Citizen Bond Committee Meeting
City of Peoria, Pine Room
January 16, 2008


A regular meeting of the Citizen Bond Committee of the City of Peoria, Arizona, was 
convened at 8401 West Monroe Street in open and public session at 6:30 p.m. 

Members present: Tom Campbell, Santos Diaz III, Alan Doerschel, Phil Hanson, Kathy 
Heyman, Don Holtzee, Greg Loper, Ron Lyniak, Armando Macias, Jack McCleary, 
Marvin McCloe, Ken Myers, Gary Nelson, Gary Nerdig, Mark Proctor, Peter Raymond, 
Pete Rivera, Michael Rogers, William Schindler, Barry Spiegel, Paul Studer, Pat Temes, 
Anne Wojcik, Wendy Wood

Member absent: Jamie Arkin, William Bercu, Frank Bohall, Gracie Gibson, Jim Redondo

Regular Agenda

Meeting was called to order by Chairman Greg Loper at 6:32 p.m.  Mr. Loper reminded 
members to sign the attendance roster at each meeting and also to provide their name 
before addressing the group.  Ron Lyzniak asked who he should address regarding 
grammatical errors in the minutes so they could be corrected.  Mr. Loper replied that they 
should just be brought to the attention of staff for modification.   A motion to approve the 
minutes from the January 9, 2008 meeting was made by Vice Chairman Phil Hanson and 
Gary Nerdig seconded the motion.  There was no further discussion, and the minutes 
were approved by a unanimous vote.  Mr. Loper stressed to members of the committee 
that their personal issues should be put aside regarding specific projects and they should 
consider what is best for the City as a whole.  If members want to know more specific 
details regarding projects in their area, they should speak directly to staff members after 
committee meetings.

Engineering Director, Dave Moody, briefly summarized his presentation from the 
previous meeting and opened the floor to questions.  Since there were none, the meeting 
was turned over to Public Works Director, Bill Mattingly, to discuss building renovation 
costs with the committee.  Mr. Bill Mattingly provided a handout example of the City 
Hall renovations with cost details so the group could discuss as a case study.  The 
example provided a summary of professional services, soft costs, construction, equipment 
and assessment costs.   The stated costs were projected amounts for the proposed project 
and Mr. Mattingly indicated that a much more detailed cost analysis is compiled closer to 
actual implementation of a project.  Renovation estimates are calculated on a per square 
foot basis. 

Vice Chairman Phil Hanson inquired about contingency funding within projects.  Mr. 
Mattingly stated a contingency amount is already included into the estimated costs and 
most contingency funding generally is within the 15-20 percent range for a project. 

Gary Nerdig asked if the $15 million required for the City Hall renovation will be one of 
the projects for consideration by the committee.  Mr. Mattingly responded that the City 
Hall renovation project was just used as an example to illustrate how detailed City staff 
gets when estimating projects and how the estimates are calculated.   Mr. Nerdig inquired 
as to what work was being done on each of the building renovations.  Mr. Mattingly 
responded that the City Hall main building is being brought up to code and to upgrade 
mechanical systems that are failing.  The library requires technology upgrades which 
require additional power lines and cables need to be added.  Both the Council Chambers 
and the Library building also need to be brought up to today’s building codes. 

Anne Wojcik asked if the new heating/air conditioning system was included in the 
detailed cost analysis.  Mr. Mattingly indicated this project does include the duct work 
but the system upgrade itself is in a different project plan. 

Mr. Bill Mattingly continued his discussion of the City Hall renovation example.  He 
indicated that the Pine Room, which the Bond Committee meets in, will be enlarged and 
work will be done on the ceiling because of the new HVAC system.  The main lobby of 
City Hall will be reconfigured to make the Customer Service area easier for customers to 
navigate.  The natural growth of staff is also making it inevitable for reconstruction of the 
building.

Barry Spiegel asked how City staff comes up with different square foot pricing.  Mr. 
Mattingly indicated there are different construction costs associated with the different 
configurations.  City Hall requires more renovation then the Library or Council 
Chambers.  City Hall is also changing functionality while the other buildings are just 
being brought up to code or enhanced.     

Gary Nerdig questioned why the City’s budget is listed when a construction bid goes out 
for solicitation.  Staff indicated that state law requires the inclusion of an engineer’s 
estimate in the City’s solicitation documents.   Finance Director, Brent Mattingly, 
commented that City usually doesn’t utilize the low bid process in most cases.  The City 
looks at other factors such as the experience and past performance of contractors, 
engineers and architects.  The City reviews who has a history of getting the job done 
correctly, within budget, and on time.  Materials Management also uses other tools so 
that the City obtains the best services.  

