Flood Control District of Maricopa County Flood Control Advisory Board

Meeting Minutes October 24, 2018

Board Members Present: Gregg Monger, Chairman; Richard Schaner; Bob Larchick; Hemant Patel; Ray Dovalina

Staff Members Present: Michael Fulton, Director; Angie Flick; Tanee Morris

1) CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Monger called the meeting of the Flood Control Advisory Board (FCAB) to order at 1:59 p.m. on October 24, 2018.

2) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

3) APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 22, 2018

ACTION: It was moved by Mr. Justice and seconded by Mr. Larchick to approve the minutes as submitted. The motion carried unanimously, and the minutes were approved.

4) ACTION ITEM - ELECTION OF OFFICERS

Presented by Mr. Gregg Monger

The objective is to determine whether the advisory board should elect the officers nominated: Mr. Hemant Patel, Chairman; Mr. DeWayne Justice, Vice Chairman; and Mr. Bob Larchick, Secretary, for the period of November 2018 to October 2019 based on the slate recommended by the staff or open to the nominations for officers.

ACTION: Mr. Justice moved to elect. Mr. Dovalina seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

Minutes of the Flood Control Advisory Board – October 24, 2018 Page 1 of 15 5) ACTION ITEM - APPOINTMENT TO THE FCAB STANDING COMMITTEES

Presented by Mr. Gregg Monger

This is essentially the advisory board appointment of the members to the FCAB committees: Legislative Committee, Mr. Bob Larchick and Mr. Gregg Monger; Policy Committee, Mr. Hemant Patel and Mr. Ray Dovalina; Program and Budget Committee, Mr. Bob Larchick, Mr. Hemant Patel, and Mr. DeWayne Justice; and Public Information Committee, Mr. Gregg Monger and Mr. Hemant Patel.

ACTION: Mr. Schaner moved that they proceed in accordance with staff recommendations for the positions as listed. Mr. Patel seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

6) ACTION ITEM - RAWHIDE WASH FLOOD HAZARD MITIGATION INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT 2018A013

Presented by Ms. Bobbie Ohler, Project Manager

This IGA includes design, and relocations for the project.

Past authorizations include Resolution 2018R005, which authorized IGAs, runway acquisition, and CIP funding. The project was also submitted for the CIP Program for FY 2019 and recommended by both cities, Phoenix and Scottsdale.

The project was first identified in the Pinnacle Peak West Area Drainage Master Study, which was completed in 2016. The Rawhide Wash is an active alluvial fan and is the largest hazard study area. The 100-year flow is 9,014 CFS. There are over 800 homes in the current flood plain of Rawhide Wash.

The entire project will be within Scottsdale but will affect the City of Phoenix. The project will remove approximately 1,930 acres of land from the floodplain, about 80 percent from Phoenix and 20 percent from Scottsdale. The project will also take about 800 buildings out of the floodplain and will help avoid breakouts and having to build redundant infrastructure in the City of Phoenix.

The undeveloped land to the west is all state land, owned by the Arizona State Land Department. There are floodwalls existing that do provide quite a bit of protection, but they are not FEMA certified. There is currently a study being completed that includes a technical, hydraulic, and structural analysis to see what needs to be done to the walls to certify them with FEMA and thus remove the floodplain.

Minutes of the Flood Control Advisory Board – October 24, 2018 Page 2 of 15 New walls will also need to be constructed to keep the wash to a smaller area in Phoenix.

A 100-year flow will be contained within the flood wall levee system, and access will be provided for people and wildlife. Interior drainage will be addressed.

The project will be designed to FEMA standards so a CLOMR can be done and eliminate that floodplain.

The IGA includes the design, rights of way acquisition, and utility relocation. The project partners are: The Flood Control District, City of Phoenix, and City of Scottsdale. The cost share is 50 percent, 40 percent, and 10 percent. The District is going to take the lead for all of the IGA elements. In the future, the project partners intend to enter into an IGA construction, construction management, and operation maintenance of the project.

