Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 07/24/2003City Council Liaison David Roy Staff Liaison DeEtta Carr 221-6702 Water Board Chairman Water Board Vice Chairman Tom Sanders 491-5448 John Moms 491-0185 Secretary Leslie Mooney 416-2703 Roll Call: Board Present John Bartholow, Ted Borstad, Tom Brown, Bill Fischer, David Lauer, John Morris, Tom Sanders, Robert Ward and Doug Yadon Board Absent Jim Finley and Rami Naddy staff Patty Bigner, Dennis Bode, DeEtta Carr, Donnie Dustin, Susan Hayes, Marsha Hilmes- Robinson, Jim Hibbard, Brian Janonis, Sue Paquette, Dennis Sumner and Mike Smith Guests Colin Deihl, Larry Storms and David Wright Meetine Convened Chairman Tom Sanders called the meeting to order at 3:08 p.m. Approval of Minutes Chairman Tom Sanders asked for any corrections or amendments to the minutes of the June 26, 2003 meeting. Board member David Lauer distributed a copy of changes to the minutes. Board member John Bartholow asked that on page 3 a sentence be added to complete the point he was trying to make when Steve Smith spoke about describing terms of interest rates. He stated that it was his understanding that the expanded Halligan option would dilute the percentage of agriculture which would affect the interest rate available from the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Also, John added, on page 3, he did not "move" he "stated"; it was for discussion only. Chairman Sanders requested that John write his proposed changes. Water Board Meeting Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 2 Board member David Lauer made a motion, seconded by Board member Ted Borstad to accept the minutes as amended. The motion passed with one abstention from Tom Sanders because he had not had time to read the minutes. Water Supply & Demand Mana¢ement Policy Update — Donnie Dustin & Dennis Bode Chairman Sanders requested that this item be next since he would have to leave the meeting early. This item will be presented to the City Council on August 121h and the Board's comments are imperative. Donnie Dustin, Water Resources Engineer, gave a presentation that explained the need for policy revisions and presented data associated with the policy update. The presentation mainly focused on three things including demand reductions, storage capacity, and actual policy elements. Donnie explained how staff developed their recommended demand rate goals of 185 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) for an annual average rate and 475 gpcd for an annual peak day rate. Donnie then focused on the need for storage capacity, which ranges from 11,000 acre-feet to 22,000 acre-feet of combined operational and long-term carryover storage. He explained that the large range is based on meeting the needs of the existing Utility Service Area or an Extended Service Area, defined as any new growth in the Growth Management Area that is not already served by surrounding water districts. He then gave a brief description of the elements of the recommended Water Supply and Demand Management Policy. The following highlights summarize the subsequent discussion. Some board members were concerned that planning for 185 gpcd penalizes existing customers who paid fees based on 195 gped. 185 gpcd would subsidize growth, something they strongly oppose, or could free -up extra water to allow growth to occur elsewhere. Should the raw water requirement for new growth be reduced? Staff recommends that the raw water requirement be kept the same. There is only so much that Utilities can do to reduce water use. 195 gpcd is based on factual records and seems relatively achievable. 185 gpcd will require a commitment by Council to look at land use policies and what kind of business they want in this community. Is it Council policy to limit water intensive industries or to discourage them from locating here? It was pointed out that based on a long term average of wet and dry years, 185 gpcd won't be as severe as last year when we achieved 183 gpcd. The question was asked whether there was any way that we can work with the water districts to consolidate so that we can treat everyone in the UGA the same. Mike Smith commented on some of the history related to the formation of the water districts. It was noted that based on the 100 homes study, 65% of the customers surveyed use less than the irrigation requirement. This represents a very large percentage of customers that are already conserving. Why do we want to reduce from 195 gpcd to 185 gpcd when customers are already Water Board Meeting Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 3 conserving? Also, a board member pointed out that blue grass could withstand drought conditions better than some other low water use varieties. He also objected to using the word "waste", since excess watering usually ends up as a supply for trees or returns to the river where it can be used by somebody else. Some members believe the Policy seems a bit heavy handed, especially when we use the word "prohibit" in section Le. Why can't customers use it if they pay for it? Why do we have to use rate structures to promote conservation? It seems to penalize the large lots that paid more of a raw water requirement. The rate structures described in l.c. do not seem fair especially when we are no longer in a drought. A board member commented that the water supply policy should be disconnected from the water demand policy. 