's comment as to your question about assessing park fees to Commercial Industrial Development. There is no prohibition that neither, the State Statue or the City Ordinance which would (inaudible) with the.State Statue. We can assess whatever category you want for Park Fees but, I think there was a perception years ago we would only assess Park Fees for Residential Development. So when the Act was adopted we followed that same pattern. I think it was the perception that, we would almost be double count in people because people use parks and those same people felt they'd go to the stores. Where as with Water and Wastewater ,Development, Impact Fees you use water and sewerage in,your house, you use water and-sewerage:in your place of employment, you use water sewerage in stores and (inaudible). So,,;it was: . � t more logical td'-,extend Water a`nd Wastevfiater Development Impact Fees-t9 Industrial Commercial development. Where i�� not quit so]ogical to extend it to.make up a Pie-Quik' Store pay for oi`to make-a`sdhool pay for it because all the people that are4n that store there paying for to then residence assun.ino the live in the Las Cruces area. i Michelle: Well you know, maybe we should look at it as Citizens, for all citizens and certain citizens pay for certain things. A business is part of the Community and they should have some Community responsibility and I would encourage you guys to really take a look Lit it and instead of you know declining so strictly a person uses a t;>ilet or the person you know . So look at it Citizens who are all participating in this who's responsible as part of the Citizenry to pay for all of this. What's fair and what makes sense. CIAC Meeting Minutes, 10/26/06 11 g 3 y 5. i 4 ti Marcy: There is no prohibition in this its up to the Council and an Amendment to the Park Development Impact Fees rection of the Ordinance wanting to heing ..prompted on some. sort of benefit to the Community if everybody pays for a park. Michelle: And I have one last thing to say then I'll be quiet. I just want to say that our crew ' our Industry knows that we're gonna pay fees to build. Development to build I don't think #' we mind that but, what we want is fairness and that's what we expect and that's what we will always get and strive for. Thank you Clifton: And think we understand that. I think Council understands that as well. Like mentioned the bonding that they've approved over the past few years is demonstrating and they've realized that the Impact Fees are not to solve all the park means that are out there and that we are looking at the Community as a whole which means the Impact Fees can only be a small portion of that pie. So, again I mentioned that the park CIP the $27 million program Park Impact Fee is just a part of that. Clifton: I think from a development prospective personally 1'd rather see a park fee than a Regulatory Requirement with the City forcing us to build parks. I think we can with what's proposed here it's a lot more flexible and (inaudible) i Denmark- I think that's the realistic consequence that faces Council that the people, once the people show up in that neighborhood and there is no parks; they go to their Councilors and say where's our parks and all of a sudden an easy solution is just put in a rule. Then you put in a rule and say just automatically do it we'll eliminate the fees or we're gonna } require the development and obviously for the big developers that wouldn't be to big of an impact but defiantly your small mid-size development would really be negatively impacted by that. So, it's not a perfect solution and we agree there has to be corporation that's why we want as much flexibility as we can get. Because we know we are all trying to solve the i same problem and provide those amenities that people want in our Community and how we afford that is a challenge but it affects all of us. We are all Citizens here so we're all i Impact (inaudible) Clifton- And I was just trying to sit here thinking and it hit me. Well how do we is there a fell safe the way these monies are spent. But really-it's just kind of the natural order of how thing's grow:,in development. Where development' goes obviously-,that land. available whether the deveioper wants to-make it available for:you,' I mean are-,you guys;.gonna be s actively goir�g`'oi it and asking to' purchase (and for park. usage or, is it gonna be donation type 7 .. ,_ - i Denmark`."VV`o \4irf'be continuing working with the other developers. What wentiripa#e is._ i sometime this winter we'd be coming back to you, depending on what Council does. So, if we make the assumption that they do adopt your recommendation that we'd be coming back to you this late Winter early Spring saying okay here's a list of what's here's the development that's currently going on here's a list of potential park projects what do you want in included specifically on the