Photos of the existing floodwalls were shown. Those existing floodwalls vary. There are over 12,000 feet of existing floodwalls. Some of those are not tall enough and will need to be raised to meet freeboard requirements. Some existing floodwalls need additional erosion protection, and some may require beefing up of the stemwalls to ensure they are adequately strong. There is a study being done that identifies what needs to be done to all existing floodwalls. It is likely some of them will need to be removed and replaced. Aesthetics will be looked at so landowners and HOAs all approve.

New walls will replace existing walls that cannot be repaired. The character and grade of the wash will be maintained. It will not be channelized, walls will just be put up. Access for people and wildlife will be provided, and a future trail system will be allowed for.

The estimated cost for this IGA will be about $2 million with design, rights of way, and utility relocations. There should not be a lot of utility relocations, but that is just an estimate.

There is a planning estimate for the future IGA of about $15.2 million to construct.

The benefits are almost 2,000 acres of floodplain reduction within the project. Existing residences will be taken out of harm's way, and flood risk and potential damages will be reduced.

In the future the flow will be delivered to one point west of Scottsdale Road, so it will be easier for development in Phoenix to occur. With a future project even more acreage will be eliminated from the floodplain. This will help with the development in the area by reducing building costs and flood insurance not being mandatory in those areas.

STAFF RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING ACTION: The Flood Control Advisory Board endorse and recommend the Board of Directors to approve IGA 2018A013.

Minutes of the Flood Control Advisory Board – October 24, 2018 Page 3 of 15 Mr. Justice asked if that wash is going to create a spread out of water at Pinnacle Peak Road. Ms. Ohler responded that there is a box culvert and channel, and that the water would spread out at that point. The city is even starting a DCR for a future project to deal with it from that point that is not part of this project.

Mr. Dovalina stated that from the City of Phoenix they appreciate all the efforts that the Flood Control District has done to this point with all previously completed work and stated that this project is not only protecting existing houses and structures, but also future development that has a lot of potential for not only the City of Phoenix but also the state.

ACTION: Mr. Patel made a motion to approve the Rawhide IGA. Mr. Dovalina seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

7) ACTION ITEM - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT PRIORITIZATION (CIPPP) FY 2019/2020

(Note: Mr. Monger noted that the information sheet showed this item number was an information only item, but it is for action.)

Presented by Mr. Patrick Schafer, Civil/Structures Branch Manager

The staff recommends that the Flood Control Advisory Board endorses the Project Evaluation Committee's results for the Fiscal Year '19/20 Capital Improvement Program Prioritization Procedure of identifying and prioritizing potential five-year capital improvement program projects.

There was a meeting where the draft results were presented to the Flood Control Advisory Board Program and Budget Committee. The committee endorsed the draft results at that time.

Projects were requested from agencies in May. The agencies had until mid-July to submit those projects. In August, the Evaluation Committee went through the requested projects in detail, evaluated them and ranked them. In September the draft recommendations were sent to the agencies. Today the results are presented as an action item. Later this year and early next year, budgeting and programing projects will be done for the upcoming five- year CIP.

At this stage we are evaluating projects and recommending that certain projects be incorporated into a future year CIP program. Projects will be recommended through the resolution process and intergovernmental agreements.

Minutes of the Flood Control Advisory Board – October 24, 2018 Page 4 of 15 As the project develops, you will see them again and endorse those. Right now we are just looking to add potential projects to the Capital Improvement Program.

For fiscal year 2020 we have received three submittals. The submitting agencies were the City of Scottsdale, the Town of Queen Creek, and the Town of Gilbert. The total estimated cost of all three projects is $49 million. The total proposed district cost, as submitted, was $24.6 million.

The City of Scottsdale submitted the Reata Wash Flood Control Improvement Project. The estimated total cost is $43 million.

The Town of Queen Creek submitted a retention basin project at a total estimated cost of $5 million.

The Town of Gilbert submitted the Hunt Highway Protection Project, with an estimated total cost of $1.25 million.

The Reata Wash Flood Control Improvement Project submitted by the City of Scottsdale is located in North Scottsdale. The objective is to replace the expansive Reata Wash active alluvial fan FEMA floodplain with a much smaller rivering floodplain. It is bounded to the north by Pinnacle Peak Road and State Road 101 to the south. The contributing watershed is 8 square miles at the apex of the alluvial fan. The current concept includes a combination of channelization and box culverts. The intent is to follow the main existing channel of the Reata Wash. The project will provide 100-year protection to an estimated 4,600 residents and commercial structures. The 100-year que is 13,000 CFS. The project will promote open space trails and recreational facilities. There has been a substantial public involvement effort, and there is support from HOAs.