Alan Doerschel added that budget information and the associated documents are 
considered public information and a good contractor would research this information 
before any bids are made on projects.  City Engineer Dave Moody reiterated that the City 
provides an engineer’s estimate rather than the actual budget for projects.

Jack McCleary asked if Public Works oversee the City’s Asset Management System and 
the software replacement and cabling.   Mr. Mattingly explained that different 
departments use the system on a daily basis.  Public Works uses it to generate work 
orders and to track maintenance.  The system is also linked to the GIS system 
(Geographic Information System) so Public Works can determine where every asset is 
located within the City.  The system itself is supported by the Information Technology 
Department.  

Senior Civil Engineer, Chris Kmetty, provided a brief presentation of how the City 
develops estimates for street projects.  When estimating street projects, staff has to 
include costs for the purchase right-of-ways, landscaping, and relocation of utilities that 
may be required.  Project development consists of many things to rebuild a street like 
required professional services, utility issues, permit costs, schedule, location, and 
contingency funds associated with construction.  An example of one project is the 
Thunderbird and 75th Avenue street project.  The City takes the items known from past 
projects or other cities’ past projects to compile the cost and calculate project estimates.  
Asphalt, sound reduction walls, street lights, removal and installation of new signals, and 
landscaping are also included in the cost estimates.  These amounts are very rough 
numbers rounded to approximated costs.  A project budget estimate also includes sales 
tax, professional services, right of way, cost of living adjustments and inflation. Inflation 
is added because of the future date of a project.
  
Chairman Greg Loper inquired about internal funds and charge backs.  The project 
budgets try to reflect total cost; and an example of internal funds is engineering services.  
Instead of hiring an outside engineer, the city uses its own engineering staff to do the 
work.  The bond proceeds are used to pay for the City staff’s services.  In many cases it is 
more efficient, economical, and consistent to use City staff.  Another example of an 
internal fund is the City’s percent of the Arts charge adopted by Council that requires one 
percent of construction project costs be allocated to go towards arts.   The arts fund must 
be used for art within the community.  Santos Diaz asked if the arts monies are going to 
be used to help fund changing out signs and other items related to the City’s new 
branding project and City logo.  Deputy City Manager Carl Swenson explained that staff 
will be putting a team together from a variety of departments to create a graphics packet 
to present to Council regarding the new City logo.  The expenses for changing out 
required City logos will be funded from the operating budget.  Greg Loper asked about 
sales tax and permits and how it appears the City is just paying itself.  The City is 
required to pay for permits, sales tax and impact fees because the City does impact 
streets, drainage systems, wastewater systems and other areas.  There are eighteen 
different categories of City sales tax.  The City pays sales tax to the general fund and part 
of the sales tax fee goes to the State and County as well.

Community Service Director J.P. de la Montaigne addressed the committee and discussed 
the Sports Complex and the required $5 million dollar renovation.  The Arizona Sports 
and Tourism Authority will provide $10.5 million to the City for renovations to maintain 
standards at the Sports Complex, but the City must commit to $5 million to receive 
funding from the Authority.  The City is confident that the teams will request more 
seating and upgraded club houses to match the new facilities currently being built 
through out the valley. Greg Loper asked how much money the teams and spring training 
bring to the City in a year. The economic impact is that sixty-eight percent of seats are 
sold to out of state fans and the City makes approximately $62 million from those fans, 
$6 million from stadium sales (tickets, concessions and parking), and the teams spend 
about $2 million a year within the City.  Other events at the Sports Complex such as a 
youth baseball tournaments also generate revenue for the City.

Alan Doerschel inquired about other uses for the stadium other than Spring Training.  Mr. 
de la Montaigne responded that 342 days of the year, the Sports Complex is utilized for 
some purpose.  The stadium itself is utilized 180 days out of the year.  Mr. Doerschel 
continued by asking if there were youth and senior events at the stadium throughout the 
year.  Mr. de la Montaigne indicated that many of City’s large events such as little 
league, Halloween and Easter events, and other celebrations are hosted there.  Mr. 
Doerschel commented about the amortization of the renovation cost for the Sports 
Complex over a twenty year period and indicated the City gets good value for the monies 
spent on the renovations.  

Ron Lyzniak inquired about naming rights and if any funding received for those rights 
could go into the City’s general fund.  Mr. de la Montaigne responded that City has put 
out proposals in the past, but hasn’t received any significant offers and any monies 
received would go into the general fund.    Finance Director Brent Mattingly commented 
that the City does prefer to have Peoria’s name on the Sport Complex facility so the 
facility is directly associated with the City.

