Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Water Services Advisory Commission - Meeting Date: 3/4/2015 rink Water Services Advisory NEI GLENDf Commission Oasis Water Campus 7070 W.Northern Avenue March 4,2015 6:00 P.M. FINAL MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER—6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL: Present: Chair Ron Short, Vice-chair Jonathan Liebman, Commissioners Robert Gehl,John Sipple, Robin Berryhill,Ruth Faulls, and Roger Schwierjohn Staff: John Henny, Dr. Doug Kupel, Javier Setovich, Amanda McKeever, Dan Hatch, Mark Fortkamp, Tom Gill, Anthony Weathersby, Thomas Relucio, and Sally Melling, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS Approval of the Final Minutes, February 4, 2015 meeting - Motion for approval made by Comm. Faulls, seconded by Vice-Chair Liebman. APPROVED 7-0 IV. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT—Dr. Doug Kupel, Deputy Director Dr. Kupel i updated the Commission on the city manager's resignation, acting city manager, and search to fill the position. He reported that sites tours are planned for the three new Council Members to familiarize them with Water Services on March 27. Dr. Kupel pointed out that the centennial traveling display is currently in the Oasis lobby and outlined other centennial celebrations planned. The display is planned toi be displayed at City Hall, probably in the Council Chambers lobby, before traveling to various locations during the coming year. A symposium is being planned in the fall to celebrate water as past,present, and future. The Centennial logo has been finalized. The Commission heard information at last month's meeting on the annual Consumer Confidence Report and that item is moving forward. Customers' monthly water bill will contain the URL for Internet access to the information. Dr.Kupel informed the Commission that an article appeared in the Sunday,March 1, 2015 Arizona Republic concerning Colorado River water. He provided an update stating the audio recording of meeting audio recording is now on the website, effective with the February 4,2015 meeting. City of Glendale Water Services Department•7070 West Northern Avenue•Glendale,AZ 85303•(623)930-4100 March 4,2015 Water Services Advisory Commission Final Minutes Page 2 Dr. Kupel also explained the new policy "One asks, tell all" that is now in place. This policy reflects the policy in place with council members. Action: No action required,information only V. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT INFORMATION Chairman Short explained that the purpose of presentation was to see if Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds could help provide funding for urban irrigation. Mr. Gilbert Lopez, Community Partnership Revitalization Manager, and Ms. Charyn Palmisano, Revitalization Supervisor, presented grant information to the Commission. Mr. Lopez provided an overview of the process and stressed it was extremely competitive and stated the requests average two to one versus funding available. He explained that CDBG grant money is only to be considered seed money in conjunction with other funds. Grants can be anywhere from $100,000 total to $1.3 million. Mr. Lopez explained that federal grants percentages are used and provided a break-down: 20% is used for grant administration; 15% is used for public services which are all non-brick and mortar programs such as after school programs, meals on wheels program, etc.; 65% is for non- public services such as housing rehabilitation and Habitat for Humanity building. Vice-chair Liebman requested more information on "Council Funding Priorities". Ms. Palmisano explained these seven categories (Keeping people in their homes,Assisting with core needs, Supporting home delivery o;f meals and shelter services, Providing emergency home repair, Housing rehabilitation, Demolishing and clearing blighted structures, and Emphasizing revitalization of the Centerline and Redevelopment areas) receive 80% of the total funds. Some street projects are being funded through CDBG grants as are senior citizen home repairs and upgrades. Fund recipients are selected by the Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC), a 13- member committee appointed by Mayor and Council based on federal requirements for member selection. Currently, a 30-day public comment period is underway from March 6 to April 6, 2015. Next application submittal window is Fall 2015 for funds available for July 1, 2016. Ms. Palmaisano clarified when Chairman Short asked that all projects have to apply with the Bacon- Davis Act,where local contractors are hired. Orientation sessions are conducted in September. All non-profits recipients' books are audited. Comm. Sipple asked if all the funds are 100% federal money. Mr. Lopez confirmed that they are. He further explained that some funds are carry- forwards from other years' amounts and emphasized that if funds are not used, no future funding will be provided. Comm. Faulls asked if there is a set percentage amount established between the seed money and the amount of funds granted. Mr. Lopez replied there is not a set number. The CDAC weighs many factors such as size of the non-profit applying and their budget. Mr. Lopez)presented information on how grant money is being used in helping with infrastructure in the city. Comm. Berryhill asked if projects can be coordinated such as repairing an irrigation water line with a street repair project. Mr. Lopez assured her that there is coordination because of the cost savings. Comm. Berryhill also asked what the Redevelopment Area parameters are. Mr. Lopez explained the area encompasses 43`d Avenue to 67th Avenue, Orangewood to Maryland. He further explained about $9 million to $10 million dollars has been used for the area. Comm. Berryhill requested for clarification on why urban irrigation would qualify for CDBG funding. Ms. Palmisano stated Housing and Urban Development had been contacted and confirmed that urban irrigation is a qualified use of CDBG grants, on the basis that providing assistance with water needs would free funds available for living necessities such as food and rent in a low-income census tract. The irrigation portion above Northern Avenue is not in low-moderate census area. Comm. Gehl questioned how urban irrigation grant requesters could address any question dealing with repairs March 4, 2015 Water Services Advisory Commission Final Minutes Page 3 not being of imminent need; further explaining that some repairs have not been made in 30 years and the system has not"blown up". Mr. Lopez explained that need does not have to demonstrated. Comm. Schwierjohn provided knowledge he has gained from applying for grants. He cautioned the Commission that applying does not ensure the project will be selected for funding. However, not applying ensures that no funds are received. He encouraged the Commission to apply and make it a learning experience. Comm. Faulls asked what the Grant Application Orientation of September 15, 2015 proyides.� Mr. Lopez replied it was a public informational event where Community Partnership staff assists applicants and answer questions. Comm. Berryhill offered in response to Comm. Gehl's concern that the $39,000 should be shown as funds already expended. Mr. Lopez cautioned that CDBG funds cannot be used for maintenance, only for re-construction. Action: No action required,information only VI. CITY OF GLENDALE GRANTS INFORMATION Ms. Kristen Krey, Grants Administrator, briefed the Commission on other grant opportunities. She started with the bad news first - federal funding has generally dried up outside of CDBG funding. The American Recovery and Reassessment Act, which began in 2011, was aimed at stimulating the economy and start construction/infrastructure projects again. Any funding for this and neighborhood stabilization projects ends when project ends. She explained she handles general grants. She specifically ran searches for water, sustainability, historic, and environmental criteria. There are currently no funding amounts available for these areas. She explained that applying for the CDBG grants which Mr. Lopez and Ms. Palmisano presented information on tonight is much simpler than applying for the grants she finds. The requirements for showing need and risk have recently increased. Public Safety and Transportation are the largest recipients of the grants Ms. Krey administers. Ms. Krey presented another option to be explored: irrigation users could form a coalition or association as a non-profit group. Coalition formation fees can now cost $350. Different funding opportunities would open up from corporations and foundations. The fund amounts range from $150,000-$400,000; although a realistic amount is the $150,000 bracket. Large donors provide funding for historic preservation through foundations. Ms. Krey's advice for grant applicants included the need should be stated very clearly, and include a good motivating story since competition is fierce between different levels of needs. Chairman Short presented three areas for consideration for requesting funds: the Brownfields Grant Program which supports Historic preservation and low income grants, he asked if Transportation Enhancement money is still available for application and lastly, to simply submit a request through the Tohono Odom Tribal funding process. Ms. Krey addressed two of the three topics: she was not aware of+yBrownfields grants currently available; and the Transportation Department currently has 35 grants operating, the majority of which are not new funding, the funds are being used for long-established on-going projects. Many of those projects are FAA (Airport) projects. Ms. Krey also pointed out that the Gila River Native American Tribal Council has funding programs also. Tribal council grants are very specific on what they can be used for. The funds cannot be used for transportation, maintenance, or infrastructure. Funded projects must cover youth, elderly, and public safety. The city has not been applying for many of these grants since they are so project specific. Ms. Krey had just reviewed the Gila River grant program and states there is nothing available for the Commission to consider. She assures the Commission she will continue watching for applicable opportunities for their use. March 4, 2015 Water Services Advisory Commission Final Minutes Page 4 VII. BUDGET INFORMATION Mr. Dan Hatch, Water Services Administrator, provided information on the Fiscal Year 2015/16 budget. Department staff spent equal time on the Capital Improvement Plan budget as they did on the operating budget. He announced that Water and Sewer bonds were recently sold at a better interest rate with a refund of$129 million in bonds for a$14 million reduction in debt service. This $14.6 million is interest that does not have to be paid and represents savings over the next three years. He reported that the remaining term of the new bonds is the same as the old bonds term. He stated this was perfect timing for pricing on the part of city. He explained all the division categories in detail. Comm. Schwierjohn asked for more information on the reduction in the chemical budgeted amounts. Mr.Hatch explained that the two large forest fires in the state definitely hurt the water quality being received. However, this was balanced with the lower demand and price reduction in gas prices, and the city has aggressively partnered with other cities on purchasing options