111714IB.DOC

Informal Meeting Minutes
Monday, November 17, 2014 Board Members
9:00 AM Denny Barney, Chairman, District 1
Steve Chucri, Vice Chairman, District 2
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Andrew Kunasek, District 3
Maricopa County, Arizona Clint Hickman, District 4
(and the Boards of Directors of the Flood Control District, Marie Lopez Rogers, District 5
Library District, Stadium District, Improvement Districts,
Housing Authority of Maricopa County and/or Board of
Deposit) County Manager
Tom Manos
Clerk of the Board
"The mission of Maricopa County is to
provide regional leadership and fiscally Fran McCarroll
responsible, necessary public services
to its residents so they can enjoy living Meeting Location
in healthy and safe communities”
Security Building
222 N. Central Ave, 8th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
The Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County, Phoenix, Arizona, convened in Informal Session at 9:00
AM on Monday, November 17, 2014, in the Security Building, 222 N. Central Ave., 8th Floor, Phoenix, AZ
85003, with the following members present: Denny Barney, Chairman, District 1; Steve Chucri, Vice
Chairman, District 2; Andrew Kunasek, District 3; Clint Hickman, District 4; Marie Lopez Rogers, District 5.
Also present: Fran McCarroll, Clerk of the Board; Lane Organ, Minutes Coordinator; Tom Manos, County
Manager; and Michelle Wood, Legal Counsel.
ACTION
Sheriff
1. DONATION OF BOOKING RV TO SHERIFF'S YOUTH ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION
Approve the donation of a booking RV, a 1991 Champion CTS290 (unit 47105), to the Sheriff's
Youth Association Foundation (YAF), a separate 501(c)(3) organization. The RV's monetary value
is $2,000 - $3,000 as estimated by the County's vehicle auction contractor. This item was
originally purchased 22 years ago from the General Fund for $83,518.37.
Approval of this donation will allow the Sheriff's Office YAF to refurbish the inside and outside of
the vehicle and will work with YAF board members that are able to help on refurbishments along
with any mechanical issues at no expense to the Sheriff's Office.
This vehicle is being retired from the MCSO Fleet and is currently assigned to Enforcement
Support. If approved, the Executive Director of the organization will be required to sign a form prior
to accepting the donation releasing the County from any liability or responsibility of this item.
This item requires a unanimous vote from the Board. (C-50-15-026-M-00)
Motion to approve by roll call vote by Supervisor Hickman, seconded by Supervisor Chucri
Ayes: Barney, Chucri, Kunasek, Hickman, Rogers

Informal Meeting Minutes
Monday, November 17, 2014
Page 2 of 8
2. EXECUTIVE SESSION
Vote to convene in Executive Session to consider items on the Executive Agenda dated
November 17, 2014, for Board of Supervisors and relevant Special Districts pursuant to statutory
authority listed for each item.
There were no items to be discussed in the Executive Session.
MEETING ADJOURNED
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
__________________________________
Denny Barney, Chairman of the Board
ATTEST:
_______________________________________
Fran McCarroll, Clerk of the Board

Informal Meeting Minutes
Monday, November 17, 2014
Page 3 of 8
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
The Board of Directors of the Flood Control District convened in Informal Session at 9:00 AM on Monday,
November 17, 2014, in the Security Building, 222 N. Central Ave., 8th Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85003, with the
following members present: Denny Barney, Chairman, District 1; Steve Chucri, Vice Chairman, District 2;
Andrew Kunasek, District 3; Clint Hickman, District 4; Marie Lopez Rogers, District 5. Also present: Fran
McCarroll, Clerk of the Board; Lane Organ, Minutes Coordinator; Tom Manos, County Manager; and
Michelle Wood, Legal Counsel.
PRESENTATION
F-1. STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
Discussion and direction regarding strategic planning for the Maricopa County Flood Control
District. (C-49-15-013-6-00)
Jack Tevlin welcomed everyone to the Strategic Planning Session for the Maricopa County
Flood Control District, explaining that the goal would be to determine guiding principles for the
District. Staff will come back to the Board at a later date and present the District’s priorities
and goals based on the discussion from this meeting. He stated that there will also be
discussion about how to communicate the principles under which the Flood Control District
operates to the Board’s constituents and other elected officials. He noted that the Flood
Control District has a $40 million a year capital program, and it is important to understand that
more than half of the budget goes towards maintenance. In addition, the $40 million program
under which the District is operating this year is taking advantage of some of the reserve
money from prior years.
Past goals and priorities were primarily focused on controlling and protecting the public from
flood risks. One issue to be discussed today would be if the Board would like for the District
to take on an additional duty focused on future economic development.
Angie Flick, Office of Management and Budget, provided an overview of the services and
functions that the Flood Control District provides. The first thing the Flood Control District
does is identify areas of flood hazards and flood risks. From that assessment, the staff either
tries to change nature through new capital projects and maintaining structures, or observe
nature through delineations, permitting and insurance. She noted that the District has control
of some flood delineation; however, there are ten cities that opted out of floodplain
management and do their own delineation: Avondale; Fountain Hills; Gilbert; Glendale;
Goodyear; Paradise Valley; Peoria; Phoenix; Scottsdale; and Tempe. Ms. Flick explained
that the District additionally operates the ALERT Flood Warning program. She added that the
program is a low-resource, high impact program which sends public safety notices and alerts
throughout the County. She stated that the program is working well. The District will
continue managing this program as it is currently structured.
Ms. Flick clarified that the District and the cities share in capital projects, but the ten cities
take full responsibility of delineation and permitting.
Mr. Tevlin explained that the District is required by law to identify flood issues, and every five
years, at minimum, is required to do a comprehensive plan update. The entire County study
that the District is working from is from 1985, which is considered to be a good standard.
Every five years, updates are done to the plan based on studies in specific areas. He asked
the Board whether or not the District should continue with the current pace of updates to the
original comprehensive report.

