Citizens should prep for Infrastructure Capital Improvements Plan public meetings

The budget and the Infrastructure Capital Improvements Plan–those are the biggies–the yearly enactments by the Truth or Consequences City Commission that have the greatest impact on residents’ lives. 

The ICIP is coming up first and then budget sessions will start. This article is a mini-prep for T or C residents who want to engage in the ICIP process. 

The city will hold two public session on the ICIP, both on Wednesday, April 22, at noon and then 5:30, after the city commission meeting. 

In years past the budget was passed first–by the state’s mid- or late-July deadline–and then the ICIP was passed. But the state changed the ICIP deadline to July 1 last year. 

This makes a lot more sense, since the budget needs to consider financial set-asides for capital projects that are prioritized and determined in the ICIP. 

Arguably the ICIP is more important than the budget. The budget determines what the city’s short term goals are, what it will spend its money on for a year, but the ICIP is a five-year “plan”– more like a list – that is updated each year. The city spends about $24 million on yearly operations but has nearly $70 million in capital projects on the books and $26 million in pending capital projects for which it has applied for governmental grants and loans. 

The ICIP is the only planning the city commission does, expending a couple of hours on its update a year. Yet this process largely determines the city’s physical future and how well its physical assets serve the public. The state of the city’s water and sewer infrastructure–both in crisis for seven years–indicates how well the ICIP planning process has worked over the years. 

Public participation in either the budget or ICIP in the last seven years has been minimal, but I’m hoping it’s better this year.  

During City Manager Gary Whitehead’s one-year tenure, informing and engaging the public has greatly improved, especially when it comes to capital projects. 

The ICIP also determines what state and federal grants the city will apply for, what loans it will take out and what capital outlay it will ask its legislators’ and the governor to part with in competitions with other local governmental entities vying for shares of limited pots of money. 

At the last city meeting I asked the city commission to educate the people first before asking them what projects they want the city to pursue. 

The process has been to hold a couple of public meetings and to do a bit of outreach on Facebook. The staff presentation is limited to defining ICIP. Then participants are asked “what city projects do you want?” Invariably the public said “fix the roads” and “new swimming pool.” In more recent years, with water running down various streets making the problems obvious, “fix the water leaks” has made the list. 

The city commission is given a vague summary of what was gleaned from their constituents. Last year it was so vague as to be worthless. “Infrastructure” was the conclusion drawn. 

The city commission is also given the list of projects from the prior year’s ICIP process. That list was dropped into the March 25 city commission packet–page 53 of the 97-page packet, available on the city’s website at: https://cms5.revize.com/revize/truthconsequencesnew/3-25-26%20CC%20Agenda%20Packet.pdf?t=202603241120240&t=202603241120240 

Some years department heads give brief presentations amounting to a list of what they want without much explanation. Some years Assistant City Manager Traci Alvarez compiles a list of what department heads want and puts it in a city packet. Neither directors’ presentations or Alvarez’ compilation have hit a city agenda yet, but an “ICIP Public Meeting and Presentation” is scheduled for the 9 a.m. May 13 city commission meeting. May 27 at the 4 p.m. meeting, “ICIP Rank and Final Adoption” by the city commission is scheduled. 

In the better cities and counties that I have covered as a local government reporter over the last 21 years the process of deciding on capital projects is comprehensive and continuous. 

The city’s Comprehensive Plan is the blueprint, referenced at nearly every city commission meeting. It’s usually a 20-year plan and is updated and adopted every five years, building on the prior one, deepening and enriching the community’s vision and direction. 

The Comprehensive Plan dictates capital projects far in advance.

Lots of public meetings are held. Lots of presentations by city staff and engineers are presented. The community and consensus building makes subsequent yearly budgets and financing set-asides comprehensible. The people  know where their taxes and utility fees are going and most importantly why the city needs the money and how it benefits and serves them.  

Nearly every city department–water, wastewater, electric, solid waste, roads, parks, airport, fire, police, public works and buildings–has a five-year asset management plan that is continuously being updated and presented yearly to the public and city commission for approval. The department directors continually reference their asset management plan during the year (and include a link to the document for the city commission and public) when a scheduled major repair or replacement comes up, which they dutifully report on at city meetings. 

Planning is a continuous process with the public kept in the loop. 

In contrast, T or C has had Wilson and Company working on updating the city’s 2014 Comprehensive Plan for two years now with no word to the public. It’s only a $55,000 project, so how comprehensive can it be? In seven years of attending city meetings I have never heard the 2014 plan referenced, showing how little value it holds. 

T or C has been trying to improve its asset management. About three years ago it bought iWorQ software and each department is supposed to be using it, but no department head has presented an asset management plan. 

At the last city meeting I requested that department heads present their asset management plans at the April 22 public ICIP meetings before asking the public for their input.

We’ll see if the process is improved this year, but I suspect it will take a big push from the public to make the planning process more meaningful. 

Please look for a second, related article, specifically on the ICIP list of projects and my questions about it, which I hope spurs public questions and input.