Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Water Services Advisory Commission - Meeting Date: 11/2/2016Water Services Advisory Commission OesbTVaterCampus 7070 W. Northern Avcnuc November 2, 2016, 6:l[ P.M. I. II. FINAL MINruTES CALL TO ORDER - 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present Chairman Jonathan Liebmaq Vice-chairman Ron Shor! Commissioners Robert Gehl, Robin Berryhill, Ruth Faullq and Amber Ford Staff: Craig Johnson, Ron Serio, Doug Kupel, Dan Hatch, Amanda McKeever, Lee Robinson, Joanne Tomq Renee l\,lann-Tristq and Sally Melling Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVTOUS MEETTNS Approval of the Final Minutes, October 5, 2016 meeting - Motion for approval made by Comm. Faulls, seconded by Comm. Gehl. APPROVED G0 DIRDCTOR'S REPORT - Craig Johnson" P.E., Water Services Director Mr. Craig Johnson welcomed Comm. Ford to the Commission and presented a brief updarc on the deparfinent's activities. He sadly announced the passing of Marla Wilson, a Water Quality Lab chemist and Ms. Amanda McKeever's transferto the Public Works Deparfinent. NO ACTION REQIIRED, INFORMATION ONLY V. FATS. OILS. AIYD GRDASE Mr. Lee Robinson, Adminishator, hetreatment Prognm, presented information to the Commission. He began by describing the delicate biological process at the Glendale wastewat€r beatnent plants that breaks down sewer waste prducts and how easily the process can be damaged when illegal substances are dumped into the sewer system. Killing the biological agents used in the process results in the city being unable to tneat wastewater. Industry regulation was mandated in the early 1980s by the United States Environmental h,otection Agency due to sewem blowing up, stneams catching on fire, and and illegal substances being dumped into water bodies by various indusnies. FOG (Fats, Oils, and Gr€as€) is a by-product of oooking and is a constant supply. Almost everything cooked for human consumption is a FOG and 47o/o ofall combined sewer overflows and sanity sewer overflows are caused from grease from restaurants, rcsidences, and industrial sources. The war on FOG is led by Mr. Robinson's team of three Prretnentrnent inspectors and one senior hetreatment inspector who perform approximately 1,3fi) annual inspections of which 62% of those Water Sewlces Depafinent . ,Oro *offiflHffi- . Gtenrlab, AZ E!i303 . (643) 93G4100 m. ry. November 2,2016 Water Services Advisory Commission Final Minutes Page2 annual inspections are FOG related. Mr. Robinson explained the consfiuction and function of grease interceptors (or taps). Certain businesses are required to be permitted annually (428 active FOG facilities) and one of the requirements is that the pumping record log is curent and grease hapJinterceptoni ar€ maintained with a minimum twice annual gnsase, liquid, and solids removal. Violations are issued for rernoval ofthe interceptor, improper maintenance of the interceptors, failure to meet bi-annual interceptor cleaning (pumping) requirementq improper record keeping and not retaining the record history for 3 years as required by Ctty Code. Other methods to combat FOG are the /Vol in ny Drain campaign with brochure door tags hung in neighborhoods prior to the holiday seaEon; videos on Channel I I and YouTube to provide tips from a residential perspective; and based on a Commission recommendation, wording is now included in Council Member emails to district residents. Updated technolory includes the most curr€nt lPads for each inspector so each inspection results are provided in r€al time and results are available much sooner for companies. New gr€as€ interceptor designs are also available for companies with newer materials which are less prone to rust and corrosion. A small apartnent-size unit is also available to provide FOG interception features. The future of business for recycled oil storage are smaller, indoor units which eliminate soiUground contarnination and prevent possible stom waterpollution issues. Chairman Liebman asked how size requirements of interceptors are determined. Mr. Robinson explained there is a guide size formula that daermines which are required based on number of drains, frxtures, and sinks but there is a morimum limit of four fuctures that can be attached to one indoor gr€ase trap. Mr. Robinson confirmed for Chairman Liebman that approximately $80,000 is collected in annual permit fees. The chairman then asked how violations are resolved. Mr. Robinson explained that most issues are resolved within the Tday correction period; if