Loading...
11-09-2006 Capital Improvement Advisory Committee Minutes for the Meeting on Thursday, November 9, 2006 9:30am Utilities Center Conference Room 213 Committee Members Present: Committee Members Absent: Molly Kraft, Vice Chair Kirk Clifton, Chair Judd Singer Glenn Landers City Staff Present: Other Attendees: Mark Johnston, Parks Administrator Cyndi Rhodes Henry Romero, District Supervisor Benjamin Sauceda, District Supervisor Louis Grijalva, Public Works Director Robert Herrera, Program Coordinator David Weir, Community Dev. Director Marcy Driggers, Utilities Attorney Councilor Steve Trowbridge Lori Grumet, Public Services Director Angelica Hernandez, Admin. Spec. II Vice-Chair Molly Kraft called the meeting to order at approximately 9:47am Molly: I'm Molly Kraft I'm the Vice Chairman Kirk Clifton is not here today so I guess I will run the meeting. So lets gets started. First item is review and approval of minutes for the meeting of October 26, 2006. Judd: I actually have a couple of questions with regards the minutes since I wasn't here at the last meeting. Molly: Okay Judd: If you guys will indulge me and maybe update me or on this. In the minutes of the meeting Brian refers to the previous Park Fees remaining in separate accounts. That belongs to each of the Commissioners or Councilors in their Districts. Will that money be in those accounts for some specific time limit or is that money in a way gone collected yet, unused can be used more discretionarily. I mean in other words, will there be some sort of time limit before that money has to be expended. Mark: I'll have Marcy help me out on the specific time limits. There's a couple of things, one (1) is the money that is in the accounts is not the Councilor's money. I want to make that clear. What it is, is money attributed to those Parks Districts those are Geographical Districts throughout the City. Number two (2) is those monies have been collected and they do need to be expended in a time frame and as the accounts are set up right now we currently get a monthly read out that will say "We need to spend X number of dollars in CIAC Meeting, 11/9/06 1 this account by the end of the Fiscal". What we would envision doing is coming back with a Capital Improvement Program that was associated to those Park Districts that expended those funds at a quicker rate. If in fact we move forward with what's on the currently. Judd: Okay so there needs to be some clearance some tie in between what we're doing today and the existing Park Impact Fees. Mark: Yes and what we are able to do, as long as a project in the new system also is with in that Park District those monies can be commingled for those projects as long as they tie up and land in those Geographical areas. So even though it's separate funds if the projects relate directly to those areas they can be commingled. Judd: In the proposed CIP, which you created those Districts are addressed Mark: Correct Judd: I have just a couple of more questions. How is this our new CIP that we've discussed and our proposed Impact Fee. Does that tie in at all with the City's Infill Policy in other words is there any addressing of the Infill Policy because the Infill Policy has you know there parcels ground in the City's interior that potentially are affected by it. Weir: The Infill Policy is just an expedited planning process. It cuts like a step out to facilitate I don't believe it touches the fees. Judd: But it doesn't have to relate back to the fees at all. Cause, I saw it in the minutes that I believe that it was Michelle Marshall from Homebuilders that said something about Commercial which is generally all what you see in the infill property and whether or not Commercial Construction will have to pay any part in Development Fees. Mark: As of right now, there is no Commercial relation. The relationship the Commercial Development with the Park Impact Fees it strictly Single Family Residents and Multi Family Residents. That is something that the CIAC can address in the future if they so choose to. Judd: Also, I wasn't sure whether it was completely addressed in the previous minutes. But, Michelle Marshall had asked about Park Impact Fees being paid at the time the Developer begins the Development and it was my understanding in the Legislation that I read that Park Impact Fees could be paid no sooner than Building Permit time and no later then the CO, is that correct? Marcy: I thought the Park Impact Fees where paid primarily by the builder of the home or the builder of the Apartment complex. As apposed to a Developer of an entire Subdivision. Judd: Right and well that is what I wanted to clarify. My understanding was that the Legislation on Impact Fees actually said that no sooner or not prior to Building Permit issuance and no later then Certificate of Occupancy. Marcy: And in fact there had been just some an overall direction from the Committee of the last meeting requesting some general information about the Act and maybe some time frame work they actually call them a time line. But I didn't know how to do a time line so I CIAC Meeting, 11/9/06 2 made a Memo which I would be glad to give the three (3) of you but, it does say that the assessments are good from four (4) years from the earlier of Development Improval or issuance of the Building Permit. I'd be glad to give this to you and you know you may not want to review it now but if you review it later and you'd like an expanded or further detail or if you have some questions. Judd: To my understanding that you're talking about the Vested Right, you're talking about the Vest Right in say for example the Park Impact Fee. That there's a Subdivision that was developed two (2) years ago and is on the market currently has lots available even once a new Impact Fee is adopted the old Impact Fee would still be applied on those lots. Marcy: Yeah I tried to give some simplistic examples but the fees are good for four (4) years which creates problems to Subdivisions. Cause Subdivisions don't start at the beginning of the four (4) year period and aren't always built out in four years. So I did give one example that coincidently addresses your question and I gave an example at the top of page two (2). 1 just said that if a Subdivision Plat is filed in 2002 those fees are locked in for four (4) years and so if those fees got adjusted during that four (4) year period the lock in period would continue but after that four (4) year period any lots that hadn't been developed then they'd get the adjusted rate and this does make it's a real burden on the Community Development Department trying to keep track and it creates frankly a tracking nightmare. It's too bad when the Legislature adopted this Act they didn't also have a computer program that went along with it that allowed a better tracking of these. But that the theory I'm not saying that it's absolutely applied you know 100% but, the theory is the fees lock in and if the fees are adjusted during the lock in period they don't change until the end of the lock in period. Judd: Okay great I think that actually addresses my issues with the or questions related to the minutes and so I would move to for approval of the minutes. Landers: I'll second Molly: Motion is so passed. Okay New Business what was our New Business two (2) weeks ago? The review and recommendation for Parks Capital Improvement Plan, Mark gave us the same thing from ((inaudible) if you wanted to see the same scenarios. I wanted to just briefly kind of prep us why we are here again two (2) weeks later rather than having done this two (2) weeks ago. Admittedly, we're a relatively new Committee with the exception on of Judd who just go reappointed, congratulations. But I did review and I think my fellow members have review minutes from the past two (2) years and saying I understand the frustration of the City with the changes and the CIAC not getting the recommendations you'd hoped you'd get out of us sooner. But I did go back and look