[PAGE 1]
CCIITTYY OOFF FFAARRMMIINNGGTTOONN
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
AGENDA
Chair - Jasper Welch
DATE TIME PLACE
April 6, 2010 4:00 pm City Hall
Executive Conference Room
Meeting Purpose:
City Council (CC) remanded the Proposed Parks and Recreation Impact Fee back to the CIAC with
recommendations. Staff has outlined a new proposal based on CC recommendations for CIAC
review. CIAC recommendations will than be forwarded back to CC for approval.
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of minutes from meeting of June 11, 2008
3. Discussion and review of staff’s proposed fee range based on CC recommendations
4. CIAC Recommendation To Council
5. Adjournment
880000 MMuunniicciippaall DDrriivvee FFaarrmmiinnggttoonn,, NNMM 8877440011--22666633 FFaaxx:: ((550055)) 559999--11229999 hhttttttpp::////wwwwww..ffaarrmmiinnggttoonn..nnmm..uuss

[PAGE 5]
JUNE 18, 2008 DRAFT MINUTES

[PAGE 6]
CIAC DRAFT MINUTES
M I N U T E S
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
June 11, 2008 - 4:00 P.M.
The Capital Improvements Advisory Committee met in a regular session on June
11, 2008, at 4:00 p.m., in the Executive Conference Room, 800 Municipal Drive,
Farmington, New Mexico.
Members Present: Chairman: Jasper Welch
Members: Greg Mills
Richard Cheney
Don Becker
Roberta Lamoreux
Members Absent: None
Also Present: Community Development Director Michael Sullivan
Associate Planner, Com. Dev. Martin Lucero
PRCA Director, City of Farmington Jeff Bowman
Associate Planner, Com. Dev. Fran Fillerup
Administrative Aide Mellisa Popa
Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 4:07 p.m. by Chairman
Welch and there being a quorum, the following proceedings
were duly had and taken.
Presentation of the Agenda was approved as presented.
Agenda:
Approval of Minutes: Motion was made by Mr. Mills, seconded by Ms. Lamoreux to
approve the minutes of May 28, 2008. Motion passed by
unanimous voice vote.
DISCUSSION:
Capital Improvement Plan
Mr. Lucero referenced the approval of the Capital Improvement Plan that was set
forth February 20, 2008, asking the Committee for a reaffirmation. Mr. Lucero
stated that a correction was made to the plan by removing FY 2008 because the
year would be over in fourteen days. Mr. Sullivan asked Mr. Lucero if the main
change to the plan is on page 9. Mr. Lucero responded the tables are on page 8
and 9. Motion was made by Mr. Cheney, seconded by Mr. Mills to approve the
1

[PAGE 7]
CIAC DRAFT MINUTES
Capital Improvement Plan as presented by Staff. Motion passed with unanimous
voice vote.
DISCUSSION:
Impact Fee and Capital Improvement Study Plan
Mr. Lucero asked the Committee to indicate what areas need to be reviewed or
discussed. Mr. Lucero referenced page 4 of the Impact Fee and Capital
Improvement Study Plan, noting the change based on recommendation of the
Capital Improvement Committee to assess the fee by a single fee schedule for all
residential unit-types. Mr. Lucero added on page 5, under Comparative Park
Impact Fees, fees average about $825.00 per single family dwelling, not
including Albuquerque. Mr. Lucero added on page 5, under Potential Total
Revenue, starts with 2009 through 2012. The phase in was not affected. Mr.
Lucero stated if the fees were instituted at the rate of $950.00 for the projected
672 housing units, the City would raise approximately $ 638,400.00 by 2012.
Mr. Welch asked why Albuquerque was excluded in the Comparative Park
Impact Fees. Mr. Lucero references page 18, stating that Albuquerque bases
their fees on the square footage. Mr. Welch asked if there were any additional
changes made to the impact fees. Mr. Lucero stated table I on page 15, and
table J on page 16 were adjusted regarding the way calculations were being
made as well as the cost. Mr. Lucero stated the City obtained appraisals on sales
of land, over a five year period of time taking out lots that were smaller than five
acres, any lots sold larger than eighty acres and calculated the average for the
three service areas. Mr. Lucero stated this allowed us to take out some of the lots
that were driving the cost per acre up. Mr. Lucero references table J on page 16,
stating the labor costs were included per acre for development. Mr. Lucero stated
the labor shows estimated future cost as well as the estimated cost based on
historical figures. Mr. Lucero stated for the two different comparisons, one price
per household was $1,600.00 and the second was $1,200.00, depending on the
average for three different service areas. Mr. Lucero stated area three is the
most expensive. Mr. Sullivan added that the cost of labor for installation of park
improvements is equivalent to the cost of the improvements allowing for some
variation. Mr. Lucero referenced page 17, stating the proposed impact fee is
2

