Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Citizens Utility Advisory Commission - Meeting Date: 10/2/2019Glendale A R I Z O N A MINUTES CITIZENS UTILITY ADVISORY COMMISSION OASIS WATER CAMPUS 7070 NORTHERN AVE. GLENDALE, ARIZONA 85303 OCTOBER 2, 2019 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL Present: Jonathan Liebman, Chair Ronald Short, Vice Chair Larry Flatau, Member Amber Ford, Commissioner Absent: Robin Berryhill, Commissioner Also Present: Kerri Logan, Water Services Deputy Director Michelle Woytenko, Public Works Director Angela Ruffalo, Water Services Management Assistant Katrina Alberty, Water Services Administrator Megan Sheldon, Water Services Deputy Director Ron Serio, Water Services Deputy Director Silvana Burgos, Environmental Resources Program Assistant Drew Swieczkowski, Environmental Program Manager Robert Perez, Field Operations Business Analyst 3. CITIZEN COMMENTS None. 4. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Flatau, second by Commissioner Ford, to approve the September 4, 2019 Citizens Utility Advisory Commission meeting minutes as written. Motion carried 5 —0. 5. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Ms. Kerri Logan, Water Services Administration Deputy Director, announced that Mr. Craig Johnson, Director of Water Services was unable to attend this evening's meeting due to illness. Ms. Michelle Woytenko, Public Works Director, gave an update on the recycling program, which included the following highlights:The City of Surprise has suspended its recycling program. . The City of Mesa has recommended changes to its recycling program. • Glendale does not compare directly to these cities as it is only one of two cities in the valley with its own Materials Recycling Facility (MRF). Phoenix is the other. All other valley cities bear the recycling costs in their solid waste collection fees. Glendale has a little more insulation from the market variables. • Since the last update, recycle markets have remained flat for the City. Glendale is at a disadvantage because Waste Management and Republic Services have a large market share. However, the City can also hold onto its aluminum commodity until it receives a good price. The paper commodity cannot be stored for as long due to deterioration. • Many cities in the valley and nationally are re -looking at their recycling programs. • Surprise is suspending its program and will see if it can develop an alternative. An IGA with Glendale may be considered, but Glendale will need to ensure the IGA covers its costs. Surprise's spends $200,000 annually on its recycling program. • Mesa had three different recycling service vendors and they are experiencing a large increased processing cost for a small return. Mesa suspended its neighborhood drop-off locations because there is a cost to man those locations. Glendale has two unmanned drop-off locations: at the downtown library and at the Glendale landfill. There have been no contamination issues with these drop-off sites. • Staff has looked at low- to no -cost glass recycling but has not been successful in finding a company that will do a bin program. Staff is in discussions with several grocery stores and Walmart to see if there are any possibilities in working with them. Chair Liebman wondered when the 2020 CUAC topic calendar would be drafted. Ms. Logan replied that the Government Services Committee has instructed that agenda topics should be determined in February 2020 to coincide with the new Chair and Vice Chair appointments. Chair Liebman suggested including recycling updates. 6. BALANCED SCORECARD Ms. Logan gave a presentation on the Water Services Department Balanced Scorecard, which included the following information: • City of Glendale Mission: We improve the lives of the people we serve everyday • Priorities • Our Community • Our Finances • Our Processes • Our Organization • Objectives: Full List Provided by Ms. Logan. • Improve Asset Management • Improved Asset Tracking/Financial Planning • Water Services has approximately $800 million in total assets • Perpetual Inventory System • Lucity: • Enterprise Asset Management Software • New work order management system • Replaces Hansen, which is the current system • Improve Purposeful Communication • Increase digital connectivity with our community and employees • Example: Water webisodes • Example: Glendale Working For You video. A recent video was played. • Trying to do a better job of explaining what the Department does and why • Strengthen Workforce Culture • Core Competencies • Behaviors we want to display; technical and soft skills • Performance Management • Customer Relations Management (CRM) System Ms. Logan commented that Tier 2 objectives are still being worked on. Ms. Logan added that ten to twelve staff members are being gathered to determine strategic objectives and Mr. Perez and Ms. Woytenko have volunteered to serve as advisors to Water Services' team. Chair Liebman inquired where the CIP falls into the strategies. Mr. Perez replied that it depended on the philosophy and purpose of the capital expenditure. Chair Liebman asked about bonding. Ms. Woytenko replied that bonding was a financing method and if it is seen that the department is falling behind on asset management, bonding for CIP could be considered. Chair Liebman asked if there would be many video clips for water webisodes/Glendale Working For You. Ms. Logan replied in the positive and noted that there is a library of videos. Chair Liebman wondered what CRM system was being used currently. Ms. Alberty replied that QScend was being utilized at this time. Commissioner Flatau noted the numerous uses of the words "improve" and/or "optimize" and commented that with the City's limited resources, perhaps the word "sustain" should also be used. Ms. Logan replied that staff is always looking to improve. Commissioner Flatau understood, however relayed that at times, with limited resources, it is efficient to sustain if things are going well. Vice Chair Short relayed that he watched the fourth water conservation video and it was very good. Commissioner Ford wondered when staff would begin on the strategic objectives. Ms. Logan hoped to begin in November and estimated it would take three to four workshops. Commissioner Ford stressed the use of the video clips and similar to highlight the positives in the Department/City, as people hear so much bad news. Commissioner McGrew asked if the Lucity software was off-the-shelf and able to be modified or being built specifically for the City. Ms. Logan replied that Lucity is already being used by other cities. Mr. Serio indicated that the City of Peoria and other valley cities use Lucity and commented on the thorough selection process. Mr. Serio stated that Phase 1 of the system has already been implemented and is now in use and Phase 2 is expected to go live in 2020. Ms. Woytenko indicated that the Transportation Department already uses Lucity. Vice Chair Short asked if the Hansen software would be eliminated city-wide. Mr. Serio responded that the Development Services Department is the only department left using Hansen and they are looking at alternatives. The agenda item was concluded. 7. DIRECT POTABLE WATER REUSE Mr. Swieczkowski gave a presentation on Direct Potable Reuse (DPR), which included the following information: 110H1001-9111ftl[C •-- • DPR Rule Change • January 2018: DPR prohibition lifted • July 2018: ADEQ asks for projects • What is DPR? • DPR uses A+/B+ effluent to produce potable water • DPR uses advanced treatment processes for the A+/B+ effluent • Classes of Effluent in Arizona • Five reclaimed water quality classes: A+, A, B+, B, C • All classes have corresponding allowable end uses • Details on each class were provided • Class A+/A allowed uses: • Irrigation of food crops • Recreational impoundments • Residential/schoolyard irrigation •Toilet & urinal flushing • Fire protection systems • Snowmaking • And more • Types of Reuse • Direct Reuse • Effluent used directly for irrigation, water features, etc. • Indirect Reuse • Effluent that is recharged and then recovered for use • Additional treatment through the soil profile • Direct Potable Reuse • Advanced treated effluent for potable use • Arizona's Reuse History • Brief details provided • Glendale Historic Effluent Production • 2008-2018 Chart provided • Glendale Effluent Use • Recharge — 38% • At 3 recharge facilities • Reuse — 17% • Mainly Arrowhead Lakes and Golf Courses • Reuse - 91 st Ave. Waste Water Treatment Plant (WTP) — 41 % • Cooling water at PVNGS • Tres Rios • Losses — 4% • Glendale Recharge of Effluent: Glendale has stored a combined 165,000 acre-feet of effluent underground. This is almost 4 years of supply. Effluent accounts for 110,000 acre-feet or 66% of Glendale's total storage. Effluent can be recharged at all three facilities (aerial display and general facts provided on slides.) • Arrowhead Recharge Facility • West Area Recharge Facility • SRP's New River Agua River Underground Storage Project (NAUSP) • Glendale Reuse of Effluent • Arrowhead Lakes Golf Courses • Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) and Tres Rios • Conventional Versus DPR Treatment • Glendale's two WWTP's use the following conventional treatment • Primary Treatment • Secondary Treatment • Advanced Treatment • DPR Treatment • Public health protection from pathogens and chemicals is the paramount objective for DPR through advanced treatment • Types of pathogens and chemicals were provided • Flowchart for processing of DPR was presented • Who Will be the First to Utilize DPR in Arizona? • Scottsdale Pilot Project: On February 7, 2019 Scottsdale Water submitted a permit application. • DPR in the U.S. • EI Paso, Texas • Big Springs, Texas • Cloudcroft, New Mexico • Santa Fe, New Mexico • San Diego, CA • Santa Clara, CA • Daytona Beach, FL • Altamonte Springs, FL • Other cities in various stages of consideration/planning • Other DPR Issues of Concern • Operator and Training Certification • No current training or certification for DPR operators in Arizona (California and Nevada are in process) • Operators of DPR should have the highest level of certifications (Grade 4) in both WT and WWT • Operators should also be trained in advanced treatment system operations for potable reuse • A separate DPR (advanced treatment) certification could be developed • City of Flagstaff Future DPR Costs: Graph displayed • Public Perception Questionnaires: Responses to Flagstaff questionnaire displayed • Must gain support of the stakeholders through persistent communication • Must highlight the overall water supply concerns and water reliability • Must create confidence in the quality of the DPR potable water supply • Confront conflict head-on • Multiple channels • Know your audience • Brine Disposal: Process was explained. • Possible Arizona DPR Projects • Water providers dependent on one water source • Drought impacts on renewable surface water supplies • New potable supply for growth • Which Arizona city will be the first for a full-scale project? • Possible Glendale DPR Projects • Currently, Glendale does not need additional DPR water • Climate and availability of Colorado River water may change drastically • Could utilize DPR for industry/recreation • DPR water to fill lakes due to ADWR Lakes bill • Create a small package plant at Glendale's West Area WWTP? Chair Liebman inquired as to the timeframe to plan, design, build, test, and distribute DPR. Mr. Swieczkowski replied that a pilot test would be done first, which would take one and a half to two years. Mr. Swieczkowski relayed that San Diego and EI Paso have been working on their projects for approximately five years so far. Chair Liebman asked about Arrowhead Amenities. Mr. Swieczkowski replied that the City has a contract with Arrowhead Amenities. Chair Liebman asked if any of the City's plants have capacity to add additional steps. Mr. Serio replied that Arrowhead would be tight, however, the West plant is designed to add more treatment trains so could be used. Chair Liebman asked if this would be economical to add, based on population growth. Mr. Swieczkowski replied that Glendale's water portfolio is strong and at this time, DPR is really not needed for Glendale, unless there is a particular use for which the City would like to use it. Chair Liebman noted that the cost of DPR is substantially higher than regular water and inquired about operating costs. Mr. Swieczkowski responded that operating costs would also be higher due to new technologies. Commissioner McGrew wondered if it would make sense for Glendale to build a DPR facility and sell DPR to other cities in the future. Mr. Swieczkowski replied that this was a great idea and regional water collaborations are discussed at the water association meetings. Commissioner McGrew inquired if saltwater or effluent water was easier to treat. Mr. Swieczkowski responded that effluent water was easier. Commissioner Ford wondered if it was beneficial to be the first city in the DPR game. Mr. Swieczkowski commented that he did not think that Glendale would want to be the first, as there was some value in waiting. Mr. Swieczkowski stated that if the City waited ten to twenty years, it would be able to see lessons learned. Commissioner Ford inquired about how to handle public outreach. Mr. Swieczkowski stated that methods such as social media, news events, face to face meetings, tours, and education can be used. Commissioner Ford suggested having celebrities promote DPR or invite someone from EI Paso to speak on how it is working in their city. Commissioner Ford asked if DPR was the