good good evening everybody and welcome
to the June 26th meeting of the planning
policy commission welcome all of you out
there uh tonight the first thing on our
agenda is approval of the minutes from
June the 12th do I have a motion to
approve the
minutes do I have a second is there any
discussion any changes all those in
favor say I I
opposed uh tonight we're going to have a
continuation of discussion on the
comprehensive Plan update tonight Jason
is going to give us an update on the
utilities and public services element
and the capital facilities element so
Jason we're waiting for your update okay
thank you uh good evening I'm Jason
Rogers associate planner with the
development services department and
we'll talk about the as as joanes said
we'll talk about the uh utilities
element and the capital facilities
element um so we we'll we'll reviewed
the revised draft so we looked at this a
month ago you gave us a lot of comments
and so we've made um some changes to
some of the goals and we've also added
in all of the policies um that that we
touched on but didn't really talk about
last
time just a quick reminder of the new
format we're looking at you've seen this
I think four or five times by
now and and then here's the basics again
so we've looked at goals um now we're
going to look uh more at the policies
that we've stuck in um and we're not
going to worry too much about
implementation at this
time so we'll start with the utilities
element
here and this is just a rehash of of
what you saw before about why the
utilities element is important um it's
talking about all of the um all the
utilities we have the sewer the water um
garbage things like that and how we
provide the service within City Limits
and also to how we would we would
provide service to potential annexation
areas um if they were to be annexed
the vision has not changed um there's
still a four-fold vision we'll ensure
that everything's maintained and
improved we'll coordinate the utilities
in our public
facilities um will encourage
conservation efforts and will'll provide
efficient and cost- effective um Public
Services um we won't don't need to go
over the GMA requirements unless you
have a specific question about them um
these have of course these have not
changed state law hasn't
changed so then we can get get into the
actual goals and so this first goal
hasn't um is the same goal you saw a
month ago let me find my text here and
there are seven policies that support
this particular goal and you can see
them starting on page 19 of your packet
I didn't list them on the PowerPoint
because that would be extremely
wordy um but like I said this this goal
um itself hasn't changed but what what
we did is the the former second goal
that you saw last month is gone and a
lot of it's been incorporated into this
goal and that's been incorporated as
policies and so for
example let me look up what we what I
showed you last month so last month the
second goal was saying facilitate the
provision of
reliable uh reliable utility and public
services that um that balance public
concerns over the potential safety and
health and it goes on for quite a while
that's now policy A2 under this goal um
because that was that wasn't really a
goal that's more a policy of how we want
to do things um and then the what we
then did is we pulled I pulled a lot of
the um policies that are present in in
the utility element today and
Incorporated them under this umbrella um
some of them have been rewarded I don't
want to go through all of them
explicitly but uh certainly if you have
a question about specific policy we put
in here I'd be happy to talk about it
okay we can always come back to this too
so uh the second goal goal B here uh
says the utility and land use plans
should be integrated to ensure utility
services are available to support
development and um this this goal was
present before it used to be number I
think was
it uh this used to be goal number four
so goal three was also removed and it's
now integrated under this goal three
formerly said process permits and
approvals for utility facilities in a
fair and timely manner again that
doesn't seem like much a goal that's a
policy that we should do and so this got
integrated under under this um so this
goal is now talking a lot about being
consistent with other
plans um and there are just there's only
two policies that support this this
particular goal we could certainly add
more we could take some take one of them
away um but the two policies are like I
said process the permits and approvals
you a fair timely manner and the second
one is require annexations before
extending City Public Services with the
exception that extensions outside the
city the city may be made in response to
a health emergency or threat to the city
aquifer that's a policy we have today um
it's a been long-standing City policy to
to do that um people make requests to
get city water Andor sewer services for
example mostly on East cougar Mound City
policy says we can't do that without an
annexation and um you okay uh there was
a um one change we made during our last
policy I forget to which section but I I
believe we expanded it um in terms of
response to just health or emergency
threat to the aquafer uh to City
resources more generally so that we
could respond to any um threats to those
resources rather than just limiting it
right okay I'll make that
note too many drafts running around
which city resour
okay any other comments
questions all right um so goal
C uh this is provide for the city's
long-term water needs um so this this
goal hasn't again this goal has not
changed this is the same water utility
goal you saw last time and I and while
it's long um part of the issue with the
with especially the specific water and
SE utility is that there are specific
plans for this we decided to move away
from Simply repeating all of the same
policies that are in the individual
utility plans and trying to to
streamline it down um the water utility
is still tricky though um so the goal
hasn't changed we cleaned up the
discussion a little bit in the in the
element itself and we've got it down to