[PAGE 8]
CIAC DRAFT MINUTES
$950.00. Mr. Lucero stated the phase-in would start at $665.00 starting in 2009
(Table K shows this fee starting in 2010). Mr. Welch asked if there were any
questions from the Committee based on the new information given by Mr.
Lucero. Mr. Welch asked if there was a motion made to reconsider the Park
Impact Fees. Motion was made by Ms. Lamoreux, seconded by Mr. Welch to
approve the Park Impact Fee as presented by Staff. Motion passed with
unanimous voice vote.
DISCUSSION:
A lively discussion followed once Mr. Cheney expressed his dislike of impact
fees. Mr. Cheney gave a few examples of homes in the area and the amount
that they are paying for property taxes. Mr. Cheney stated he would like to see
Farmington as a leader not a follower in the area of new ideas for impact fees
suggesting that fees should go into a fund. Mr. Cheney stated the impact fees
could come from the property tax and have the first year property tax go into an
impact fund. Mr. Cheney expressed his concern for the amount of taxes that are
already being paid for new construction. Mr. Welch asked where the paid
property tax goes. Mr. Cheney stated it goes to the County, school system,
college, and a small amount to the City. Mr. Cheney stated he would like
innovative ways to help keep housing affordable. Ms. Lamoreux stated she feels
that parks add value to a subdivision. Ms. Lamoreux stated that the people who
benefit from the parks should be paying the impact fee.
Mr. Cheney asked if Ms. Lamoreux if she would like to have her home next to a
park. Ms. Lamoreux responded that she does not know if she would or not, but
feels that parks are indeed important.
Mr. Cheney asked Mr. Lucero what the cost per house was for developing a
park. Mr. Lucero responded $1,660.00 per unit. Mr. Cheney stated if there is an
impact fee for parks there will soon be fees for water and sewer. Mr. Mills stated
utility already charges for repair and replacements. Mr. Cheney stated he thinks
parks are important but keeping the cost of housing down is more important. Mr.
Becker stated he has concerns the impact fee is the same for a 5000 square foot
house verses a much smaller home. Mr. Lucero responded this was discussed in
3

[PAGE 9]
CIAC DRAFT MINUTES
December to allow a waiver for affordable housing based on federal guidelines of
the state for what is considered affordable housing. Mr. Sullivan stated that there
is no new construction in Farmington that would qualify. Mr. Becker stated he is
not against impact fees but would like it to be fair. Mr. Becker stated that for park
impact fees it should be based on square feet to accommodate affordable
housing. Mr. Lucero stated that the average home size in Farmington is
approximately 1800 square feet. It will be the decision of the Committee to
decide if the impact fee is based on square footage or by unit.
Mr. Becker stated as part of planned developments we seem to be building
smaller homes and trying to save money. Mr. Becker stated that planning and
zoning asks for landscaping and it adds to the costs, and he would like to see a
way to save money on affordable housing. Mr. Lucero stated he would be glad to
recalculate based on square footage. Mr. Cheney stated he feels there is not a
way to make impact fees fair and equitable. Ms. Lamoreux stated it is hard to
make everyone happy.
Mr. Welch thought a statement should be made to City Council that any fees will
add to the cost of housing and that they consider the fees and exactions for new
developments as parks are a part of that. Mr. Welch stated a square foot
assessment would be a fair way to implement impact fees. The Committee
needs to be prepared to have an alternative idea if the Committee chooses to
vote against the Staff recommendations. Mr. Sullivan stated Staff is trying to
keep impact fees simple with recommending fewer service areas, and having
one fee for all service areas. Mr. Becker stated if a person moves into the City
and chooses to buy a used home they would not pay an impact fee. Mr. Becker
suggested that an impact fee be charged on every home bought in the City. Mr.
Sullivan stated that New Mexico state law does not allow that.
Mr. Welch stated if you develop new parks in the City, how will the cost be
allocated. He stated the Committee should be prepared to have an alternative
suggestion for City Council if the Committee chooses to vote against Staffs
proposal. Ms. Lamoreux asked if two criteria’s could work, based on square
4

