Minutes of the Work Session held on August 10, 2026

Meeting Minutes 
City Council Work Session 
 
August 10, 2026 | 3:45 p.m. 
Council Chambers Conference Room 
88 E. Chicago St., Chandler, AZ 
 
 
Call to Order 
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Kevin Hartke at 4:26 p.m. 
 
Roll Call 
Council Attendance 
 
 
 
 
Appointee Attendance 
Mayor Kevin Hartke  
 
 
 
 
John Pombier, City Manager 
Vice Mayor Angel Encinas  
 
 
 
Tawn Kao, Acting City Attorney  
Councilmember Jane Poston 
 
 
 
Jennifer Ekblad, City Clerk 
Councilmember Christine Ellis 
 
 
 
  
Councilmember Matt Orlando   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Councilmember Jennifer Hawkins 
 
Absent 
Councilmember OD Harris - excused 
 
Staff in Attendance 
 
Tadd Wille, Assistant City Manager  
Dawn Lang, Deputy City Manager / Chief Financial Officer  
Ryan Peters, Deputy City Manager 
Leah Powell, Deputy City Manager 
Matt Burdick, Communications & Public Affairs Director 
Emilia Krajewski, Assistant to the City Manager 
Matt Dunbar, Budget and Policy Director 
Jeremy Abbott, Public Works & Utilities Director 
Marge Zylla, Strategic Initiatives Director 
Zoe Richmond, Public Affairs Manager 
Gina Ishida-Raybourn, Public Works & Utilities Assistant Director

Page 2 of 10 
Discussion 
1. 
Utility Rate Presentation and Discussion 
1. Opening Remarks 
2. Utility Financial Planning Review 
3. Water Utility Rate Change Drivers 
4. Wastewater Utility Rate Change Drivers 
5. Rate Payer Comparisons 
6. Key Dates and Questions 
 
MAYOR HARTKE called for a staff presentation.  
 
JOHN POMBIER, City Manager, introduced the discussion item. 
 
DAWN LANG, Deputy City Manager / Chief Financial Officer, provided information about the 
presentation. 
 
MATT DUNBAR, Public Works & Utilities Director, presented the following presentation. 
• FY 2026-27 Utility Rate Workshop 
• Chandler Water & Wastewater Utilities: Major Projects & Rates 
• Utility Rates Financial Plan Review and Cost of Service (COS) Process 
o City’s Financial Plan Review 
 What is the funding requirement? 
o Cost of Service Analysis 
 More accurately reflects actual cost of providing service to each customer class 
 Is everyone paying their fair share? 
• Cost of Service Rates 
o Shifting cost burden of revenue requirement to customer classifications differently 
allows for more accurate reflection of actual cost of providing service to each 
customer class but must be based on accurate data. 
• Deliberate bridge to update cost-based rates 
o Prior Study 
 Competed FY 2020-21 
 Targeted 100% alignment for Water over 5 years 
 Targeted 75% alignment for Wastewater over 5 years 
 5-year alignment planned 3 adjustments scheduled every other year 
o Changing Conditions 
 FY 2023-24 shifted alignment target to 100% for Wastewater 
 Significant changes to operating costs 
 Unprecedented Inflation 
 Infrastructure replacement plans amended 
 Growth in classification areas changed 
 Private Industrial user wastewater plant completed & put in use

Page 3 of 10 
o Interim Approach 
 Significant data changes required need to restudy misalignment 
 Decision to generate needed revenue with adjustments across the board 
 Begin new Cost of Service Analysis with updated data 
 New COS begins Sep/Oct 2026, completed April/May 2027 for FY 2027-28 rate 
adjustments 
 
COUNCILMEMBER HAWKINS asked how often the cost of service analysis should be conducted. 
 
MR. DUNBAR said best practice is every 5-7 years, but 3-5 years is more realistic to align with cost 
of service changes. He shared that there were significant changes over the last 2 years and 
suggested doing an analysis sooner. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked if this analysis can be conducted annually if necessary. 
 
MR. DUNBAR answered that this can be conducted annually but suggested that waiting 18 months 
to 2 years would better capture the results of the shifts made. He clarified that the cost of service 
analysis could be conducted sooner than the 5 year mark to capture any misalignments that may 
occur. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO noted that the cost of service analysis could be performed sooner 
than what has been done in the past in order to capture real time changes of current utility 
dynamics and what needs to be done to ensure continual water service.  
 