13 policies and there used to be I don't
even 20 something policies I believe
specific to water um so there was some
so we did quite a bit of
consolidation see here
sewer oops that's not the right
section no I'm sorry there were there
were 34 policies now there are 13 so we
did a lot of streamlining um we left the
implementation items out because the
utility system plans talk about
implementation fairly specifically um it
they talk say for example specific
measures to take to address fir flow
issues in certain water service areas of
the city um they talk about where uh
specific improvements to reservoirs
might be made might need to be made for
future um service expansion or you know
formerly at least for seismic safety you
know in response to the to the Nali
earthquake and and on and on and on
those things aren't necessary to have in
the conference of plan necessarily
they're um and so we we took those out
uh we did add a the policy the last
policy for this number 13 does
incorporate all of the policies of the
water system plan by reference so that
they're still technically in the
conference of plan even if they're not
specifically listed
anymore so we still have that connection
between the the system plan and the
comprensive
plan um I just have um one question I'm
not seeing anywhere in these policies a
specific uh reference to conservation
generally um I know there's an
encouragement of low impact
development um but nothing where we're
uh incorporating into the plan uh
conservation as a general principle or
policy we all right where'd it
go I thought we had that in
there that's
police I'm I'm sure it's in the water
system plan I mean I know it's a
requirement for water system plans to
have a actually a chapter on water use
efficiency by mandate so I mean yeah
it's not maybe in the comprehensive plan
but it's in the water system plan so
therefore it's in the comp plan sort of
I think the other challenge we we have
especially when it comes to conservation
items is there's there's a bit of a
moving Target with some of the
sustainability conservation items right
now because we're still kicking around
whether we want to have a completely
separate sustainability element of the
compens of plan or if we're going to
break all the various sustainability
goals and policies into um the component
elements uh so and I think that came up
during the land use discussion
especially where current today there's a
lot of things about sustainability that
are in the land use element even though
that may not be the best place for them
and so conservation is certainly
important and sustainability is
important we get at some aspects of it
in in some ways you we'll see it a
little more in the capital facilities
element um but that's something we'll
definitely keep in mind that if we don't
end up going that direction we'll make
sure to get some some more explicit
policies in here thank
you
okay uh this the goal for the sewer
utility um there it go this so This goal
got cut down a little bit uh it formerly
had some extra text talking about
through implementation of the policies
within the sewer system plan that's kind
of redundant
because that's the whole point here is
we we're going to we have these policies
we're going to make them happen so
deleted that that got added uh we added
again a reference to the sewer system
plan policies um in here it's the it's
the third of the policies cleaned up the
discussion a little bit um the sewer
system plan is
surprisingly um or or at least the
policies for it there like I said
there's only three because a lot of the
sewer things ultimately come down to
implementation and a lot of things are
contained within the sewer system plan
itself that don't necessarily need to be
related
here so one so some of the big ones is
simply that within the city limits we
want you to connect to the Sewer if at
all possible and we we discourage septic
systems U that's not to say you can't
have a septic system but we want people
to be on City
sewers all right uh surface water
drainage again this this goal got cut
down quite a bit because there were
references to the isqua creek
Basin and non-point action plan there's
the storm water management plan the
npdes um Phase 2 permit none of that
needs to be in the goal because those
are all policy items implementation
items and so those got removed from the
goal so the goal is reads a lot shorter
than it used to um those items made it
in as policies so policy E1 in this case
says
Implement those various plans I just
listed um and we can update that if we
ever adopt any any new plans talking
about how we want to protect the
Watershed and um and the lake and things
like that we clean the discussion again
we clean the discussion up a little bit
there's a there's still a couple
references to figures that we will um
finalize later this year when we get the
figures sorted
out um and then this again the policy is
a lot of talk about Implement
implementing these various plans and
then coordination uh so you know
coordinate with property owners along
the Creeks to deal to address um
flooding for example um coordinate with
with other
agencies private
utilities we didn't change this goal um
and we inser the policies there's five
of them uh one of them is about
soliciting Community input on the
sighting of proposed facilities which
could have significant impacts uh this
is especially appropriate uh I don't
know some of you may know that P sound
energy is currently in the process of
trying to site a new East Side
transmission line through Ron Newcastle
and bellw which and they're just
starting the process it is of course
contentious because people don't
necessarily like having power lines
running through their backyards and
these are big high voltage power lines
so that's just one example of a
situation where we would want you know
the utility to do significant public
Outreach and try to work with
communities to to site these facilities
in the best manner possible um another
policy is to require undergrounding
where it's reasonably feasible I know
that language is
pretty it it sounds very rubbery but
under you know undergrounding is
expensive and um it's not always