back at was has gone on and I think some of the problems are because we have not gotten some of the information we've requested or we still did not understand the process in our roll in it and part of that was what you just gave us Marcy. We did ask for and maybe this is what this is I hope a review of our own Charter if you will and the six (6) duties we have to fulfill as a Citizen a Capital Improvement Advisor Committee. Because going back and looking back we see it looks like we did not do something when we should have done them. So thus, we've asked for clarification twice once in August when Robert Garza promised he would come back to us with a timetable may not be the right word but we asked for clarification of our duties under this Charter and then we asked you last CIAC Meeting, 11/9/06 3 meeting you obliviously have come up with some information for us. Which I haven't had a chance to look at but, some of the confusion I think why it's taken you two (2) years or us two (2) years to come to some sort of agreement is that what we read, what you've given us lots of information the Parks Master Plan, the Impact Fees study you know Primer on Development Impact Fees. Is that we look at the Chapter thirty-three (33) the Development Impact Fee Ordinance and we look at our duties and we see kind of a disconnect and not a real clear understanding of the process. That maybe why there has been some foot dragging or some problems in the past and why we did not approve and send this forward last meeting. Not because we don't want to try and work with you but because we feel like some of the information is not clear to us, and maybe, what I did is go through the Ordinance and I did talk individually with the other members and came up with some questions that probably I know this is maybe sort of a it shouldn't take you to long. But, maybe if you'd walk us through this and we would understand better that the process that we see that is required by the Ordinance has been followed that we'd be able to come do to an agreement to what we're supposed to be doing today which is advising the City Council on the Capital Improvement Plan and the new Park Fee. So let me pass I need some copies. These are concerns I talked as I say with other members individually of my some of these are concerns of there's, some are not and if we could just go through them I think that we'll be able to understand better why we're at the point we're at. If you'll indulge me I would appreciate it. I didn't copy the Ordinance but I did copy actually our Charter which has the six (6) duties we do have to do. You are required to read and I don't know if you've got any of the I did have the Development Impact Fees Ordiance for those of you who want to. It's referred to in here but its referred to with (inaudible) so I took it directly from the Ordinance. If we could just look at it I would appreciate it. So again if these had been answered in the past as I said I went back and looked in the minutes. I didn't see them directly and maybe they have been I'm sure they have been I know you guys have been hard at work for longer than I have been on this Committee so, maybe you could, we could just start with the Land Use Assumptions. What I took from the Ordinance is what it says "The service areas rejections of changes and Land Use densities and Sites and Populations over a five (5) year period", and maybe your gonna tell me that's what in the Master Plan or its explained by some other document or combination of documents and that's what I guess I need to know. That I wasn't clear on for what I had and all of this entire multitude of information that I do have. So are those questions the for the CIP do they this document these three (3) scenarios is that the CIP or does it include other documents that address these issues that service areas projections of changes on Land Use Densities, Sites and Populations over a five year period. Mark: May I take a stab at that Marcy: A stab is probably the correct word. Mark: I think it maybe a bit confusing, as there's actually two (2) Capital Improvement Plans. There's the Capital Improvement Plant that's related to the Park Impact Fees these are the fees that are collected in the associated projects that go with it. There's also a larger CIP Plan that 's part of the Budget process. These projects rolled in to this CIP Plan so the CIAC is looking at this plan for the Park Development Fees, which then becomes part of the bigger Project. This is $24 million dollars this is $2 million dollars roughly. On this one page scenario where you see the $800.00 Park Impact Fee what City Staff is CIAC Meeting, 11/9/06 4 recommending to the CIAC is check the use of general areas and on the top of that you will see the associated projects that land in those general areas. So its one CIP with the projects that drop in to the general area rather then specific project. Even those are specific projects you are adopting or we're recommending you adopt a generalized CIP, which allows us more latitude and flexibility to work with Developers as they come and approach the City. That way we don't have to go an revise the CIP each time a new Development or an Annexation comes in with a recommended piece of marked property. Okay Molly: Okay any questions? Judd: I would just have one (1) question as to why we would not want to revise the CIP. Would that not change the level of service when a Developer comes in and say for example proposes it's own park in a in that area. Would that not improve the level of service in that area and then allow us to adjust either the fee or the CIP itself? Mark: It could if the Developer was in a very giving mood and wanted to give a large sum of property with amenities. But in the current level of service and this is another question that's in the list here, it's basically how much acreage of neighborhood park are we gonna have per thousand people? In the City (inaudible) as it is now and I don't have the numbers like Brian does off the top his it's like 2.5 acres per thousand. Well with our new level of service and at $550.00 and the $800.00 its actually gonna drop to 1.51 acres per thousand. That's the level of service correlation now if I might be able to say that level of service is how much property is available for people to use. That's probably a simplistic way of putting it and we're only talking about the level of service how much property for people to use for neighborhood parks. Okay Judd: It doesn't include open space, trail or anything like that. Molly: And why doesn't it? Is that because we agreed not to included open space and trails and other Mark: Well you wanted open space and trails in there and open space there's three (3) different levels of service. There is a level of service for open space, there is a level of neighborhood parks, there is a level of service for trails but, specific numbers I don't have in front of me. But when we go back in our information that we supplied you'll see that and that's why the flexibility is really important from our stand point that it allows us to work with Developers if there is an Arroyo Base and if we want to say it's a habitat area with some general area that is good for a trail and park property and its really not developed able well in the City's interest and the habitat interest and the saving of open space its very beneficial to the citizens. So it allows us to do that negotiating factor and look at parcels rather than say you have ten (10) acres prime to build develop of land we want 2.5 acres in the middle of your development. Its just one of those things that give the latitude and ability for us to be flexible and if I may while I'm on a role you had questions on the three (3) plans. The Land Use Assumption, the Capital Improvement Plan, the Parks Master Plan and there was other one that was in your note the Capital Improvement Plan for the Park Impact Fees is a stand alone document allow though it incorporates