MR. DUNBAR said if the trends of the last few years continue, then staff will look into performing 
the study more frequently in order to observe changes. The consultant would reevaluate if the 
cost of service is on target or needs to be changed.  
 
MAYOR HARTKE followed up and asked if it is possible for Council to get updates on significant 
changes that have happened rather than a full study every 2-5 years.  
 
MR. DUNBAR said staff would talk to the consultant about that idea as they pursue a new 
partnership. There may be opportunities for the city to conduct more analysis to make 
adjustments. Staff will work to identify additional engagement with the consultant in the cost of 
service analysis process.  
 
He continued the presentation: 
• Utility Rate Adjustment History 
o Historically, rates have adjusted every other year.  
o Direction in FY 2026-27 was to adjust to annual rate changes 
 
MS. LANG clarified that the city was not at 75% or 100% on balanced utility rate plans the first year, 
the goal of Council was to achieve 100% by year 5, and to achieve 75% by year 5 for wastewater.

Page 4 of 10 
 
MR. DUNBAR continued the presentation. 
• 5-Year Enterprise Fund Balance Projections & Rates 
o Rate Models incorporate operating adjustments in FY 2026-27 and CIP infrastructure 
project changes 
o Water Rate Plan 
 FY 2026-27 +9.0% 
 FY 2027-28 +9.0% 
 FY 2028-29 +9.0% 
• Maintains 20% Operating Reserve 
• Focus on maintaining aging infrastructure: facilities, wells, water mains, 
and filters 
• Focus on aging infrastructure has significant rate impact 
o Wastewater Rate Plan 
 FY 2026-27 +6.5% 
 FY 2027-28 +6.5% 
 FY 2028-29 +6.5% 
• Maintains 20% Operating Reserve 
• Focus on maintaining aging infrastructure: facilities, wastewater mains 
• Focus on aging infrastructure has significant rate impact 
o Reclaimed Water Rate Plan 
 FY 2026-27 +9.0% 
 FY 2027-28 +9.0% 
 FY 2028-29 +9.0% 
• Maintains 20% Operating Reserve 
• Rates support operating, water planning, conservation and adding 
capital costs 
o Solid Waste Rate Plan 
 FY 2026-27 +4.5% 
 FY 2027-28 +4.5% 
 FY 2028-29 +4.5% 
• Maintains 15% Operating Reserve 
• Addresses increased hauling and collection contract and nationwide 
recycling impact 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked what the minimum dollar amount is for 20% of the operating 
reserves.  
 
MR. DUNBAR explained that the operating reserve is a reserve of 20% based on the total revenue, 
which allows the city to retain its AAA bond rating. The operating reserve allows cities to support 
operations in case of emergency. He did not have the dollar amount.  
 
MS. LANG said she will provide it.

Page 5 of 10 
 
MR. DUNBAR continued the presentation.  
• Capital Plan Inflation Impacts 
• Major Drivers – Water 
o Operating increases for personnel, chemicals, utilities, and equipment  
o Debt service and cash funded Water Treatment Production Facilities, Mains, and 
Water Purchases 
o Upcoming CIP projects in FY 2026-27 include: 
 Water Production Facility Improvements ($10.7M) 
 Water Treatment Plant Improvements ($131M) 
 Main and Valve Replacements ($8.5M) 
 
MR. POMBIER asked if water main break repairs are funded out of operating budget or CIP.  
 
MR. DUNBAR said it impacts the operating budget related to resources and then starts impacting 
the capital plan. He shared unplanned issues are costly.  
 
MAYOR HARTKE said as an example, addressing the sewer gas in West Chandler is another 
scenario of addressing unplanned issues that were not budgeted for. 
 
JEREMY ABBOTT, Public Works & Utilities Director, agreed and said there are operational costs. He 
noted that they do try to include some level of anticipated costs in their annual budget, but the 
department’s goal is to keep the unknown costs low.  
 
MS. LANG provided the operating reserve fund balance numbers. She said for water the balance 
is $15 million in the first year, with increases in future years, where in year 5 it is around $20 
million. For wastewater the balance is $13 million in the first year, increasing each year. 
 