feasible in every place because
sometimes the impact of digging a giant
a giant trench in the ground is bigger
than having an ongoing visual impact but
that's a trade-off that you need to
analyze um
um and then we also included a policy to
talk about being consistent with the
city's land use goals and Regional
goals uh just to keep everything try to
keep everything pulling together and be
consistent with each
other for solid waste um this one this
goal got cut down just a little bit that
the very last sense in the former goal
which was encourage Solid Waste
reduction reuse and
recycling um throughout the city with
new construction that got pulled out and
it's now a policy under the goal um and
you can see that on the screen there
yeah um I just had uh one one issue with
this uh in the first paragraph we refer
to um Organics as yard debris and food
waste and then we switch back and just
um within the future conditions talk
about Recycling and yard debris
specifically rather than Organics so
just changing that to Organics
throughout for consistency all right
thank you
yeah and we looked for updated number so
in the discussion you know in the future
conditions that we're using a 2008
number and we're still looking for an
updated number from from the office of
sustainability but we haven't gotten it
as of when I had to put this together so
we will get that updated by the end of
the
year for public
services um again this goal got
significantly cut down used to be close
to a whole paragraph in length now it's
we we tried to make it the short concise
sentence talking about we just want to
provide police fire and emergency
medical needs that's a pretty succinct
goal um this the part of the sense we
removed is now again a policy there's
three policy oops I'm looking at the
wrong thing there are five policies
excuse
me um a lot of it's about coordination a
lot of it's about support in the you
know the fire department the police
department and so again pretty
straightforward essential public
facilities has not changed at all um and
the and the policies the three policies
we carried them over directly from the
existing comprehensive plan this is
something we don't like to address in
very much because the the requirements
under state law are pretty are fairly
specific um and so we don't actually
have a lot of leeway when it comes to
essential public
facilities we do include policies to to
try to have them be as comp you know as
compatible with our land use plans as
possible recognizing that sometimes
that's not necessarily
possible and then finally um we're still
reviewing the information technology
goal um simply ran out of time we're
still working through the the technology
task force recommendations
and there's and so that's that takes
some time to work through and there's
still some some other ongoing efforts
around the city that we're trying to to
plug into this well so we'll bring this
back in a lat the information technology
Parts back at a later
date so that is all of utilities and I
know we rolled through that a little
quickly so if anybody has questions I
can take them or I can move on to
Capital
facilities all right
um didn't change the vision GMA
requirements are still the GMA
requirements unfortunate fortunately or
unfortunately so on to the
goals
and let me go
here so this first goal um didn't change
from the last month um where this gets
and then we pulled in a lot some of the
existing policies four of them
specifically that really address this
goal so the first one and perhaps most
important one is have a six-year Capital
facilities plan um this is important
because this is how we essentially
implement this entire element this is
how we
identify where our public facilities are
what their capacities are are there
deficiencies how would we deal with
growth if it were to come and so this
that specific Capital facilities plan is
is the most important part so that's why
we identify it first and then we just
list off it's essentially a listing of
the GMA requirements I noted back here
how would you finance it um reassess the
land use element you have to have the
inventory the forecast and the locations
and
capacities so very rote but very
necessary under state
law uh goal B talks about level of
service
standards and this one
um again didn't change from last
month uh but there's 10 policies
underneath this and we really Tred to
consolidate some of the policies because
there there were quite there are quite a
lot of um Capital facilities policies
not all of which are actually fully
relevant this
one simply sets the level of service for
every Capital facility type we have so
it talks
about water it talk then it talks about
storm water management it talks about
sewer and then and and on Down the Line
we include references to say SM Plateau
Water and Sewer District were necessary
so yeah uh under B1 um that use of that
word
domestic um I I think we're referring to
that as GE Geographic but the term could
also mean um you know household as
opposed to business and I just want to
ensure that that's clear that we're um
ensuring a reliable water supply not
just for housing but for businesses as
well that that's the implic so under the
the way the water system plan is set up
that's what it means um we're not
looking to provide we're not looking to
provide irrigation water I think is the
major differentiation
here but I'll I'll check with Public
Works about changing their the wording a
little bit see if and see if that can
work for
them Jason yeah in uh policy
B7 yes uh there's one officer for every
every 800 1 76 calls and 145 criminal
investigations what
if it explodes and there more do you
more
officers um yeah are there more cost do
you add more police how do you change
the so so that number comes straight out
of the current police rate um police
impact rate
study uh and so that's that was analyzed
by a one of our Consultants who also
works who works for the on all of our
level of service and impact fees and
things like that and so that's and I'll
admit that the rate study at this point
is from 2008 I believe so it's somewhat
old
um we're not the C so the the city is
not necessarily locked into specifically
providing one for 876 this is a metric
that informs the council that hey this
is the standard we've set this is the
standard we we've researched and found
works for the city and so if we start
getting more calls for Serv maybe that
means we need more police officers but
if we get fewer maybe it means we're
doing a great job and you know we don't
we don't need to hire a police officer
instead of may we thought we did okay I
just want to make sure it wasn't tied
into those numbers and that you could
change or do whatever you yeah we we
definitely
can
um so practically speaking it does for
example the the number of the number of
total calls for service over the last
five or six years has actually remained
very static as the city has continued to
grow and expand and so by the level of
by the level of service metric we don't
need to hire more police officers and
fact matters we haven't really hired
that many police officers in the last
five years but we but we've hired can't
remember the number it's it's a couple
of new officers because the city is
physically you know the city's
physically a little bit larger um
there's more activity around
and
so the the difficulty with especially
with for police level of service is that
police officers are not
Capital you don't go out and just you
know buy a robot and that's your police
officer you buy you know police officers
are people and so the rat what the rate
study actually does is it
relates um this all back to police cars
because cars are capital and the general
standard is two officers per car and so
that's how we kind of back into a level
of service for police in a in a Capital
facilities manner um it's a little
awkward I will admit um but what that
lets you do is it lets you um you know
they could change the standard and say
we're going to have three officers per
car we're going to have one officer per
car and that would really mess with the
with this standard but it's it works and
we're as it turns out we're doing just
fine on the level of service metric so
it does very it does vary um quite a bit
year to year but overall we're fine and
and maybe the concern is the that we're
not capturing that there is that ability
to fluctuate you know as we're doing
better than those levels now um maybe
that's a problem with the goal in terms
of expressing that these are minimal
level of service standards and not not
the
cap right
um yeah we could see
here so I mean if if the goal was
suggest set minimal level of service
standards or to be used um I think that
would cor would help us all with yeah
building in that fluctuation well and I
think the I mean ultimately the langu
the language does say shall be used to
evaluate adequate level of service
doesn't say this is you are you must
provide this period end of story um it's
it's an evaluation tool not
a not a a hard this is it because then
we'd have if you did that we'd see you
know you could theoretically see some
year-to-year fluctuations where okay
we've got a lay off of police officer oh
now we have to next year we have to hire
two police officers you know and that's
not good for anything um B6 and B7 are
the Crux of my concern uh as the uh
Central esqua plan goes into effect uh
and high density becomes a reality uh
are the standards for fire protection as
well as uh police protection
realistic I don't know as I said there
so the rate study for fire service is
actually very old it's almost 15 years
old now because it um predates Eide fire
and rescue we we've had to keep it
around because we need a way to analyze
fire service for the city if it had a
separate fire department um in practice
that's clearly not the way we operate
East Side Fire and Rescue who determines
whether they're meeting their response
times and things like that and so um
this is again this is informational it's
not something that we're locked into um
we have a brand new fire station on
Maple Street next to the transit center
they've got some nice equipment
there as population grows especially as
we implement the centrala plan East Side
Fire is probably going to have to
acquire some different equipment to be
able to to deal with um the types of
buildings we're looking to have you know
fighting a fire in a large
residential apartment structure is
pretty is somewhat different from
fighting a single family home fire and
they'll have to address that
but whether they need more fire stations
or not is you know that's what this
level of service metric addresses
specifically
um
and my concern is a little bit different
your standards are being
developed uh Based on data after the
fact
uh high density uh May demand uh
anticipation rather than uh followup
afterwards in other words what I'm
saying is that high density will produce
a higher potential for uh for fire uh
disastrous fire and high density will
perhaps create an increase in crime we
don't know that but I think we have to
anticipate the possibility yeah and and
and we do anticipate it um you know for
fire specifically you know multif family
structures T generally require
sprinklers that reduces fire danger
significantly for just for one example
so while this is the level of service
metric there's very very specific things
that are done when reviewing permits
that address some of these issues that
make it so that because the level of
service is a very very high
level
metric and when you get to the specifics
there's some a lot of things we do or
don't
do um within that yeah mik so I I really
started this discussion based on just
can we change and expand and and if
there are problems and more people and
more uh the demand for more services
that uh we are not restricted to this we
can go and plan in the future but how
often do you update the comp plan the
comp plan is updated every year okay so
next year if we have a problem and it
looks like we're going to get more
problems in the city then you can adjust
this at that time which means that the
uh budget will be adjusted based on the
need for new
Services yeah yeah I think I think the
question kind
of Falls around the word shall be and
that is that it's a fixed number you
