Planning Commission - public_hearing

Good evening, I am opening a special meeting of the City Council of Lancaster on September 14th. A little reminder for the presence of this meeting and the participants are being broadcast directly and recorded. So if you haven't, please take the time to turn off your phone and devices. We will hold a public comment session for the community. First, we will listen to those who have registered to the City Council, then we will open for topics outside the agenda. To keep track of time, we will use a green light when your time starts. Yellow when you have one minute left and red when your time is up. Now, for those who are ready, please stand up for the reading of the Sumpah Setia.

We read the Sumpah Setia on the American flag. In the republic that is symbolized, one nation under God is not divided with freedom and justice for all. Mr. Harris, can you call the list of members?

Yes, Mr. President. Ms. Gaster Sekar. Yes.

Ms. Holland Jones.

Yes. Mr. Harris. Yes. Ms. Mejon. Mr. Miller.

Yes.

Mr. Stalsfus. And Mr. Amin. Yes. Members of the Stalsfus Committee, tonight, members of the Mejon Committee will join us. So let's move on to the public comment session. Mr. Harris, are there any public comments registered tonight? No, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. Harris. Are there any members of the community who want to give a public comment tonight? Because there is none, we close our public comment session. Next is the report requested by the committee, namely the opinion of the budget, capital, Chief Staff Baker and Director Campbell. We have received a long presentation in the meeting, then And I invite you to start it.

Thank you very much, Mr. President of the Council. Members of the Council, thank you for being here tonight. Once again, I apologize for the error in the schedule. I am happy to be able to be here tonight to officially convey the opinion of the Monetary Budget 15 days before you approve the budget according to the City Administrative Code. You have listened to the presentation in the previous meeting that covered the key information about the projects in the budget plan from our DPW staff. And Director Campbell is here if you have any additional questions. For tonight, because we have listened to two very detailed presentations, I wanted to take a break and leave a comment, an addition from the public or from the committee that you want to convey in listening to this opinion.

Thank you, Nona Bleki. I have asked my questions both through JotPom and in our last general meeting. Oh, once again, thank you to Dewan who has answered the questions in depth through JotForm and to the members of the community who use our Engage Lancaster platform. So right now I don't have any more questions or comments. Now it's time for a comment from Dewan to hear this public opinion. Mr. Vice President.

Thank you, President Dewanti. Just a short question for my understanding. I know that the 15-day period is written in the constitution, but it seems that I just heard you say that it is according to the code of administration.

That is the constitution. I'm talking wrong.

I just want to clarify the difference for the knowledge of the council in the future, because the code of administration, in theory, can change it in the future, but if it is in the future, yes, it remains in the future, yes, it remains in the future.

So you will know, because this is a process that we are still learning, and this is only our second year through it, it will become something that we need to consider. This almost always requires a kind of special approach if we don't do it a little earlier, and it will take a shorter time to collect public input. So there is a slight change, only because that way is written in the constitution. Thank you for explaining it briefly.

Thank you, Mr. Hirsch. Are there any other comments from the committee?

We have already had a long discussion in the last meeting, but I will give you one last chance. We will also hold a second reading in our special meeting on September 30. So if there are any questions or final comments that arise from now until later, we will also have that opportunity in our special meeting on September 30, which will be held at 6 pm. If not, we will receive questions from the public. Mr. Stoddler, please come forward to the microphone.

Mr. Stoddler, Block 802, Church Street. We are thinking, because we are discussing $550 million, we at least... Is it limited to three minutes? The question is, is this related to the one and only... Please, sir.

Thank you for the opportunity to give a comment on the budget for the year 2027-2031. As a start, I think there are many positive things in the committee meeting on July 6, I watched it again this week. The department is arranging a strategy to reduce debt service costs. They think about operational costs and how to manage them. They think about how the Water Street project is illustrated. and they want to stop delaying the maintenance. All these are fantastic things and cannot be taken lightly. However, I will not stand here if I do not have concerns, thoughts, and questions.

Number one, the total capital budget is slightly below Rp 550 million.

