CALL TO ORDER - AT OR AFTER 6:04 P.M.
STAFF PRESENT: Philip C. Saletta, Water Utility Director
Shirley Seng, Utility Administrator
David Ruiz, Engineering Division Manager
Robert Jacklitch, Project Manager
There were no speakers.
Chair Milkey requested a correction on page 4.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Davis and seconded by Commissioner Shapiro to Approve the minutes as amended.
MOTION carried, 6-0.
Mr. Saletta presented the CAP NIA Water Use Analysis spreadsheet and CAP NIA Water Comparisons to CAP M&I Subcontract O&M costs.
-The analysis is for a 100 year timeframe horizon beginning Year 2011 based on projections CAP made in terms of availability of CAP NIA Water to future demands and priority. The spreadsheet outlines how the water will be used and the effect it would have on our future water supply, particularly, with respect to long term storage credits that the utility could use in the future.
-Both scenarios includes a 100 year time frame with CAP NIA water with later year shortages, and how we would use CAGRD and any remaining groundwater allowance account water. CAP NIA water Scenario A outlines how CAP NIA water is affected if it is purchased and used. Scenario B outlines when CAP NIA water is not purchased.
Mr. Saletta proceeded with a more detail review of Scenarios A and B.
Mr. Saletta also mentioned that CAGRD accounts were not impacted by CAP NIA water until 2049.
Commissions Points of Interest:
Chair Milkey asked do the scenarios include all the present storage credits we have now, as well as credits we would build up by storing non-Indian water and our current CAP allocation which we are not yet using as wet water. Mr. Saletta confirmed this and that we show it all being fully utilized and stored. It will cost some additional money to store the water, but we will not experience those costs until year 2015.
Commissioner Reynolds asked at what point to we reach the maximum of 17,000 a/f? Mr. Saletta pointed out it would be reached at 2047.
Mr. Saletta mentioned that in Scenario B we use a total of 315,000 a/f of CAGRD as opposed to Scenario A with a total of 255,000 a/f. Within the 100 year period we show about 60,886 a/f and more reliance on CAGRD.
A discussion occurred about the CAP future pipeline and recovery facilities and the use of long term storage credits. Mr. Saletta mentioned we would not be building up our long term storage credits after the 2043 period. By then, we would have depleted all our long term storage credits and rely on our total CAP water, CAP NIA water and Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District (CAGRD).
-Commissioner Reynolds asked is this assuming we recover 5,500 a/f per year from the aquifer? Mr. Saletta said yes, but that amount could vary depending on how we deliver our renewable water. We are still using our CAP water whether it is recovered from our aquifer at the 5,500 a/f per year or delivered directly. In the future at 17,000 a/f demand per year we would still use 5,500 a/f of groundwater in the Oro Valley's local aquifer.
Mr. Saletta mentioned that we will still be relying on CAGRD over the 100 year period but we would rely on CAGRD six years sooner if we did not purchase this NIA water.
Mr. Saletta reviewed the cost analysis with 1.5% and 3% increases for O&M costs. The net present value per acre feet for Scenario 1 is $126, Scenario 2 is $111. These both exceed the current scenario which is $97.
Mr. Saletta said, we are still looking at these key elements and what the ADWR final allocation policy will be. The Arizona Department of Water Resources is planning to respond to comments by Friday, January 18th.
Mr. Saletta reported on the Central Arizona Project meeting January 10th discussions. ADWR proposed to allocate a portion of CAP NIA water to water providers outside of the three county CAP water service area. CAP board members are concern that CAP NIA allocations outside the CAP water service area will be problematical.
Staff believes that if a portion of this CAP water is allocated to those outside the CAP water service area, we should be able charge taxes to those entities. Some of the entities do not agree.
-CAP Board must also decide on pricing and making this water available to those entities outside district boundaries. The pricing issue will be discussed February 7th CAP meeting. Pricing components including back capital charges, the $1,000 Water Supply & Availability charge and the tax reimbursement charge to entities outside the three county areas will be discussed and considered.