MR. DUNBAR continued the presentation: 
• Water Utility Rate Allocation 
o Each 1% rate change equates to about $609,000 in revenue 
• Improved Infrastructure – Pecos Water Plan Improvements 
o A total of $372.5M is being proposed in the new 10-year CIP for improvements to 
Water Treatment and Production Facilities 
• New Infrastructure – Water Purchases 
o Bartlett Dam Expansion Partnership 
 Increases reservoir storage on the Verde River by raising the dam height 
(alternatives up to ~100 feet) 
 Captures and stores additional runoff during wet winters  
 Improves regional drought resilience and long-term water supply reliability 
 Creates hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of additional capacity depending 
on the final design shared with all partners 
 Federal feasibility study and environmental review are underway

Page 6 of 10 
 $49.5M in proposed CIP (+$24M) is our anticipated share of design and 
assessment costs 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked if the $24 million for Chandler’s share of design and 
assessment costs would be under wastewater, water, or another category. 
 
MR. ABBOTT said it would be categorized under water investment and confirmed it is part of the 
10 year CIP plan.  
 
MR. DUNBAR continued the presentation: 
• Aging Infrastructure – Water Production Facilities 
o The use and maintenance of ground wells is critical to Chandler’s water portfolio 
o Booster station failures have become more of an issue, and the cost for rehabilitation 
is higher if earlier remediation is not done 
o Average age of these remote facilities is 25-years with the newest being 5-years and 
the oldest 41-years 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked for more information about Chandler’s reservoir and well 
sites.  
 
MR. ABBOTT shared that the reservoir boosters and well sites are a redundant backup for the 
ability to treat surface water. He said that as there are cuts to surface water, the reliance on 
groundwater is extremely important. He shared there are 30 active wells around Chandler and 
despite their age, Chanler continues to invest in supporting the well infrastructure to continue 
well operations. He noted that the team conducts strategic annual maintenance to ensure 
operability in the event of surface water allocation changes and meet demands.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked if the wells need to pump longer than they are normally 
expected to.  
 
MR. ABBOTT confirmed and stated the goal to have well uptime as close to 100% as possible. He 
shared that uptime on well operation over the past five years is around 90%.  
 
MAYOR HARTKE asked about an item on the City Council study session regarding replacement of 
a well due to sand and if that is the typical terminus of a well other than equipment breakage.  
 
MR. ABBOTT noted that sand is an issue related to multiple different types of wells. There are two 
different types of wells, an aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) well, then drinking water wells. 
Sanding is an issue in both well types.  
 
MAYOR HARTKE asked about water credit the city has accrued and the water credit scenario of 
Chandler’s neighbors on shared aquifers. He questioned how the actions of neighboring 
municipalities may impact Chandler.

Page 7 of 10 
 
MR. ABBOTT shared that Chandler has drilled very deep wells to access the aquifer underneath 
Chandler. He shared that Chandler is focused on future proofing the water supply. He said that 
with the construction of any new wells the impacts are considered so it does not impact Chandler’s 
existing wells. He stated that there are checks and balances in the system.  
 
MAYOR HARTKE asked how Chandler’s water credits compare to neighboring cities. 
 
MR. ABBOTT said all cities are limited to their annual recharge and recovery, which is a volume of 
water all SRP cities receive. He noted that regarding long term storage credits, not all cities are the 
same, as that has to do with reclaimed recharge water over the past 40 years. He said he cannot 
speak to the condition of the other cities. He confirmed Chandler is in a good position.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO noted that Chandler has been saving in reservoirs like Granite Reef 
for years and has water available as redundancy. 
 
MAYOR HARTKE noted this applies to Roosevelt Lake as well when it has an overage of water due 
to flooding.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO expressed concerns about future water.  
 
MR. ABBOTT reiterated that Chandler has a very diverse water portfolio including groundwater 
and available long-term storage credits, and that the city has leveraged recharging facilities well.  
 
MR. DUNBAR continued the presentation: 
• Aging Infrastructure – Watermains 
o Recommended replacement plan would start out averaging 2 miles per year, 
escalating to 8 in FY 2033-34. Addresses all at risk lines over the next 30 years. 
Coordination with other projects is vital. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO asked if Chandler coordinates with other entities conducting 
construction projects when planning watermain rehabilitation and replacement.  
 
MR. ABBOTT confirmed and shared Public Works and Utilities is in communication with the Streets 
division to define the areas that have a higher critical rate and ensure construction would not 
impact newly paved roads. Work is planned to be bundled under one cohesive contract to 
minimize impacts on roads and residents.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO shared resident concerns about the high rate of road construction 
and the importance of efficiency in these projects.  
 