know the protection shall be per five
acres five five square miles but if you
take five square miles of single family
homes or five square miles of of
condominium developments they're totally
two different things right I think
that's what might be the concern yeah
yeah I would point out that the current
you know that that point well the the
one per five square miles is based you
know like I said it's somewhat old but
it's still based on significant parts of
the city were residential significant
parts of the city were commercial
develop
and so in aggregate it works
out
um and and like like Jan was pointing
out this can be reevaluated in the
future it's likely it will um one thing
we need to do is we do need to update
the rate studies every so often it's
been a while due to a variety of factors
but uh for example we're updating the
transportation the transportation rate
study and the concurrency model um
that's been going that's been going on
for a little over a year and we're
trying to have it done by the end of
this year we're looking at the parks
impact fee and rate study this year as
well and so we are slowly starting to
update these and bring them more into
compli you know more more into
conformance with what's on the ground
now and what the city's plans are for
the future
so I do want to go on record as uh as
saying that we need to be concerned in
terms of what we're going to do if in
other words consider possible worst case
and be able to uh have plans for how
we're going into Finance
whatever uh additions
changes uh increase in infrastructure is
necessary and this goes across the board
by the way it's not just police and fire
protection it's sewage it's uh it's all
infrastructure uh I I'm concerned that
the plan is a good plan but the
implementation has to anticipate worst
case okay any other questions I
question
yes curious if there's if we're also
doing a square footage type of level of
service concerned that if we keep
growing and we kind of forget that
element that you know we're not going to
have enough open space I'm just kind of
curious how that's Incorporated so the
parks level of service was set where it
is because it gives the council
significant flexibility in how
they in in what they do with the money
right and and I so I like that that it's
there but when it comes to you know a
level of service I'd like to see how
many how much open space there is per
capita and and kind of get a
quantifiable measure there let me see I
think
and we took and we're taking the all
these tables out because they're they're
problematic to update they're
problematic to update on the conference
of plan cycle um but
the the parks level of service standards
and this dates back to the um the rate
study which is
from I don't know when the last rate
study is um and this is being updated
now but um in the current comp
Conference of plan table CF 14 here let
me
see there so so this is this is the
table from the um this is in the current
conference plan and this shows back when
the rat say was in I can't remember the
date for this to be honest looks like
2006 um what we had how many square feet
how many
uh and it doesn't break it down per
capita it breaks it into a dollar value
because this is how the rate study was
functioning but the information does
exist the parks department does actually
have keep a a list of you know how many
Community Parks do we need like
Confluence Park for example how many tot
Lots do we need and they do strive to at
Le proposed projects that would get us
there but you know for example in the
recent economic environment it's been
very advantageous to the city to buy
land so we oops
um so we bought a lot of land um C you
know recently we've we've spent a lot of
money on Confluence Park because you
know that we we recognize the need for a
large park in that area of the city the
central qua plan talks about the variety
of different neighborhood parks that are
going to be necessary around those
different areas as they grow and so
we've certainly taken it into taken it
into account it it isn't necessarily
reflected in at at this very high level
in the conference of plan yeah but but
specific plans do take this into account
um I think when uh the you guys are
supposed to see the parks element I
believe at your next meeting and so
there'll be more detail about how we
plan for parks at that point
okay
okay we all good on level of
service okay um goal C States quite
simply
correct existing deficiencies this is a
little bit of a this is again com from
the growth management act it's one of
the things we're required to do and so
the policies under under this goal talk
about we need an inventory we have to
identify solutions to identify
deficiencies and we have to have a
prioritized strategy for correcting the
deficiencies and that strategy has to be
consistent with the land use element and
and its
goals um goal
D um really quickly going back to goal c
um now I know when we discussed this on
I believe it
was May
22nd
um and I don't think we had the direct
policy in front of us inventorying the
facilities and services at least in
terms of the parks plan where we had a
table that showed uh how that goal
dollar was set um there wasn't any
inventory presented is this a new
requirement under the GMA or is this
something that had existed and we just
haven't seen this is something something
that's existed for a long long time um
the the inventories have always existed
but they've been scattered amongst
various plans the idea here is to pull
it all into the capital facilities plan
itself rather than having um so so
there's a you guys may not have seen but
there's a volume two to the conference
plan itself which has a lot of the
background data it has at the time it
was adopted of course but it has that in
that huge inventory of all the capital
facilities there's a map um
will look like a whole lot of
nothing so that looks like a whole lot
of nothing at that zoom level but that's
the map that's in the current Conference
of plan but it doesn't actually show
everything that shows a lot of the
facilities um you know for example there
are no utility facilities on there