City's CIP�,r,That's incompliance with what was adopted. So then, we'd be forwarding your recommendation to them and that's_how you would specifically track exactly how those funds are gonna be spent. So at that point and f CIAC Meeting Minutes, 10/26/06 12 ' i r: 3 i time we're goon know you know what the status is of certain project that are occurring in It development and have a better sense of which, what's specifically can be done what can't be'ddr d4hd theii r'Y"6U:Would 'have-,theability -to make those recorrvnenifatior�s-.4o the Council. Where in the past that didn't happen the CiAC wasn't a part of that process. Klaus: Mr. Chairman I would like to address an issue that is very close and dear to my heart and that is it is one thing to put the (inaudible) it is yet another an equally important part to contain it after we've got it. I believe this Committee should make 4 recommendations, strong recommendations to City Council, that in conjunction to this 1, construction of a park that City Council commits itself to a) Maintain the park provide ' resources in the budgets for the Parks Dept. to maintain the park and identify resources in the, in the budget of the operating budget of the City to depreciate the depreciable asset in that park. So that when it comes time to replace it, there is a fund upon which the Parks Dept. can draw similar to the Vehicle Acquisition Fund that provides for the replacement of those assets that have been paid for by the Homeowners and that is not currently in place. I understand that it may take some time for the City Council to identify the resources and g commit the resources. But, I think it is important to recognize that there is a need for that one because we will be growing, we will be building more and we will be falling further and l further behind if we don't catch up and if we don't identify those resources this to the new Capital Improvements because the currently is it significant (inaudible). The City Asset fixed asset account, identify approximately $665 million in capital asset. That should require at least a minimum of $5 million to maintain for the (inaudible) accounts and there's nowhere near that amount of money in any of the City funds that is available. So, I 1, think new committee that advise the City Council and you know it takes pressure from new growth and all that. We need to identify how we can get ahead of the curb in the future not today not tomorrow but, there needs to be a process in place to account for the on going i expense and the replace (inaudible) of Capitol Assets. Thank you l; Clifton: Thanks Klaus Any members are we ready to move on. So with that said what do you want us to act on do you want us to vote? What staffs recommendation to the Committee at this point? I` i Denmark- We've made a couple of recommendations. One was we weren't quit I wasn't at the meetings I wasn't quit sure how the recommendation went but, I was a little concerned about the proposed recommendation on the Multi-Family because you made a recommendation on the Single-Family to go five hundred-five (550) for the first year eight hundred (800) there after:=l-i idn't I wasn't aware of any action for the Multi-Family so, I'm.` under the assumption that-you wanted the same-step up with Multi-Family as well and so that Was the proposaHwP sent'f"Council so that M lti=Family would be-five-fifty (550 the first year and eight'hundred (800) there :after: Just *like the Single-Family but, with the;....-., - he,.,. : _ caveat that if they build if they build a park like amenities as a part of-there complex they, would get fifty percent (6U°/o) dr✓�ditctions so theyd go back down to $400.00 as you . recommended. The second issue was the CIP itself if it's acceptable to you to process then I recommend it I'd want concurrence on that so we have direction from you to come back to you as part 'Of the budget cycle to talk about specific projects and recommendations that would go forward to Council as part of the budgetary process. l - k t l CIAC Meeting Minutes, 10/26/06 13 K Clifton: Okay, I vaguely recall discussing Multi-Family but in that meeting that we had that day it was kind of comb eluted and I'm not sure that we really I think we had talked about it or talke ' g e (179) far M!alti-Fax i_ly. ., d aVbuf talkie about it. what is:itn�i�r�;one-seventy-nin s Denmark: One seventy-five (175) and it was proposed for eight hundred (800) like Single- Family with the four-hundred (400) if they put in pool or whatever. But I think it just some how got lost in the discussion is the impression I'm got. So I just made the assumption that that's what you wanted was a stepping approach no different than Single-Family. Clifton: One seventy-five (175) f Kraft: I don't thin we discussed the distinction. Clifton: Yea I don't think we did I mean with what you said I get feed back from the Committee I mean that seems