Budget Director Jeff Tyne provided a presentation on how the City identifies and 
approaches the financing of projects.  The Budget Department received $500 million in 
projects that are not included on the list of suggested projects requiring voter 
authorization.  Budget Analyst Dawn Irvine addressed the committee regarding the 
prioritization of projects.  The City uses certain tools as a starting point for prioritizing 
projects.  When departments put in a request to Budget, they use an input system that 
allows them to value and score projects their projects based on identified criteria.  Staff 
need to address such questions within the system that identify if the project will require 
ongoing operational costs, how the project impacts the quality of life, and also if the 
project addresses health and safety issues. Department are allowed to explain why they 
feel a specific project is so important.  

 In reviewing funding sources for projects, questions such as are projects growth related, 
is there grant availability, is there an opportunity to partner, can utility rates or impact 
fees be applied.  Then after those considerations, staff looks at General Obligation bond 
funding.  Committee members received handouts of the summary of bond authorization 
requests and a summary of unfunded projects.  Every project submitted is included in the 
packet of information and the different funding sources are provided so that committee 
members can make an informed decision.   

A challenge in developing the City’s capital improvement plan is the transportation 
system needs.  There are significant congestion problems and existing deficiencies which 
are a result of new development within other neighboring cities. In Arizona, we rely on 
commercial development – taking care of business requires taking care of infrastructure 
for the long haul by maintaining service levels and keeping up with growth requirements.  
A significant amount of voter authorization is requested for streets and parks.  Projects 
that did not make the “cut” include the police mobile command vehicle and equipment, 
Fire Station No.10 (because of the timing), the Northern Municipal Support Services 
Facility, network infrastructure, Community Park No. 4,  third branch library, 84th 
Avenue streetscape and 91st Avenue widening on Lake Pleasant Parkway.

Mark Proctor asked if committee members were provided with a list of unfunded 
projects. Staff indicated that the unfunded list was also distributed to committee 
members.    

Budget Director Jeff Tyne discussed some projects for consideration by the committee 
which included dirt roads paving, residential street overlay, Fire Station No. 10 (impact 
fees can be used but they might not be available when the station is needed), downtown 
area improvements and the Sports Complex/Entertainment Area improvements.  He also 
discussed the limitations as to what can be bond funded because of the assumption that 
the City’s property tax rate will remain the same.  

Mark Proctor asked if committee members could receive a summary of the project 
scoring.  Staff explained that a project can receive a total of 45 possible points.  There is a 
list of criteria detailed in the CIP Summary.  Mr. Proctor also asked for an explanation of 
the projects with a zero scoring.  Staff explained those projects were projects turned in 
late and not scored in the process.   Chairman Loper requested that staff provide a 
handout of projects prioritized by ranking.  City staff will provide a list to members at the 
next committee meeting.   Anne Wojcik asked if members can discuss projects on the 
unfunded list and staff indicated that committee members can certainly question any of 
the unfunded projects listed and add other projects.  

Vice Chairman Phil Hanson asked about the affects of property values going up when the 
property tax rate is staying the same.  The City can not control property values, but we 
can change our property tax rates.  The City Council has recommended reducing property 
tax rate as part of this year’s budget process.  Mr. Hanson suggested that it would be a 
good idea for the City to let citizens know how the money is used and how the funds help 
the community.  Ron Lyzniak questioned how the City is going to get the information 
regarding the bond election out to the citizens.  Deputy City Manager John Wenderski 
explained that City Staff will host town hall meetings in each district to discuss the 
proposed projects.  He also indicated the City uses a variety of media methods to inform 
the public.  Mr. Lyzniak inquired if dirt road paving includes areas within county islands. 
Mr. Wenderski responded that the City does not fund projects within county islands.  Mr. 
Lyzniak asked where the dirt roads were located within the City that require paving.  The 
City has dirt roads up north and many of these have been grated but never paved.  Alan 
Doerschel asked if the committee approves the list of projects and then we fast forward 
three years, will a committee then be considering the unfunded projects for bond 
authorization.  In the future, staff will reevaluate all projects before presenting the 
information.  

Chairman Greg Loper announced the next meeting will be January 30, 2008, at 6:30 p.m.
Mr. Loper then made a call to the public.  

Being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:21 p.m. 



						 ___________________________________                                                                                                                                                                                 
						Greg Loper, Committee Chairman



Submitted by:



_________________________________
Michelle Grieb, Executive Assistant
Finance Department