MR ABBOTT agreed and said the goal is to have a coordinated effort between departments to 
complete work on targeted areas all at once.

Page 8 of 10 
 
MR. DUNBAR continued the presentation: 
• Major Drivers – Wastewater 
o Operating increases for personnel, chemicals, utilities, and equipment  
o Debt service and cash funded Wastewater and Reclaimed Facilities, Distribution, and 
Sewer Rehab 
o Upcoming CIP projects in FY 2026-27 include: 
 Continuation of the redundant 66” line under San Tan Loop 202 ($40.6M) 
 Water Reclamation Facility Improvements ($45M) 
 Sewer Assessment and Rehabilitation ($10.7M) 
• Wastewater Utility Rate Allocation 
o Each 1% rate change equates to about $552,000 in revenue 
• Improved Infrastructure – Wastewater Treatment 
o A total of $249.3M is being proposed in the new 10-year CIP for improvements to 
Wastewater and Reclaimed Facilities 
• Aging Infrastructure - Wastewater Mains/Manhole 
o Recommended replacement/rehab plan would start out averaging 90 manholes per 
year, escalating to 350 per year over the next 30 years to address all 7,000 manholes 
that have known issues 
 
MR. ABBOTT added that in coordination with pavement rehab and the water main replacement 
program, if there are manholes that also require frame and cover adjustments then the manholes 
are also adjusted at that time. The goal is to reduce the overall overhead cost for construction.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER HAWKINS asked if there was any movement on a discussion from 
Representative Weninger about getting this done quicker and cheaper.  
 
MR. ABBOTT responded that there was legislation proposed that would implement less design 
and permitting requirements through the county and the state for replacing water mains. He 
noted that there are opportunities that are considered when water mains are replaced but 
feasibility depends on the replacement location and water service needs during construction. 
 
MR. DUNBAR continued the presentation: 
• Residential Cost Impact 
• Multi-Family / Non-Residential Cost Impact 
• Industrial Cost Impact 
 
MAYOR HARTKE asked about Gilbert’s numbers on industrial cost impact compared to residential 
cost impact. 
 
MR. DUNBAR responded that Gilbert’s last changes were for residential customers, not industrial. 
He said he was unsure if this change was based on a cost of service analysis. He continued the 
presentation:

Page 9 of 10 
• Key Dates 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ELLIS asked how the public is made aware of how the rate changes are 
calculated and this is needed.  
 
MAYOR HARTKE noted that public hearings are included in the key dates of what is coming.  
 
MR. DUNBAR confirmed that there are public hearings planned. He said there is also an effort to 
get the word out via social media, the Chandler website, CityScope, and a white paper in the 
Council Memo. 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ELLIS asked if the team is working with Communications and Public Affairs to 
engage the public to notify residents of these changes. 
 
MR. DUNBAR confirmed his team is working with Communications and Public Affairs to get the 
message out as much as possible. He said the messages they release emphasize that these 
changes are measured and analyzed planned rate increases.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ELLIS emphasized the need for Communications and Public Affairs to validate 
publicly shared information.  
 
MR. POMBIER noted that these rates were first discussed in March and printed in the May budget 
book. He said that the goal is to put out the numbers as early as possible and provide transparency 
to the public.  
 
COUNCILMEMBER ELLIS commented about help from Neighborhood Resources for people who 
are unable to make their payments. 
 
LEAH POWELL, Deputy City Manager, confirmed there is funding that will assist residents with 
water bills.  
 
MR. DUNBAR continued the presentation: 
• Key Dates 
• Questions 
 
COUNCILMEMBER ORLANDO shared previous conversations related to utility rates and 
commended staff on the process.  
 
Public Comment 
None.

Page 10 of 10 
Adjourn 
The meeting was adjourned at 5:18 p.m. 
 
 
 
ATTEST:  _______________________  
______________________________ 
                       City Clerk                                                   Mayor 
 
 
Approval Date of Minutes:  September 14, 2026 
 
 
Certification 
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Work 
Session of the City Council of Chandler, Arizona, held on the 10th day of August 2026.  I further 
certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. 
 
DATED this _______ day of September, 2026. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
__________________________ 
                                                         
           City Clerk