with a bigger Capital Improvement Plan for the City. That was one of the plans that was discussed for out there for Public Input. The Land Use Assumptions those are a CIAC Meeting, 11/9/06 5 Community Development Document that's helps guide and please help me if I go left when I should be going right. That's helps guide the vision of the City and discussed demographics and Land Uses and Zoning requirements and then the Park Master Plan is a separate tool it's not part of the Legislative act it's a separate tool that helps guide the Parks System and so that's input from the general public on what there needs, wants and desires are. At what level of service how many acres do they want to see happen in the City. That helps us guide our future, it's a futuristic document. It shows how much land we have, how land we need where we need and I think in our document it showed that folks really wanted to see maintenance, safety, security, well that's not part of CIP, that's General Operating but it shows that in that Master Plan along with trails, open space pools okay. Molly: Okay Mark: I didn't hear any buzzards go off so I think I did a Molly: Okay the concern on page two (2) about the Public Review process starting before we had filed our written comments. Is somewhat problematic Section 3321 and 3325 Require the CIAC to file its written comments on the proposed CIP and DIAS before the fifth (5) business day before the date of the Public Hearing on the Plan of Fees. That did not happen. So, you know and that's I don't know how that effects the Public the process at all other than that's a written requirement that Judd: Does it put us in violation with the Section of the Ordinance that applies to us. Marcy: I don't think so, cause I think in the maybe they've done it inconsistently. When Dr. Garcia was at the meeting two (2) weeks ago, he's not here because this doesn't pertain to Utility Impact Fees but his department had always summarized the comments of the Committee and incorporated it as a stand alone memo that said you know "Comments or Recommendations of the Committee" and had that as part of the package that went for the Public review session. I believe Parks not wrongly or rightly just used the minutes from the Committee meeting as the document that went for the Public Review Process and probably in retrospect, they should be summarizing the document that members of the Public don't have to go through and find what the recommendations where. But is surprised me when I went back and reviewed this Ordinance which is a clone of the State Statute. I became aware how overly complicated it is in some areas and how underlie complicated it is simplistic it is in other areas and it requires comments of the Committee but, we've always sort of interpreted that as being well we need a consensus or direction. But that's when you go back and look at our Ordinance and the State Statute. We just bring your comments forward there doesn't have to be a consciences all five of you could have individual comments which we could summarize and we could go to the City Council with the position is there is no consensus among the Committee or there is no recommendations of the Committee. There is just individual comments and the surprised me when I went back and looked at it. But that's the way Molly: Is that what you've done in the past? Marcy: No, we've always sought to get a consensus a majority opinion of the Committee but when I went back and looked at it, it just says you're responsibility is to comment. CIAC Meeting, 11/9/06 6 Landers: Who's supposed to be submitting this comments? Marcy: Well see in the past I think the comments have just been extracted from your comments during the pre-seating Committee Meeting. But, it appears that the Utilities Department, I'm not sure if they actually sought a vote or if the Utilities Department just sort of extrapolated your comments and made it as a report of the Committee. I know that in the past at least in the Utilities Department they've sought a consensus they have not gone forward and until there was a consensus. But I don't think a consensus is required. Landers: Yeah I agree with you, I don't think we need to. If you can't reach a consensus then what are you gonna do. You still need to submit comments the question that I'm trying to raise is that these comments where submitted with out us knowing that we where submitting comments. It just seems to me you know if somebody where to ask me did we submit comments my answer would be no. I don't know about the other Committee Members. Marcy: Yeah, your accurate position will be well I commented in the prior meeting but I don't think of that as a position statement I'd be those are just my comments. Landers: Sure what if I was (inaudible ) and depressed. Just wouldn't be the same as submitting comments, I mean this would be intentionality and at least self awareness about that and it maybe appropriate to use the (inaudible). But that question should be brought to us do we want to submit the minutes as comments do we want to review a summary and then vote on what there needs to be that kind of intentionality. Judd: Madam Chairman would I, would somebody be able to make a motion that we adopt a formal comment in a recording of the comments other than the minutes to be used for our comments and presentation. Molly: I think that would be appropriate Judd: Then I would like to move to make that motion. Marcy: That we would formalize our comments prior to the City Council Meeting and by e- mail I suppose we would all agree to sign off on those comments and send those forward from us not through staff but from directly to the Council Landers: Can I make friendly amendment to say in the future our policy should be that the comments that the City shouldn't take anything as comments from this Committee unless we have approved them. Judd: Approved comments, I would see to have that happened I add that to the motion. Molly: Okay Mark: May I ask for just a bit of clarification so, you guys are gonna summarize your comments and get them to us for an inclusion in the packet for Council. At this point and time, I will let you know that I will not be able to get to Council with the summarized notes CIAC Meeting, 11/9/06 7 and change the Council Action Form and Resolution for the meeting that was to be November 20th which with that in mind that the next meeting would be December 6th which will only give Council one session I believe to act. So my instructions that's fine but my instructions are where to buy more time for you and myself and so what we'll do as your comments come in I'm gonna actually when I get back to the office today rewrite a (inaudible) and a Resolution to extend everything as it is until June 31, 2007. Which means we have time and we don't have to rush if we have some time to act. But they I can't get it in and I'm looking to you Marcy. The dead line was last Friday to get in the information and so I already assumed and presumed and developed everything based on but we can move forward that way. I just want to let you know. Its okay cause its just business but, that is gonna be my direction at this point and time. I'll pull off that Agenda Item for the 20th I will go back to Council on the 6th to extend some time and that will give us some time to put things together because we have to have Action by Council either Action or No Action. In other words they agreed that no Action is needed not further updated are needed by the end of this year. So that just so we don't get in a bind and then we can come back at anytime once we have that extension in place. Molly: For the packet? Judd: I understand Molly: Okay, then your saying if we, to file our written comments for the December 6th meeting you would have time. I know you want to extend this for six (6) your still gonna extend it for sixth months. Mark: Yup I'm gonna write the extension lets almost have a simultaneous type process. It would, if we