From that amount, at least Rp. 2.2 million will come from new funding, and most of the Rp. 116.7 million projects that have not been funded are also likely to require new funding. The direct question for each citizen, in my opinion, is how will this affect the tax and tariff of my utility? To overcome that, I am sure that it is reasonable for the City Council to ask for a financial impact analysis to include this plan. Number two. Last December, the director of the administration, Tina Campbell, told the City Council that the water budget is in a poor financial position and does not continue to close. With a total debt of Rp. 276.45 million, the loan service is 36% of its annual budget, ending the year with a deficit and projection of the budget deficit until this year. The water budget project in the budget is a total of Rp. 282 million. So, I want to know if there is any latest news about the effort. I want to hear it if there is, and I want to remind you not to do a budget or project. Whatever before the capacity of the water fund for additional debt is considered. Number 3, in the report on July 6, Stephen Campbell this time, said that the city must stop the withdrawal from the Conestoga River because the water cannot meet the PFAS standards set by the PADP and USFPA. Because of that, he said that the city must build a new transmission line from Susquehanna River. I wonder if that means a new line other than the line that is being built. How is the schedule and what is the cost? Remember to raise the capital funds for the line that is being built. Currently it is Rp. 122 million or about half of the total output. Number four, I think it will help if in the future the capital budget is not only an estimation of the dollar for each item, but also a projection of the source of funding. This is important for the capital budget and tax payer. Is it something in the Hibah fund, or in the PenFest fund, or in the Obligation fund?

I don't know.

Basically, it doesn't burden my pocket. That's good. And then, PenFest is a little more burdensome. Paying taxes and obligation payments, the burden is a little bigger. In my opinion, it is important to know what it is based on. Lastly, number five out of 200 projects in the capital budget, according to my calculation, 28 do not have an estimated dollar that is given. According to the presentation, it is not usual for a long-term plan of 20 to 30 years, but for a 5-year plan, it seems to generate additional uncertainties, especially because some items, for example, the expanded nutrition project, at least sound good. So I'm curious if KDT can explain more about these items and why they are not. And I wonder if it is true that the total budget of Rp. 550 million for five years must be considered as the bottom line because these projects do not have the dollar number. Finally, as a conclusion, I understand that you know how heavy the challenges facing DPW are, their regulatory burden, delayed maintenance, and the need for health, safety, and welfare of the community. There are not many choices here. However, on the other hand, the city's tax liability can only be asked to bear the burden to a certain limit. We are likely to face an increase in local taxes with the development of prison sentences of Rp 500,000 that will be immediately started.

SDL has experienced an increase in this year's taxes and they are still struggling with structural deficits.

Of course, the city's tax liability if it is far from the public body, the tax will be given to the city.

So, I want to encourage the City Council and the DPR to continue to test all assumptions, re-evaluate and try as hard as possible to suppress the budget and minimize the impact of the pandemic.

Thank you, Mr. Tomer. Mrs. Begay and Mr. Campbell, if you want to answer these questions, please. Certainly.

I can provide general information about the impact of the TOTO project, how it is involved in the city's finance. Financial analysis will be immediately present, especially when we are getting closer to considering what the obligation deadline for the year 2028 will be like. We are preparing ourselves to do internal analysis to understand for sure what will be included in the obligation. We have mentioned before, and I think it needs to be reiterated, that the projects that we planned, in this plan stated that the source of funding is the potential obligation of the year 2028. We need to narrow the choices and some may need to be postponed or look for other sources of funding when the time comes to make the difficult decision. We will continue to provide the latest information to the Board when we start analyzing to understand our debt capacity at that time and the next capital plan that will come in the next few months will provide a clearer picture of what projects will be funded. To talk a little about the water budget and our position, I remind you that the water budget is also taken care of by customers throughout our city, which is about 100,000 customers. Director Campbell?

Yes, that's right.

Overall, there are about 150,000 customers, of which about 50,000 are in the city and 100,000 outside.

Thank you. And, Director Campbell, I would also like to mention that the work of the Water Fund is still ongoing. We have involved several PFMs on the ground or will continue to work. We have a very comprehensive report, so that we can make the right decisions about what we can do with our water funds to ensure sustainable and affordable for our citizens and taxpayers, as noted by Director Volke Hilditsch or Deputy Director Volke Hilditsch in the last presentation, our water is very affordable per gallon, but we understand that these projects will have an impact on what is paid by our citizens and taxpayers. So, we don't think it's easy and we are enthusiastic to survive the analysis as well. Director Campbell, I invite you to comment on the Conestoga River if you want.