toi help with cost reductions. The city is required to have a 90-day cash supply on hand, with a $40 million minimum in a cash reserve balance. No rate increases are anticipated for the next 1-2 years. The department does need to build in funding for rehabilitation needs. The city has seen water revenues decrease due to continued minimum growth plus water conservation efforts by the public. The department will also receive $500,000 less this year in Development Impact Fees. Electricity costs have gone up (SRP) 3.9%. The Central Arizona Project (CAP) is a self-governing board and can determine what their rates are independently and there is no limit. A $200 per acre foot cost for water could be reached soon. Costs will continue to increase largely in part by the electricity being generated at the Navajo Generating Plant. Last year's budget was below anticipated projections. Mr. Hatch pointed out that a large vacancy rate (14-16%) in Water Services has allowed salary savings to be realized. The total department budget that is being presented shows a $1.1 million (2.3%) cost increase. This includes two other divisions that Water Services funds, Customer Service-Finance(Billing) and the Backflow/Cross Connection division in Developmental Services. The total department Capital Improvement Plan for the ten-year budget program is $155 million dollars. Water Services is meeting our mission in providing great service to our customers by offering a good price for our customers, having reliable and stable treatment and delivery systems, and maintaining a stable work force. Comm. Schwierjohn questioned if a $135,000 reduction in chemical expenses was something the department was comfortable facing as it is an uncontrollable expense at the mercy of market factors. Mr. Hatch explained the water quality has been good for the past seiweral years after the two huge forest fires in the eastern portion of the state which is our water shed area. He added that chemical prices have also come down due to reduced demand, increased competition, and the lowering of oil prices as many of the chemicals are oil-based. Dr. Kupel also explained that increased use by the city of a bidding and contracting process in using Joint purchasing has helped significantly to keep prices down. Vice-chair Liebman asked about the bond reduction and debt restructuring that was done. Mr. Hatch explained the city re-financed $129 million at a perfect time to get a better interest rate with the same length of term. A premium for bonds is paid by the city; the premium is amortized over the length of the loan and the debt reduction is a net interest rate over a much lower amount. Mr. Hatch further clarified when questioned by Chairman Short that the $14.6 million amount are not funds that are in some way given or returned to the city; rather it is interest(money) that we do not have to pay. March 4, 2015 Water Services Advisory Commission Final Minutes Page 5 Vice-chair Liebman also asked for an estimate of how the department is doing this year. Mr. Hatch replied the department is expecting to spend less. The main issue is that the White Mountain Apache Tribe payments have been pushed out to FY 2018 due to the issue still working its way through the court adjudication process. Vice-chair Liebman asked about the large increase between 2016 and 2017. Mr. Hatch explained that is the rehabilitation program being done out at the Arrowhead Ranch Water Reclamation Facility. Comm. Berryhill asked about the increased CAP water costs. Mr. Hatch replied that those costs are for FY 2015-16 and expected to rise due to increased water costs. She asked if there are projected increases for SRP. Mr. Hatch explained that CAP and SRP rates are set by their own governing boards. Mr. Hatch clarified that CAP provides 40% of city water, SRP provides 50%, and the rest is ground water (10%). Dr. Kupel added that the costs address water acre feet, not acres of land serviced. Chairman Short asked if there are any funds for additional water rights as additional water sources are always being sought. Dr. Kupel answered that there are funds in the CIP budget to recharge water at the CAP recharge facilities. This will give the city long-term storage credits and approximately$300,000 is set aside each year for this expense as a long-term capital asset. Budget discussion meetings to Council will continue in March and April. Draft budget adoption is anticipated in May with final adoption by Council expected in June. More details will be presented to the Commission in June or July. VIII.URBAN IRRIGATION Dr. Kupel stated staff had no presentation but provided updates on items posted to the website. Minutes from Councilmember Aldama's district meeting held on January 28, 2015 were posted, as well as notes from the follow-up meeting held on February 4. Common questions asked at both meetings were also compiled and posted. Materials from Tempe's research and study into urban irrigation were posted. The water rights ownership issue was reviewed by the City Attorney's office and an email was sent to Carl and Anita Dietzman outlining the finding, and was shared with all the Commission. Dr. Kupel reported on outreach efforts. One resident contacted the department with a request to be put on the irrigation system. Follow-up was made and the resident was advised of changes needed to the lot, which have to be done before water delivery can be started. Notices of the start of the irrigation season are being prepared for the 468 potential customers in the area. A newsletter mentioned by Mr. Johnson is being prepared. Mr. Mark Fortkamp has been working with Salt River Irrigation to make repairs prior to the April 1 water delivery start-up date. Four repairs