Neighborhood and Community Improvement Program Committee Meeting

MINUTES NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM COMMITTEE Special Meeting Friday, July 22, 2011 4:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS, FEW MEMORIAL HALL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA NIP Representatives & Ten neighborhoods were represented: Alternates Present: Aguajito Oaks NIP Rep Morgan Casanova-Oak Knoll NIP Rep Ruccello Casanova Oak-Knoll NIP Alt Brassfield Del Monte Grove-Laguna Grande NIP Alt Larson Fisherman Flats NIP Rep Reed Fisherman Flats NIP Alt Rowley Monterey Vista NIP Alt Simons New Monterey NIP Rep Dwight New Monterey NIP Alt Garden Oak Grove NIP Rep DiMaggio Old Town NIP Rep Harrison Skyline Forest NIP Rep Duke Villa Del Monte NIP Rep Conte Four represented neighborhoods not present: Alta Mesa, Deer Flats, Del Monte Beach, Skyline Ridge Estates Staff Members Present: Chief of Planning, Engineering, and Environmental Rerig, NIP Staff Coordinator Reeves, Recording Secretary Abadilla, Finance Director Rhoads CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Reeves opened Public Comments. Having no requests to speak, Mr. Reeves closed Public Comments. NIP INFORMATIONAL REPORTS 1. NIP Spokesperson Reports NIP Alternate Spokesperson Sharon Dwight stated that she went on the tour with the Parks and Recreation Department to tour 15 parks around the City. These parks been funded and turned out very nice. She added that Kay Russo has retired and Kim Bui-Burton will be heading up the Parks and Recreation Commission meetings. PUBLIC APPEARANCE 2. Discuss Overhead Charges and Staff Costs Associated with the NIP Program Neighborhood Improvement Program Committee Minutes Friday, July 22, 2011 Mr. Reeves gave a brief review of the budgeting process that was used for fiscal year 2012. He stated that the 10% used to cover the general overhead was a result of the Management Services Institute (MSI) study. However, using the City’s current Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) accounting methodology the general overhead is around 4.5% to 5% and the departmental overhead, which is the other significant component of the total overhead, happens to be around 5%. He said the net effect is that the 10% used for budgeting happens to be enough to cover all the overhead for the previous fiscal year and therefore, there is no need to account for an NIP deficit as was discussed during the April 28 voting night meeting. He stated that moving forward, the NIP will be charged for items dealing with general and overhead items. He stated that the NIP Policy and Procedures manual will be revised to reflect the changes proposed. Sharon Dwight asked how the accounting would be done for all the other Boards and Commissions in the City, if the 10% would be taken off the top and how is NIP being treated as a special fund compared to other special funds. She stated that communication needs to improve with staff when it comes to making decisions on projects that should go forward from the weeding meeting. The Committee should be doing all the work because staff is spending too much time on developing project scopes. The City Council decided that meetings should be filmed, and as volunteers, the NIP Committee members only receive a parking pass. In regards to hiring a consultant, a lot of time is getting charged to projects before the NIP gets to look at them, and it feels like the Committee doesn’t have control or is given any incentives. She added that the City should take a look at the money originally set aside for the debt service for property purchases. The 20-year bonds are paid off, so 4% of TOT could be returned to NIP because the voters said they wanted 20% of TOT to go to NIP. She recommended that the Committee tell the Council if projects are on hold and should be reconsidered. Mr. Reeves stated that all Boards and Commissions will be handled the same and that they are not just singling out the NIP. He stated that the City will no longer use the MSI methodologies and will go with a CAP system to keep track of time and money spent. He said each project will have an account code that will be billed for that project, staff’s time spent on meetings and other general overhead will be accounted for, and there will be a truing up at the end of each year. He added that the Committee can state their concerns at next week’s meeting with the City Council. Richard Ruccello asked if the interest accrued from other special funds would be given back to those accounts or to the General Fund, what was the cost of the City for hiring a consultant, where did the fee come from, is there a time limit for the consultant’s time, and can the City control the amount