um so that's something that we're
planning to update and make sure we have
it all pulled into one place because
it's not in one place and and so the
inventory as a whole doesn't
exist okay so goal D um this is actually
a brand new goal um you didn't you would
not have seen it last month and this was
we wrote this to kind of conglomerate
several of the ideas and goals that were
in the former capital facilities element
that were all talking about a similar
thing and there were a lot of policies
talking about a similar thing but they
were broken up and so we wanted to pull
aw this in and get under one
umbrella
um and this talks so the policies under
this talk a lot about you know we can
only allow development when we have the
the facilities and the essential
services are are there um that the
development has to provide facilities at
its own expense and and we need to
provide facilities with an adopted level
of service
standards so that's where this goal is
coming into play as I read D1 uh it I'm
a little confused uh does the
infrastructure have to be currently in
place or in anticipation of future
development the capital
infrastructure well it says
where they are adequate it says that all
services must be adequate currently
adequate or adequate for future
development right but it doesn't say
what adequate is that's another
issue so so you so you'd want us to
Define what adequate means specifically
and in terms of uh policy uh D2 uh
you're saying that what's not provided
the developer must provide it uh before
he gets uh uh before he's allowed to uh
develop and I wonder if that would
discour
development uh you'll recall decade ago
it did when we essentially shut down all
development in isqua because our traffic
concurrency model was failing yeah so
but again how we Define
concurrent comes into play
here well if you define current in terms
what currently exists uh you'd have to
freeze
development uh the city currently under
its concurrent under its current
concurrency management system um
passes and that's why development
continues I'm not hearing I'm sorry I'm
I'm not saying that traffic isn't bad
traffic is bad in a lot of places at
times but um the the under the current
stand
s the level of service is adequate
that's another issue maybe the current
standards are not
adequate I would I would recommend that
you especially about Transportation I
know you talked about it at your last
meeting with yeah with Trish and I know
you'll see that again probably late next
month well I'm concerned when we talk
development I'm concerned about
uh too soon too fast uh maybe that's not
the right maybe that's not the
appropriate concern but I don't want to
see development get ahead of
infrastructure and that's the point I'm
I continue to try to make that we need
the uh infrastructure we need the
capital to pay for it we need to figure
out how to get the capital I mean all of
this is part of the planning process if
you're talking implementing the the
central isqua
plan and I I would note that D5 seems to
capture that by defining the concurrent
with development as being six years um
of the occupancy being issued and maybe
that's the problem is six years is too
long a time frame from certificate of
occupancy to Services if we get a big
boom happening where we have two or
three huge developments go up over five
years that's going to really impact
those concurrency
models and I think that's that's a big
concern if I'm not even sure that if you
want development and if you want to
encourage developers to come in here
then I think the infrastructure has to
be in anticip ation of that development
it has to be in place or at least the
plans for it have to be in place so that
devel the developer knows what his costs
are going to be and uh and what is going
to be in place for him and uh uh and the
isqua plan again which will which will
attract
development uh needs to show
a uh procedures and policy for
development and I'm not sure that's
there I think the central oqua plan very
specifically in some cases describes
what is necessary it shows a road
Network that needs to be built that does
not exist today um you know between in
in just in the block between Gilman and
mul Street or Maple Street actually and
912 there's two North South Streets in
there that don't exist today that the
central isal plan calls for So the plan
so just for one example the central
isall plan is
got a lot of that in there and we are
planning for it but again existing
property owners have to buy in in order
for that to happen well they don't have
to do any they don't have to develop
their properties there's nothing nothing
in that plan makes anybody do anything
that's what concerns me you your streets
plan for instance uh anticipates that
everybody on that street is going to
cooperate and buy in and if it doesn't
happen you're going to have half streets
you going to have a hodge podge well the
streets don't get built and
development's not there so I mean that's
the way it
is but I I think we are very much
planning for future development and this
is how this is an extremely you know
10,000 or even 50,000 foot level View
and the central plan gets a little
deeper into it
so I would I recommend if you want to
talk more we have it the discussion
offline and and with Trish uh just one
comment when developers go in to present
whatever they want to build um they go
through a long process and they know how
much they're going to it's going to cost
them to build the problem is not the
cost that they find out in the beginning
the cost is the changing cost down the
line and so so that's where any problems
coming in but Builders know what they're
required to do the the transportation
plan tells them how much how many curbs
they have to put in how much you know
how they have to um get their people
from their develop into the into the
network of the rest of the uh
Transportation if they don't like it um
the and if it's going to cost too much
the Builder's not going to do it so I
mean that's yeah that's a that's
realistic and the other thing that's
also realistic is that even if the
developer says okay fine I'll build my