The current estimated total project cost is $43 million. The city is proposing a 50/50 cost share with the Flood Control District. Scottsdale is looking to apply for several FEMA grants to help with offsetting of the costs.

The city proposes that they take over the responsibilities of operation and maintenance, with none to the District.

The District Project Evaluation Committee is recommending the project for inclusion into the CIP program.

The second project submitted is from the Town of Queen Creek, called the Rittenhouse Zone Sports Complex Basin Project. It is located southeast of the Mesa Gateway Airport and the old GM Proving Grounds. The project was identified in the 2014 East Maricopa Area Drainage Master Plan Update. The Rittenhouse Zone is a segment of that study. The study was broken up into three components, this is the Rittenhouse Zone.

Minutes of the Flood Control Advisory Board – October 24, 2018 Page 5 of 15 The objective is to serve as a regional strong water detention basin. There are five upcoming planned residential community developments that will utilize the basin. Those five residential developments are planning for nearly 2,900 homes in that area.

The project will promote open space. The town is looking to use that area for recreational use for the sports complex. Other ancillary benefits include water conservation opportunities and benefits to the roadway system in the vicinity of the project.

The current estimated total project cost is $5 million. The town proposes a 50/50 cost share split with the Flood Control District.

An item to note, the town has already completed the purchase of the land at a value of just over $3 million.

The town proposes to be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the project. The District Project Evaluation Committee is recommending the project for inclusion into a future CIP.

The third submittal was from the Town of Gilbert, the Hunt Highway Bank Protection Project. It is located in South Gilbert, along the Pinal County line.

The objective is to provide greater flood protection to the town residents located in the area to the north, as it intercepts flows from the south.

The District Project Evaluation Committee defers the project for further evaluation and resubmittal. The reason for that deferral is that the district is currently undertaking a new effort to update the San Tan West Area Drainage Master Study. The district is recommending the town take the new results from the study, the new hydrology, and the new data from that report to refine the current project.

In summary, the Project Evaluation Committee is recommending two of the submittals and deferring one for future consideration.

The approximate total cost of the recommended projects is $48 million, with the district cost of $24 million of those recommended projects.

STAFF RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING ACTION: The Flood Control Advisory Board endorse the Project Evaluation Committee's results for the FY'19/20 Capital Improvement Program Prioritization Procedure.

In response to a question by Mr. Justice about an estimated timeframe the Reata Wash Project will take, Mr. Schafer responded that right now a design concept report is

Minutes of the Flood Control Advisory Board – October 24, 2018 Page 6 of 15 completed, so the next step is to go into a full design which typically takes approximately two to three years. Once the project is programed they will work closely with the City of Scottsdale for more defined projects. As soon as the City of Scottsdale programs it into a specific fiscal year, it would expected to be two to three years.

Mr. Monger asked if the Town of Queen Creek coordinated with the City of Scottsdale on the actual design parameters of the sports complex. Mr. Schafer responded that he could not speak on behalf of Queen Creek, but he did assume they look at what other agencies and communities are doing around the valley in using that open space in conjunction with water conservation efforts.

ACTION: Mr. Patel made a motion to move for the recommendations to the CIPPP. Mr. Schaner seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

8) FISCAL YEAR 2018 FINANCIAL RECAP

Presented by Ms. Karen Scott, Finance and Contracts Division Manager

PURPOSE: Information and discussion item only. No formal action required.

Two pictures of the same area, one taken in 2017 and one in 2018 when Rosa came in, were shown as a visual of a flood control project completed in 2018 to demonstrate what a difference the Flood Control District makes.

There were three planning studies complete this year. There were four design concept reports that were completed, three new mapping starts, and six new AEMSs started that will roll over into FY'19 and '20.

There were two delineations completed and six new delineations started in FY'18.

There was one capital improvement project in total, the White Tanks Rehabilitation 4 in the West Valley. The 115th Avenue and Union Hills isn't quite finished. They are still doing the finishing touches, but most of that was complete in FY'18.

