CMPAC Meeting 5-8-20

Transcribed by Cheryl Dowden, May 9, 2020

The Comprehensive Master Plan Advisory Committee (CMPAC) met on Friday, May 8, 2020. The committee members attended via video conferencing due to the requirement to follow COVID-19 meeting protocol. The Board had previously tabled a motion to rescind this committee and the CMP.

Committee members in attendance were Chairperson, Nikki Choyce; Vice-chair, Rolland White; Secretary, Tom Heau; Pam Avila; Jody Latham; Diane Bielanski; Ray Lehman, Clint Blackman; and Stephanie Heffer, staff member (HSVPOA Director of Placemaking and Development). Absences were Murray Claasen and Tucker Omohundro. (Edited to add: Tucker Omohundro did not know about the meeting until 1:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting.)

I have attempted to transcribe the meeting with accuracy. Headings and text in brackets are not quotations. Some of the main points are highlighted. Please keep in mind, that most verbal communication is the actualization of free-flow thought and it is not unusual for people to not speak in complete sentences.

Non-POA Sanctioned Transcript of 5-8-20 CMPAC Meeting

Choyce:  Hello.  Calling the meeting for the Comprehensive Master Plan Advisory Committee Meeting to order today May 8, at 1:00 p.m.  We are official.  Okay.  I had…sorry for the lateness of it but I did send out the April meeting minutes.  Did everyone have a chance to review it and are there any comments, changes, edits?

Choyce:  Good.  Nonverbal is good at this particular point.  [Giggle] All right.  So, do I have a motion to approve the minutes?

Bielanski:  Motion to approve

Choyce:  Thank you, Diane.  Second?

White:  Second.  Rolland.

Choyce:  Rolland, okay.  Great.  All in favor say ‘aye.’ [ayes] Any opposed?  Okay.  Good.  So we have the meeting minutes from last time approved.  And then, as far as the Agenda, I’d seen some comments about wanting to move Item Number 8 up, and the only reason why it is Item Number 8 is because [sic] it is the only thing we have under New Business.  We typically do Old Business before New Business.  That is the only reason.  So, yes, I didn’t think that the others were going to take all that much time.  I was thinking that where probably we’d focus our attention today.  Any other changes, additions, comments on the Agenda?

Heau:  I have one question. 

Choyce:  Sure, Tom.

Committee yearly cycles end in June

Heau:  This is in regard to our rolling over, our membership on the committees.  Three of us have had one-year membership and then we’re supposed to appoint committee officers and then the Board approves it sometime.  So what’s the time table for that?

Choyce:  The time table is that they are trying to be more consistent and they let us know at the beginning of the year and I thought I sent an email out to you all…that even though this committee was started in April and you would think a year would be in April, they have shifted it so that they want to approve the annual cycle to be at the June Board Meeting.  So technically speaking, that will be when the one-year cycles will end.

Heau:  So, theoretically, we should take care of all of that at our next meeting?

Choyce:  Yes, yes.  And that’s assuming…you know, I’ll have one-on-one conversations with those who have the one-year terms and figure out whether or not we have an opening or if somebody is going to renew.

Heau:  Okay, very good.

Choyce:  Okay?  Any other questions?  Okay, you’re muted Clint.  I can see your mouth moving, but I…Unmute Clint.

Avila:  Tell Clint how to take himself off mute.

Choyce: Got it.

Blackman:  Got it.  Can you hear me? 

Choyce:  Yes.

Blackman:  All right.  I just wanted to check the mic.

Choyce:  All right.  Okay.  All right.  So are we okay with the Agenda?

[Someone says yes]

Choyce:  And, we can go through the process again. 

Heau:  Motion to approve the Agenda.

Choyce:  Motion to approve.  Okay.  That’s a first.  And then a second would come from?

Blackman:  Second.

Choyce:  Clint, I heard your voice first.  All approved.  Say ‘aye.’

[Unanimous ayes]

Chairperson comments

Choyce:  Any opposed?  Okay.  So approved.  Okay, Chairperson Comments…The primary thing that I wanted to let you know is that first of all I did do the presentation to the Board on, right after our last meetings and so I really wanted to thank all of you all for your contributions in helping putting together a report.  All the feedback that I got was positive.  Most people, the most common feedback that I got was that it was one of the best reports that they had ever written so that is nice.  Several of them loved the level of detail.  There were a few questions regarding why some information was not covered and it was simply a matter of prioritizations.  I mean this is supposed to be a very long-term plan, so assuming that we have touched absolutely everything in this year is unrealistic.  That is not the way that long-term plan is supposed to go.  Hopefully, this is something that they will continue to use as we move forward with wherever it goes. 

