Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 08/06/2003MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE August 6, 2003 For Reference: Randy Fischer, NRAB Chair - 226-5383 Eric Hamrick, Council Liaison - 225-2343 John Stokes, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Kelly Ohlson, Nate Donovan, Arvind Panjabi, Sam Otero, Linda Knowlton, Phil Murphy, Randy Fischer, Clint Skutchan Board Members Absent Ryan Staychock Staff Present Natural Resources Dent: John Stokes, Terry Klahn, Doug Moore Current Planning: Ted Shephard Water Utilities: Dennis Bode, Brian Janonis, Donnie Dustin Electric Utilities: Wendy Williams, John Phelan Guests None Agenda Review Randy Fischer suggested the approval of minutes be moved to the later part of the meeting. Water Supply & Demand Management Update, Dennis Bode & Brian Janonis Janonis said any action would be appropriate. This will be going to a Council study session on August 12, and we're hoping to be on the agenda in September. There's no definite date yet. We're waiting to see how the study session goes. Staff has one recommendation, and the Water Board has another recommendation. Dustin showed a power point presentation focusing on background, water demands & reductions, and water supplies and storage needs. • Panjabi: Considering your 1:50 drought criteria, droughts don't always last one year. How does the target detail deal with back to back years of low water? Natural Resources Advisory Board August 6, 2003 Page 2 of 8 • Bode: It's defined as a drought that would occur on the average once every 50 years, but it could be a multi -year drought. The idea is to plan for that level of water supply system. • Panjabi: Seeing how newer developments are using more and more water per household, are you proposing any regulations to bring that back down? • Bode: The 100 Home Study was helpful in understanding the dynamics. One thing we would look at is the rate structure. We'd focus on folks who are using more than their fair share. There may be some things in the regs that would get into the land use code; limits on turf area. As the homes get older, the water use may decline. • Janonis: We've adopted the soil amendment regulations. • Panjabi: So, any regulations to minimize water use wont be found in this policy, but perhaps in the land use code. • Janonis: One thing that concerned the Water Board is the Utility only has so much control. Council or someone higher up will have to make those decisions. • Panjabi: Those are the basic things that go with control/demand. There should be a link. • Bode: All of the items in the water demand section could be applied to those folks; education, rate structures, maybe some incentive programs. • Fischer: Have you ever thought about increasing the shares of water rights, or fees in lieu of, to offset the apparent overuse of new developments? • Ohlson: You're proposing to go from 195 to 185, that is a 5% to 6% reduction. Don't you think you'll pick that up from the tiered water rates alone? • Bode: Certainly you can. The debate is more along the lines of what level of reduction is acceptable and desirable by the community. As we've seen reductions this year, we see a change in the look of the landscape. Most people have noticed it. We could reduce it much more than 185, but the question is partly, is there a good reason to go below that. And, there are questions about equity between existing and future customers. • Ohslon: I don't get the equity thing. You promise people they'll have a certain amount of water, but it doesn't mean they won't be charged more. • Bode: Theoretically you can reduce the raw water requirements. You have the same supply, but reduce the demand. • Ohlson: I'm not buying it. Charge the new people whatever, the equivalent of whatever it costs to provide the infrastructure. • Knowlton: If you have x amount of water, and right now we're using 195, the effect of reducing it to 185 would be to allow more people to participate in the x amount of water. • Fischer: Both of those arguments miss the point. The point is, how much storage do we need? Storage requirements should be based on a certain level of conservation. More conservation means less storage requirements. Why do we want to build a new storage reservoir, or do something that will have a negative impact on the environment to allow new homes to come in and use excessive amounts of water? I'm using drops compared to them. That's the equity issue, They're demanding we destroy some environment in the mountains to build new storage. I'm a staunch conservationist. Natural Resources Advisory Board August 6, 2003 Page 3 of 8 My wife and I limit ourselves to the bare minimum, and some guy builds a 5000 sf house. There's something wrong with that logic. • Ohlson: Anyone who is creating the need for large storage capacity ought to be paying for that. Those who chose to live simply and small should not have to subsidize those who live large and big. • Ohlson: How can you say we need between 11,000 and 22,000 acre feet of storage? You should be able to narrow that down. • Bode: That number comes from the growth range. 11,000 comes from the utility service area, and the 22,000 comes from the extended service area. Because that's an unknown in the policy, we're proposing it as a range. • Ohlson: Before you ask the community to build dams, shouldn't you refine how much we need? • Bode: It would be great if our crystal ball was clear enough to do that. • Janonis: A month ago CSU came to Council and presented plans for the Foothills Campus. In terms of utilities it would be the equivalent of the main campus. Immediately council members said lets serve that with utilities. We said no, it's not in our service area. By deciding this is good for the City and the economy you're changing our growth projections and water needs. Until someone makes a commitment, we're not going to change. • Fischer: One of the things bugging me about these projections is that those water districts will not grow. The City will provide all of the water in the undeveloped areas in those water districts. • Bode: Within the GMA. • Donovan: They could be partners. • Bode: If would be okay if we agreed. • Fischer: Isn't that a decision that you want to make before you go out and build storage? • Otero: A change in population is going to come from Council. If a new Bud plant comes in, Council has to say no. It's policy that will be set by Council. Water shouldn't be the thumbnail to keep the population down. • Fischer: Why are we taking responsibility for the other districts? We have to figure it out, are we going to provide water for other districts are aren't we, and if we are, why? • Bode: When it comes to selecting reservoir size we'll refine this. • Knowlton: You could propose to Council in this policy that utilities will not serve in the future any areas outside the GMA. • Fischer: I thought that was the existing policy. • Williams: I don't think that's the case. And, you cant guarantee future Councils wont change the policy. • Donovan: That's a threshold question. Do we plan for additional storage for the service area, or do we plan to partner with other districts, which requires additional storage. • Ohlson: What amount of storage capacity are you guys going to ask Council to move forward on? Natural Resources Advisory Board August 6, 2003 Page 4 of 8 • Bode: We haven't landed on a precise number. We think something in the range of 10,000 to 12,000. • Otero: Does that go to full build out? • Janonis: 2040 is essentially full build out. • Donovan: Do the surrounding districts have a goal, like the 195 to 185. • Bode: I don't think their use is a lot different than our use. In most years we'll have surpluses. The 185 is a planning level type thing. There are operational things that get into it. We're trying to set a reasonable goal for planning purposes, to give us a good, reliable system. Halligan is a small piece that helps us get through years where we're short. • Fischer: One of the problems I see is we have other districts in the City limits, and areas that could become city limits, and yet they haven't adopted tier pricing. It troubles me that Fort Collins is perceived as the leader, but very seldom do we get the same kind of cooperation from other districts when it comes time for them to do things we think are good. They expect us to go ahead and provide more storage, so they can have their carry over supplies. • Bode: That's not the case. They're looking at way to even out their supplies and future carry over storage to meet the needs of their customers. • Skutchan: There has been pressure over the last couple years. Are there elements that will make that happen, so we don't subsidize them? • Janonis: We're finding some of that with some of the requirements under the bio terrorism and homeland security act. We're going through vulnerability assessment and emergency response plans. If something happened we're suited to back up each other. If we have trouble they will provide excess water. The interconnect project that tied the two systems together was a $700,000 project. They paid for the vast majority. • Skutchan: So, those relationships are being developed. • Ohlson: Pretend we expand by 12,000 acres feet. What impact will that expansion have on existing rates? • Bode: There shouldn't be any impact on rates. Our objective is that new customers would pay for that infrastructure. There is an assumption there will be continued growth. • Ohlson: So you're saying if we expand by 11,000 acre feet, the impact should be zero? • Janonis: We're dependent on growth. If growth doesn't happen the only people who can pay for it are the existing customers. • Williams: When we build a new capital project we look at if it serves new growth or current residents. • Ohlson: On page 2 of the memo, are you saying excessive use and waste are two different things? • Bode: Excessive to me means you're using more than you need to meet your needs. A lot of what people call waste is in the eyes of the beholder. You get into definitional problems • Fischer: In your bulleted list, on the first page, under item C, it seems this bullet indicates that we might back off from the tiered structure in favor of other things. Is Natural Resources Advisury Board August 6, 2003 Page 5 of 8 that your intent, to back away from the tiered structure? Shouldn't we say we have it and recommend that we should keep it? • Williams: The tiered rate was placed as a drought rate. We think there is interest in a continually tiered rate. It may not be as dramatic. We're looking at the possibility of having a rate next year that includes a lot of components. • Ohlson: So again, those that live large, get subsidized by those who live small. • Ohlson: I don't remember ever hearing this was a drought rate and I attended every meeting. I never heard it was a drought tiered system. • Fischer: When Mike Smith was here it wasn't presented as drought tiered. • Ohlson: That's very disappointing. I'll fight it tooth and nail. I believe the more you use, the more you ought to pay. • Skutchan: Regarding recreational use, is there anything conflictive in here versus what the lawsuit gave? • Skutchan: In your 100 house study, is there anything being done to track the perceived value in greenery. Is there any way to measure that? • Janonis: Planning did a lot with visual preferences. • Ohlson: On page 4, at the bottom, staff believes the policy provides a good balance at a reasonable cost, I would suggest reasonable and equitable, or fair and reasonable. • Panjabi: On page 2,1 didn't understand the last sentence, that a reduction in outdoor use would likely mean a higher percentage of Fort Collins water is consumptively used. • Bode: We're trying to help people understand the dynamics of the water resources system. Some of the indoor use goes downstream and provides benefits to folks downstream, outside is different. • Panjabi: The additional 10,000 to 12,000 acre feet, would that be an extension of Halligan? • Janonis: Yes, Halligan is our preference, but we cant say that would be the permitted option. • Panjabi: What would the rise be, and how much additional land would be required? • Janonis: We'll come back to talk about Halligan. • Fischer: It's