Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Citizens Utility Advisory Commission - Meeting Date: 9/6/2017 pflit CZENDE FINAL MINUTES CITIZENS UTILITY ADVISORY COMMISSION OASIS WATER CAMPUS 7070 W. NORTHERN AVENUE GLENDALE, ARIZONA 85303 SEPTEMBER 6, 2017 6:.00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Jonathan Liebman called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2: ROLL CALL Present:. Chair Jonathan Liebman Vice Chair Ronald Short Commissioner. Robin Berryhill Commissioner.Amber Ford Commissioner Robert Gehl Commissioner Stephen DeAngelo Absent: Commissioner Ruth Faulls 3: CITIZEN COMMENTS. None. _ 4. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Motion by Commissioner Gehl,second by Commissioner Ford, to approve the May 3, 2017 meeting minutes as written. Motion carried 5-0. ' [Commissioner Berryhill was not yet present.] Motion by Vice Chair Short,second by Commissioner Gehl, to approve the May 10, 2017 meeting minutes as written: Motion carried 5-0. [Commissioner Berryhill:was not yet present.]: 5. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Craig Johnson, P.E., Water Services Director, gave a brief summary of the agenda for the evening. Mr. Johnson welcomed new Commissioner DeAngelo from the Yucca District. 6. UTILITY RATE STUDY PUBLIC OUTREACH RESULTS AND RATE RECOMMENDATIONS A presentation regarding the Water Services Rate Study public outreach, results, and proposed rate recommendations was provided by: Ms. Vicki Rios, Budget and Finance Director; Ms. Kerri Logan, Deputy Water Services Director; and Ms. Michelle Woytenko, Deputy Director, Public Works. Ms. Rios provided the following information: • Rate Objectives: •Water/Sewer and Residential Solid Waste • Overall the rates will be just and reasonable • Provide revenue stability • Maintain fund balance •Water/Sewer • Encourage conservation •Costs allocated between monthly and volume service charges • Customers outside the City limits will be charged at 130% of the rate schedule [Commissioner Berryhill entered the meeting.] •Water and Sewer Proposed Rate Revenue Options •Option 1 and Option 2 proposed percentage rates presented • Residential Solid Waste Proposed Rate Revenue Options •Option 1 and Option 2 proposed percentage rates presented •Option 1 and 2: First and Second Years' Impact for Single Family • Estimated dollar impact for Water, Sewer, Solid Waste • Public Outreach Ms. Logan presented the following: • Public Outreach •Campaign Efforts Included •City Website •Customer Utility Bills •Social Media • Newspaper • Channel 11 • Posting at all public facilities •City newsletter and notices •"On Hold" phone message recording • Registered Neighborhoods —78 •Chamber of Commerce— Government Affairs Council • Meetings • Four Public Meetings • 81 participants— primarily single family/residential customers • Highly interactive • Received good feedback •Survey Information • 109 total participants •At public meetings •On City website • Mail-in • Key Outreach Results Water/Sewer • Ratings •81% rated Water/Sewer services as Excellent or Above Average •83% rated Water/Sewer reliability as Excellent or Above Average •68% rated Water/Sewer overall a value as Excellent or Above Average • Preferences •56%: I prefer small and frequent utility service rate increases evenly distributed over a period of time. •26%: I prefer no utility service rate increase be implemented now, understanding that this may result in a larger rate increase being implemented in the future. • 16%: I prefer a greater utility service increase now, with small incremental increases over a period of time. The Commissioners were provided with a very detailed Survey Result packet, which included all of the specific comments made by residents. Ms. Woytenko presented the following: • Residential Solid Waste • Ratings •78% rated the effectiveness of trash and recycling collection (barrel service) as Excellent or Above Average •77% rated monthly curbside collection of landscaping, furniture, large items (bulk trash) as Excellent or Above Average •Other Findings •36% rated street sweeping as Excellent or Above Average • Household hazardous waste: Some people love the program, some were not aware of it before and will now use it. • Preferences •58%: Option 1 •25%: No service rate increase • 17%: Option 2 Ms. Rios presented the following: •Water and Sew Financial Plan - Update •Add $5 million into the Water and Utility Fund for land sale to Top Golf • Delay $9 million in capital improvement projects— an adjustment in cash flow, not removing projects • Reduce borrowing by $11 million •Smooth out rate revenue increases over the years • Maintain financial targets in a five-year period •Water and Sewer- Proposed Rate Revenue Option 3 • FY2017 through 2022: Five Year proposed increase of 6.5% Water, 5.5% Sewer, which is 6.1% Water/Sewer combined • Other analyses presented for Option 3 • Financial Targets • First and second year impact for Average Single Family, Low Usage Single Family, Average Commercial, and Average Sprinkler • First and second year impact for Low Usage Single Family •Single Family Average Monthly Municipal Services Bill — Cities Comparison for Options 1, 2, and 3 •Commercial Average Monthly Municipal Services Bill — Cities Comparison for Options 1, 2, and 3 •Sprinkler Average Monthly Municipal Services Bill — Cities Comparison for Options 1, 2, and 3 Commissioner DeAngelo inquired about the 1,300 apartment complexes, which are classified as commercial, and wondered how many individual families would be impacted. Ms. Rios stated in most other valley cities, the apartment complexes would be considered as residential and at some point in the future, changing the classification may be discussed. Chair Liebman wondered if there was any discussion regarding the payback of$15 million from the general fund to the utility. Ms. Rios explained that there has been Council discussion of a few different options; however, there is not a lump sum of funding in the general fund at this time to do a payback. Ms. Rios added at some point in the future, when the City has capacity, there may be a possibility for the City to borrow funds from the general fund to pay back the utility. However, this will have to be discussed with Council and most likely could not be considered until FY20. Ms. Rios noted that this is one of the reasons that an increase