curbs but the my neighbor next to me who
is an existing property owner says Hey
I've I'm here uh I'm not buying in I'm
not interested in uh in this developing
the street right now I like it the way
it is and I'm not selling and I'm not
developing I'm not uh I'm not going to
comply I don't need
to isn't that what went on with the
development that's going in where
lombardis is I mean the neighbors all
had a chance to come in and decide and
hopefully the city made the right
decision of uh putting down the
requirements and they the Builder met
those
requirements and you know that's kind of
and it was with one single property
owner who said he's going to sell so
that anybody who is a tenant uh at least
if the lease was up it was not going to
be renewed and it worked out
beautifully but uh uh if uh somebody had
a long-term lease and said hey uh I've
got a lease I'm
staying you know you can't write in
every contingency into the plan so let's
just uh assume that the city knows what
it's doing yeah my concern is I I want
to address the what
ifs okay anything else on this
goal all right goal e and you'll see I
um fixed a typo in there it says the
capital Improvement plan it should say
the capital facilities plan um because
that's the term we're using now U this
goal was present before um but we did
a um we did eliminate one one goal and
incorporate it into this goal and so the
one that
got
um um anyway this goal is all about
compatibility and
consistency so you know we say Capital
project should to the extent feasible
conform with our development and design
standards whether that's the central squ
plan or the Old Town design standards um
or even the what we call the GRE the
green sheets the design stand the the
design standards in the um in the land
use code that apply anywhere where we
don't have more specific design
standards um we want capital projects to
minimize their impact on surrounding
uses we want them to you know and also
be consistent with the requirements for
the plans of state agencies
so goal F the next one is a brand new
goal where we try to pull in a lot of
the things to talk about financing
Capital facilities there were a lot of
policies they were a little bit
scattered talking about how we Finance
it um how we use the six-year um again
there's typos in there that'll get
fixed capital capital facilities plan
not um Improvement
plan and so the first one and it's
actually very important talks about all
City departments shall coordinate
longrange financial planning
activities um sometimes we don't always
do that but it's really important that
we do that so that we can have a
holistic view of what we need to fund
and H and how to do
it um talks about Distributing the
burden for
financing um Capital facilities in
places it talks about kind of the the
order that you'd want to use different
funding sources and so it talks about
using general General revenues to fund
projects that provide a general benefit
to the whole Community um you can use
how um where you use long-term borrowing
um where the facility would benefit more
than one generation so financing the
community center for example is a great
use of long-term financing because it
it's benefitting us now it's going to
benefit us in the future it's going to
benefit people for a long long time um
talks about using you know speci
assessment revenue or other
self-supporting bonds for more
specialized um projects instead of
General obligation bonds and of course
using grants and other private funds
were
possible
um there's a lot in here talking about
impact fees which are somewhat GMA
required um and then there's also one
about working with the isqua school
district on school impact fees because
they're the ones who set those not
us F2
uh I'm concerned about the term high
priority shall be given I think
uh fund should only be provided for
those
who who meet uh uh the central
comprehensive plan goals uh not just be
given high priority but uh I don't think
Capital should be expended on anything
that doesn't meet the uh Capital
Improvement uh the comprehensive plan
goals we would have to expend Capital to
buy um large quanties of
furniture I don't think Furniture meets
any of plan
goal so I have a general question
um so for impact fees a developer is
charged an impact fee is there a a state
requirement mandate that that in those
impact fees have to be associated with
the project so I'm just thinking one of
my
I I get annoyed when I see like just a
half built sidewalk MH and sometime I
just feel like there's it would be nicer
to have one complete street over here
rather than a bunch of sidewalks right
there so it' be nice if those impact
fees can go towards like one project
yeah is it that's you know that
unfortunately that's a compli the answer
to that is a little complicated so under
state law the we can assess impact fees
we have to spend them within I want to
say six years or else we have to refund
them we do have to spend the money on
something that's at least related to the
the development that caused the impact
and so we couldn't take money from a
development say say downtown here and
spend it way out uh in Greenwood Point
or in the highlands necessarily because
there's not much a rational connection
there right with that said of course
there's always things we do you know
we're always having to improve sidewalks
for example where the the sidewalk Quest
question gets tricky is a lot of
times we we require development to build
half Street improvements and so but we
can only require them to build that
Improvement on their Frontage we can't
require them to build it all the way to
the corner necessarily because that's
not they don't own that property right
um oftentimes what we'll do is instead
of having the developer build it we'll
ask we'll tell them pay us the money
we'll collect all the money up and then
over and then we'll the city will build
the
entire sidewalk all at once um but
sometimes the developers don't want to
do that they just want to build and be
and be done and not have to worry about
it or sometimes they're really
interested in giving us the money and
not having to worry about it so it's