have the comments in and the recommendation goes forward and everything is perfect at Council things could move quickly. But let's just have a back up plan and the back up plan is my instructions are to move forward with the Capital Resolution that extends it for sixth (6th) more months. Which buys us Council gives them some time too, because I have a feeling that there is going to be some deliberation on this matter at Council. Okay Molly: Okay Mar% So your going to shoot then for the City Council Meeting on Monday, December the 4 h. Mark: On Monday the December 4th, I am going with the Council Resolution and (inaudible) the is going to extend for sixth (6th) months and the sixth (6th) months is a standard. That doesn't mean that we can't go back to Council in between that time. Marcy: You may want to say no longer than sixth (6th) months so. Molly: Does somebody want to clarify the Motion that before us so that we can make sure that we have that right in our minutes. (Inaudible everybody was talking at the same time) CIAC Meeting, 11/9/06 8 Judd: Okay if you'd like, I'll take a stab at it. The CIAC would like to formally adopt, a process by which within five (5) days of our meeting we submit written comments as to our dissensions or discussions during the meeting as they relate to I guess whatever we're working on as it relates to our duties through the meeting. Marcy: Clarification as to how you would do this, would each of you individually submit the comments to the Board President and then the Board President would compile those into one document? Or would you like to submit them to staff and have staff. Molly: NO, well I think if I would suggest that between the Chairman or myself that we could collect the comments and put them into a meaningful form for the to be forwarded onto the Council. We could do that. Judd: So each individual member would submit there comments up the Chair or Co-Chair. They would review compile resubmit them back to us for sing off or approval then the back up then forward back. Molly: That's sounds right to me Judd: So we would individually do that, so adding to that Motion. We would individually submit written comments to the Chair or Co-Chair, which he or she will review, compose, compile and request our individual approval and forward to the, who would be the appropriate person? I don't know who the appropriate person would be Molly: Do you want to run this through each time you know we'll have different divisions should it go through Legal, should it go through Judd: Yeah, where should the CIAC submit their comments too? The written comments Marcy: If I would suggest it, if the comments pertain to Parks then I would suggest they go to Brian Denmark. If the comments pertain to Utilities Development Impact Fees then I would suggest they go to Jorge, if that idea sounds agreeable. Judd: Does that make sense? So, then we would submit our written comments formally to the Department Heads for which they apply. Mark: Just a point of clarification would they need to become part of the permanent record then for the minutes. So we would have to make sure that we have that CC or Judd: So they could be attached to the minutes? Mark: Exactly Judd: Our concern I think and at least my concern is that often times the minutes have inaudible or things that you can't really decide for what was really said and this way we can clarify in our comments and they should (inaudible) back to the minutes. Mark: And you and I both talk with our hands and no one can see that. CIAC Meeting, 11/9/06 9 AM Molly: Okay after that long winded motion I have or do you Landers: Or do we want to do this Amendment or do we want to do that as a separate. Molly: What you said is that we Landers: I think summarizing it would be Judd: Would you like to have an opportunity to restate the Motion than at this point. Okay Landers: In the future, our Policy will be that when the City requires written comments from this Committee, the Committee should approve the comments before the submission. Molly: Okay Judd: So do we have an up for a Motion and a second at this point? Landers: You made the Motion Judd: I made the Motion I can't make the second Molly: You made the Motion you can second it. Okay, so the Motion passes. Good, good that. Well, that sort of addresses on page two (2) the fifth not really because I think we're in I don't know that going back to that filing our written comments I think Marcy explained that you in the past or in maybe in this particular situation used our minutes from the prior meeting for the Public Hearing and at our last meeting we established that those minutes weren't approved. So, do we need to do anything it seems retroactively or a Public Hearings happened and it's done. So Mark: May I Molly: Yes Mark: At this point, what I see is a scenario playing out as we're going to ask Council or go to Council with an extension in other words we're gonna say no further action updates to the Plans need to be done for no longer than June 30th of 2007 and so the Public part of this process is just, it was just a Public part of the process. It hasn't been concluded there is no seal, there is no finalization to it, it ends. We extended it through November 17tH we'll take comments on them but, then Council so if so chooses to make not decision excuse me, make a decision that no updates to the Plans need to be made its just a piece of the process, correct? Molly: Right Marcy: I see that your gonna have to have another Public Hearing because of your time period. You have to have a Public Hearing and then you have to with in thirty, (30) days take it to Council. So, you have your drive run with the Public Hearing, then you'll have to CIAC Meeting, 11/9/06 10 have another Public Hearing but that Public Hearing will have your formalized comments as part of the documents that are reviewed there. Judd: And we will have an improved notification system on that as well. Marcy: Yes, because there was a concern last time that you all didn't receive individual notice on when the Public Hearing was that could opt to attend and answer any questions if need to be addressed. Molly: But and you know I think we included the City Councilors being notified as well as any other interested parties that usually come to these meetings which are very few but that seems to be appropriate. Those are the people that care most about this minor Committee. Going to maybe this has been answered it was the on page two (2) service areas and you have broken the City into four (4) general areas. The Section 336 ? Would seem to indicate the description of the Capital Improvements in the service area is required further that same section requires "An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage, commitments for usage of capacity of the existing Capital Improvements." Is that particular information and Mark maybe you can answer this in the other documentation. Judd: There's some confusion because of the language I think is the issue. We call it the Ordinance of Service Area and I think you guys are calling it Level of Service and we're not sure that that's what the confusion is but. Molly: Since Level of Service really isn't a term in the Ordinance anywhere. We were looking at what maybe you would explain that how that information is somewhere documenting how we get to these projects and funding levels. So that we understand that, better I guess it's not particularly clear to me. Marcy: It appears that Level of Service is a Park Concept it's not a Utility Concept you know that talks in terms of what you need to get a certain level of utilities service you need two (2) wells as opposed to one (1) well. It seems to be unique to Parks and Mark: Let me take a stab at this. Service Area in general terms is the City and it's the City as we grow that's the Service Area. The Level of Service is how much of each thing we provide to our Service Area and so that Level of Service and I know it gets a bit confusing