are currently scheduled with three more to follow. No water and sewer rate increases are projected for the next two years. Comm. Berryhilllasked about water rates and irrigation rates increases. Dr. Kupel explained this is a Council decision made in 2010 to link the two rates. Comm. Berryhill questioned this linking since CAP water costs are anticipated to go up and irrigation water is not treated as the city's potable water is. Comm. Gehl reminded Comm. Berryhill that this item has been discussed. Comm. Faulls asked if the retreat to be held the following month was the time to decide issues and resolutions. Ms. McKeever explained that the retreat is a time for discussion and to set planning strategy but no actions will be taken on items. Dr. Kupel offered that this matter could be better addressed during the Future Agenda Item section of the agenda. March 4,2015 Water Services Advisory Commission Final Minutes Page 6 Comm. Berryhill asked if all the outreach items had been published in newspapers such as the Glendale Star. Ms. McKeever replied that direction had not been received for that but research can be done to find costs of doing so. She explained that any costs will be attributed to the Urban Irrigation budget. Chairman Short asked if a news release could be written and submitted to the media as this is free. Dr. Kupel explained that the same practices to contact potential customers are being used as always to notify the 468 potential users within the active service area, and the effort of the notices to the adjacent lot owners has been added. IX. CALL TO THE AUDIENCE Two persons spoke. Anita Dietzman, W. Morten Avenue, explained she submitted an email question to Mr. Johnson on October 22, 2014 about ownership of the irrigation pipes and requested it be directed to the city attorney. On February 26, 2015, Mr.Johnson sent an email reply to Mr. and Mrs. Dietzman with the city attorneys finding which concluded that there is no basis for claims of city ownership of any portion of the urban irrigation water delivery system. Mrs. Dietzman then briefed any possible audience new corners of historic ordinances and resolutions dealing with the city's involvement with the irrigation system. Mrs. Dietzman strongly disagrees with the city attorney's interpretation. Mrs. DietL,uan asked who paid for the concrete pipes, the city or the homeowners, prior to the 1950's concrete pipes installation and adoption of Resolution #588. She explained Resolution #588 established the procedure that property owners are fully responsible for the cost of the installation of concrete pipes. She requests information on who paid for the concrete pipes prior to Resolution #588. If the city paid for them, Mrs. Dietzman contends the city has ownership of the system. She requested further follow-up on how the conversion from ditch maintenance to pipe installation was classified, specifically were the concrete pipes categorized as"installed"or"repaired". Carl Dietzman, W. Morten Avenue, stated he contacted Mr. Johnson about numerous repairs needed on the irrigation system. He explained that a repair promised to be completed by January 15 has still not been done. Mr. Dietzman asked when the repairs would be completed as the irrigation delivery schedule was due to begin on April 1. Mr. Fortkamp, Water Services Superintendent and key contact for the Irrigation system, explained he was scheduled to meet with Salt River Irrigation representatives on March 5, 2015 about the repairs. One repair scheduled to be done at 58th Avenue and State also requires three additional ADA approved handicap ramps been installed. Another repair on Gardenia and 58th Avenue requires over 80 feet of pipe to be replaced. There is also a second phase of the repairs that will need to be done on State Avenue that requires dealing with a large tree that has grown over the irrigation system. Mr. Fortkamp clarified this is not the historic "Elephant Tree" of Glendale. This repair is more involved and will require about four days of construction with closure of sidewalks and restricted street access. All of these noted repairs are termed "complex repairs" and are outside of SRI's scope of work and expertise, and require outside contractor involvement. X. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Chairman Short noted that Comm. Berryhill had requested a recommendation be made to City Council to separate Irrigation rates from Water and Sewer rates. Dr. Kupel reminded the commission that no rate increases are planned for the next two years. Dr. Kupel briefly listed the topics for future agendas: an explanation of the city's drought management plan, security program, and the General Plan Update. Dr. Kupel shared information March 4, 2015 Water Services Advisory Commission Final Minutes Page 7 from the General Plan committee that a number of citizen representatives will be tasked with bringing the General Plan information to the public. They are however, not at that point yet. Dr. Kupel shared the tentative May 6, 2015 agenda — the Pyramid Peak Water Treatment Plant expansion plan to be done in conjunction with the city of Peoria, the April 1 Retreat results, and long-term drought information. The Commission requested an Irrigation action item be placed on the May agenda with the security program presentation be moved to the June agenda. Chairman Short requested a staff recommendation be made to have the Irrigation rates be removed from the Water and Sewer rate indexing. XI. NEXT MEETING: April 1, 2015, 3:30 p.m. XII. ADJOURNMENT — Motion to adjourn was made by Comm. Sipple, seconded by Vice-chair Liebman. MOTION APPROVED 7-0 by voice vote. The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sally ling, 'ecording Sretary