reasonable especially with the credit for On-sight Amenities. How does the Committee feel about that? Landers: Yes Kraft: Yes t Clifton: Okay So do I have a Motion regarding the Multi-Family z Denmark: You're recommending, the recommendation on the table is adjusting the Multi- f Family Park Impact Fees from one seventy-five (175) per dwelling unit to, five hundred fifty (550) beginning January 1, 2007 and adjusting the Multi-Famiiy Park impact Fee from five-fifty (550) per dwelling unit from eight hundred (800) beginning January 1, 08. The Multi-Family Park Impact Fee will be adjusted to $400 per dwelling unit the developer i meets the minimum Multi-Family Rec. improvement requirements as outlined in the Exhibit "B" which, you had received. l Kraft: Should we take the language and make that a Motion? I don't know where you took language from but f f Denmark.,You can say as moved. Clifton: YeaK amid just say so move Kraft: So moves Clifton:`f secbni�. Okay all-i"-ri favor Landers: Aye n Mr. Chairman is Exhibit "B" included a lot of Denmark: Then another point in clarificatio guide lines talking about what kind of parks can they develop and it's a range of like an € acre and a half` (1 '/z) to two acres (2) or above and depending on the acreage will x determine the amount of amenities. That accepted by Council its still requires further _ CIAC Meeting Minutes, 10/26/06 14 action because you would have to incorporate that into the Development Code. Therefore, there'd be further Public Hearings discussion as it relates to the specific (inaudible). We don't warik b fable t6.fps it {u guiderihe at-this point and time. To us .it:-..an°adVaantage - cause we try to keep it flexible so a developer can come in and say well I don't have two and a half (2 1/ ) I got an acre and three quarters (1 3/ ) and this is what I want to and if it fits within the guidelines then it would be acceptable. So, and then depending upon what's actually improving still end up with a credit were if they ended up with more dwelling units they could end up with a credit which would be a benefit to any adjacent development so, just for clarification. Clifton: I like that. I just want to make sure we are following the aspects of the Ordinance and that we comply and all that good stuff. Because I know one (1) of the initial concerns of the Committee discussed the way the motion if I remember right was that we moved to approve the increase pending the establishment of the CIP and that was that that was kind of relating back to the Ordinance itself. But I guess I'd like to get Legal even Marcy can discuss this I'm sure. i I Kraft: Right x Denmark.- The CIP is included in the Exhibit and there was a question of which CIP did you want to see. Did you want it as a part of the recommendation and so it has to be a part of the overall Proposal to be in compliance with the Ordinance. The other issue was the fact that you change the fees structure for the first year. Change the Revenue Stream so we had to address that. It was my understanding that you all wanted to see that. So, it went from 2.2 million in 07-08 to 1.7 million. i l Kraft: You need us to recommend one of these scenarios where you present l Denmark: I'm recommending the acceptance of our recommendation which is the third (3`d) CIP it reflects the adjustment and Revenue Stream. It provides some flexibility in how specific projects will be identified each year as part of the Budgetary process. As well as insuring that the majority of the dollars are going where the majority of the development is occurring that's currently the East Central Geographic Area in the City. Clifton: So these aren't really Park Zones there I mean you can cross the line with the money and Denmark: The money can it's just insuring that if you got Development in a specific area the City could use Impact Fees for that New Development area. It's not tying;yau-to the Park Districts so the monies are collected. So, ultimately in reality.instead of we might end �,up with more or less dollars obviously in that CIP. But what it-does it gives you that flexibility to make specific projects recommendations to Council and I think the ultimate concern is insuring that there is a Public Process there where Public Hearing Process as to what projects are gonna use Impact Fees Monies and it's not done by staff. I think that's where the protection comes in so and it obviously involves you as a Committee and implying that recommendation to kitiven't been afforded in the past. CIRC Meeting Minutes, 10/26/06 15 i Clifton: And hopefully the builders paying the fee might as well. So will this meet the intent of the Law as a CIP. Denmark: Yeah, this CIP is actually somewhat familiar with the one that was adopted in 95' and then it just mentioned very broad zones and that was even a little more confusing cause the zones didn't specifically match the eight (8) park districts