Choyce reported the BOD said some portions of the CMP were operational in nature and needed to continue

Choyce:  You may have also been aware that there have been a couple of Board meetings.  There was one Special Meeting and one working session since our last meeting of the Board and at this week’s working session, they did talk about the CMP and both the CMP as well as the CMPAC was on the Agenda.  They tabled the CMPAC because they needed to make a decision and have discussions on the CMP first.  So having said that, they had a dialog that went back and forth a little bit and in the Special Meeting, they put a motion on the table and then postponed it, any action on it, that would basically take the entire CMP off the table and anything associated with it and then it became clear that that was probably not the direction that we needed to go into. 

Choyce reported Board wants shorter-term plan and CMP is a four-letter word

Choyce:  The revised workshop version of it was acknowledging that there are some portions of the CMP that were operational in nature and needed to continue and there are other aspects like the town center that were things that weren’t going to move forward and did not need to be included in any future plan.  The other comment that they made was that they really didn’t think…well, there’s two other comments that came to the table.  Both of which we’ve heard before.  The first one was that a 20 to 30 year plan was something that was hard to get your hands around and they really wanted to focus in on having a one, three, and five year plan.  And the second one is that just the acronym of CMP has become a four-letter word and it is just a challenge to get any additional support or buy-in of that because of just the acronym.  So…

Lehman:  Clint is waving at somebody.

Blackman:  I’m waving at Nikki…

Choyce:  I didn’t see you.  Sorry.

Blackman said old Board appreciated work of CMPAC

Blackman:  Okay, for the purpose of the record, would you go back and explain that it was, because I think this is what you meant to say, was that it was the OLD Board before the New Board.  The OLD Board that you made your, our presentation to and the old board appreciated our work and said it was some of the best they’d ever seen.  Is that correct?

Choyce:  That is correct.  We did the presentation at the April Board Meeting and following the April Board Meeting, the new Board Members were seated.

Blackman says the the new Board Members are known as ‘Lloyd and his Show’

Blackman:  Right, so the new Board Members, what has been known as Lloyd and his Show, they had no comment on our work.

Choyce:  Um, other than, I can only go by what I heard in the video meetings that have since [sic], I think that they acknowledged they had received it, whether or not they have read it, I have not talked to any of them individually to find that out.  I would hope that they had.

Blackman says Board had motion to dissolve CMP

Blackman:  And, and in their motion in that first working session, the motion was to dissolve the CMP.  Correct?

Choyce:  Well they wanted to, I think the word they used was ‘rescind’ but yes, basically take it all away, not realizing how much of it is operational work.

Board response to email from CMPAC

Blackman:  Right.  And has there been any response to the letter that we sent to them where we would help them understand what all was in the CMP?

Choyce:  I did receive two responses.  One was that any new plan that we came up would have those relevant pieces [sic] part of it and another one said that they would consider it for further review.

Blackman:  But there hadn’t been any requests for a meeting with any of us or any further discussion ourside of that?

Choyce:  Not that I am aware of.

Blackman:  Okay.  Thank you.

Choyce:  Um hum.  Okay, so I would, since we do have the final report for our Annual Report. Sorry, for 2020 to the Board, I would like to attach that to these meeting minutes so that we have it as an archived document…And..

Blackman:  Do you need a motion?

Bielanski:  Do what [undecipherable].  If I may.

Choyce:  Yes.

Bielanski:  So the actual wording of the motion is to rescind, repeal and annul.  Those were the exact words. 

Choyce:  Okay.  That was in the original Special Meeting and again the working session wasn’t designed to make any decisions.  It was literally to have and open the discussion.  So I am sure this is going to be coming on the table again.  I would hope that as an advisory committee if there was [sic] actions that…and this was gonna move forward or not, that as an advisory committee we would be called upon to assist.  But I haven’t heard anything yet.  Okay, so Clint, you were asking if we needed a motion to attach this to the minutes and I don’t think that’s true.  Stephanie?  Do we need a motion?

Heffer:  I don’t think you need a motion.

Choyce:  Okay, so we’ll just attach it.  So, good catch.  All right.  That’s all I had.  Stephanie, do you have anything?

Heffer:  You know, I don’t’ really have anything new.  Tucker, I was texting with Tucker and he was I thought was appointed our kind of interim liaison but he’s not going to be on the call today.  So just so you know we won’t have Board Committee representation today.  But no, I don’t really have anything else.  I think you covered it pretty well, what has transpired with the Board.  Of course they met again this week on Wednesday and further discussed the plan as well as Protective Covenants and what I got from that was that they were considering a Finance and Planning Committee.

Choyce:  Right.

Heffer says possibility the CMPAC would morph into the Finance and Planning Committee

Heffer:  And maybe potentially this group would morph into this planning committee.  I don’t know.  It’s been their practice so far to reach out to the people were like Finance, people that were already committed or had already been working on Finance to invite them to participate in the new committees, the new makeup of the committee.  So I would hope that you and all of us would be called upon to participate.