but, the Level of Service is a Park Term that determines how many acres per thousand (1000) or per unit that we provide and that's simply the way now what we've done is we've broken the City into four (4) distinct geographical areas. Just to show you that where the development occurs the dollars and cents that are collected match as if we have (inaudible) districts. Which also gives us the flexibility so, we've taken these general service areas which is the entire City broken in four (4) quadrants to show you that the dollars and cents that are collected are directly going back into those areas for providing extra or the Level of Service. Landers: So the Level of Service question as she mentioned is not in the Ordinance so am I right in thinking that the Ordinance requires a that there be some rational fee in the rationality of using this Level of Service which, is constantly or there maybe some other CIAC Meeting, 11/9/06 11 possible rationality being used. So it doesn't really need to be part of the Ordinance it just needs to be there in terms of being rational (inaudible) for setting fees. Mark: There's mention of not being able to increase the Level of Service. You know you can't just arbitrarily grow as long as we reduce the Level of Service within our CIP with Department Development Fees then we are okay we can just move forward with it maintain or reduces. I think we're at a 2.54 acres and I apologize for not bringing that cheat sheet with me. But we are reducing that Level of Service with this proposed CIP down about and acre per thousand roughly. Molly: That's from your exhibit B, I do have that. Is that okay just clarifying that yeah it has the information. Marcy: And I might correct the Committee recommended the Level of Service that you wanted and there might be something comparable if you used Development Impact Fees for say Library. If you could decide what we want one (1) branch Library for every ten thousand (10,000) people and that would be the equivalent of the Level of Service and then somebody could say no yes. Cyndi: How many (inaudible) are we gonna have first. There are different ways of approaching Mark: That's where we get into the deeper part of the if we're talking acreage we're talking a neighborhood park with the general usually amenities. We're not gonna say two (2) drinking fountains you know two thousand square (2,000) feet of parking lot how can you get that specific. But we do get that's specific in the Capital Improvement Program and Plan when we design each park that's associated with it. Judd: I also just want to make a comment that I am still a little concerned about the lack of accountability for Commercial Applications. Just in thinking about those Commercial Applications that is should we be fortunate enough to land a large manufacture operation in our area, you know just as an example Intel in Albuquerque who employs a great number of people you know having open space and park near that may become the burden of the Tax payers of Las Cruces to produce if Commercial Development is completely exempt from having to provide any recreational space for their employees. You know Industrial Park for example a whole Industrial Park might be exempt from having any park or open space because there is no addressing the proportionality to Commercial Development and the need for open space and park areas. Mark: I think that that is probably one (1) question that we will have some time cause we are going to buy some time that Brian can bring back. I do not have a good grasp about the History of the Wise or you know what the Political Feel was. I do know that it was a reality in other areas where there's shared participation in all sectors of Development. I know that in other areas there isn't and as far as Las Cruces is currently it's been the direction so far. Single Resident, Multi-Family Resident has been the driving factor for Park Development Fees. Judd: And I understand that relationship there's no question that there is a relationship. However, often times it may not happen in this City but, it happens in other Cities often CIAC Meeting, 11/9/06 12 time Cities will create incentives to bring in some of these desired large Commercial Operations and while I personally support those incentives I would not to see them completely by-pass any of the quality of life issues that result from their impact in our Community and if we could allow them participate in someway in at least Parks and open Space Development. I think it would be useful and helpful and I don't it would be (inaudible) to them coming to our Community and they may actually see it as bad but Marcy: Just as general background when the Legislature adopted this Act they required that all prior Impact Fees be replaced with the new ones prepared in compliance with the Act. So, prior to the Legislature adopting this State Statute in 1993, which became affective in 1995 they give you two (2) to do all the studies the City had Impact Fees for the Utility System and for Parks and the Park Fees had always just been assessed on properties that produce people, houses and apartment complexes, where as Utilities put their fees on anything that uses water or waste water and so that was on Commercial and Industrial. So they just continued that pattern when the Act became affective and we made our Ordinance after the Act. Park Fees continued to be just assessed on the Residential Sector of the Community I guess in theory because people use Parks and people are measured by houses and apartments. Where as in Utilities they impose on all Development Sectors because businesses use water and waste water. Whether that should be changed now that's up to the Committee, the Committee could recommend that the fees be looked at to assessed to Commercial and Industrial Development. It's potentially an additional source of revenue unless that theory was, well we keep the Level of Service the same, we just spread it over a broader group. Judd: My only interest is, is that it is a fair, level, and that all there's proportionality and that all participants participate. You know if Las Cruces is just a Bedroom Community for EI Paso Industrial Community obviously it's not necessary but it the alternate where to take place we would loose out and that's just my comment. Molly: So those are things we could address and should probably discuss in the future. Judd: Yes, we can discuss Molly: Okay I know I'm just dragging us out with this. Oh! Section 33D, Section 33 6-5 says the CIP should list "Anticipate it's sources of funding and dependent of the Development Impact Fees". I don' see that but perhaps you can tell me, well actually if this is now that I just got that. You see some bonding cycles and other things so that answers Mark: You'll over the right hand side, right. Judd: In this part of the CIP the Neighborhood Parks portion of it there is no listing of the funding sources Mark: This CIP is all Park Impact Fee, this CIP is a combination of Bond, Legislative, Park Impact Fees. So this is a stand alone Park Impact Fee this is everything together including Park Impact Fees and then to the right you'll see the funding sources. Trowbridge: I would Madam Chairman just make a suggestion CIAC Meeting, 11/9/06 13 Molly: Councilor Trowbridge: Key on there for PIF (Park Impact Fees) on the right hand column you have the funding source Mark: PIF is on there Councilor Inaudible everybody was talking at the same time. Mark: My apologies Trowbridge: You have the same embarrassing questions some times. What is it SAP's. Mark: Very good point and many times we'll use abbreviations and things that Molly: Yeah the alphabet, that's a good suggestion Councilor Thank you. Okay that answers that E, Section 33 6-513, says that the, CIP analysis of the total capacity the Level of Current usage and Commitments for usage of Capacity of the existing Capital Improvement quote "May be prepared by on a system like (inaudible) within the service