trend for the future. Mr. Swieczkowski stated that there are very few choices for future water supply. Mr. Swieczkowski relayed that he has a lot of faith in desalination, as it is unlimited and probably the best choice for the City's future next bucket of water. Mr. Swieczkowski commented that desalination and DPR are the future in water. Vice Chair Short announced that a contract for a seven -acre lake at Heroes Park using SRP water is on the October 8th Council agenda. Vice Chair Short suggested utilizing effluent water for the lake, which would be a great water conservation project for the City. Mr. Swieczkowski stated that a lot of piping would need to be done to convey effluent water to this location. Vice Chair Short stressed that it would be a great project for the City to be a leader in this effort. Commissioner Flatau noticed that agriculture was not on the chart for DPR use and stated that it could be a great water source for agriculture such as cotton. Mr. Swieczkowski agreed but noted that a large issue is getting the pipes to the farms as that it is very expensive to retrofit purple pipes. Commissioner Ford asked if the City had educational materials on which products could be put into the water system if DPR was used. Ms. Logan stated that the City does have conservation and sustainable living education. Commissioner Ford commented that perhaps it could cost less to treat the water if less damage was done up front. Chair Liebman thanked Mr. Swieczkowski for the presentation. 8. CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 2020 Ms. Alberty explained the old and the new selection process for Chair and Vice Chair based on direction from the Government Services Committee along with timeframes. Ms. Alberty announced that the term of the Chair and Vice Chair would begin in February 2020. Motion by Commissioner McGrew, second by Commissioner Flatau, to recommend Commissioner Jonathan Liebman as Chair of the Citizens Utility Advisory Commission with a term to begin in February 2020. Chair Liebman asked if there were any other nominations. None were made. Motion carried 5 — 0. Motion by Commissioner Flatau, second by Commissioner McGrew, to recommend Commissioner Ron Short as Vice Chair of the Citizens Utility Advisory Commission with a term to begin in February 2020. Chair Liebman asked if there were any other nominations. None were made. Motion carried 5 — 0. Chair Liebman wondered if the Commission needed to wait until February 2020 to work on next year's agenda, since the Chair and Vice Chair will remain the same. Ms. Logan will ask the Government Services Committee. Commissioner Ford commented that a tentative agenda could possibly be drafted. Chair Liebman asked staff for a list of past agenda items for use in drafting a 2020 tentative agenda. 9. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS Commissioner Flatau commented that the presentations this evening were wonderful. Commissioner Ford agreed that the presentations were wonderful, wished Mr. Johnson well in his recovery, and thanked Chair Liebman and Vice Chair Short for their willingness to serve as Chair and Vice Chair as it brings consistency to the Commission. Commissioner McGrew complimented the presentations, looked forward to hearing more on the balanced scorecard, and thanked Chair Liebman for his leadership. Chair Liebman thanked staff for all of the information and for answering his and other Commissioner's questions. Chair Liebman wondered how the balanced scorecard would be rated or graded. Ms. Logan stated that initially, it will be rated annually, but Council may want it more often, such as quarterly. Ms. Logan stated that there is much greater focus now on measurements and how to know if staff is successful. Ms. Logan indicated that the balanced scorecard is a greater, comprehensive effort coming from the top of City staff. 10. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS November 2019: • Current Fiscal Year Financial Update 11. NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting of the Citizens Utility Advisory Commission will be held on November 6, 2019 at 6:00 p.m., at the Oasis Water Campus, 7070 W. Northern Ave., Glendale, Arizona, 85303. 12. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner McGrew, second by Commissioner Flatau, to adjourn the meeting at 8:01 p.m. Motion carried 5 — 0. The Citizens Utility Advisory Commission meeting minutes of October 2, 2019 were submitted and approved this 6th day of November, 2019. Respectfully submitted, Denise Kazmierczak