of labor and time for a project? Mr. Ruccello stated that the staff report for the joint meeting with Council needs to explain the inequity between the past projects that are on hold because it was determined that they did not meet Council’s criteria of essential maintenance, public health, and public safety and projects of a similar scope that are proposed for the current year. He cited the example of the radar speed sign projects that are on hold, and said there is no logic to approving the several new radar speed sign projects that are proposed for the current NIP program. He ended by asking Mr. Rhoads to check on the bond that was paid off. Mr. Rhoads stated that some funds require that the interest be allocated back to the fund. He said there is no requirement that interest has to be allocated back to the NIP, so the Council decided to allocate it elsewhere. He added that money came from NIP to cover the cost of the consultant hired to scope over 200 projects. Mr. Reeves said each year’s workload will be assigned to the resource that best fits what needs to be done, depending on the workload of staff. He asked the Committee to work on ways to determine better guidance on which projects to spend staff time to estimate. Neighborhood Improvement Program Committee Meeting Minutes Friday, July 22, 2011 2  Neighborhood Improvement Program Committee Minutes Friday, July 22, 2011 Tom DiMaggio stated that each neighborhood association should be given their projects to review at their meetings and decisions could be made before hand and be brought back to the City for their review. Dennis Duke asked how the overhead will be charged for the different Boards and Commissions and how would the interest go back into the funds for the NIP? Larry Conte asked if the staff is going to keep a time card broken out for specific projects and stated that maybe every project should be put on hold to collect the interest. Mr. Reeves opened Public Comments. Tom Rowley, Fisherman Flats Alternate, stated that the NIP Committee is a forerunner for what happens in the City. It takes a lot of time as volunteers to do this work. Other Commissions and Council gets stipends and how do you account for all the money going to the General Fund. It is the impression that the Committee is getting picked on and getting nickel and dimed. Mike Brassfield, CONA Alternate, stated that a budget is not a science but an art. The City is trying to come up with a plan and form common practices throughout City. He asked if this revision will apply to all the Boards or just the NIP, if all staff needs to attend the meetings, will staff show how time will be broken down on time spent on a specific item, and if the NIP could have a specific line item in the Budget. Marsha Hardy, President of the Oak Grove Neighborhood Association, stated that projects used to be discussed at neighborhood meetings. If a certain project affected a neighborhood, the association would review and prioritize the projects or put them on hold for another year. She added that a lot of labor is going into the procedure these days, it use to be simpler. By having the Neighborhood Associations review the projects first; it would reduce staff time spent on weeding out projects. Lee Whitney, Glenwood neighborhood resident, asked when will she find out when her project will be getting approved? Mr. Reeves stated that the item is scheduled to be heard at the August 16 City Council meeting. Having no further requests to speak, Mr. Reeves closed Public Comments. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS No comments were made by the Committee members. NEXT MEETING 3. Wednesday, July 27, 2011 Joint City Council and Neighborhood Improvement Program Committee Special Meeting, Council Chambers, 4:00 p.m. Mr. Reeves stated that the NIP Committee will need a quorum at the meeting and asked them to make sure that their concerns are brought up. 4. Propose Thursday, August 25, 2011 for next NIP Special Meeting, Council Chambers, 7:00 p.m. The Committee agreed to schedule the next NIP Special Meeting for August 25. Mr. Reeves stated possible topics:  The NIP Policies and Procedures manual being updated.  Staff being more efficient when reviewing projects.  The NIP Committee gearing up for next year and asking how they want to proceed. Neighborhood Improvement Program Committee Meeting Minutes Friday, July 22, 2011 3 Neighborhood Improvement Program Committee Minutes Friday, July 22, 2011 ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:38 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Approved, Jaci Abadilla Tom Reeves Recording Secretary NIP Staff Coordinator Neighborhood Improvement Program Committee Meeting Minutes Friday, July 22, 2011 4