Commissions Points of Interest
-Does any of the revenue go back to the Town of Oro Valley? (Commissioner Davis). Mr. Saletta mentioned that it would not go back to Oro Valley, but it pays the capital balance of the project.
How will they determine what the allocation request will be for the three county areas? (Chair Milkey). Mr. Saletta mentioned that ADWR had set the amounts for the Municipal Industrial users 5,100 a/f per year, a portion of the remaining 96,000 a/f for agricultural and other entities including outside the CAP water service area.
Mr. Saletta said, we want the Commission aware of these issues in terms of schedule and how CAP and ADWR are handling these issues. The State believes that some of the Colorado River CAP water should be allocated outside the 3 county areas.
-When will they know what the charges will be and when do we submit our application? (Commissioner Shapiro). We probably will not know until Friday, January 18th. Even if all policy and pricing issues are resolved, everyone needs to present these items to their Commissions, Councils and Boards. This application could be delayed until April or further out.
Mr. Saletta mentioned that the CAP Board members may want to settle this matter regarding the outside boundaries prior to setting the pricing or it could be set aside so the pricing could move forward.
Chair Milkey felt that the CAP Board should work out the CAP outside counties issues later and work with the Municipal and Industrial allocations first.
A discussion occurred about the possibility of water providers and other entities asking for more than the 51,000 a/f allocation.
Mr. Saletta will continue to keep the Commission posted with respect to ADWR's responses and comments and CAP Board meeting February 7. Mr. Saletta ended his report. No action was Required on this item.
Mr. Saletta discussed Item #3 Enhanced Aquifer Management Proposal issues on page 2:
-ADWR is concerned that goals will not be met in terms of safe yield in year 2025 and that the aquifer needs to be managed differently for those entities that store long term storage credits from their CAP water or reuseable renewable water. Mr. Saletta gave a brief example of Oro Valley annual groundwater recharge and recovery process.
-The State is proposing higher cuts to the aquifer.
-10% cut to the aquifer for those who recharge and recover outside 1 mile of the recharge facility or outside of boundaries of Groundwater Savings Facility (GSF) but within the same sub basin.
-20% cut to the aquifer for those who recharge water outside 1 mile of the recharge facility or outside the boundaries of a (GSF) within a different sub basin.These cuts will dramatically change the use and the planning of Long Term Storage Credits (LTSC) for many water providers that have CAP water and want to store in the future. Water storage is very important to Oro Valley for growth, uncertainty, climate changes and future delivery.
A discussion occurred regarding:
-The wheeling of Tucson CAP water to Oro Valley and the possibility of recharging through the Santa Cruz and meeting the 0% criteria. (Chair Milkey)
-Will existing Long Term Storage credits be grandfathered in and not subject to changes. (Commissioner Davis)
-The building a CAP delivery system in the future before the 17,000 a/f deliveries take place. (Chair Milkey)
Mr. Saletta mentioned that the program was written by staff as a proposal and will be forwarded to the Groundwater Users Advisory Council of the Tucson Active Management Area (TAMA) January 28th for further discussion. A policy and procedure needs to be in place for comments. Mr. Saletta indicated that the 5% proposed cut is in place. At this time, we pay is 0% for annual recharge and recovery it is unclear in the future whether this will remain in effect.
-Commissioner Shapiro commented in Oro Valley there aren't any places to recharge therefore we can't recharge our aquifer it seems unfair. The only one benefiting is Tucson Water because of their recharge facility. How many places recharge in the lower Santa Cruz and are there any wells? There are several entities that recharge in Lower Santa Cruz.
-Chair Milkey asked are the recharge wells located within the 1 mile radius reasonable? Mr. Saletta said yes, the one mile criteria is considered to be safe harbor. Mr. Ruiz also mentioned that in safe harbor you don't have to prove there is a hydro-geological connection.
Mr. Saletta said the purpose was to let you know about this issue. We are working with the State and other water providers to discuss this issue.
Mr. Saletta ended his report. No Action was required on this item.