it's a little inconsistent but over time
the idea is that we'll get everything
built and consistent um yeah I mean that
so I I've seen some situations where
standards change in like a 10-year
period And so this one sidewalk gets
built the standard gets changed and so
then you know that then it's like a setb
sidewalk and 10 years later so it's just
kind of weird anyhow that's just my
little gripe that's
it I think Ray going back to F2 I think
Ry was kind of pointing at maybe I'm
wrong or right but I see what his point
is you've got a word in there called
most consistent and that opens a huge
door for spending money on things that
are Maybe not part of the comprehensive
plan if you close that door by saying
consistent with drop the word most
you're going to you're going to make it
a little more tight and required to be
part of and inclusive within the
comprehensive plan and not have somebody
come in and say well policy F2 says most
consistent and this is most consistent
with it but maybe it's not consistent
with it I don't know yeah I'm also
concerned with high priority I don't
think that's that's the same I think
that uh uh only uh should be the uh the
guideline here if it doesn't meet the uh
uh the comprehensive plan uh goals and
it shouldn't be funded
period any other comments go and I would
respectfully disagree with that ju Just
in terms of the previous comments that
there are some capital projects which
the comprehensive plan doesn't
necessarily address but are necessary
for government function um yeah
like well you have to am if you have to
am the comprehensive
to be priority hey R your mic's not
on I'm sorry I didn't have my mic on on
when I said it okay
okay um then we get into the
sustainability goal and I I alluded to
this earlier when we were talking about
um talking about utilities but there is
a sustainability goal which is in the
the capital facilities element um this
one we're we're still trying to work
through um the goal the goal exists and
you can you can see it on the screen it
hasn't it hasn't changed we're working
on adding more policies because the only
policy that fits under this so far that
that was existing
is um you know encourage infill
Redevelopment and paa development
to um to design projects which are
resource efficient and
sustainable and that's pretty Broad and
there's and that's the only goal or the
only policy under there so we'd like to
add some more policies that could even
be much more specific you see the one
highlighted there Capital facilities
should achieve a lead silver or similar
level of certification that's just
that's just as an example which is why
it's highlighted we we're not
necessarily saying that's a policy we
want to pursue but those are the types
of things we're looking at trying to
pull in here a little bit more to to set
a few more specific sustainability
policies especially for our Capital
facilities the new Fire Station 72 over
there achieves a very high level of
sustainability um you know with its
energy usage with with its water
usage that's something that we would
like to do more of in the future it's
obviously quite expensive
um for example East Side Fire and Rescue
is building a new station over on May uh
SE May Valley Road outside the city to
they're moving one from from coalfield
down into May Valley where can better
serve the area but they're going to
incorporate quite a few of the features
not to the same extent that we did for
Fire Station 72 but they're going to
incorporate a lot of those to help
reduce ongoing operating costs that's an
important thing we want to try to
identify and and make sure we're getting
into not just fire stations but also you
know Municipal facilities or you know
using it's even using energy efficient
lighting at our Parks things like that
so we're trying to find better ways to
capture a lot of those things especially
when it comes to Capital facilities so
if you have specific suggestions that
we'd be happy to hear them you don't
have to tell me now you can email them
or something but just keep in mind that
we'll you'll probably see a lot more
policies when you when we bring this
back uh as a fully complete version
later this
fall Jason when when this comes back
could you uh bring us since most of
these new new Commissioners haven't seen
it the list of the capital Improvement
planed and and the tip so that they can
see the lists that are already on there
and then again explain the process of
how uh money coming in is diverted to
each one of those projects
yes so we we've kind of been going
through the next steps as uh here as
we've gone you know we can act we can we
can talk about goals if if you think we
missed one we can certainly add one we
can delete one same thing with the
policies none of this is set in stone
and certainly more opportunity exist to
look at this but um we'd like to get
this wrapped up as soon as we
can is there anything else you'd like to
add um no just thank you for again being
really well prepared and handling our
questions and and I appreciate all all
of your um not that I have any uh
reason to say this but I I I really
appreciate the uh interest that you've
all taken and and the ideas and the
comments uh that you are expressing so
if there's anything else any kind of
information that we need to get to you
anything any plans that you don't
understand that Jason has that he hasn't
presented please let him know so that uh
he can provide for you I just want to
thank you all for bearing bearing
through me with these these two elements
these are the most technical esoteric
elements in the entire conference plan
so everything else is a lot more fun so
I look at this as you know when you see
those um cop shows where they have a
board and they have all those red lines
going to every everything and so uh you
have this well this is in this plan so
we got to make sure that it's in there
and and so uh I expect the board as big
as that those windows back there with
all these lines on
it that's all I have so is there
anything else for the good of the
order if not then we actually are ahead
of schedule and the meeting is is
adjourned at 7:30 thank you all for
coming e