Of course, what I hope to say is that we are considering the potential of large-diameter pipes, And that's in the context of two things. One, how far is PFAS found in the Conestoga River? The options that are being considered are options that have not been submitted to the Council in a complete report. However, that will happen soon. Where one of them is the ability to process water, in the water intake, in the installation of KONESTUGA water processing with something like an active carbon or another type of method. which is a very expensive method with a very high operational cost in the sense that the carbon that has been used must be legally discarded and there is only a little if there is a place where the active carbon can be discarded That is the initial cost that is very expensive and will meet the needs of Conestoga in terms of PFAS, but not necessarily for drugs or other entities that may be determined by EPA in the next few years. We believe that PFAS is not the last element that will be identified. The second concern with the Conestoga River is the fact that the river lies in a dry condition that limits our ability to take water from the Conestoga River. There is an expression, I don't know much about that right now, but it's related to how much is allowed for us to take from Conestoga or from any river when the weather is dry so that it doesn't have a bad impact on the flora and fauna in the river. We have been at the end of drought for almost three years. No matter how much rain we have received over the past few weeks and months, in such a heavy rainstorm, an extraordinary rainstorm, it has not yet been able to overcome the limited potential of taking water from the Conestoga River. So the main consideration is whether you can find alternative water sources that can be used for this facility for customers in the city of Lancaster and its water system. And if there is, where is the source? One of the considerations is that we have technology that has been installed and implemented in the installation of KONESTOGA water treatment that was bought 20 years ago and some of which we still pay. The Kone Stoga water treatment installation is a very good and suitable water treatment installation to continue to be used. If someone wants to leave the installation and I give you a brief summary if you can say so from the report, which you may receive immediately and we can discuss more closely at another time. But if we If we stop the operation at that location, then we still have to pay for the investment that has been made a few years ago for the equipment, which is still in very good condition and functioning. And that will be a waste on various levels. Another alternative is to think of other water sources by making an installation of Susquehanna water treatment that provides 2 out of 3 water needs for the city water system, which is large enough to accommodate all the water needs of the system. There is a challenge for that, not only because of the cost of infrastructure to expand the installation. Susquehanna water treatment will be very expensive, but there is also a problem related to how the water flows through a system designed to accommodate water from two installations, from the east and from the west. So there is a lot of infrastructure that needs to be handled internally by the city as well as expanding the installation of larger water treatment in Susquehanna. Then there is still thinking about whether you will leave the Koneztoga water treatment installation or not. The third, which is considered to be a pipe with a large pipe diameter that flows from Susquehanna to the installation and processing of Transestoga, we can still make use of the infrastructure that is already in line with the plan. However, with a source that is not damaged by the PFAS situation, we can bring the water to the KONESTOGA water treatment facility to solve the PFAS problem, elements or poisons in the future that may be identified by EPA, as well as overcome the water use limit from Conestoga during the winter season. The simple answer to your question about whether this will be an addition to the second phase of large-diameter pipes, and the third is currently being built to flow water from Susquehanna to Oyster Point towards the city, is yes, this will be an addition to that. The route does not have to be exactly the same, but most likely it will follow the same route. We may be able to take advantage of the fact that the use of public land is similar to what is used for the pipe that exists today, but there will be some changes that need to be made to connect it to the installation of the Kones Toga water treatment. Although it may be expensive, it can still be cheaper than redoing or expanding the installation, processing of Susquehanna water and repairing some of the internal water infrastructure. Although the reports have different elements that show advantages and disadvantages in terms of cost. But that is the kind of consideration that we think to overcome not only PFAS, but also the crucial aspect of access to water from the Conestoga River during the drought period. The other thing that hinders us is the fact that when the PFAS regulation is being considered in the last decade before 2020, around 2017-2019, it is estimated that to overcome the PFAS at a level that has not been legally determined, we will have a time limit. up to 25 years to complete it. Since then, in the early 2020s, EPA has indicated that they want a solution within five years, which is a very short time frame to be able to solve this kind of problem. And this is what encourages us to conduct studies that will explore various options that we may need to consider.

And Director Campbell, I just want to add that the timeline has been accelerated, but assistance for the water system to handle it from a federal level is still

It's still not there. I think I'm a little too much in talking. There is a very limited amount of funds that is available to handle the IPFAE nationally. This fund is considered only a small part of what is needed by various water systems throughout the country to be repaired. For example, initially in the country of Pennsylvania, it is assumed that about 12-15% of water systems may be negatively affected by PFAS. Next, it is clear that the figure is close to 63% of water systems in the country of Pennsylvania. misunderstanding that has flooded the water system in the rest of the country.

Thank you both, and I look forward to the analysis of the finance because of the team.

That is part of the question and concern I have so far about the continuity factor and the impact in the future for city tariff customers, city outside customers, and city tax payers. Ji, thank you and I look forward to it. Are there any questions or comments from members of the community? Because there is none, we will close with this public opinion. Now we will listen to the motion to close the debate. I agree.