We had budgeted $87 million in revenue. We received about $74 million of that, mostly due to an intergovernmental agreement that we had with NRCS that we didn't actually receive the revenue from because we didn't work on the project.

What we did receive in FY'18 was the last of our 2014 disaster money. It wasn't a lot, but we finally closed that out. We had a couple of grants, a small one from DEMA. The Gila River Indian Community had given us a grant also.

Minutes of the Flood Control Advisory Board – October 24, 2018 Page 7 of 15 The $10 million in intergovernmental came with interactions that we had with the City of Phoenix and City of Surprise, Buckeye, and City of Peoria.

We brought in about $62 million from property tax, a little more than forecasted, which was what we had budgeted for our revenue. Overall for revenues in FY'18, we did really well.

We had budgeted $88 million of expenditures and only expended $49 million. We spent 88 percent of our operating budget and 35 percent of our CIP. The CIP was due to projects that were pushed back, including the Vineyard Project, the McMicken Project, and the Durango Regional Conveyance Channel.

In FY'19 we have 20 plus active projects going. We are working to ensure as projects fall behind that we can move something else into the spot to ensure that we utilize the funding that is available.

In our fund balance we started out FY'18 with $65 million. We anticipate the FY'19 beginning balance to come in right around $90 million. The large difference is due to not expending the funds we had anticipated in the CIP.

A photo was shown of Phoenix Dam Number 7 with the high water there showing about 10 and a half feet as a really good example of some of the projects the Flood Control District does.

There were no questions for Ms. Scott.

9) MONSOON 2018 RECAP

Presented by Mr. Steve Waters, Engineer Support Branch Manager

PURPOSE: Information and discussion item only. No formal action required.

There are four hundred automated stations spread out from Dewey to Casa Grande, and from the Superstition Mountains to Humboldt Hill Mountain. These stations send their information by radio through a system of repeaters. That information is ingested in three places: the Department of Emergency Management, the National Weather Service, and into our own alert room.

Three hundred fifty of those four hundred stations have rain gauges, and 213 stations measure water level. Forty weather stations go from 750 feet to over 7,000 feet. Those weather stations provide us with a very good idea of what is going on with moisture in the lower atmosphere.

Minutes of the Flood Control Advisory Board – October 24, 2018 Page 8 of 15 We now have five pairs of flashing roadway signs. Upstream gauges are used to turn on the flashing lights before water floods the roadways. Twelve thousand square miles is monitored in Arizona.

The monsoon outlook for Maricopa County put out in the beginning of Monsoon 2018 was that we were going to have an early onset and it was going to be wetter than normal. There was a very active East Pacific Hurricane Season. There was a false start, Hurricane Bud went up the East Pacific on June 11th and 12th. The weather service came out with a track that took it right up through Arizona. Being that it was so early and the Gulf was fairly cold at that time, Bud didn't last as a hurricane when it came into Arizona.

There was very little activity between June 16th and July 8th. July 8th we had our first big rolling storm that came through. Traditionally monsoons start in Phoenix around July 6th or 7th, so the outlook that there would be an early onset was incorrect.

The Town of Buckeye had a major event where there was quite a bit of damage from winds. Power poles built to take excessive winds crumbled under the onslaught of the downdraft of winds.

On July 9th the weather service put out severe thunderstorm and flashflood warnings as a storm marched across Phoenix. This storm stayed together through the west county, down into Yuma County and into Mexico as it traveled along overnight. We got some good rainfall and a dust storm with that event.

On July 11th another storm rolled through. It had good rainfall values. The area by the airport and South Phoenix got completely missed. Unfortunately, that is where the official rain gauge is. This storm caused roof to collapse at a Safeway store in Glendale. The collapsing roof caused a gas line break that caught the store on fire. Nobody was hurt.

There was high pressure over North Texas and low pressure over Yuma on the 21st of July bringing up moisture from Mexico. It came together over the Southwest County. We had a nice rainfall amounts on our lower deserts.

In early August there was a high over Las Vegas. This is very good for bringing storms into the desert. We had them for four days in a row, from August 7th to the 10th. The airport didn't get missed this time. The storm broke into pieces. One of the pieces went through the Southeast Valley and went through Western Pima. It then fell apart.