area for each major category for Capital Improvements or facility expansion or the designated service area." Is this the scenario with the City divided into the four (4) general areas? I asked what about proportionality don't we need to be more specific more specific information on Service Areas for Projects or Service Unites or does this refer back to. Judd: Well if the service area is I guess is the whole City Molly: Then now that that's been explained I think I understand the answer to that. Commercial Development Judd's brought up, something we should discuss in the future. Does everybody feel comfortable with Park Fees Credits as there defined in the only place, I know there defined is in this exhibit "B" that was presented to the Public and we got in our last meeting or else I pulled out the internet Judd: Yeah we did have, we did have a discussion about that and of course, any place that I now see it referred to is in the Minutes. But, that, is where a Developer could opt to put in the park himself and after he credits and so forth is that is there gonna be maybe a more detailed clarification of how those Park Credits can work? We had one time talked about the ability of a Developer to be able to buy Park Credits from another Developer will that continue will there be some documentation that clarifies that procedure. Mark: That was one of the pieces that Brian explained that we would have to really detail it out and bring it back to the CIAC. That was the discussion that we had on whether a half (1/2) mile radius is that piece of that Level of Service or is it one (1) mile and how we want to address that and what other Cities are doing. So yes, it would be a piece that would have to be designed and we define it along the way. Molly: Well, yes it says in your notes CIAC will need to determine recommended distance so I just want to obviously again I guess we have some time to look at that so. Okay, we're getting through it. I think we addressed that number five (5) we decided to adopt written CIAC Meeting, 11/9/06 14 comments. Has the CIAC approved the Impact Fees study? I don't see anywhere in the passed minutes that we have. Judd: I don't think we approved Mark: If you recall the and you probably don't cause it was during transition. In order to give us guide to help us understand Levels of Service how much money to spend, how much money not to spend. We had a study made and that's the Park Impact Fees study and essentially it was just a tool. Take a look at how much money would it take to buy this piece, this piece, this piece and then it was really an exercise to give the CIAC and Staff and the General Public and Council information on exactly what things would cost if you wanted to have everything that you possibly could have and so from that we took those pieces the CIAC, the General Public and had to massage that and that's where we came up with the numbers. Strictly a tool Molly: Okay Judd: My understanding was is that an original document which was done by Green Play or Green Time, came back with a Park recommended Park Impact Fee of some forty-five hundred dollars ($4,500) so we where not willing to accept that as our Impact Fee Study. I think we only accepted or adopted portions of it if I remember correctly. Molly: Okay busted a mis-plat in my review but okay I understand no I know it was the Cadillac of a (inaudible) Impact Fees. Mark: And essentially what our direction was to the consultant was give us the full (inaudible) what would it be out there and develop it so that we have a true understanding of what every and all cost would be and we certainly got it. Molly: Yeah you did and it was very interesting illuminating setting. Number seven (7) we just Marcy did hand that out today. So I think in terms of questions I have specifically about the way we got where we are today our answered. Do the members have any questions or comments and does the Public? Cyndi: I'd like to ask a questions real quick. On page 24E I think you already answered that but (inaudible) Judd: Proposed CIP does not address service areas. Cyndi: No the second part of that Judd: I'm sorry Molly: The further the same section of the Ordinance requires "An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of capacity of the existing of Capital Improvement." Is that done is that in a document and is that somewhere in our documentation? Is that what you mean? CIAC Meeting, 11/9/06 15 Judd: It's the level I guess, it's getting at the level of current usage. Is what we're trying to determine. Mark: Correct Molly: Where is it, where is that, is that your question? Cyndi: Yeah Molly: Where would we find that? Judd: In other words would Green Play have addressed that in their study? Mark: Well the Park Master Plan will also identify the, I won't use the Level of Service it'll identify the needs that are out there. The current capacities and its one of those things that where how many, how do you get specific enough to say how many people is enough at a neighborhood park? It's really a tough thing to do so you have to kind of cross correlate the Level of Service with the needs analysis with the half (1/2) mile for (inaudible) mile that type of analysis and that is in the Park Master Plan and also identified in the Capital Improvement Program cause it identifies areas of the City that are insufficient in acreage per neighborhood marks and other things. Prim example we have indoor pool for Las Cruces. Molly: Does that answer your question Cyndi Cyndi: I guess I'm still confused if that's it says in the Ordinance if that supposed to be in the Capital Improvement Plan and you said (inaudible) in those two (2) things but it's not in either one of those two (2) things. But, it says it should be I'm just confused. If you said its that one (1) and this one (1) but that's not in either one (1) Judd: Could that information be used, in the future for example if the Level of usage is denoted somehow in our CIP, could that information be used in the future when determine new project? Mark: It is Judd: And it is, so would we want to have that adopted into our CIP. You know in other words the Community could review the CIP and that piece of information is a part of the CIP. Mark: Rather than give you a snap answer and off the top of my head let me do a little research cause I am not the (inaudible) of the Ordinance. Molly: If you know I think what Cyndi might be asking is if any including us any Public Citizen comes in and ask what the Capital Improvement is what do they get? What, I don't know what we get so they get that. That's not that's probably not sufficient. Judd: Ideally, we would have some justification, which is what I think that's asking for. It's a part of the Park Master Plan CIAC Meeting, 11/9/06 16 Mark: And that's in the Park Master Plan and the CIAC recommendation. Judd: Okay, can we create some (inaudible) document that includes that so when the General Public ask they see well this is the justification. Landers: Even if you just take the pages and have stapler Judd: Right, right exactly just someway to tie it back together. Is that what your asking for is that satisfactory? Mark: And probably to get a real good true frame work of it visit Young Park on Saturday afternoon at 2 o'clock. Judd: That could be an idea for you usage right. Mark: Yeah Molly: Okay thank you Mark for working on that. Any other comments questions from Members or the Public. Trowbridge: On this subject Molly: On this subject, yeah you can talk about something else in a little bit. Trowbridge: I wanted Public input just to invite everybody and let them know that on Thursday evening this evening there's a Public Hearing on Utility the formation of the Utilities Commission. It's a long phased process and it's kind of open ended and that will be at City Hall at 5p.m. today so that's just. I believe its 5 o'clock this evening. I didn't want to cut short your discussion Molly: No, thank you cause that's something we're