Informal Meeting Minutes
Monday, November 17, 2014
Page 4 of 8
Director Kunasek asked if there are any benefits to updating the report more or less
frequently. William “Bill” Wiley, Flood Control District Chief Engineer and General Manager,
explained that the reason for updating the plan is to account for changes that happen over
time, such as roads that have been built, subdivisions that have been put into place, or water
flow changes that occur due to development. He explained that the 15 to 30 year update is to
reevaluate the District’s efforts because of sufficient changes. Whereas, the five year update
generally looks at a ten-year Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) projection of
growth, and looks forward at newer areas where growth is anticipated.
Director Kunasek asked if the District takes into account all of the identified issues from
previous studies when new projects are presented and what is expected in the permitting
process. Mr. Wiley responded that staff currently does look back at the cumulative effects. At
the time of permitting, there is a review and projections. Afterwards, the District will look back
to make sure new projects are in compliance with permitting.
Director Hickman asked how much the reports cost. Mr. Wiley advised that the cost varies
depending on the size of the study, but is approximately $250,000. Mr. Tevlin noted that
sometimes local governments will also contribute to the studies.
Chairman Barney asked Director Rogers for her input as former Mayor of Avondale,
regarding why cities would chose to take the responsibility of delineation. Director Rogers
responded that it is likely due to cities wanting to keep local control, especially on matters that
effect economic development. She added that cities may also want to impose impact fees on
development.
Chairman Barney noted that the municipalities that have chosen to do their own delineation
are still subject to the levy as part of the secondary levy. He asked if it is possible for two
engineers, one from a city or town that does its own delineation and one from the County, to
come up with two different conclusions, which can create a complex problem. Mr. Wiley
explained that the conclusions depend on the methodologies that are used, which are
generally the same. He added that in regards to Director Roger’s point about why cities
would want to control their own delineation, it is often in order to simplify the process by
getting the permitting done at one time through a city or town.
Mr. Tevlin explained that delineation is based on a ten year expected growth. He noted that
the Arizona Department of Economic Security gives projections on growth, and MAG assigns
the growth to particular areas. The cities, towns and the County then come to a consensus
on where the projected growth will occur. Mr. Wiley noted that delineation is much more
specific and includes modeling and surveying.
Mr. Tevlin explained that delineation kicks off permitting and determinations regarding flood
insurance. Once an area is delineated, that determines whether development in that area is
going to need flood insurance for specific projects and what permits are going to be required
for any development that takes place. Ms. Flick noted that currently, the Flood Control
District does delineation within unincorporated areas and upon the request of a city or town.
Counties pay for delineation studies.
Tom Manos asked Mr. Wiley if there are cities that chose not to delineate in areas where
growth is anticipated. Mr. Wiley responded that there are, and often the District will not
delineate unless it is requested to by cities or towns that have taken the authority. If the
developer requests the County delineate, then the developer typically pays for delineation.
He clarified the reason why the District prefers developers do not delineate, which is because