A map listing the preliminary rainfall totals was shown, as well as a map showing the preliminary monsoon rainfall as a percent. Any areas in yellow, orange or red were drier

Minutes of the Flood Control Advisory Board – October 24, 2018 Page 9 of 15 than normal, and anything in green was wetter than normal. Rainfall for this season was just a little bit above normal.

In September it was predicted that Hurricane Rosa would come right at us, but die out in the Gulf, which is what it did. Rosa dropped just about as much rain in the central part of Maricopa County as did the entire monsoon season.

Mr. Dovalina inquired if there was a pattern to storms changing in the last couple of years. Mr. Waters responded that there have been warmer than normal sea surface temperatures in the Eastern Pacific over the last four to five years. That warmer than normal moisture is contributing to the moisture that comes up into Arizona. There needs to be something that triggers the flow into Arizona such as an inverted troth. The garden variety of monsoon stuff that comes off the mountains has been doing that for 10,000 years and is going to keep doing that.

In response to a question by Mr. Dovalina about hurricanes, Mr. Waters responded that hurricanes were what he was referring to coming up from the Pacific and the warmer water. If the water continues to be warmer, there will be more active hurricane seasons in the Eastern Pacific. In every 20 or 30 hurricanes that form out there, one of them will get caught up and come up the coast.

10) DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL UPDATE OF HYDROLOGY, HYDRAULICS AND EROSION MANUALS

Presented by Ms. Stephanie Gerlach, Special Projects Branch Manager

PURPOSE: Information and discussion item only. No formal action required.

In 1985 the Flood Control District formed a multi-jurisdictional task force to develop the Drainage Design Manual. The first publication of that manual was in 1990. It provides advice and information regarding Flood Control's approach or opinion on the requirements of federal, state, and county floodplain and drainage related ordinances and regulations.

There are three volumes contained within the drainage design manual; hydrology, hydraulics, and erosion control. The hydrology volume provides information on developing estimates for storm water runoff. The design of flood control facilities are contained within the hydraulics volume. The erosion control volume contains information for construction sites to meet the National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System.

The process for updates include new studies completed, requests for revisions from internal staff and other departments. We accumulate these revisions and develop a draft manual to submit to internal staff for their review. We then submit it to various county agencies, towns, and cities for their review. The review period was just closed on October 12th.

Minutes of the Flood Control Advisory Board – October 24, 2018 Page 10 of 15 As part of the USGS survey publication, methods for estimating magnitude and frequency of floods in Arizona were developed. Each year the Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs estimate there is $1.3 billion of damage in Arizona done between 1995 and 2000 due to floods. It is important to understand the magnitude and frequency of these floods for the public safety, decreasing the damage, and understanding the risk. The original study was developed in 1986. This new study added an additional 24 years to that study. It also included updated statistical procedures, and new analytical tools. There is also a new USGS webpage called StreamStats. It is available on their website. Any public person can go in and look at a wash near them to estimate the magnitude and frequency of floods.

As part of the updates to Volume II, the hydraulics volume, the Federal Highway Administration developed a new addition of the Evaluating Scour at Bridges. The number one reason why we lose bridges is due to scour at bridge and abutments. This publication used 22 studies plus additional resources to update this publication. They provide new guidance on pier scour, debris loading, and abutment scour. We did not get rid of the old procedures or old equations for evaluating scour, but added in the new ones based on this publication. If you have a current bridge design in progress you can still continue to use the old equation and procedures, but any new bridge designed will use the new information developed.

As part of the Erosion Control Volume update we added a hardened surface where traffic will be entering or exiting a construction site.

The draft manual is located on our website, under the “Downloads” area.

The review period for the towns and cities closed on October 12th. We did not receive any comments from this, and we will be finalizing the manual shortly and updating the website.

Mr. Larchick inquired if there was an impact on the intensity of storms noted in the 24 years of additional information. Ms. Gerlach responded that they were able to look at more gauges, but they were not really seeing more intense storms. There are some areas that have received more intense storms, but more data was brought in by a greater variety of gauges.

Ms. Gerlach responded to a question by Mr. Patel, stating that there is some information in the hydraulics volume for erosion, but there is not a lot of information for that type of erosion. Mr. Dovalina responded that the erosion situation is being experienced in a lot of places such as North Mountain, South Mountain, any type of mountains in the Phoenix area and they are having to deal with homeowners that live adjacent to them.