headed for in the future or that information might be helpful to us. Trowbridge: Just to get some feed back from a Councilors' point of view the Public input section portion of this meeting. We're dancing around the Level of Service comes at and think its correctly identified as a (inaudible) I would go further to say that its almost Legal Justification there has to be some (inaudible) proof what the bases is, is not be seen as arbitrating (inaudible) argue the merits or those studies if that's what its substituted for. The Level of Service that has been referenced "X" let's just call it per thousand (1,000) residents becomes, I'll just give you and example in the last Land Use Meeting Mr. Thurston a well respected Developer came forward with a 210 subdivision request. Councilors because it was an annexation asked for ten (10) acres o land and so that land will come to us but it will be our responsibility the rate payers if you will to develop that park and what I'm just going to leave you with part is what we're missing in the formula is the unknown variable is the density. It really is gonna be a burden if that becomes developed at one acre parcels it will become a burden to the existing Community the Rate Payers if you will. If it is developed at twenty (20) units per acre fine, so that's what this gentlemen Mr. Johnson is having a difficulty projecting is he doesn't know what the final CIAC Meeting, 11/9/06 17 numbers will be. So that's part of the unknown the answer to that is a whole other discussion. How do we require more densities but, that's why you hear going on about densities that's what and that was part of the discussion. The other thing was that is was (inaudible) because in the last meeting I did not speak to the microphone as Mrs. Marshall I thought asked a very good question. But Mr. Denmark didn't have anything understood so I intercepted and tried to clarify that basically there is no matching mechanism in place and held by the Council to match Development Impact Fees for Parks. Thus if the Developers Park Impact Fees produces a $1,000.00 we're not producing we're not dedicating matching out let's say $200.00 that would represent the Rate Payers quotient of the future use of those parks. It would be and so that's another missing gap but I just throw those at you and let you know that I, Council recognizes a lot to be filled in here and how we divide those duties is anybodies guess. Thank you for listening. Molly: Thank you, is there anything else on this particular item that review and recommendation for Parks Capital Improvement Plan? If not is there a Motion on the floor or did we want Judd: Are we having a discussion of the Exhibit "B" Molly: Exhibit "B", which we actually didn't discuss Judd: Is that an Action Item? Is Exhibit "B" and Action Item for us today. Mark: It's a reference Item and as I understand at this particular point and time it would really be moved because we're gonna go forward with an extension to Council which gives us time to maybe answer the questions that are out there, come back take a look at it. Judd: I do have one question regarding it Exhibit "B" and I simply ask for a recommendation from Staff on how to address what I think potentially can become an issue. That is in the minimum standards for a neighborhood park there are some bullets in the body of that portion of the document that says 1.5 to 2.0 acre, twelve (12) improvement amenities required from the following list 2.1 to 2.5 acres sic (6) improvements amenities required from the following list. My question is, is that just an incentive to get that 1/10 of an acre more and less amenities? Because if I have to give up 1/10 of an acre and save six (6) amenities your always gonna get the 1/10 of an acre and the City is always gonna get six (6) less amenities. Mark: You will see that the final approval will be in the negotiating phase of that and if in fact the 2.1 and the deletion of everything on there is not equal out the dollars and cents and the City will say no thank you. There's a value and that's one of those things where we can't get it right down to every dollar and cent. Its gonna be a negotiation of pure negotiations throughout the development phase and here is a very good case and point, if you were going to bring in a development that was a tuned and tailored to the fifty-five (55) and older generation that is in the pure retirement that development around that will be completely different than the development that would want to see around Legends West. Judd: So there is a value formula as well? I understand and that makes sense I just am concerned from in that flexibility I would not want to on behalf of the Development CIAC Meeting, 11/9/06 18 Community set up a scenario that smacks and extortion you know, well I'll let you do this if you do that, because it's so flexible that literally we've just kind of created a nightmare. Because this year it will be Brian in charge and ten (10) years from now it will be a new guy that we don't know who it is yet and that flexibility has to have some controls in it to insure that it doesn't just become a I don't want to use the work extortion but it doesn't become a situation where the negotiation is so heavily weighted in the City's favor that the Developers simply to (inaudible) with what ever request is made to get you know to garner an approval. Mark: If I may there's to ways to answer the scenario. One (1) is the Developer always has the opportunity to pay the Park Impact Fee pure and simple. Council has final say on whether or not that development takes place and on what Level of Service is offered so there's a control mechanism. As Staff, we recommend our best professional opinions on things we try to work the best we can. Council is the final decision, CIAC is the recommending body. Molly: Okay so we have decided that we have some time to work on our recommendations and if there is no objections then we'll move on to number three (3) other items of interest. Which I do not know what they are but, you know we did unscheduled Dr. Garcia last time I don't know if you want to talk about rescheduling looking at our next upcoming project on Waste Water Improvements and if anyone wants to talk about that or what we might want to discuss in out next meeting. If there is any other items of interest. No, the should be though I don't even know if we need to discuss our next meeting date which I would be Christmas Judd: Would we just simply put it back on our normal third (3) Thursday schedule and that would be our next meeting date. Which by the way I might mention, by December will end up during the Christmas Holiday so I don't know if you want to address that. Molly: I'd love to come in on Christmas, how about you? Judd: Yeah, no problem I'll be here Molly: Well so if it is Christmas Marcy: The third (3) Thursday is the twenty-first, (21) of December it's in the Holiday Season. Judd: And also, the third (3) Thursday, well no we won't have an additional November meeting this is our November meeting is that correct? Molly: Yes, since we don't have anything of urgency right now, it's possible I can certainly talk with our other member that we could delay this until next year. Mark: January Molly: Right, and then get our briefing on Water, Waste Water and in addition to the Park, what we need to do on Park Impact Fees. So what we could do is talk amongst ourselves CIAC Meeting, 11/9/06 19 in between and come up with an agenda and a time but, I don't is there an agreement we don't need to meet in December since there is nothing urgent. Judd: I don't know unless there is something that the City is needing us to meet on in December. You know obviously if there is they can call a meeting but Molly: I guess the only thing again is one of our duties and we've discussed this briefly in one (1) of our meetings. I believe in August and that's filing Annual Reports, again I know Marcy you did a some analysis of our Charter but, number