not, a $100 re-inspection fee is charged for each follow-up visit. However, Mr. Robinson stated that follow-up inspections are needed less than l% of the time. Comm. Faulls asked if violation notices ane ever posted in windows for unresolved violations. Mr. Robinson explained that the Maricopa Health Oepartment is the only entity that can issue window postings; the crty does have the power to terminate businesses from sewer service however, the city seeks compliance rather than punishment. Comm. Faulls asked how the 428 active permit base compar€s to other large cities as she feels it is a low number. Mr. Robinson stated he does not have figures for other cities but most large cities have a FOG program of some kind. He did give information on the city of Tempe who schedules city businesses pump-out appointnents through a cooperative of pumping service companies. She then asked about the small apartnent grease trap and when they are used. Mr. Robinson stated the crty code does not require that a grease trap be insalled in a residential home/apartment. There ar€ pros and cons for the use of an aparfinent style grease trap. Mr. Robinson stat€d that cunently there are no plans to require these devices be installed in aparftrent dwellings. Vice-chair Short asked what the cost is for large underground inceptor installation and also if multiple businesses can be on one unit. Mr. Robinson stated that multiple users ane not allowed to share a grcase interceptor because a separate violator would not be able to be determined in a multiple user situation; he explained the maximum size allowable installation of an underground interceptor is 2,5fi) gallons to ensurc constant flow with a cost of approximately $7,000. Comm. Gehl asked if ltdr. Robinson was awar€ of any cities requiring grease traps on aparbnents or condos. Mr. Robinson stated he was not aware of any. Comm. Gehl then asked how the crty knows water services Advisory ".'-,JH"ffi#;3,::Page 3 that a business needs a grease trap. Mr. Robinson explained that businesses must submit business plans which are reviewed at a pre-application meeting where all city departnents review the plans. Comm. Gehl suggested monetizing FOG for residents to show them that their monthly bills could decrease. Mr. Robinson stated that was a good point and that Ms. Joanne Toms and her Conservation and Susainable Living group provide presentations to schools and young children's groups. Comm. Gehl then asked about recycling the gease. Mr. Robinson explained that it is cunently recycled into biodiesel fuel. Comm. Berryhill asked who would service individual residential taps if they came into use, the tenant or the apartment owner. Mr. Robinson said that is unknoum but current recommendation is to collect the grease in a container, place the grcas€ in a fr,eezer and dispose of it in the garbage on collection day. Comm. Berryhill asked if tre gr€ase service vendors are licensed by the clty. Mr. Robinson explained that they are overseen by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and the crty only provides enforcement. To answer Comm. Berryhill's question on a pumping vendor not fully emptying an interceptor, Mr. Robinson stated that this practice is known as decanting. Decanting is not an allowable practice and a review ofthe business's pumping manifest would reveal such a practice. Chairman Liebman's follow-up question dealt with r€venue rocovered by the $179.07 annual permit fee, which he observed is not a full recovery arnount. Mr. Robinson explained there are other fees charged of various types and amounts but concurred that full costs ar€ not recovered; to charge the full amount could put certain vendors out of business. ACTIONT NO ACTION REQIIRED,INFORMATION ONLY vI. WATERCONSERVATION/DROUGHT Ms. Joanne Toms, Environmental hognm Manager, presented information to the Commission. She first distibuted various brochures that are used in staffs citizen services. She explained the 30-year water conseruation program established in 1985 and drought management plan. She also provided a website where information on the Lake Mead water situation could be obtained which is www.ProtectlakeMead.org. She stated that Glendale is currently partnering in a regional study with Phoenix, Gilbe4 and Chandler to discover why water dernand is going down by single family residences. The city's Water Conservation Program is driven by public awaneness, youth and adult education, landscape rcbates, water auditing on-site consultation, landscape water budget progam