Minutes of the Flood Control Advisory Board – October 24, 2018 Page 11 of 15 11) DRAINAGE POLICIES AND STANDARDS MANUAL

Presented by Ms. Kelli Sertich, Policy, Planning, and Coordination Branch Manager

PURPOSE: Information and discussion item only. No formal action required.

There is also a Drainage Policy and Standards Manual, which is a complimentary document to these other documents discussed in Item 10. In 2006 a group came together and put together a document to help provide guidance for implementing the county drainage regulations as well as the floodplain regulations. The difference with this document and the other three manuals is that this one is only 190 pages as opposed to roughly 300 to 600 pages. This document has policies and standards. This looks at uniformity from community to community and how to enforce these regulations.

This manual has been updated six times since it was adopted in 2007. These are guidance documents as opposed to rules, as there are several ways to build in the community. We now post these as substantive policy statements, as guidance documents. They are not taken back to the Board of Directors to adopt every year, but come before you to give you the updates.

In Chapter 8 we have the revisions process. We will have a multi-disciplinary team come together and reach out to staff internally to ask if there is any additional changes. If the other three manuals are being updated, there certainly will need to be changes to this manual.

We formally met as a group earlier this year as we went through the requested revisions. Additionally, we sent it out to each and every city and town in Maricopa County for their review. We did receive some statements back from the City of Buckeye regarding how they felt the document might affect them, but not asking for any additional changes. At that point we then moved forward with the process of getting the updates posted on the webpage.

Most of the revisions are more administrative in nature. Our mission statement for the Flood Control District was updated since 2016. We removed the WOTUS definition and will refer to the EPA. We added a number of statements encouraging ground water recharge, nature-based solutions, low impact development, and multi-purpose strategies. We also added sections for pervious concrete per MAG standards.

In Chapters 3 and 4 some revisions were made to make sure we were matching the Code of Federal Regulations as it applies to the National Flood Insurance Program. We encourage integrated drainage design and using natural drainage features and concepts, and we expanded on information encouraging people to use the information from the Flood Insurance Rate Maps.

Minutes of the Flood Control Advisory Board – October 24, 2018 Page 12 of 15 The key revisions in Chapter 6 are the addition of new sections for utility profiles, updated items that were already updated in the other manuals, and again adding text to encourage natural features and supporting water conservation.

In Chapter 8 we updated the revisions process because it hadn't been updated since 2007, and with us not going through formal adoption anymore we needed to correct that. We wanted to make sure that the cities were included in that process if there were significant changes.

Throughout the document there were some general clean up items such as spelling corrections or adding a few words here and there.

The latest edition of the Drainage Policies and Standard Manual is now available on the District's website under the “Downloads” section, and additionally is available on our enhanced regulatory outreach web site.

Mr. Monger asked a question regarding what kind of feedback the stakeholders are giving on the manual. Ms. Sertich responded that they did not get a lot of feedback, just the one email from the City of Buckeye stating how the changes would affect any of the work they were doing.

In response to a question by Mr. Monger inquiring if there was an uptick on the focus for recharge basins, Ms. Sertich stated that she does not deal on the day to day activity of seeing what is coming in to know if that has happened, and that others may have more information on that.

12) COMMENTS FROM THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

13) SUMMARY OF RECENT ACTIONS BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Presented by Michael Fulton, Deputy Director

PURPOSE: Information and discussion item only. No formal action required.

The Deputy Director, Mr. Fulton, stated that he would be combining items 12 and 13.

Mr. Fulton stated that he is in month 7 at this time, and he is learning something new every day here at the District.

Ms. Angie Flick, the new Chief Administrator for the District was introduced. Mr. Fulton stated that Ms. Flick, as the Chief Administrator, will still do what a lot of what traditional

Minutes of the Flood Control Advisory Board – October 24, 2018 Page 13 of 15 deputies do for their directors, and may be sitting in on some of these meetings in his absence.