but, so we had to extrapolate the zone to the Geographic area. This keeps it a little more flexible at least from out point of view it does. Clifton: It crosses the Jerry Manor Political Lines of the City. So that funds aren't heavily waited in one Council District verses the other. r Denmark: Right and it allows for expansion from City Boundaries. So that would be my recommendation. i Kraft: Mr. Chairman, members I had one question last meeting in August we asked for F Legal to assist us in particular Mr. Landers and myself as new members. In a time line for our specific duties and if we need to do certain things per the Ordinance. One of the things that I mean that's that I see in the Ordinance that we already aren't doing right I don't think. It's in the Development Impact f=ee Code is that the CIC is responsible for filing written comments on the proposed CIP and Development Impact Fees before the fifth (5th) business day, before the date of the Public Hearing on the Plan and Fees. We did not do that if the Public Hearing was the hearing that was filed last week. We didn't have the E opportunity to do so having not seen the CIP. Things like that I think I'm concerned about. k Marcy: Technical Compliance 8 Kraft: Yes with the requirements of the Ordinance, not wanting to throw a Monkey Wrench into this or delay this I just wonder what your suggestion or take would be on that Mrs. Driggers. If there is any i t Marcy: I'm not familiar which section your looking at. Your saying that the CIAC was E' supposed have filed written comments before Public Meeting. So that members of the public could consider the CIAC comments. Kraft: Yeah, our comments its Section 3321 of the Las Cruces Development Code and I- doubt we've done this in the past. From questions I've asked before but and perhaps that's art optional. Denmark::My :understanding that the CIF' was adopted subject to further-,review based on change. in the Revenge. Strearn...So,the recommendations you made at.the prior rYjeetrnq. was a commentary of recommendation put together as a part of the Public Input Process. The entire package, now so if you want to go through the process again we can certainly do that and delay it another month and have Council consider it in December. If that's a concern. But that was our take on it and so we took everything that was. collected in the s. last two years put it in fact we even did the Council Action Form Resol'}.Ition just like what goes to Council. All the CIAC minutes from this past year your specific-recommendation, ?' which was Exhibit "B", the Parking Rate Master Plan. We even included the Land Use CIAC Meeting Minutes, 10/26/06 16 l I` Assumptions because based on the Ordinance it says you're supposed dock the Land It Use Assumption with the Impact Fees. Well the Land Use Assumption where docked by Council in March. S^.,Ihfe rt it that,in the packet for re.-approval so it's all put together in one,. (;1) package and started the thirty (30) day March, (inaudible). So we included that as well as the entire package. So the package is the Plan, Land Use Assumptions, the Fee itself, l the CIP and then all the documentation that went with it, the Appendix, the Graphics from the plan, all the minutes etcetera, etcetera. Ultimately, we had two (2) people at the meeting obviously no one saw the advertisements based on commentary today. But it was advertised like I said it was advertised. So that's obviously and option we can delay it another month. Kraft: So it would be our Minutes is you're saying. v Clifton: The end results is gonna be the same either way but I mean Kraft: No, I agree. I just in the future I'd like to be able to I mean if we have any meaning here I know we're a recommending body but to have meaningful comments to forward to the Council besides our being comprehensible minutes as a documentation of what this body might feel about the proposal at hand whatever it might be. Landers: I think this kind of underscores the need the City to do a review of the Ordinance ' and to give us the time line for how things have to go through the process and what are the time triggers. Where we need to act upon, yeah I feel very uncomfortable about Hearings and Public Comment Hearings where you don't get noticed and I am kind of worried of not doing the process correctly. I do think of scenarios where you know if the City takes the minutes as submitted with the comment but suppose for some reason those minutes never got approved would it really be our written comments. I mean it seems just to me minutes are not the same as written comments its not the same intentions ' (inaudible) s 4' Kraft: In our August meeting Mr.