for HOAs, the Xeriscape Demonstration Garden, conservation-rclated ordinances, and water waste investigations (129 calls this year). Because of increased awaneness and improved technolory, water demand has dropped from 136 gals/day/person in 1995 to 104 galVday/person in 2016. The regional study Glendale is cunently pan of will help determine how rapidly older homes are converting to more efficient water fixhrres and landscaping watering practices. The city, through an effort led by Craig Johnson, director, is helping city deparftrents to improve their water efficiency. A study will also be conducted with the help of six Arizona Sate Univenity strdents to determine what issues businesses face in their efforts to better reduce water demands and increase efticiencies in their businesses. Ms. Toms explained that water conservation is on-going and long-term, regardless of drought. Drought Management is a quick and usually temporary response due to a drought. There is currently no shortage declaration planned ft20l7; however, 2018 and beyond is difficult to predict. Should there be a Colorado River shortage, Glendale will declare a Stage One Drought Water and implement November 2,2016 Water Services Advisory Commission Final Minutes Page 4 the Drought Management Plan (DMP). Updates to the DMP approved by Council in September 2016, authorize the city manager to implement the plan, conduct public outneach efforts, and grants him authority to take enforcement steps. The key components to the DMP are establish a drought management team, develop a public information and drought awareness communications plan, and establish demand reduction measu€s. The DMP has four stages: Stage l-Watch where SRP/CAP cuts wat€r allocations Stage 2-Alert witb a 5% reduction in water supply reduction Stage 3-Declaration with a lW/owater supply reduction Stage +Emergency with a 2f/owatpr supply reduction At all stages, cityoperations have mandatorywaterreduction goalswith voluntary citizen compliance in srages I and 2 but stages 3 and 4 have mandatory reductions for all water us€rs. Chairman Liebman asked Ms. Toms why water demand actually increased from 1995-2000 to 1,14 gals/day/resident. Ms. Toms could only speculate that perhaps lot sizes increased but she will follow- up with the Planning Deparfrnent to get more information. He then asked when the regional joint study with Phoenix, Gilbert, and Chandler will begin. Ms. Toms thir*s it could possibly start in January 2017. A grant of $208,000 was received from the Groundwater Users Advisory Council funds and the city's in-kind contibution will be to install some ofthe data loggers on those residences selected for analysis. Chairman Liebman asked when it would end; Ms. Toms stated it could possibly last up to two years. Chairman Liebman asked how the DMP would be enforced. Ms. Toms explained that the enforcement component strtes the Code Compliance Deparhent will be empowered to issue civil citations resulting in fines. The first violation will be a written notice; however subsequent occunences will involve a writrcn notice of 2d violation with fines as set by the drought stage. Comm. Berryhill shared that she feels the water conservation number 1995 of gallons per day per person is even grcater because the population incr€ased. Ms. Toms explained that the figure only includes single family rcsidences, not business customen based on the city's population. Comm. Berryhill asked if changing to xeriscape landscaping wouldn't increase the carbon dioxide and ozone numbers by reducing the green canopies. Ms. Toms shessed she always explains during on-site landscape consultations and landscape waterbudget Fograms that planting shade trees will enhance properties and *zero-scape" landscaping is not xeriscape landscaping. Comm. Berryhill asked to assur€ flood inigation users that SRP irrigation allocations would not be impacted by the DMP since the SRP watershed is not involved in the drought declaration. Ms. Toms explained that users receiving water from private water providers would not be requircd to adhere to the irrigation restrictions under the DMP. Comm. Gehl asked if the city is encouraging the 20Or houses receiving urban inigation to change to xeriscape. Ms. Toms stated no. Comm. Berryhill stated therc are residual effects of homeowners reverting flood irrigated landscape to xeriscaping and back to inigated landscaping. Ms. Toms explained there is nothing in the rebate prognm prohibiting a homeowner converting from urban irrigated landscaping to