Ms. Flick introduced herself to the board, stating she has been with the county for about 12 years, most of that in the Central Budget and Finance Office. Ms. Flick also stated that she has had the opportunity to work with Flood Control for many years as they were one of her departments while she was in the Office of Management and Budget. Ms. Flick stated she graduated from ASU in May with a PhD in Public Administration, and she is excited to put some of that school knowledge to work as well as her experience with the county.

Mr. Fulton listed the items approved by the Board of Directors at previous meetings: The IGA of the City of Mesa for the Lauzon and Broadway was approved. Also, the IGA with the City of Mesa for the Venture Out Drainage Project was also approved. The IGA for the City of Mesa for the 64th Street and Halifax Drainage Project was approved. The design of the Auxiliary Spillway is moving ahead.

The IGA with the City of Phoenix for the 27th and Onley Avenue Drainage Improvement Project was approved.

Mr. Fulton stated that two items were approved today, the approval of the IGA with the City of Phoenix for the Palm Lane and 30th Street Drainage Project and the District worked to update Resolution 2018R013, which is the permit to work in Flood Control District of Maricopa County Real Property Resolution, how private parties go about acquiring right of way use permits in the District. Two of the major changes were taking out of the resolution and updating the language regarding the application process which speaks to allowing online submittals. One of the other big changes is moving from it being mandatory to making it discretionary whether the district will assess after the fact fees should someone happen to be working on district property without a right of way permit. This allows the district to evaluate the intent and the severity of the impact.

Mr. Fulton stated that the solicitation for city participants to propose small projects was done earlier this month, ending October 5th. Mr. Fulton also stated his understanding is that they get maybe ten proposals a year, and this year there were none. They would be diving into that to see if every small project was exhausted in the county or if there is something they could do to see the reason for that change.

Mr. Schaner asked what the dollar limit on small projects was. Mr. Fulton responded that the dollar contribution on it for the District is $250,000. It was discussed a few months ago if that amount should be increased to account for inflation, and a deeper dive on the cost share should be done with their partners.

Minutes of the Flood Control Advisory Board – October 24, 2018 Page 14 of 15 Mr. Dovalina stated that he believes one of the issues is that a lot of the projects are coming in more than a half a million to upwards of a million dollars, and so that is some of the challenges that they are having as communities.

Mr. Fulton stated that Mr. Riley had asked about a program overview to try to bring all the projects forward, analyze who is applying, what projects are being approved, so that some trends can be looked at.

Ms. Belt stated in response to a question by Mr. Fulton that there is normally $3 million dollars a year in the budget for the small projects, and that in some years that is not enough, but this year there were no requests.

Mr. Patel stated that he had an information request for future meetings, going through the CIP Program with a $40 million project, and spending that kind of money in an already developed area was not the most efficient use of capital dollars. He would like a discussion to put all the ideas on the table as to what can be done now, even if it requires some legislature to avoid this kind of problem. Mr. Fulton responded that staying out ahead of development is definitely the ideal situation. Mr. Justice stated by the time they get the projects finished, they are already obsolete. Mr. Monger stated that this may be a vehicle to entertain the discussion of the small projects ahead of time.

Mr. Fulton stated that there should be discussion to see how to bring together land owners and future developers to create development plans that precludes the need for lots of hard structures projects. Mr. Monger stated that the example on Rawhide is the collision of the perfect storm, because you have got Scottsdale Road being expanded, Rawhide that left, and the 101 is new, a lot of brand new projects happening. Mr. Patel stated that community has only sprung up 15 years ago, and they have to go back and spend $45 million.

Mr. Fulton stated that there are definitely collaboration opportunities with the cities to get ahead of the development and planning. It would be cheaper to do the planning right in the beginning. Mr. Patel suggested it be done in a meeting or at a special workshop, he believes something good will come out of it. Mr. Monger stated that if they look at the trends of weather pattern changes or regional issues that are trending differently now than they were ten years ago, that could play into it. Mr. Dovalina stated that as cities continue to grow, you are balancing existing infrastructure where there were different design structures at the time with new infrastructure.

14) OTHER BUSINESS AND COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC

There were no comments by members of the public.

Mr. Patel moved that the meeting adjourn. Mr. Monger seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 3:25 p.m. on October 24, 2018.

Minutes of the Flood Control Advisory Board – October 24, 2018 Page 15 of 15