four (4) on our Charter says "File Annual Reports with respect to the progress of the Capital Improvement Plan and report to the City through its City Manger any Proceed Inequities in implementing the plan or Imposing Impact Fees." Marcy: We never done that Molly: No, I think you've never have been Judd: I don't believe that we've done that and just based on my year on the Committee, I'm not sure your gonna have a very productive document to put forward other than the Adoption of the Land Use Assumption because we did complete that. I think we also adopted the Park Impact, I don't think we adopted the Park Impact Fee Study so, we did not adopt that. Mark: And you do not have to it was a tool Judd: And we do not have to so yes Molly: One thing we could do its just a suggestion I mean I'd be willing to do it, is to go back and just review the minutes a year and see the highlights of what this Committee has done. In terms of making a repot to the City Judd: And at least that would get us back on track Molly: Back on track and then I think that we'd begin to fulfill one (1) of our duties such as they are. If that would be something (inaudible) to you and I know that that requires a Motion since that is part of our duties, but I would be willing to do that working with Kirk and run that by the members of the Committee and then have something on record and maybe we can start doing that as the Committee since it would appear it is one (1) of our duties. Judd: And we would submit that document to Molly: Well says to the City Manager, through the City Manger, I assume to the Council. Judd: That would be a good idea Molly: Okay do we need a Motion for that Inaudible everybody was talking at the same time. CIAC Meeting, 11/9/06 20 AMA Landers: I make the Motion that Molly review the minutes we have. And prepare a documents the City can review as our Annual report that we vote on that by e-mail or phone and submit that to (inaudible) Judd: I would second that Motion Cyndi: Your also gonna need it says that Progress of the Capital Improvement Plan, you're gonna need to get some information from Staff that's what you just read. That's not the minutes. Molly: Right, the progress of the Capital Improvement Plan Judd: That's this and perceived in equities Molly: Well Cyndi: You're not gonna find that in Molly: No, what do you mean we're gonna get need what would be progress of the Capital Improvement Plan from the City Staff? So, we'll ask you for such a thing. Judd: Well some of that actually can be obtained, through the minutes because we have discussion of the Improvement Plan going forward on each meeting. Cyndi: I think you need copies of the Capital Improvement Plan and then from Staff what's been accomplished over the year, right to see and then you proceed in equities would be like in the Ordinance it says your supposed to look at what's been completed and re- calculate Development Impact Fees to make sure they where fair. I would assume that that would be what that (inaudible) So do information from the Staff. Judd: And I think the members in the Committee also can provide some impute on the Molly: What in addition to then lets leave at that. What the minutes don't tell we'll need to get from City Staff one (1) of things we are getting and as we discussed earlier is what a Capital Improvement Plan is but, in order to fulfill this requirement we might need some information from City Staff. So I will be responsible for just asking you what goes if there Judd: May I restate what it is, is that we would add in addition to our progress report would be a review of the previous years Impact Fees any Expenditures of those Impact Fees and a Perceived Inequity or deficiencies as they relate to our responsibilities in the CIAC. Lori: Madam Chair, one that isn't specified in here does say Annual Report but it doesn't say which year we're talking about and I think one (1) of the issues is Staff is gonna come up with is that we're working on a fiscal year not a calendar year. So if you're looking to do this on a calendar bases that gonna require Staff to break all of their normal reporting in half and try to put together some sort of a cobbled report for you that is not gonna anything that is gonna line up with their normal recording mechanisms and so I would CIAC Meeting, 11/9/06 21 suggest that you might want to consider specifying when your year ends and lining that out with the City's fiscal year. Landers: I withdraw my motion then and Judd: And my second Inaudible everybody was talking at the same time. Lori: June is the end of our fiscal year July 1 thru June 301h Inaudible everybody was talking at the same time Mark: Might I suggest that a status update on Park projects, we provide it in May and they way it coincides with the fiscal year responsibilities that we have. It would simply at least in my opinion would simply be taking our CIP our total CIP for the City and giving you an update on each one (1) of those projects. Then if in fact there are additional projects which there are at times on the Park Development Fees CIP because many of those will fall below the thresh holed of Capital Improvement they might be small minor improvements to parks two-thousand (2,000), three thousand (3,000) four thousand (4,000) dollars. We can come back with that information to in the May thing if the Committee thinks that would be reasonable. Molly: Do you want to redo this Motion. Make the most Judd: Well I think we'll withdraw of the Motion is probably sufficient and we can address it on the next, on the next meeting. Its actually working towards getting on an Annual Review Process and following the City's Fiscal year. Rather than trying to address that Molly: Okay gotcha good. Anything else Councilor you had your hand in the air did you have anything you wanted to say. Trowbridge: No, I thought that was a good suggestion for May because in May we Council submit on June 1St to the State our Capital Improvement Plan. There is always a lot of discussion and (inaudible) because their projects when we get on the list. So, a clearer definition that document will serve it's purpose in (inaudible). Because they don't follow necessarily the list when the completion is. The key to the right hand column one (1) of the funding sources so that was Mark: I would ask the Council excuse me the Committee to give us a little latitude if in fact our reporting mechanism has to be April in order to meet Councils directives for May then we'd like to come back so that we do it one (1) time. Correct Trowbridge: That's like the pre-budget report and then I would just suggest you could define the terms you could either color coat it but it could be out its been contracted designed list different categories that would probably see sufficient for Council but might not be for this (inaudible) CIAC Meeting, 11/9/06 22 Molly: Thank you Councilor well I think we can discuss that at a future meeting and again reviewing what's required and the Ordinance we can certainly request that I'm sure that Staff can meat our requirements to file such an Annual Report. Next meeting date should to get back to that should I just stay January do you want to say the third (3` ) Thursday of January. Marcy: Comment about that date, Jorge and I will not be available cause we have a week long trial beginning on Thursday, January the 18tH Molly: Okay Judd: In fact since its been a long hiatus maybe we want to make this meeting the second (2"d) week of January to kick us off the New Year and get us within your time frame Molly: At this point of course it would be the eleventh (11th) of January. Okay lets do that and then we'll work with you guys and Staff on an Agenda and Kirk. Five (5) Public Participation, do we have any Public Participation that we haven't already covered? Judd: The eleventh (11th) Molly: Do we have a Motion to Adjourn? Landers: Second it. Meeting adjourned at approximately 11:15 a.m. Molly Kr CIAC Vice-Chair CIAC Meeting, 11/9/06 23