(inaudible) clarified Glenn made a motion and its in there. On asking Legal to go through the Ordinance and give us a sense of our responsibilities, our time lines and sort of a check up list and I think our Chairman discussed this with someone in Legal so I'm speaking out of term here a bit. But maybe Kirk should Clifton: Yeah what: had occurred this month ,:l think it was the scheduling .conflict. Just trying to get the meeting setup and it,was extremely difficult pulling in I ogal,at:the time we where trying to meet. So we decide we'd just talk to Dr. Garcia staff that th6 next meeting we would hopefully have we would have some answers from Legal. Dr Garcia Garcia- Mr. Chairman and to the Committee, the,Staff doesn't (inaudible) nor do they direction that would (inaudible) we d.on't.aiathnrize _that. I wad iware of that because you all brought it up the fact that you wanted a briefing from Legal because with the respect (inaudible) i i Kraft: Thank you i r Denmark: Absolutely and I'll take responsibility for the confusion on the notice. Once the CIAC made the recommendation, we're then processing information to Council and that is CIAC Meeting Minutes, 10/26/06 17 k where the thirty (30) day review period is that's part of their process. It's the first reading if you will to Council because its by Resolution it's not by Ordinance. Where by it has a .formal first .reading and-then it, goes to,the next meeting. q,month. iffier for then;,finally , action and so .that thirty (30) day period is really a cornmentary period for Council aspart of that packet and staff proceeded in that fashion. The other problem that we didn't recognize is that membership has continually changed and all this has been explained to this Committee in the past but they obviously wasn't explained to you in specifically. We went through in great detail the fact that you had a responsibility to review these fees every five (5) years, Developers have guaranteed rights for four (4) years for a specific final plat based on that particular fee. They loose their best in rights if they go beyond those four (4) years. You know etcetera, etcetera, etcetera and I think obviously it would be conducive Mr. Chairman and did have that kind of that refresher course and go through g that process because Dr .Garcia is gonna be hitting you up at the beginning of his process. Now for his fees and so you'll we'll go away for a little while and then we'll be a coming back for the next cycle. So again, I apologize for that confusion. We were proceeding to Council based on your record of recommendation and that in compliance to the Ordinance. Clifton: Well if Legal is satisfied with the minutes meeting the several requirements and development code. Marcy: Maybe a loose interpretation of the Ordinance but, I think in the past we've always just submitted the minutes as proof rather than a separate document which itemizes that the concise summarize recommendations of the Committee rather than the verbatim minutes that the Utilities Dept. provides. l Clifton: Dr. Garcia Garcia: Mr. Chairman in the past I believe the Utilities is supposed to attached the minutes but, we've always produced a small memo (inaudible) that recommends vote for Bonds or maybe Projects and things like that. It's a very simple documents but it is backed up by the minutes and usually staff will prepare that given the recommendation by the Committee and we attached that to the Council package. Clifton: Okay if we could just that hence forward, that would be great. I think that would probably. - Landers: Although, were those minutes approved minutes - Marcy: Not `(inaudibly,,) .iivith 'l-i`MiTlutes from the August meeting cause you approyed;, ,; minutes today so, they?w<xriId4.,e-unapproved".mir�4tes Landers: Right and I again I think that you know there is some problem with submitting minutes that are not approved by the Committee. Because how do you if they really reflect l with will of the Committee unless the Committee has said yes this is what we want. - i Clifton: So you still need a motion on the I think I'm lost there 4 S t G CIAC Meeting Minutes, 10/26/06 18 i 0 0 Denmark: Exhibit "B" of the packet reflects the information that you approved at the August meeting and you then you approved the minutes all this information gets conveyed to Council. Obviously if they're stillare unco.mfortghle with it they. can.postpone action. Further either have it remanded back to the Committee for further consideration, additional public review or just proceed with the action. The packet also includes the fact that you where gonna hold this meeting so if you didn't hold this meeting we would have obviously postponed any action on the sixth (6th) until you have met. But, I agree with Dr. Garcia that'd be easier for us to is if there we could have easily taken Exhibit "B" and had you sign it as an the official document in recognition. So for us that makes it easier for us too. So we'd be happy to do that in the future. Clifton: Okay Denmark: So all that remains is a clarification on the CIP, clarifies the Multi-Family issue for me. Clifton: You just need to know which one. So is there a Motion on the floor to direct Staff regarding the CIP to take forward to Council? Kraft: I move we (inaudible) No I'm not gonna make the Motion Landers: I don't wanna make the Motion either. Clifton: Out of not wanting to word the Motion or not wanting to Vote on the Motion Landers: I'd prefer to think about this till our nem meeting. If it's net absolutely necessary, for us to Vote on today I'd prefer out next meeting. Clifton: So what will be the issue between now and the next meeting? Determining the specific CIP like what's here on top verses what's here on bottom? Is that kind of the line of thinking } Landers: I'm not even sure I think I just want to (inaudible) - Kraft: I do too, I know this sounds crazy and I know your staff put in a lot of work in this but, it's really the first time I've seen this and I might have some questions about which of these scenarios I would like to see forward to the Council,. I just saw th-is information so I'd like to have a little chance to .review it and I don't mind meeting you know as soon.as: possible, just; wante&.to. have a chance to take a look at this and .-rrtaybe;have some . questions t.don't know what they are yet. t.2anders My feeling ;you know that having not heard; about,thi:}.Hparing and.�c�v� au3t- hearing that our minutes are being used as a reflection to meet the requirement written comments.. .The City is moving very quickly without us knowing or at least there doing some things that I'm not (inaudible) it seems like a good place to slow things down a bit. Denmark: So just to insure we understand the decision.,you made in August you didn't approve a CIP, that's what you're saying? CIAC Meeting Minutes, 10/26/06 19 ® 0 Clifton: My impression is it was merely the Park Fee. I don't know that we actually saw the third (3`d) item on here and said this will be our.CIP. Kraft: We asked you to come'back with a CIP Denmark: The CIP was a part, was a part of the packet in August. The only thing the was different was the change in Revenue based on the change in the Fee Structure that you recommended. Other than that nothing changed but if that's the direction of the Committee that's fine. What staff will have to then is postpone the packet to the Council. They have a deadline of December 31 and we will be having a submit a packet to them to either eliminate Park Fees as of January 1, or extend the current fee for another period of time and we'll probably shoot till we'll have to go till the end of June I guess end of the fiscal year. So you'll have another six (6) seven (7) months to deliberate this but from out point of view you'll have to give us specific direction on what you want cause we've been on this for two (2) years now. Clifton: I would like to try to move like relatively quickly I'm not talking December 31 we're gonna meet. i would prefer to see if we could meet within the next two (2) weeks would that give you guys enough time? Kraft: Yeah Landers: Yes Clifton: Okay and I'm not sure if Mr. Signer will be available for that meeting. I think we where having some e severe scheduling problems i is even getting this meeting together i;day. So, we'll have to hopefully at some point in the next two (2) weeks be able to Denmark: Just so your not surprised we will probably still forward a resolution asking for an extension regardless of whatever action you take cause we can't, we can't just rely on what you may do or may not do. So don't get surprised if you see a Resolution still going to Council asking for an extension of the Fees. That will just keep things on the safe side. Clifton: Okay Kraft: Okay Marcy: Would it be possible fore you--all to since-,you three (3) are here to schedule-a mutually convenient time right now. Kraft: Yes Clifton: Sure Marcy: If you all have your calendars CIAC Meeting Minutes, 10/26/06 20 Kraft: It would be, I'm not trying to hold this up. I realized that the Staff has put a lot of work in this and a lot of things depend on this but I just. Yes I could schedule something as,soon as _ Denmark: So we have a Council has a November 20 meeting and a December 4th and a December 18th meeting. Clifton: November 9th is exactly two (2) weeks from today right. How's November 9th 9:30am Denmark: Yes Everybody was talking at the same time Inaudible Kraft: It's fine with me I know it is. Clifton.- Okay, at that meeting perhaps we could just go ahead I don't know if that would Legai enough time to prep something for us or if you just prefer for us to Marcy: So would the Committee still like a timetable in general for implementing changes to Impact Fees. Clifton: I guess jut overall compliance to the Municipal Code Kraft: Right Landers: Yeah I think you need to know specific timeframes for the duties of the Committee. You know what are the duties of the Committee and then you know how does the procedure have to happen Marcy: Unfortunately, the State Statute Limit was passed (inaudible) that we couldn't deed from it. So we closed the State Statute but, it is confusingly written but we couldn't clarify cause we couldn't make the (inaudible) change in State Statue. So we're stuck with State Statue (inaudible) Municipal Ordinance. But, I will go through and I can make a timeline Clifton: You think two (2) weeks would be enough time for you to prepare for that of,do you need a little more time? _ Marcy: How would it be best to getitto you prior to the meeting so you're not stuck with looking at it (inaudible) Denmark: But they have the information they're wanting an orientation kind of right an explanation of your duties and the process Kraft No, we understand our duties I think Clifton: I think some of the Committee Members are concerned that in the past the CIAC hasn't necessarily been following this. CIAC Meeting Minutes, 10/26/06 21 Kraft: We haven't filed annual reports that we are required to do this written comment for example that sounds important to me iinl.ess minutes are satisfactory. There are certain written things we should have done we have not done. There are certain over site duties we should have done we have not done that are in the Ordinance and I guess it would be creating pretty much at a whole clause and since it has not been done what exactly we might or might not do to comply with the Ordinance. Clifton: If you need a little more time Marcy that's fine cause maybe we could just meet and knock this park thing out of the way really quickly then lump your item in with Mr. Weir's and Dr. Garcia's presentations. Kraft- That would be fine with me if we just did this meeting for this. Clifton: Yeah and maybe if we don't have to have a formal action type meeting it would be more of a work session type scenario. If it just gonna be presentations from the Marcy-. 'Jell let me work on getting a draft (inaudible) Clifton: Okay, well I guess that covered next meeting date hopefully other items of interest are there is there anything else. Okay and lastly any public participation beyond what we've had. Michelle: Mr. Chairman, Brian may I ask you a question. Why is it that the fees are more designed to be paid when the Building Permit is taken out rather than say the final Development Plan. Clifton: So your saying place the fees on the Developers verses the Builder. Michelle.- Yeah and let them put that cost in there lot wouldn't that be easier? Denmark: That's up to the Committee in what ever recommendation they want to make. Would it be easier I'm not sure Administratively it would be easier. I mean they get vested rights when the Final Plat is approved, they get vested right of the fee at the particular time. It gets filed I'd have to check and but then the collection is that you know the issue is it could be done differently but then it becomes an Administrative issue. Michelle- Its just that for a whole bunch of time it's a Developer issue:and them all :of a sudden it becomes a Builder.issue. Garcia: Inaudible to much back ground noise. Michelle: Its like a Building Permit is piece by piece the fees are collected all together Garcia: The Fees are collected all together CIAC Meeting Minutes, 10/26/06 22 Clifton: Well what would make it copulated is if the Developer builds a park then you know what happens then. I mean I'm not gonna speak to my bilious on that but, collecting all the P_ark..Fees..when (inaudible) I'm not sure Denmark: We've seen it all different ways I mean some of them have paid them up front so Builders don't mess with it or they've negotiated a deal with us. We have the conditions place on the Preliminary Plat. We notify CD that the fees are waved. Michelle: So does that provides more flexibility (inaudible) Denmark: They can propose pretty much we have Development now where they're trying to file the Final Plat for Phase One (1), Tract A with in Phase One (1) is to be built as a park. But they haven't negotiated exactly what the improvements are going to be. So they've asked to extend that into Phase Two (2) we said fine. But document it so it's documented real clearly that and the catch for them is they'll pay the fees with crediting a second account and we'll pay them back. If they successfully negotiated that out so it gave both us flexibility and assurance something that could be addressed and we got our Impact Fees if the deal fell through or and it extended the time that in which they have the ability to negotiate. Clifton: Okay I'd like to thank the Staff for getting the presentations together I apologize that we didn't get to you guys. Glad to see Councilor Trowbridge here thanks for taking time out of your day for us and with that do I have a motion of adjournment. Landers: Aye motion the Adjourned Kraft: I second it Meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:28a.m. Kirk Clifton; CIAC Chairm CIAC Meeting Minutes, 10/26/06 23