Mr. Saletta mentioned there had been several press releases regarding the Colorado River Study. Mr. Saletta provided some background given by CAP's staff on January 10, 2013. The Bureau of Reclamation took over the Colorado River modeling project to monitor its demands and future supply. This does not mean we will run out of water in 2060, however if demand rises as projected and the model is accurate than there could be problems by year 2060.
-Review: Overview of Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Map - 50 year planning study (2060).
-California is the largest user of water with an allocation of 4.1 million a/f per year -Arizona's allocation is 2.8 million a/f per year. The Upper basin allocation is 7.5 million a/f per year -Lower basin allocation is 7.5 million a/f per year.
Review: Basin Study - A Call to Action: -Significant imbalances by 2060 -Potential risks begin as early as 2025 -Imbalances are driven by increasing demands, climate changes - Implementation of large-scale projects and programs
Review: Key next steps
Review: Summary of Options Submitted - Over 150 options were submitted to the Study: (Increased Supply, Reduced Demand, and Modify Operations)
Review: Summary of Option Portfolios classifications
Review: Water Delivery Vulnerabilities without Options and Strategies 2027-2040 and 2041-2060
Commissions Points of Interest:
-M&I Water demand and growth profile by year 2060. Mr. Saletta mentioned that the project takes the whole shortage and that Municipal and Industrial water users have first priority. Even with the shortages, M&I still has the highest priority unless the 1.5 million a/f per year were to be significantly reduced and this is unlikely.
-Desalination project Sea of Cortes - This project considered to be expensive and salt disposals is problematic
Vice Chair Tustison commented that in the Middle East desalination was very common and they do it with natural gas because they have large supplies and it's inexpensive. Is there any source of natural gas in this area or nearby Mexico that could be available to us? Mr. Saletta mentioned that Southern Arizona, Nevada or Southern California did not have much natural gas or oil, but does have a major pipeline crossing the area.
Chair Milkey mentioned that desalination would be best adapted to California where there was an ocean. Using the water efficiently could enhance our environment.
Commissioner Davis mentioned as we look into high energy water development there has to be some trade offs. We have a lot of areas especially in California that still have not gotten the message and still have grassy areas and lawns. Mr. Saletta stated that conservation was a critical component and that Oro Valley has taken significant steps in conservation.
Mr. Saletta ended his report. No Action was Required on this Item.
Ms. Seng reported the following on the Web Portal:
Web portal definition - The software allows our customers to access servers on the Cloud to view their own personal water use data on an hourly, daily, weekly or monthly basis. The AquaHawk software is intended to assist them in conservation efforts and leak detection.
-The software can estimate the customer's water bill when they enter their usage. Customers can also request email notifications when their usage is extremely high.
Staff reviewed three different web portals and contracted with American Conservation Billing Solutions located in Colorado. The initial set up cost is $10,000 with an annual maintenance fee of $10,500.
-Sensus the developer of the FlexNet software associated with AMI, is in the process of developing a program that will transfer the water use data from FlexNet to the new AquaHawk. Once this program is developed American Conservation & Billing Solutions will begin inputting all of our customer base information into the AquaHawk software.
Ms. Seng explained that all customers with or without AMI meters will eventually have access to the web port; however, non-AMI customers will be able to obtain monthly usage only. The goal of the Water Utility is to have all its customers go to one site. Eventually Water on the Web will be eliminated from the Town's website. Customers will also be able to pay their water bill from this site. AquaHawk software will enable the customer and Customer Service staff to actually look at the account at the same time to resolve any problems.
Testing of the site is tentatively scheduled for the first week in March. If all goes well the production site will be launched sometime end of March or first week in April. When the program is fully functional the Water Utility will hold a training session on how to use the software for Countryside area residents first.
The next phase of AMI will be scheduled near the south eastern portion of Oro Valley near El Conquistador Hotel adding another 2900 residential customers including some commercial accounts. A second training session will be held for these customers. As we complete major phases of this project we will hold other training seminars.
Ms. Seng said this is an exciting program that will help our customers help themselves and allow us to to improve our customer capabilities.
Question and Answer Session occurred.
-How will this program work with the software now being used in the office? (Commissioner Shapiro) The AquaHawk sofware will get its data from the Sensus software allowing the customers to use the web portal to retrieve information as well as our Staff.