Choyce:  Well…

Heffer: In fact a planning committee…

Heau:  Can I update you on that?

[Choyce and Heffer say, ‘sure, Tom.’]

Heau:  Okay, I did go through an interview for the new Finance and Planning Committee.  The…you know I won’t know personally whether I’ve been selected until the May 20^th Board Meeting where they actually would announce committee membership.  There is a couple of paragraphs in the Charter referencing planning.  I asked them specifically about the breadth of the paragraphs because I thought it was pretty cryptic and after reading it a bunch of times, it was to me, leaning kind of heavily toward the Financial Planning three to five-year plan.  It specifically says three to five-year plans and they said their thinking really was something more broad than simply a Financial Plan.  So, they definitely left the door open for a more broad-based plan.  Something along the lines of a strategic plan. And see I look at the CMP as, you know, has a pretty heavy development dose to it and a strategic plan probably would incorporate development as one of the bases of the strategic plan.  So other than the Finance and Planning Committee doesn’t have anything on its plate right now because it doesn’t exist, but it’s pretty clear that there are a jillion things to do and I don’t when or where they would actually get around to the planning aspect of it as opposed to some point of view that right now we have some pretty, the Village has some pretty awesome challenges with respect to just plain old financial matters.  So I would say that at this time, it would be reasonable to look at the Charter and say that, yes, it could include a strategic plan.  It could include things that would include development strategy with that three to five-year outlook attached to it.  But, when and where,  you know when we’ll get to whatever our priorities are, I have no idea and again May 20^th for me is the magic date when they announce the members.

Choyce:  Well, and if I’m not mistaken, the Charter for that particular committee has not even been approved yet, has it?

Heau:  It was approved in the first Special Meeting.  The version I saw had more editorial edits.  So even the version that I saw was not the one that was approved.

Choyce:  Um hum.  Well, it’s not on the committee page as an official committee yet and that was obviously where I looked to see the Charter, to see how much planning was involved in that.  So until that exists, then we don’t know.  My assumption is that strategic planning will fall under that committee.  That that is the intent.  But I have not been able to view the Charter to see if that’s true.

Heau:  But I mean in response to a direct question from me, they definitely left the door open for what you just said.  So at this point, I think we can proceed with that’s what’s in their heads.

Choyce:  Well, got to get it on paper.

Heau:  Yes, I agree with that.

Choyce:  All right.  Well, anything else?  Stephanie?

Heffer:  No, no.  Not really.  Nothing that you guys already know [sic].

Heau:  Stephanie, did you say someone from the Board was temporarily appointed as liaison, whatever, member of this…

Heffer:  Yeah.  Tucker Omohundro is, just as the ACC Board Committee person and…

Choyce:  Per our Charter.

Heffer:  Per the Charter, that same person represents this committee as well.  So it would be Tucker.

Heau:  So he may not know it.

Heffer:  No, he does.  He couldn’t make it.

Choyce:  Okay.  So on with the Agenda.  I think I pretty much gave you the information regarding the Annual Report to the Board.  Was there any specific questions about that?  That any of you all had?  Okay.  So wow, that ten minutes went awfully darn fast. 

CMP Amenity Prioritization Tool uses point scoring system

Choyce: Let’s go ahead to Item number 7.  We have been trying for several months now to get this on the Agenda.  The work that Tom and Ray have done regarding the prioritization evaluation.  Who’s gonna take the lead on that one?

Heau:  I could do that.  I sent out an email last night and probably I sent one out the month before and I sent one out the month before.  But has everybody had a…well everybody has had a chance to look at it.  I don’t know if you’ve actually looked at it or not.  But basically, it just summarizes the amenity prioritization tool that’s in the CMP on page 305. 

Heau: It’s basically a big old check list with yes and no answers.  If you say, yes, you get points.  If you say no, you don’t get points.  You add up all the points and off the top of my head out of a maximum of say 140 points, if you score something like 100, then it’s a high priority item and so on and so forth. 

CMP Amenity Prioritization Tool has two sections

Heau: The tool itself has two sections.  One for a new amenity- for example, I think people would think that the pool and the pickleball courts were new amenities and then amenity upgrades and as a, for instance, you might think of the Balboa Club, what they’re going through now could be considered an upgrade.  So there are historical and live uses for the tool.

Amenity Prioritization Tool Recommendations

Heau: And we came up after looking at the tool, we came up with. a bunch of recommendations, which I summarized in the email last week and the recommendations in brief are:

Heau:  We would recommend that representatives of staff and the CMP get together and look at the line items in detail because they may be vague and they may be subject to interpretation.  A yes or no answer to me isn’t always clear and there is always some possibility for some degree of bias to sneak in there. 

Heau: I think we had a lot of discussion about how the tool fits into the process of the staff going to the Board and requesting for half a million or a million dollars, whatever the project is going to cost.  And that would impact how the tool was used and what kind of questions would be present in the tool.  I think Ray and I both felt it was pretty reasonable to expect a third-party review, particularly because to me the questions were vague.  So, Stephanie had provided some examples and definitely I had some questions regarding some of the yes answers where I would have thought the answer would be no.

 Heau:  Which dovetails into the next recommendation is reviewing prior Amenity Prioritization tools to see what you can learn from it.  Those are the recommendations.  Ray, do you have anything that you want to…

Lehman:  Well, I’ll give.  I think one of the pieces that we were adding to it, you may have covered a little bit here in what you just said, but was to have…I think it was actually your suggestion to have the CMPAC be the non-partisan  Board that would review some of these prioritization requests to make certain that…I think an example that I used, if I was going to put one together for a gun range on the property, it would be the most flowery prioritization tool use that you’ve ever seen because it might be something that I want to have or if somebody wanted to have a dog park on the east side, it would be a flowery one.  So having a group to review it, to make certain that the answers are all accurate would be an important piece.  Then you and I and Stephanie met in Stephanie’s office and she showed us a few ways that that’s already in place.

Choyce:  Good.  All right. 

Heffer:  At this point basically they’ve done the review and want to make those recommendations, it would have to be in the form of a motion.

Choyce:  Okay. 

Heffer:  I think Tom would probably need to make a motion to…

Heau:  Well, before that, I mean is there any discussion that people want to initiate?

Choyce:  Only that the…going back to the very beginning where we were taking a look at all of the tools is that our ability, our ability, our community, the committees, the Board, staff, everyone, our ability to make good decision, decisions is based on the quality of the decision-making tools that we use.  So if there is some quality issues in terms of is this or is this not a good tool to use to help us make the decision then improving that would be where we want to go.  To make them as best as we can to improve the overall decision making.

Heffer:  I think that’s true and know that it is just one tool in our toolbelt.  Right?  It’s just one tool in our tool chest when we actually put together a request for funding for some large capital project.  I mean it is just one component of a much larger package.

Heau:  And like I said, it is just one piece of an overall request for funding.  If there’s no discussion, then I make a motion that we approve the report and recommendations as written.

Choyce:  Do we hear a second? 

Bielanski:  Ray, you were actually the person working with Tom.  Did you want to second it?

Lehman:  Well, sure.  I’ll second it.  I mean I wasn’t sure if that…yeah, I’ll second it.

Bielanski:  I mean, I could but I thought it would be nice if you did.  You did all the work.  Thank you.

Choyce:  Okay.  All in favor say ‘aye.’

[Ayes]

Choyce:  Any opposed?  Okay, motion passes.

Avila:  I do have a question, though.

Choyce:  You do have a question.  Okay, Pam.

Where do CMPAC recommendations go?

Avila:  Where do the recommendations go? Once now that they’ve created these recommendations are they going to be like the Marketing Subcommittee recommendations that go into the ethernet, ether space out there or they actually going somewhere and be worked on?

Bielanski:  And the website recommendation from February 14^th, that we never heard back on.

Heffer:  These recommendations will go to me and since this is something I do, I take this as its own, the request.  I will just comment real quickly on your website.  I am not going to comment on the marketing thing because that’s been beat to death I think.  But the website is in process.  So with the hiring of the Sells Agency and the upgrades to the website, they are working on getting your recommendations in place.

Avila:  It would be really helpful if we, since we go to the work to create these recommendations and like Tom and Ray put in work, if they are going to be worked on, it would be really considerate for one thing as well as beneficial, if we got reports on the status of what they are doing with the recommendations.  The website, okay you’re working on it.  What is the status?

Heffer:  Why don’t we, Nikki, why don’t we, assuming this committee still exists next month, why don’t we add that as an agenda item- update on prior recommendations.

Choyce:  Okay.

Heffer:  And that way we will just do a monthly update, where we come prepared with updates for the committee.

Choyce:  Would this include all motions?  I thought that everything that we’ve done has been in the form of a motion, correct?

Heffer:  I think if its something that is outstanding, if there’s work that has been recommended that’s outstanding and has yet to be fulfilled or completed, then I think it remains kind of in that old business category.  So even though the committee has done the work and made the recommendations.  It’s not old business for you to continue to do something, but its not completed on the staff side yet.  And again, there are always…the completion may be that the committee made the recommendation, but it didn’t go anywhere.  I mean it does happen.  Committees make recommendations at times and the staff chooses not to do it.  Or a Board chooses not to do it.  So, but you would need to know that.  The answer is, you still need to know yes it was brought before a staff group, whoever that may be and they chose not to proceed with that recommendation for X,Y,Z reasons.

Choyce:  Or it could be just simply, not now.  It’s simply a matter of priorities.  It’s not like we don’t have anything else to do.

Heffer:  That’s right.  That’s right.

Choyce:  Okay. 

Heau:  Okay, a couple of points of clarification, I would need.  Okay, first of all, we also, I believe did the same thing with the Growth Prioritization Tool.  I think we all agreed that that had a much, much lower priority.  But, I think it would behoove us to compile a list.  But I think it’s a very short list of all the recommendations that we as a committee have made.  And then is it, I think we said its basically Stephanie’s job to give us the updates on the status of all of those things.  Is that where we’re at?

Choyce:  Or whoever the relevant person is, but a lot of times since she is our conduit to the staff and then now Tucker being our conduit to the Board, we can get updates as appropriate, is what I’m thinking.  Stephanie, your thoughts?

Heffer:  That is exactly what I would say, yes.  But even if it’s a recommendation that’s moving, in the marketing for example, my job would be to bring back to you information from the marketing group.  I wouldn’t necessarily bring you the marketing team at our meeting or bring you the recreation team or golf team or anybody else, but for me to go see that information and I’ll bring it back to you.

Choyce:  Okay.  All right.  Good.

White:  I want to ask a question.

Heau:  What is missing is then a list of all the recommendations.

Choyce:  I’ve basically got that.  But I can consolidate it into a spreadsheet fairly easily.

Heau:  Okay.  Very good.

Choyce:  Okay.

Bielanski:  Rolland had a question.  Rolland.

White:  If there’s going to be a physical change to the document, in other words the text of these tools, they are part of the document and it seems to me since it is a governing document right now [lost feed]

Choyce:  Uh oh.  Rolland.

Someone said they lost Rolland.

White:  Okay.  It seems to me that any potential change would have to be approved by the Board.  I just saw a thing that says my internet connection is unstable.

[Choyce laughs]

Choyce:  That happens.

White:  I guess you can hear me.

Choyce:  Yes.

White:  So, since it is a governing document, any change of the text of the plan itself would have to be approved by the Board.  Correct?

Heffer:  That is true.  That is true.  So, right now all we are doing is the recommendation is to go back through and reevaluate.  So we haven’t made a change to the tool, yet.  So when we do, when we come to an agreement on what that change would look like, then yes, the Board would have to approve that.

White:  Thank you.

Choyce:  Okay.  All right.  Any others?  Then on to the next. 

Salvaging of key CMP items

Choyce: New Business.  We have Item number 8- the salvaging of key elements.  The handwriting is on the wall that the CMP as we know it is going to go away.  And what that means and how that will take place is unclear at the time.  We don’t have all the guidance yet for or from the Board.  However, since we are the team that has the most in depth knowledge of the CMP document, I believe there are elements that we have agreed upon that are not, do not have support and probably will not be happening in the new version or a new plan, whatever the case may be, but there are things that should and so wanted to open up the conversation to get feedback and your thoughts from all of you in terms of what we would…

[background talk]

Choyce:  I am not sure who’s background.  So the intent would be that we would go ahead and see if we can consolidate a list and be prepared that if the Board does come to us and say, ‘okay, what elements do we need to keep?’  Then we can make that list.  Rolland, I see your hand.

White:  I think your message to the Board is pretty much a recognition of that, isn’t it?

Choyce:  The message last week?

White:  Yeah, the email or whatever you sent to them.  Yeah.

Choyce:  Well, all I said in that one is that if you are going to discuss the CMP or the CMPAC as advisory committee, it would seem logical that they would want to engage us.  But…

White:  You had a laundry list of something in one of your emails.  Didn’t you?

Bielanski:  The first one.

White:  The first one.

Choyce:  The first one, yes.

White:  Yeah, the first one.  I mean is that pretty much what we recommended?  Essentially it is.  But you just said…

Choyce:  Hold on.  Let me pull that up real quick.  I’ve slept since then.  I know I kept this report to the Board.  Okay, I don’t have that immediately available to me.  I know I made a copy of it, of that email for my records but I am not able to put my fingers on it right this second.  So.

Avila:  Rolland said it was April 24^th.

Choyce:  Okay. 

White:  That’s when I said a message that said, ‘well done.’  Yeah.  Yeah, it’s April 24^th.

Heffer:  I can share my screen and you guys can see it, if you like.

Choyce:  If you already have it.  That’d be great.

Heffer:  See that. 

[Please click on this link if you wish to see the email the CMPAC sent to the Board. (The writing is small and the right side is covered up.) You may want to enlarge and put the video on pause.]

Bielanski:  There it is.

Choyce:  Yes.

White:  Got it. 

Choyce:  Okay, this says the broad categories in terms of what an explanation of some of the areas but it doesn’t really have a specific things.  Like, for example, Implementation Tables.  We’ve done some significant work on that in order to make it more of a tool that can be used for tracking things and I think from that point of view, that would be one recommendation that we’d have moving forward in terms of…that’s useful.  Regard…as a tool, it’s useful.  But there’s also information, O and M Tables, that’s built into the financial reports and budgeting.  So that obviously is a piece that I think would go.  But is there any specific areas or pieces?  Wayfinding came up in the meeting this week in terms of, we don’t have consistency in signage and there was some dialogue about road maintenance as well.  So, I was thinking more specific items like that versus the generalities of saying, ‘13% of the plan focuses on infrastructure and maintenance and another 15% on budget and finance.’  Is there anything specifically that we want to say, whatever plan you have for the next one, three, five years, the CMP has the following specific recommendations that we…do we want to go by recommendations or by topic?  I’m open here.

Heffer:  You know if you…you might consider even just working through the table of contents so when you really look at, just like section three for example which a big hunk of the document.  I mean, that’s where you have governance.  You have budget and finance.  You have economic development and marketing, amenities and recreation, health and education, public safety, zoning and esthetics, utilities, infrastructure and transportation.  I think if you were to say like those categories are categories we believe to be of value to the community in whatever content…however the content evolves…those topics…those specific areas of interest should remain a part of whatever strategic plan evolves.  Maybe you look at it from a table of contents perspective, I guess is what I am saying, to get the subject matter of the meat of the document, in whatever comes forward.

Choyce:  Okay.  I think Section three is probably, if we’re going to do it by table of contents, that would be the one area where we would probably would want to make a recommendation.  Introduction…I don’t know if that would have value.  Okay, I see Diane’s hand.

Bielanski:  Yes, I was up.  Thank you.  Can you hear me?  Okay.  So I was also thinking after that section of the document, there Section Six I believe which is O and M.  Do I have that correctly?

Choyce:  That’s true.

Bielanski:  And then Section Seven had some significant information about service gaps and I believe Pam, one of those was relative to the internet.  Was it not?  Am I saying that correctly?

Choyce:  I see a nod.  Yes.

Heffer:  Yes.  In general the service gaps were intended to evolve as we understand, as time goes on, we learn where we have gaps that are competitive or we aren’t able to provide the services that we would like for our community or our members.  So, that Service Gap Section today, may be different tomorrow.  It may be different a year from now.  So again, it is a topic that whatever plan we evolve into, makes sense to keep.

Choyce:  Mm huh.

Bielanski:  Basically, we lifted the Implementation Table or [undecipherable] within the CMP, extracted those two in Excel Spreadsheet.  We have almost three hundred items in there, many of which deal with the short term of the Village.  I believe that is also true when we look at the section called O and M and the section that was for Service Gap.  Those three.

Choyce:  Mm hum.  So maybe that’s a recommendation.

Bielanski:  Yes, because I believe that if I heard correctly, and its unfortunate that the Board did not see it possible for one of the Board Members to be here today, but I thought I heard that there was a definite inclination to retain the Implementation Tables and just strip out anything that was not specifically maintenance or that kind of thing.  There were spe…

Choyce:  Operations.

Bielanski:  Operations.  Yeah.  There were specific words that were used.  But there was no reference to those last two chapters or sections which I also think are valuable to our Board and the staff going forward.

Choyce:  Um hum.  I got the CMP here too.  The service gaps that are specifically called out are broadband, transportation, grocery, healthcare, lodging and alternate energy.  So, none of those are problems that are going to get solved yesterday.  They are gonna take some time.  But that doesn’t mean we don’t need to have them on the radar.  So, okay.  What do you all think about that approach to making a recommendation of the CMP if we use the table of contents, focusing in on Section Three which has the nine core areas, broad areas of places to focus and then the Implementation Tables of Section Five, the O and M Tables, Section Six and the Service Gaps of Section Seven.

Heffer:  I mean, I think that’s a good place to start.  It just seems like it’s a good place to start the conversation.  And again, I think the content within those sections might change but the headlines remain.  You need a strategy around those things, whatever that may be.

Choyce:  Um hum.

Heffer:  So if you don’t like the strategy that is outlined in this book then write a strategy that makes some sense to whoever the writer is and whoever the Board is at that moment.  So.

Choyce:  Okay.  Rolland?

Lehman:  Under Section Five, the Prioritization Tools have some value as well.

Heffer:  I agree.

Choyce:  Yes, all of Section…

Lehman:  I don’t know about the development options, but…

Choyce:  Yeah, but the tables and the tools of that section, I think that that would be a good call too.  Thank you.  Sorry, Rolland.  We interrupted.

White:  No problem.  So what we listed, basically leaves out development and real estate related stuff.  That’s the main objection of a number of Board Members that are pushing very hard to get rid of it.  What we’ve got left is the non-development stuff.  Which, I don’t see how they can argue with it.

Choyce:  Um huh.

White:  I don’t see how anybody can argue with it but there’s a lot of things I don’t support.

Choyce:  Um hum.  There’s still some references to the town center concept but some of those town center concepts focuses [sic] around for example, Coronado Center.  What can we do there?  What can we do for Carmona?  What can we do around the Woodlands, so that to me is taking a look at existing and seeing what we can.  Focusing in on that area without necessarily, you know, if they want to do new development sometime, then that’s up to them, but they can take it or leave it.  None of this is gonna ah, I think it’s most important that we have the category so we could at least prioritize and recognize that a little work has to be done on all of these areas.  We can’t just ignore one wholly because eventually its going to become in crisis mode and will have to be dealt with.

Avila:  You know I think part of the challenge is that given the responses the two.  I think Tucker responded and maybe Diana responded to your message with pretty curt responses and it felt to me as if the responses were, ‘don’t bother us.  We’ll handle this.’  And so I am wondering if our approach could be different, could be better so that instead of saying, ‘hey, we’re the CMPAC.  We’ve been here for a year.  We know what we’re doing.  This is what we think you should be doing.’  That we take kind of a more conciliatory approach that basically says, ‘hey, we’ve been working on this for quite a while and we’d be glad to help you in any way that we can because we know this is going to be an onerous task for you and if we could shorten or help minimize what you have to do then we would be more than happy to do that.’  But I think something closer to that approach instead of, ‘We’re so smart.  Look what we’ve done and this is what you need to do.’  I don’t know.  I’m just not seeing a good response to that.

Choyce:  No.  And I agree with you that we probably need to open the door, not close the door.  I would like to open the door because I think after a year of this we do have at a minimum if they ask us a question about, ‘does the CMP contain X?’, we’re in a much better position because of our familiarity to say, ‘I can look for that for you because I know pretty much where to find that’ versus them hunting.  I think it would be a way that they can save some time.  It is…we’ll have to see.  I mean at the end of the day, they’re going to make the call.  We…they’re one of our stakeholders.  As is the staff.  As is the Property Owner.  So we will go in the direction that they want at this particular point.  But it does seem clear that the CMP as we know it, may not be long-lived.  So, but I think everybody’s still in agreement that we need a plan.  It’s just a matter of what form that plan takes.  Rolland?

White:  I think the offer to help that was just mentioned is a very good opening.  But I think if we don’t at least list the things we believe ought to be considered as having value, then we’ll get the same response as we got before.  ‘Don’t bother us.  We’ll come to you if we feel like it.’

Choyce:  Well, as Diane mentioned in the last working session is that they’re just being inundated by an overwhelming number of emails.  So, we also have to appreciate that this is just one more thing that’s on their plate and one more email that they have to address.  I don’t think it should stop us from making the request.  But I don’t know when they’re going to get back to us.  Clint?

Blackman:  I disagree with Pam.  I think we made a very reasonable notice to them.  I don’t think we told them in the ways that she paraphrased it.  You know, you know their response is very clear.  They all, all three of them, four of them, all campaigned that they were going to remove the CMP.  And in fact, at least one or two of them said that they have never even served on a Village committee because quote, unquote, ‘it’s not worth their time.’  There’s not much you can do with people that have that attitude.

Choyce:  They’re on the Board and we will, you know, I think that as they get into the information and see how complex this is, that maybe they will have a potential different opinion.  We don’t know.  But this is where we are right now and I think it would just be good for us to get a little ahead so that we can be prepared that if and when a request comes to us regarding the CMP, we already have a response and we can get back to them in a timely manner.

Avila:  You know, I’ll go back to what Ray and I both said before.  We’re both sales people.  We’re both marketing people.  We sell to people.  At least I used to.  I used to sell to people all the time.  I sold multimillion dollar equipment, so I think we have some experience with how to approach people to get to a yes and so my suggestion stands that we’re telling them, we’re not asking them.  We are coming at it from our perspective, not their perspective and so our chances of their saying ‘yes’ are minimal.  Until we change our approach and until we present ourselves as someone here to assist them and help them so that their job is easier, they’re just going to keep saying, ‘no.’  They’ve [undecipherable] dug in their heels.

Blackman:  But they’ve already said, ‘no.’  They all campaigned and said ‘no CMP.’  That that would be the first thing they did, was to get rid of it.

Choyce:  Then you didn’t listen to the session last time because last time there was discussion on keeping elements of the CMP.  Their clearly, yes that was their initial stance but I thought I heard in the last session the other day that there were several comments about keeping various elements of the CMP about not throwing the whole thing away.  We’ve made the investment.  So they’ve opened the door.  Ray, what were you going to say.  I’m sorry.

Lehman:  I was just going to say that the realization of it is and I am certainly am not going to discount anything that you just said, Pam, because certainly a conciliatory way is the way to handle this, where we are bringing solutions. 

Lehman: But, I think the realization that all of these folks ran on dumping the CMP.  If they don’t dump the CMP and they think the amount of emails they are getting now is tough, wait until they state, ‘we’re going to keep the CMP.’ 

We’re just going to modify it.  I think what’s going to happen is, it’s going to get dumped but then portions of it worded a little bit differently are going to come back in because there’s all that [sic] great pieces to it.  So I think both of you, Clint and Pam are correct that this is probably going to get tossed away but we as an organization who know it intimately ought to be able to provide a service to the Board to help them and answer any questions they have about portions of the CMP.

Choyce:  I see Rolland raising your hand.

White:  Yeah.  So, I’ll go back to what I said.  Yeah, we ought to approach them and say, ‘okay, we’re here to help you.  We’d like to help you.  Tell us how we can help you.’  But we also, I think we need to mention there are a number of areas that need to be retained.  You’ve mentioned that and here’s what we think they should be…where we should look.

Choyce:  Um hum. 

White:  And if we don’t recommend something then I think we’re wasting their time.

Choyce:  Hum.  Well one of the things that I think would aide in a smooth transition, one thought I had was that instead of just terminating this committee just point blank is I would like to see more of a sunsetting where we have a transition from what we are currently working on in the CMP and assuming that the Finance, the new Finance and Planning Committee is going to take over the duties of strategic planning, then as we have identified these areas, then we can give them the pieces and parts and then they can do whatever they want with them and then we can sunset over time so that we don’t have a gap.  I would think that that would ease that.  But I don’t know if that is something we would move forward with.  Right now we’re just being a little bit proactive trying to get ahead of it to see I the handwriting is on the wall of what’s going to happen and we are…this is just one area that we’ve identified that potentially we should be prepared for.  Are there other areas that we should be prepared for?

Heffer:  You know, I just have a comment and that is that I think you’ve done your due diligence.  You’ve worked for the last year trying to sort of get your arms around the plan and make recommendations where you saw fit and then you asked the Board for sort of consideration of that work as they move forward with their plans, their decisions, as they move forward and at this point, Nikki, I think, you know, the only really [sic] message to go back to the Board is that this committee still stands ready to serve.  You volunteered for a reason because you care about your committee.  You care about the community, in whatever capacity, again in whatever form this CMP strategic plan, whatever it does, morphs into and so they know that this group is still willing to work and willing to give of your time and energy which is a gift.  I mean it is.  You’re not doing this for kicks.  You know, you’re not getting paid well.  Let’s face it.  So, just telling them that you’re stand at the ready to continue to work in whatever.   You know, as they move forward in whatever direction that they see best.  So I really think that’s the message.

Choyce:  Okay.  All right.  Any others?

White:  How do we tell them?  Do we write them an email?

Choyce:  I can do that.  I ‘m happy to and I’ll draft something and I can forward it to you all for comment and feedback.

Lehman:  Sounds like a plan.

White:  Works for me.

Choyce:  Okay.  All right so that’s really all I had on it.  Let’s go around the room and take some final comments.  I will go in the order that they are on my screen.  Rolland, you’re first.

White:  I’m fine.  Nothing.

Choyce:  Ray?

Lehman:  I was glad to get a haircut.

[laughter]

Choyce:  I’m jealous.  I haven’t done it yet.

White:  I need to say, ‘how do you like my shaggy dog look?’

[laughter]

Choyce:  It looks good on ya.  All right.  Clint, are you there?  I don’t see Clint, he may have walked away.

Bielanski:  He walked away.

Choyce:  Pam?

Avila:  What?  No.

Choyce:  No comments.

Avila:  No.

Choyce:  How about you, Jody?

Latham:  I don’t’ have any comments.

Choyce:  You are good to go?

Latham:  I am good to go.

Choyce:  All right.  Tom?

Heau:  No, nothing.

Choyce:  All right.  I think I got everybody except for is Clint…

White:  You skipped Diane.

Choyce:  I skipped Diane.  Okay, sorry.

Bielanski:  Nothing further.  Thank you.

Choyce:  Okay, Stephanie.

Heffer:  I’m good.

Choyce:  You’re good. Okay.  When somebody talks I’ve noticed that it shuffles the order and that kind of screwed me up there.  Okay.  So, if there is nothing else then I don’t see a reason to keep you  all going.  Do I hear a motion to adjourn?

White:  So moved.

Choyce:  Okay, Rolland.  I don’t think we need a second.  I think we can just say, ‘we’re good to go.’  You all have a really good weekend and happy Mother’s Day.

[People say, ‘you too.’

Choyce:  And I’ll keep you informed as news develops.

[Thank you’s and take care]

Choyce:  Goodbye.

***

Click here to watch the YouTube video of the 5-9-2020 CMPAC Meeting

[embedyt] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fbu4_0H70Vk[/embedyt]

***

Editor’s note: Thank you for reading. Click here to go to the home page to bookmark this website so you don’t miss any updates.

Click here to visit our Private Facebook Group.