for two years is only being proposed at this time as the financial picture may change after two years. Chair Liebman wondered if the fixed charges in the City services bill could be increased instead of based on usage. Ms. Rios stated that a change in the fixed charge would impact more low usage and most likely fixed income residents. Also, charging for water usage encourages conservation and efficient use of water. Chair Liebman inquired about any impact from Option 3 on the City's bond rating. Ms. Rios commented that the impacts are very similar to Options 1 and 2. Commissioner DeAngelo commented that in the comparison to other valley cities, Glendale is basically in the middle. Commissioner DeAngelo wondered if a rate increase would impact businesses looking to relocate in the valley or impact Glendale's competitiveness. Ms. Rios replied that based on her understanding from the Economic Development Department, the price of water is not a huge factor when a company is looking to relocate to Glendale. Ms. Rios noted that if there was a business which consumed a very large volume of water, it might be, however, staff would look for ways to work with such a business. Vice Chair Short stated that at the last Council workshop on CIP, there was a lot of discussion regarding water and sewer projects and how to evaluate to determine the critical projects. Ms. Rios explained that staff will work with Council on staffs priorities and obtain feedback on the Council's priorities to develop a matrix for project prioritization. Chair Liebman requested an updated CIP list. Mr. Johnson replied that staff can provide a revised list. Mr. Johnson stressed that projects are not being cancelled but rather cashflow would be smoothed out by completing critical pieces of the project first. Commissioner Gehl asked if the Option 3 was presented to the public. Ms. Rios replied in the negative and explained that Option 3 was drafted via feedback from the public meetings and additional analysis. Commissioner Gehl asked what would happen to the $5 million from the parcel sale to Top Golf if it is not included in any of the Options. Ms. Rios explained that the funds must go back into the Water Utility because the parcel was purchased using bond funds. Ms. Rios stated that if the parcel sale funds are not used for smoothing out the rate increases, it will just stay in the Water Utility fund balance. Vice Chair Short complimented Mr. Johnson and his team for an outstanding job in explaining the CIP projects to Council at the last workshop. Ms. Rios thanked the Commissioners for their questions and comments and asked for a recommendation from the Commission regarding the proposed rate increases. Ms. Logan stated that staff is going before Council on September 19th to present the information regarding Option 3. Commissioner Berryhill expressed concern that Options 1 and 2 were presented to the public and not yet Option 3. Ms. Logan commented that Option 3 was based on the feedback and survey results from the public meetings. Chair Liebman inquired if staff revised Options 1 and 2 with the financials as included in Option 3. Ms. Rios explained that staff does have that information and added that Option 3 is essentially Option 1, including the additional financial changes, such as the sale of the parcel to Top Golf. Vice Chair Short motioned to recommend to Council the preference of financial plan Option 3 for the water rate revenue increase and the sewer rate revenue increase and to recommend to Council the preference of financial plan Option 1 for the residential solid waste increase. Commissioner Gehl made the second. Motion carried 6—0. Ms. Rios thanked staff for all of the hard work in the research, analysis, and public outreach on the rate increase proposal. Chair Liebman also thanked staff. 7. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Johnson suggested that the Commission discuss how to operationally address the Public Works area of interest versus the Water Utility issues in regards to meeting and agenda planning. Vice Chair Short suggested a presentation on the City's Balanced Scorecard strategic approach and how it relates to the Water Utility and Public Works. Mr. Johnson commented that a workshop was held yesterday at which the Balanced Scorecard was discussed, which can be viewed on the City website. Mr. Johnson stated that staff can certainly share information on the Balanced Scorecard as the process gets more in depth. 8. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS Commissioner Berryhill thanked staff for an excellent presentation. Commissioner DeAngelo stated that if Option 3 is ultimately chosen by Council, he would like the public to know that public feedback and concerns were utilized for Option 3. Commissioner DeAngelo inquired if the final decision would be posted on the City website. Ms. Rios explained that staff will take the Commission's recommendation, the public feedback, and the staff presentation from this evening to Council on September 19th. Ms. Rios stated that depending on Council's direction, staff will move forward with publication of the final rate schedules and bring to Council for final approval on October 24th, which would also be a Public Hearing. If the rate schedules pass, then staff will notify the customers and perform outreach. The new rates would go into effect on January 1, 2018. Commissioner DeAngelo thought that Option 3 was a good compromise. Commissioner Ford expressed gratitude to all involved in the rate project, which was a daunting task. Commissioner Ford commended staff for leading the way and answering all of the Commission's questions. Commissioner Ford felt confident that staff proposed the best options. Chair Liebman thanked staff for a great job and for answering all of the Commissioners' questions. 9. NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting of the Citizens Utility Advisory Commission will be held on October 4, 2017 at 6:00 P.M., at the Oasis Water Campus, 7070 W. Northern Ave., Glendale, Arizona 85303. 10. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Gehl, second by Commissioner DeAngelo, to adjourn the meeting at 7:14 p.m. Motion carried 5— 0. The Citizens Utility Advisory Commission meeting minutes of September 6, 2017 were submitted and approved the 4th day of October, 2017. Denise Kazmierczak Recording Secretary