xeriscaping. Ms. Toms stated she would inquire with the Planning Departnent. Comm. Ford asked if there are any plans to restore or add rebates to the program. Ms. Toms explained she is looking into a Bureau of Reclamation grant to apply for use by commercial users. November 2,2016 Water Services Advisory Commission Final Minutes Page 5 Vice-chair Short explained the crty has ten historic districts which defines the various aspects of the city. He explained he worked for the crty and made efforts to discourage homeowners from converting to xeriscape within those districts. He furdrer stated he was discouraged from doing so and drat it is tragic to lose the turf in those areas. He stated we should not allow any funds and actively discourage homeowners from converting from inigated landscaping to xeriscape if they are within the historic disEict area and conserve water in other areas. He explained it is only 34o/o of all houses the city has. He urged the rebate program to look at discouraging the change from turf areas. Ms. Toms thanked Vice{hairman Short for raising her awareness on this topic. NO ACTTON REQITTRDD, INTORMATTON ONLY VII. IJPCOMING FINANCIAL PIJN AND RATE STI'DY Itdr. Craig Johnson provided information to the Commission on the past month's update on the financial plan. He informed the Commission tlrat a memo was sent to the Government Services Committee requesting direction at the Committee's next moeting in January 2017 ta pr€sent to the City Council an amendment to the ordinance establishing the Water Services Advisory Commission to expand duties to include the Public Works Deparfitent Solid Waste anticipated rate increases. He shared that the decision is to proceed with the plan to provide information to bring the Commission current on Public Work Department operations. He updated the Commission that the Request for Proposal went out to the public and results werp reviewed with a firm tentatively selected. The city is awaiting a reply from the firm as the Purchasing Department has sent them a r€quest for their "best and final" offer. Chairman Liebman asked how the public would be notified of any rate changes. Ms. Amanda McKeever, Water Services Administrator, reminded the chairman that all meetings and minutes are posted on the internet, and the meeting notice is also published in the Glendale Star. Mr. Johnson pointed out that there is only one meeting betrveen now and the reconvening of the Government Services Committee. Comm. Gehl suggested that Ms. Carclyn Dryer of the Glendale Str b contacted with an informational update. Mr. Johnson stat€d he would discuss this with the crty manager about involving the city's Public Affairs officc. Ms. McKeever also reminded the Commission that the Government Services Committee has not met and Council approval has not been obained yet to amend the ordinance. Chairman Liebman requested that more explanatory agenda titles be used. Comm. Berryhill stat€d she is aware the title of the commission may change also if Council approval is given. Ms. Michelle Woytenkq (Field Operations) Deputy Diroctor, Public Works, explained she would present in lieu of Mr. Jack Friedline who was meeting with another city commission. She explained that Solid Waste Collection is part of the Enterprise Fund, with no tax money used. The residential funds collected are kept separate from the commercial aspoct of the collection fund. Residential Waste Collection pick-ups include residential, bulk trash collection, recycling collection, and household hazardous waste pick-up twice a ycar. Commercial Collection Service provides front-load and roll-off collections services and rates are daermined by the size of the container, number of containers, and frequency of collection. Another aspect is strreet sweeping service for crty streets. She provided cost driving figures forthe components of the Solid Waste Collection services. The socond part of Solid Waste operation Ms. Woytenko presentod is the disposal at the Landfill, South Cell, which opened in 1973. She provided information on landfill rates, Glendale residents have the first ton free and then are charged $15.79 for additional tonnage. She explained ftat the South C.ell is expected to reach oapacrty n2025. Efforts are alrcady underway to ready the North November 2,2016 Water Sewices Advisory Commission Final Minutes Page 6 Cell for commencing openations n2024; Ms. Woytenko explained the steps that must be taken to physically prepare a site forthe landfill, beginning with laying waterproof liner barriers