[PAGE 10]
CIAC DRAFT MINUTES
footage. She feels the more complex, the system, the harder it will be to
regulate.
Motion was made by Ms. Lamoreux, seconded by Mr. Mills to accept the Staff
recommendations as proposed. Mr. Welch asked if the Committee had
comments.
Mr. Mills stated he feels that the impact fee is being phased in too high, and
would like to see it take place over five years. Mr. Lucero stated it could be
phased in over five years. Ms. Lamoreux stated she has already stated how she
feels about the impact fees. Mr. Cheney stated he will vote no, because the City
could find other ways to raise the funds for the parks. Mr. Becker stated he will
vote no based on the fact it would be against affordable housing. Mr. Welch
stated he would support the proposal because simple is better, although he feels
phasing in over a five year period would be better. Motion failed on a (2-3) vote.
Motion was made by Mr. Cheney, seconded by Mr. Mills to leave the impact fees
at $157.95 multi-family and $ 192.82 for single-family units. Mr. Becker stated he
will vote no to this motion because it is too low. Mr. Welch asked when the
present impact fee was put in place. Mr. Lucero stated 1981. Mr. Welch asked if
the impact fee has remained the same for 25 years. Mr. Lucero responded yes.
Mr. Sullivan stated if a five year phase-in were imposed, he would like to suggest
an amount of $ 570.00 as the starting point. Mr. Sullivan stated that would figure
into the $950.00 over the five year period.
Mr. Bowman stated if the City’s financial situation stays the same as this year,
the impact fee will be the only source of funds for new parks. Ms. Lamoreux
stated she will vote no to keeping impact fees the same. Mr. Mills stated he
would vote no because fees are currently too low. He likes the idea of phasing in
over five years. Mr. Becker stated the Home Builders Association may be more
accepting of the idea of phasing in over five years and feels parks are important.
Motion failed on a (1-4) vote.
Mr. Cheney asked how much it costs to develop a new park. Mr. Lucero
responded it costs approximately $1,669.00 per unit to develop. Motion made by
5

[PAGE 11]
CIAC DRAFT MINUTES
Mr. Cheney to set impact fees at $1,700.00 per unit. Motion failed for lack of a
second.
Mr. Lucero stated if the fee was adjusted for inflation it would be approximately
$583.00 to start, adjusting at 60% for the first year, moving up from there. Mr.
Becker asked what year the fee would start. Mr. Lucero responded 2009. Mr.
Mills asked what the percent of increase per year will be. Mr. Lucero stated it
would be unpredictable, approximately 4 to 6 percent.
Mr. Welch stated the Committee may be ready to suggest a compromise. Mr.
Welch proposed that the fee could start at $ 583.00 and increase 5% per year.
Ms. Lamoreux asked what would be the best way for the Home Builders
Association to accept the amount of fee and proposed increase. Mr. Mills
responded that he feels the fee is similar to a tax and hard to accept. Mr. Welch
suggested phasing in by starting in 2009 at 60% for year 1, 70% for year 2, and
by 2013 arriving at $700.00. Mr. Welch stated this would be for a single-unit, and
would not address Mr. Becker’s concern for square footage. Mr. Becker stated he
could figure out the square footage. Mr. Welch asked if the City has a provision
where you can take a fee or exaction and lean the property and it would not be
paid until the property sells. Mr. Welch stated it would help with the affordability
for the home because once the property sells, the City would get the fee.
Motion made by Mr. Mills, seconded by Ms. Lamoreux for the park impact fee to
increase 60% in year 2009 for a fee of $420.00, 70% in year 2010 for a fee of
$490.00, 80% in year 2011 for a fee of $ 560.00, 90% for year 2012 for a fee of
$630.00, and capping out in year 2013 at $700.00. Motion passed on a (4-1)
vote.
Mr. Sullivan stated Staff would like to discuss other impact fees at the next
meeting. Mr. Sullivan stated City Council has expressed the need to explore
implementing other impact fees.
Mr. Welch asked Mr. Sullivan what is the proper procedure for resigning from the
Capital Improvements Advisory Committee. Mr. Sullivan stated the Committee
Member would need to speak with the Mayor.
6

[PAGE 12]
CIAC DRAFT MINUTES
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee
meeting of June 11, 2008 was adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
__________________________ ______________________
Mellisa Popa, Administrative Aide Jasper Welch, Chairman
7