-Will the Utility be tracking the number of hits from this site and what the customer is looking at? (Commissioner Verlaque). Staff will discuss this issue with American Conservation & Billing Solutions to see if its possible.
Ms. Seng also indicated that the AquaHawk program will be linked to the Town's main website and the Water Utility's Home page.
Ms. Seng mentioned that Homeowners Associations, Businesses and Landlords can group their accounts.
Commissioner Verlaque mentioned that the software could benefit out of town customers especially snow birds. They can be alerted if they have irrigation problems or other leaks. Ms. Seng mentioned Utility Staff will also be monitoring those kinds of problems with the AMI software and notifying those customers. However, we must have email addresses or other emergency numbers available in order to accomplish notifications.
-Will the customer be contacted if their monthly usage goes over a specific amount? (Commissioner Verlaque). Ms. Seng stated that the capability was available with AquaHawk.
There were no further questions, Ms. Seng ended her report. No Action was required on this item.
Councilmember Hornat reported on:
-TEP Power lines: If the Town proceeds with this project, a decision as to how to pay for this expense must be made since we do not have sufficient cash flow to pay ourselves back over $2.0 million that will be used from the Cash Reserve account. Several different proposals have been submitted but no decisions have been made.
-Extension of temporary sign codes for the 1st Avenue and Oracle Road commercial center.
-Franchise tax voter approval requests.
Councilmember Hornat ended his report.
Commissioner Tustison had no report.
Commissioner Davis had no report.
Ms. Seng reported that Karn Boyce has worked with the E3 Group and developed a ram by the name of Obe as the mascot for the 3rd graders activity booklet. This booklet will be completed in June.
Commissioner Reynolds had no report.
Ms. Seng reported the Town sent out a Medica Release to residents to protect their pipes from the cold weather.
-Customer credit card payment online receipts increased 50% from last year.
-Cost of Service Impact Fee Analysis - We are close to contracting with a consultant and waiting for some information. We expect that a Notice To Proceed will be mailed out by the end of January.
Customer Service Report - December 2012
-Total Metered Connections as of 12/31/12: 18,716
Projected Meter Installations for FY 12-13: 35
Actual New Meter Installations as of 12/31/12: 117
Projected EDU's for FY 12-13: 44
Actual EDU's as of 12/31/12: 150
Meter Replacements for FY 12-13: 196
Water Audits for FY 12-13: 68
Ms. Seng ended her report.
Mr. Jacklitch reported the following:
Capital Projects:
-Chlorine Storage Facility at the Reclaim Water facility was completed 1/16. First delivery of chlorine has been scheduled.
Design Project:
-Tangerine Hills/Tangerine Meadow working on installation of new fire hydrants and valve replacements -Design completion Date: January 31st. Construction schedule: February/March 2013
Mr. Jacklitch ended his report.
Mr. Ruiz reported the following:
-Total Water Production Graph year end totals
-Reclaimed Water Deliveries
-2011-12 Monthly Water Production Report
-Daily Demand Operations/Precipitation Report: 5 rainfall events
-Reclaimed Water System 6 End Users -Year end total = 697 million gallons
Mr. Ruiz ended his report.
| a. |
Colorado River Streamflow and Snow Reports |
Mr. Saletta gave a brief breakdown on the following:
-Arizona and Colorado Snow pack report - January 8, 2013
-Colorado River Water Supply - Lake Powell & Lake Mead Total System.
-Standard Snotel Site report: The Natural Resources Conservation Services has various sites throughout the west. Mr. Saletta explained that as snowpack accumulates it lands on a snow pillow which has anti-freeze in it. As the snowpack increases in elevation over the pillow it reads it and data is transmitted to the Snotel site information system.
Mr. Saletta ended his report.
1/16: Town Council meeting
1/17: Town Budget Overview opened to public Time: 6:00 p.m.
1/28: GUAC meeting
2/06: Town Council meeting
2/07: CAP Board meeting agenda - CAP NIA Pricing
2/11: WUC meeting