Informal Meeting Minutes
Monday, November 17, 2014
Page 5 of 8
the developers will only look at a small area. The developer’s job is to delineate and make
sure that what comes off their property is not different than what comes onto their property -
but that is not always the best solution. Chairman Barney stated that he agreed this may not
always be ideal, and problems fall back onto the Flood Control District for solutions.
Mr. Manos noted that this is partly a communication problem. Cities and towns may elect to
do their own delineation and know that growth is coming. But if a significant storm occurs,
the public believes that it was the County that should have done more. Mr. Tevlin stated that
careful communication needs to occur with cities and towns electing to do their own
delineation, because there is an assumption whenever a flood problem occurs, it was the
County’s responsibility.
Director Rogers asked whether or not cities or counties can mandate developers to share the
cost of delineation. Mr. Tevlin explained that the cities that delineate pay for the delineation
through their regular levy, which comes from the Flood Control District’s fund. Developers do
have to pay when they do the delineation.
Mr. Tevlin introduced the topic of factors to include in determining new projects. The priorities
are established based upon the risk that is anticipated to the communities, and economic
development by itself it not a factor in prioritization. For the unincorporated areas, the County
pays 100% of the cost. If a project is identified within a city or town, the County asks for a
50% cost-share. There are times when a city or town will not be able to afford 50%, and the
County will then negotiate the cost-share. Mr. Wiley added that the Board passed a
resolution that states the County should not go lower than 20% cost-share, but should also
ask that the city or town participate in the operation and maintenance.
Director Hickman asked about the outcome of cities and towns taking on the operation and
maintenance of projects. Mr. Wiley advised that cities and towns have been fairly successful
since 2011. This is because flood control structures are generally used as parks and regional
amenities, which is an incentive for the cities to maintain the project. He noted that there are
a few cases where the maintenance is lacking. Complaints will come to the Flood Control
District, but the District must refer complainants back to the cities that are responsible for
maintaining those properties.
Ms. Flick moved the discussion to cost-sharing percentages negotiated for joint projects. She
asked if the current structure was acceptable. Director Kunasek and Director Chucri stated
that the current program is good, as long as there is established objective criteria. Chairman
Barney stated that the current program works, as long as the 50% cost-share stays the norm.
Cost-shares of 20% should be the exception, and anything less should have to come before
the Board.
Mr. Manos asked Mr. Wiley if the degree of participation is weighted in the prioritization
scoring of new projects. Mr. Wiley responded that participation is included as a factor in the
prioritization procedure scoring.
Ms. Flick stated the Flood Control District does not currently fund new capital projects that are
solely transportation oriented, and asked the Board if they want to continue this practice.
Supervisor Kunasek stated that he felt this was fair and would like to continue differentiating
projects for flood control versus transportation. Director Kunasek and Chairman Barney
stated that because the county cannot levy impact fees, there should be a way to normalize
the impact as it relates to the cities and towns contribution for flood infrastructure.
Mr. Tevlin stated that the Flood Control District currently does not engage in property
buyouts. Kenneth Proksa, Flood Control District, explained that from 2005 to 2013, the
District had a buyout program that was approved by the Board and purchased 35 properties

Informal Meeting Minutes
Monday, November 17, 2014
Page 6 of 8
for about $10.9 million. This summer, the District has received requests from about ten
property owners. Therefore, the District will need to know if the Board would like to engage in
that program again, since it has not engaged in property buyouts since 2013.
Mr. Wiley explained that the decision not to engage in property buyouts is due to budgetary
issues, and the program is available, but is not budgeted for. Chairman Barney stated that
the plan should not include property buyouts, unless there are unique circumstances that will
be addressed on a case by case basis.
Mr. Tevlin noted that the District does not consider projects that are for purely economic
development purposes, and asked if the Board wants to continue with this policy. Director
Rogers stated that the term “economic development” may give the public the wrong
impression. Chairman Barney suggested that this misperception could be mitigated through
the level of cost-sharing, and economic development may be something the District considers
for new projects if city or town puts more money into the cost-share.
Director Kunasek asked if there is a legal mechanism for payback over a period of time for
the municipality to pay back with the revenues. Mr. Tevlin stated that staff will look into this
suggestion and come back to the Board with a response.
The Chairman recessed the Board of Directors of the Flood Control District for a short
break, and reconvened at 10:50 a.m. to continue the presentation.
Mr. Tevlin summarized what the Board had discussed and decided on before the break,
noting the following points:
 Comprehensive report studies will continue to be updated every five years.
 The ten-year MAG expected growth plan is appropriate and will continue to be used
for delineation.
 Capital projects will focus on flood risks; projects will not focus solely on
transportation; property buyouts should be considered on a case-by-case basis, but
not budgeted for; and economic development will not generally be considered unless
the other entity provides more than the 50% of the cost-sharing, which also impacts
the Flood Control District’s project prioritization.
 Cost-sharing: unincorporated areas are funded at 100%; incorporated areas will
generally be a 50/50 cost-share. On occasion, the District can negotiate to 80/20, but
below that will come to the Board.
Mr. Tevlin asked whether or not projects that have higher than 50% cost -share should get a
higher score on the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Prioritization scoring system.
Director Rogers stated that she is concerned that projects in cities and towns with higher
revenue will be given a competitive advantage since they are able to give a higher cost-share
percentage.
Mr. Tevlin provided an overview of the CIP Prioritization scoring system, noting the nine
categories and points assigned to each of category:
1.) Area Protected (25 points)
2.) Flooding Threat (15 points)
3.) Level of Protection (10 points)
4.) Level of Cost Share (10 points)
5.) Funding Commitment and Priority (5 points)
6.) Ancillary Benefits (10 points)
7.) Drainage Master Plan Element (8 points)
8.) Operation and Management Cost to the District (7 points)
9.) Total Project Cost (5 points)