at the bottom of an excavated 80-foot foundation. The final height ofthe landfill is anticipated to be 1,202.77 feet. She explained that acceptable and unacceptable items have additional costs due to the time, efforts, and special circumstances of certain items being put into the landfill. An added component ofthe Landfill is a gas management system (methane) in which the city partners with Arizona Public Servic.e to provide power to 700 Arizona homes. A total of 76 wells generate a small amount of annual nevenue ($102,500) net after all maintenance costs betrveen the lease of the land and sales of enerry. Ms. Woytenko then explained the Materials Recycling Facility. She addressed what is acceptable material for the proc€ss, any nevenue generators, and future plans. She concluded her presentation with a brief recap and high level overview of budget figures, nevenues generators, and cost drivers such as equipment costs. Comm. Gehl asked for tours of facilities to which Ms. Woytenko confirmed those would be provided. Comm. Berryhill asked what the landfill elevation was. Ms. Woytenko replied the final height will be 280'. Comm. Faulls asked what the la* rate was before the rate increase in 2fi)t. Ms. Woytenko replied she believes it went from $14.90 to $16.30 and she would confirm those amounts. Vice-chairman Short questioned ifthe equipment at the maintenance cent€r is part ofthe central Field Ops maintenance center. Ms. Woytenko explained that it is a specialized piece and both it and the bulldozers are exhemely heavy e,quipment and large sized and cannot travel on city roadways. She offered furtlrcr explanation to Vice-Chairman Short's question that one city staffmember provides the specialized equipment maintenance and upkeep at the Solids Waste Handling area. He then asked where the next landfill would be located as it is important to long range plan. Ms. Woytenko replied that the North Cell will go into use in 2025 with a 4O-year us€ span, and firture planning will begin in l0-15 years. Chairman Liebman requested input for the next step. Vice-chair Short stated he thought action was taken at the last meeting. Ms. McKeever explained a poll only was taken and the topic was not agendized for formal action but can be so addressed tonight. Vice-chair Short requested Mr. Johnson's input to which Mr. Johnson requested that the Commission continue with items that discuss financial planning for the landfill and solid waste as it applies to the rate study and seek input on operational processes such as a r€quest Public Works prescnted to Council recently. That request was to change the holiday collection schedule to only observe three holidays throughout the year to provide befrercustomer service and avoid confusion. Discussion ensued among the Commission to compos€ a motion. Mr. Johnson explained that the r€quest for proposal for the consultant that is cunently in the process is for the Water, Sewer, and Storm Water rates financial plan. He added that Public Works is to be a stand-alone aspect and will pr€s€nt information explaining their needs, operational proc€ss changes, costs, and future direction with a rate increase so a lump sum solution is not being sought. Mr. Johnson explained that he will take a r€quest to the Governmental Services Committee dealing with continued financial planning for landfill and solid waste and any procedural changes. Comm. Gehl made a MOTION that the Weter Services Advisory Commission edd discussion end edvisory crprcity to procedurel November 2,2016 Water Services Advisory Commission Final Minutes Page 7 changes and financial planning for certrin scgmcnts of the Glendde Public \torla Depertmeng SECONDED by Vice{hairman Short. APPROVEID ffi Mr. Johnson explained to the Commission that the Stategic Plan topics schedule could be changed to accommodate presentations concerning financial planning for both departments. As needed, certain upcoming topics would be rescheduled to future dates to pr€vent overly long meeting nights. Mr. Johnson also statod that the meeting venue would be changed to accommodate large audiences when those presentations occurred. VlI.@ No audience members spoke. IX. FUTTTRE AGEI\IDA ITEMS Water Resources Portfolio Planning Continuation of Public Works Information Presentation )L COMIIflSSIONERCOMMDNTS No Commissioners spoke. XI. NEXT MEETING: Decembr7,20l6,6 p.m. XII. ADJOITRNMENT - Motion to adjourn was made by Comm. Gehl, reoonded by Comm. Faulls. MOTION APPROVED 6{. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitte4