Councilmember Overton stated that item 10-D is new technology and suggested that a more in depth understanding in the staff summary would be helpful. Mayor Nabours also suggested a sample from another area. Economic Vitality Director Heidi Hansen stated that staff is planning on showing a sample video in addition to a PowerPoint presentation. Vice Mayor Barotz asked if the vendor would be present. Ms. Hansen stated that the vendor will not be able to attend physically, but she could try to make arrangements to have them available by phone.

Mr. Copley stated that Consent Item 9-A will be moved to the Routine Section of the agenda so a presentation can be made by staff.

Library Director Heidi Holland announced that beginning October 16, 2016, the downtown library will be open on Sundays from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. She added that it is the first time the downtown library has been open on Sundays in a little over 13 years.

Utilities Engineering Manager Ryan Roberts provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:

OBJECTIVES OF TONIGHT’S DISCUSSION
BEFORE COUNCIL ANSWERS THE QUESTIONS
IF COUNCIL SAYS NO TO ANY CHANGE (OPTION 1)
EXISTING RECLAIMED WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
IF COUNCIL SAYS YES TO A CHANGE (OPTION 2)
PROPOSED NEW RECLAIMED WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
IF COUNCIL SAYS YES TO A CHANGE (OPTION 3)

Utilities Director Brad Hill continued the presentation.

ADVANCED TREATMENT OF RECLAIMED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
ADVANCED TREATMENT PILOT PROJECT
IF COUNCIL SAYS YES TO A CHANGE (OPTION 4)
SUMMARY

Mayor Nabours asked if the Water Commission reviewed and offered a recommendation on the options. Mr. Roberts explained that the Water Commission looked at Option 1 and Option 2; they considered no rate adjustment, a 3% rate adjustment and a 7% rate adjustment. The recommendation from the Commission was to go with the 3% annual increase over five years and adopt the higher Capital Improvement Program (CIP).

Councilmember Overton stated that he would like to know at what point the City can consider creating a more robust system. He asked if there is a wait list of large customers wanting access to reclaimed water. Mr. Roberts indicated that there are not many large customers waiting to have access to reclaimed water; there are several small residential and retail customers waiting for access. He indicated that Warner’s Nursery approached the City about reclaimed water. To service that area it would require a main extension along Butler and this is something that is not an option financially for Warner’s. The capital projects that have been identified will help add additional capacity and customers to the system. Councilmember Overton indicated that he would like to vet out the CIP to see how robust the system can become and strategically look at CIP in areas that match the land use and the ability of people to take advantage of the system.

Mayor Nabours asked if the CIP list was capped at three due to the financial constraints and if there are other projects that were kept off the list. Mr. Roberts stated that the list did stop at three because of financial limitations; the CIP is broken into three phases with these three being Phase 1. Cost is a big factor and they work to stay within the three percent increase.

Councilmember Putzova stated that she feels that the way the system is set up is problematic and until that is resolved the rate discussion is premature. The reclaimed water system does not count any dollar amount that is spent on treating the water and the system starts only after the water is treated; wastewater customers pay for all the treatment of the reclaimed water. Mr. Hill stated that she is correct and offered that the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, independent of if a City has reclaimed water users or not, requires wastewater customers to pay for treating the water to a certain standard. Councilmember Putzova offered that reclaimed water customers benefit from that treatment and their rates are kept artificially low because the wastewater customers subsidize those rates. She is suggesting that it is time to adjust the cost of water and look at what is a fair rate. The direction should be to look at how the City attributes the cost of reclaimed water to different systems and how that is separated. The rates should then be structured to incentivize conservation. Mr. Hill indicated that this discussion and direction is something that can be considered in Option 4.

Mayor Nabours offered that his preference is Option 2 with the 3% annual increase.

Councilmember Overton offered that it is important to continue to advocate balance. In the study he would like to know the community’s level of acceptance of a rate and determine at what point the reclaimed user says that it is not worth it and returns to just using potable water.

Vice Mayor Barotz indicated that she is not prepared to make a decision and needs more numbers and context to understand what the options mean. She did offer that she is not interested in Option 1.

Councilmember Brewster asked what the end goal is to achieve water quality goals beyond regulatory requirements. Mr. Hill offered that this question has been one of the struggles with the communities that go down the path of Option 3 because there are no regulatory requirements or guidelines. When a community goes through a feasibility study they have to define the quality goals. Once the goals are established then they match the treatment with the goals and look at the cost of implementing those treatment plans.

Councilmember Evans offered that she is not interested in Option 1 or Option 2. She would be interested in Option 4 beginning with getting more information. Reclaimed water is a byproduct of wastewater and it has value; she would like to understand what that value is. The City has charged less for this commodity to incentivize its use but it is important to know what it is worth to better understand the corresponding rates. This information would help to determine where and at what point the City would shift the cost to reclaimed users. The policy discussion cannot happen until the value or cost is determined.

Councilmember Overton stated that he is not interested in looking at taking elements of the wastewater treatment process and putting it into the reclaimed side because the reclaim customer is not going to pay 100% of the treatment process because it would go beyond the potable pricing. The CIP programs needs more attention and can be more robust, there needs to be discussion on how the system works and what it does for availability and customer reliability. He is not convinced that 3% is the perfect number but would not move that number just to offset wastewater functions into the reclaimed water system. The same would apply to the advanced treatment process; he does not want to spend money on a study to indicate that something is a good system but the community cannot bear the cost burden.

Vice Mayor Barotz offered that she is not suggesting that 100% of the cost be shifted to the reclaimed system but rather a portion; the users should bear some of the burden.

Councilmember Oravits asked what the cost is to produce the reclaimed water and the cost at which it is sold. Mr. Hill stated that it is $1.62 per thousand to produce and it is sold anywhere from $1.23 per thousand to $3.87 per thousand depending on customer class.

After further discussion, the direction of Council was for staff to provide further information on the CIP including a comprehensive list for consideration and provide sub-options for Option 4. Mr. Copley added that staff will be coming back to Council with a scoping tool that will provide various options to include in a request for further study by a consultant.

A break was held from 7:11 p.m. through 7:20 p.m.

 

Interim Parking Manager Karl Eberhard provided an electronic presentation that covered the following:

Vice Mayor Barotz left the meeting at 7:23 p.m.

IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPREHENSIVE PARKING MANAGEMENT
ON-STREET PARKING MAP
CORE TENETS
GENERAL GUIDELINES
PROGRAM ROLL-OUT
INTRODUCTORY PERIOD
PARKING STEERING COMMITTEE
DEMAND REDUCTION
ECOPASS
DOWNTOWN RESIDENT PERMIT PARKING
EMPLOYEE/BUSINESS OWNER PERMIT PARKING (E PERMITS)
FACILITY SPECIFIC PERMIT PARKING (F PERMITS)
RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING (R PERMITS AND G PERMITS)

Councilmember Putzova asked how the residential petition process works. Mr. Eberhard indicated that the permitting is done on a block by block basis; each block would come in and ask for parking control. There will be one permit issued for each water meter and Residential Permit holders can obtain guest permits for the restricted spaces as well.

Mr. Eberhard continued the presentation.

PAY-TO-PARK
METER EXEMPTION PERMIT
TIME-LIMITED PARKING
COMPLIANCE AND COLLECTIONS
ASSETS
PARKING OFFICE

Councilmember Oravits asked how many staff are anticipated for the parking program. Mr. Eberhard stated that in the Concept Plan there would be two to three employees and through the Council budgeting process the intent is to add one employee for every 300 spaces.

Mr. Eberhard continued the presentation.

FINANCIAL
METER SCHEDULE

Councilmember Oravits offered concern about employees paying to park all day; if this is the case there will be no alleviation of the problem. Mr. Eberhard offered that it was an issue that was considered and discussed; the general feeling was that there are more affordable opportunities available for employees and those will entice employees to save some money and park in the areas available for them. If this activity is occurring staff is able to make adjustments to the plan to discourage the behavior.

Mr. Eberhard continued the presentation.

NECESSARY ACTION ITEMS
FUTURE ACTION ITEMS
NO ACTION ITEMS
ALTERNATE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

Council was not in favor of automatically opting in areas; however, it was suggested that the Parking Manager have some discretion to make the decision based upon the efforts of the residents to fulfill the requirements. It was also suggested that when dealing with absent landlords that the signature threshold be lowered or if there is a certain percentage of residents that want the zone it can be opted in with notification to the owners and non-responses being considered a silent agreement. Mr. Eberhard indicated that he will work with the Legal Department to understand any legal implications of the suggestions and further discussion by Council can be had.

Mayor Nabours asked the Director of the Flagstaff Downtown Business Alliance (DBA) Terry Medeksza if the DBA is on board with the plan. Ms. Medeksza stated that the DBA has been supportive of all of the elements in this plan. She offered two considerations going forward; the extensive outreach between now and when the kiosks go in and the option for the resident permit in the southside has not been vetted yet with the downtown area and they will need to discuss further.

Councilmember Putzova asked the cost comparison to the parking permits on campus. Mr. Eberhard explained that the employee parking permit is $45 per month which is slightly higher than parking on campus.

Mr. Eberhard offered that the Parking Plan will be further discussed at next week's Council meeting. He requested input from Council on the issue of hooding fees at that time.

Councilmember Evans requested a stay on enforcement of the RV parking issue until the Council discussion can take place. Mr. Copley stated that staff is currently sending out notification letters but not taking action at this point. Mr. Solomon stated that he will provide a legal memo to the Council regarding the issue.

Mr. Copley offered a reminder that the Council orientation tour leaves City Hall at 9:00 a.m. on October 11, 2016. Additionally on Friday, October 14, 2016, at 5:00 p.m. City employees will be marching with the NAU band from City Hall to Heritage Square as a pep rally for Homecoming; Council is invited to participate if they would like.

Mr. Copley also reported that staff is preparing for Tequila Sunrise this weekend. There will be 24 Police Officers, 4 Liquor Control Agents and 1 State Officer in attendance. After the event, staff will send a CCR to Council on the efforts of staff and the associated costs. The City has been working with downtown and hope to have several port-a-potties and other amenities for people to use.

Neighborhood Liaison Karissa Morgan has worked with approximately 40 student volunteers to distribute door hangers in the southside neighborhood that talk about being a good neighbor and the do's and don’ts when hosting social events.

Lastly, City staff continues to work collaboratively with the community planning team that is working to coordinate and facilitate town halls on Native American issues; the first town hall is scheduled for November 16, 2016, the second will be November 30, 2016 and then will resume after the first of the year.

Mayor Nabours stated that the NAU Homecoming Parade on campus at 1:00 p.m. on Saturday, October 15, 2016.