Informal Meeting Minutes
Monday, November 17, 2014
Page 7 of 8
Mr. Wiley stated that the prioritization scoring system works well; however, the District’s
resources are constrained and there is a greater need for higher levels of cost sharing by
cities and towns, as well as greater funding commitments. Mr. Don Rerick, Planning &
Project Management Division Manager, Flood Control District, added that the nine categories
are taken together in total, and the scoring system was set up several years ago to try and
capture all of the important elements necessary to evaluate projects fairly.
Chairman Barney suggested keeping the categories the same, but redistributing the points.
He also commented on the level of protection and asked for clarification on how projects are
scored in this category. Mr. Rerick stated that projects with less than ten years or greater than
100 years receive zero points. He added that he agreed with restructuring the points as long
as the nine categories remain for evaluating the prioritization of projects.
Discussion ensued about the CIP Prioritization scoring system.
Mr. Tevlin stated that the Flood Control District is currently operating on a capital budget of
about $40 million. He added that half of the capital budget goes towards maintenance. There
is a current fund balance of approximately $20 million. In order to cover the daily operational
costs, the Flood Control District will require a budget of about $12 million every two months.
Currently, the District has a reserve of $8 million. Ms. Flick noted that the reserve is for cash-
flow needs, since the revenue stream comes from the twice a year infusion of property tax
money. She asked the Board if the current reserve strategy should continue.
Director Kunasek asked about the total levy amount. Sandi Wilson, Deputy County Manager,
stated that the total levy for the fiscal year is over $43 million and the tax rate is currently at
$0.1392. She added that the Board of Director’s can do a one-time burn-off of some of the
fund balance, about $8 million, or keep the fund balance at $20 million. Staff could develop a
budget and provide scenarios for the Board’s review and consideration going into the next
budget cycle.
Mr. Tevlin provided a recap of the what the Board had discussed and decided regarding the
CIP Prioritization scoring system and reserve strategy:
 Staff will come back to the Board with a revised CIP Prioritization scoring system.
 Staff will come back to the Board with possible ways to spend the $8 million in
reserve for onetime use to address certain issues.
 Staff will come back to the Board with revised scenario regarding capital projects and
the tax rate
Director Kunasek asked about the current flat rate. Chairman Barney advised that the FY
2016 flat rate will bring in about the same amount of revenue as in FY 2015. Mr. Tevlin added
that if the rate had remained level since 2007, the District would have had around $160
million more in revenue.
Director Hickman asked if the funds have ever been swept by the State Legislature before.
Ms. Flick stated that historically, funds have not been swept from the Flood Control District
and it is unlikely that the State would sweep funds from the District in the future.
Director Kunasek asked if the same policy for the general fund is adopted, which is for a two
month reserve, if the Board could anticipate short-term borrowing from commercial banks or
internally. Mr. Manos stated that there are efficient alternatives for borrowing, such as,
borrowing from other internal funds, or the Board could issue Tax Anticipation Notes (TANs),
if necessary.

Informal Meeting Minutes
Monday, November 17, 2014
Page 8 of 8
Mr. Manos asked about the Tier 1 projects and whether or not there will be another set of
$140 million Tier 1 projects to complete once the current $140 million Tier 1 projects have
been completed. Mr. Wiley stated that the analysis was completed before the letters were
received from the city managers, and the number for the Tier 1 projects has increased to
around $500 million due to the recent flooding.
If the current rate stays the same, with the District receiving $43 million, the amount is
substantially lower than what is needed. He stated that the District may have to borrow from
reserves, which it has done for the past three years. Chairman Barney noted that the Board
ran a deficit purposefully in anticipation of the net assessed value coming back.
Mr. Tevlin further discussed the need for clear communication between the District, cities and
towns and public regarding how the Flood Control District operates, and how the Board would
like to handle this communication. Chairman Barney stated that communication will be
difficult until the Board settles on a financial strategy.
Director Kunasek, Director Chucri, and Director Rogers agreed that there is a need to
educate the city and town officials about the role of the Flood Control District, especially
regarding the jurisdictions that have experienced heavy flooding. Mr. Manos suggested that
staff prepare an education package and presentation for the Board of Directors to review.
Chairman Barney noted that there are many changes in the works for the Flood Control
District and thanked staff for their work.
MEETING ADJOURNED
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
________________________________
Denny Barney, Chairman of the Board
ATTEST
______________________________
Fran McCarroll, Clerk of the Board