185 gpcd is a good goal for conservation but we should not plan our water supply based on it. 195 gpcd should be used for planning supply. If we achieve 185 gpcd then we have a more reliable system. Concern was expressed that unless we demonstrate water conservation efforts (ie. 185 gpcd) to the federal permitting agencies, we might not get a permitted project for additional storage capacity. The consensus of the Board was that the current level of use is not excessive and provides many benefits to the community in the way of personal hygiene, attractive landscapes, and economic activities. They recommended adopting the policy but retaining the current 195 gallons per capita per day because existing customers have already paid for existing supplies and should not be penalized with policies that make excess supply available to new residents. The Board also expressed concern regarding the reduction in attractive landscapes and the possibility of creating economic hardships for some customers as a result of the increasing block rate structure. Board member Bill Fischer made a motion, seconded by Board member Tom Brown, to recommend that the City retain the 195 and 502 gpcd as stated in the 1992 Water Demand Management Policy and to recalibrate the remainder of the policy based upon that number and then bring it back next month so they can further discuss items 1.c.and Le. in addition to looking at the recalibration. The motion passed with a vote of 6 to 2. 10 Year Capital Projects Review — Jim Hibbard Jim Hibbard, Water Engineering and Field Services Manager, stated that the City Manager has requested that all capital projects be reviewed by the various Boards prior to going to City Council on August 12.`h Board member Bill Fischer asked what "Art in Public Places" is and why the Utilities are subsidizing art. Jim replied that the department is required by ordinance to set aside 1 percent of every dollar that is spent on capital projects to go to a separate fund to build art in public places. Examples of art funded include footprints on the Drake Bridge, "Electric Fields" in front of the Water Board Meeting Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 4 Service Center, bat houses and teaching artwork in detention ponds across the city. This is something that all City funds have to do. Bill Fischer commented that he would rather that 25 percent of the money be spent on art and the other 75 percent be spent on purchasing water rights. In other words, he would rather be able to put the money into a fund for emergency reserves. Other members of the Board did not necessarily agree. A board member asked why the Meter Conversion Program has such large proposed expenditures since that project is almost complete. Jim responded that after 2005 we will have to go back and start replacing some of the meters that we installed in the late 80's and early 90's. A member asked if the Halligan Reservoir projections are based on 11,000 or 22,000 ac ft projects. Brian Janonis, Water Resources & Treatment Manager, responded that the proposed budget is for a 25,000 acre feet expansion funded entirely by the City. Mike Smith, Utilities General Manager, replied that it is actually budgeted for worst case scenario but that other entities are interested in being involved in the project. Jim stated that the Stormwater revenues will be used to build about 35 million dollars of storm water projects over the next five years, solving some of the most critical problems in the storm water system. In response to a question about what the Water Supply Development project is, Jim replied that it is used to purchase water rights, or perform water development studies. F000dplain Regulations & Stormwater Master Plans — Jim Hibbard Jim Hibbard stated that he was distributing background information for discussion at the next meeting about floodplain regulations and Stormwater master plans. These items will be presented to Council at a Council study session later this fall, with adoption by the end of the year. Jim stated that the second portion of the Board's packet has to do with the Stormwater Master Plan. City Council asked staff to review the floodplain regulations to make sure that there is a balance between risk and regulations. Treated Water Production Summary — Dennis Bode Dennis Bode, Water Resources Manager, reported that water demand for the month of June was about 75 percent; year to date we are at about 78 percent of projected use. Water Board Meeting Minutes July 24, 2003 Page 5 Committee Reports Board member Robert Ward reported that the Larimer-Weld Water Issues group is preparing a working draft of the ballot language that will be on the November 2, 2004 ballot to create something similar to the Larimer Weld Water Conservancy District. They are working on the district boundaries, the mill levy, the period of years that the mill levy will be charged and how the directors will be appointed and or elected. The next meeting is scheduled for August 14`h at 4:30 p.m. in the new Larimer County Courthouse. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5:17 p.m. Leslie Mooney, Water Boa& Secretary