a good question. I'd be interested in having you come back and talk about that. There are a lot of different options. • Ohslon: Is the City monitoring the environmental impacts of the construction of the pipeline to make sure that everything that should be done is being done? • Janonis: That's a district project. The responsibility for monitoring is with the North Colorado Water Conservancy District. • Ohlson: I would think you should talk to them, and take a peek at it. I would like to request Council to direct staff to monitor the construction. • Donovan: We need to take some action on this. • Fischer: We could provide a memo with our comments. • Murphy: That would be the appropriate thing to do, and reserve judgment for after the study session. • Donovan: I recommend that we support the goal of 185 per capita per day. • Ohlson: Support the goal, and hopefully exceed it. Natural Resources Advisory Board August 6, 2003 Page 6 of 8 • Otero: It's a good thing for Council to know what impacts expansion will have on the district as a whole. Electric Conservation Strategic Plan Update, Wendy Williams, John Phelan Phelan said the Electric Energy Supply Policy was adopted by Council in March. This is the implementation plan. Phelan showed a power point presentation. • Ohlson: The work needs to be systemic. The building codes are from 1955. • Phelan: That is on the radar screen. There is the IRC proposed by B&Z. That probably will not come to Council till late fall. I have heard that some of the more controversial provisions have to do with energy efficiency. • Williams: The results of the new home study will be incorporated into that. • Ohlson: If that's true, it's wonderful news. • Phelan: That could be one important piece, but it's a small portion of the targets we're trying to accomplish. • Ohlson: Your presentation is very fact based, but it's fair to do a sales pitch. Everyone else, P&R, Transportation, and Police do. If you guys believe in this, and you don't cross the line, do a sales pitch. There's no "zing" in this, nothing to get them excited. It's all great stuff. Don't assume the Council members know it all. • Otero: I've worked on several projects in Austin, and they sell the heck out of it. They make every builder want to do it. The more you build the momentum and excitement the better. They have many high tech industries, that in theory use much more power, but they are so efficient it's offset. • Ohlson: You mention environmental issues but you don't relate them to health. There are health issues that are very real. • Ohlson: You keep saying competitive rates, but you should say competitive and fair. • Ohlson: Where's the mention of the tiered rate system? The solution is simple, tiered rate system. • Phelan: It's in the strategic plan, but it's not in this presentation. • Panjabi: There's nothing in here about the need for another coal fired plant, or an increase in the output from Rawhide. • Phelan: It's tough, it's all through Platte River. We're 50% of Platte River's load. If we reduce our requirements, it will impact their planning horizon. • Otero: Wouldn't Platte river just go find another customer to fill that load? • Phelan: The area they're serving is fixed. • Fischer: One of the things that concerns me about this plan is we don't really have any control over it. It doesn't address the new demands from new people coming in and stressing our system. • Phelan: The policy is drafted in per capita language. There's still growth in this plan, and energy use goes up. But it's a lot better than doing nothing. • Ohlson: Your recommendation isn't in the slide show. What is your recommendation? • Williams: We don't have a recommendation, they are options. The Electric Board will make a recommendation to Council, and you can do the same. The real issue is how much of a rate increase City Council will support. Natural Resources Advisory Board August 6, 2003 Page 7 of 8 • Otero: Is there a way to offer incentives to builders who are proactive in building green homes. • Ohlson: Are we planning on doing something about the air conditioning codes, and if not, why not? • Williams: Our approach is long term. You're better off trying to provide the training. When you put a reg in place, instead of a minimum, it often becomes the maximum. We're trying to put our emphasis on education. • Otero: Behavior based change is much more effective than a mandate. • Ohlson: I want to believe that, but in my entire experience it's been the complete opposite. I want to agree, but simply can't. • Skutchan: Are we looking at the implementation of a rate structure? With the way rates have stayed so low, if you're going to change behavior, you better be gung ho now. • Phelan: The Electric Board recommendation is to start slower, which is still about 1.2% rate increase. • Ohlson: What are we paying you guys for if you're not giving recommendations? • Williams: The Electric Supply Policy was a request from City Council to the Electric Board. Staff worked with the Electric Board. We tried to come up with something that addressed everyone's needs. The second part was to come up with a plan by the end of July that would provide options on how to accomplish this. It was addressed to the board, not to staff. • Ohlson: If it was the NRAB and NRD, I would ask NRD for their recommendation. • Fischer: We need to make a recommendation supporting the Electric Board, or pick an option and make a different recommendation. • Ohlson: I wouldn't mind asking Council to ask staff to make a recommendation. There's a good chance I'll agree. I value their thinking. • Phelan: I think we should start slow instead of full bore. We don't want more money than we can effectively use. There's no question about increasing funding when you can say it'll be increased over several years. • Williams: As a utility, we've never done anything like this before. We're talking about marketing, administration, adequate staffing. • Skutchan: Don't you risk not having the needed money available? • Otero: It doesn't have to be linear. You can change the acceleration and gradually taper it out. • Williams: The Electric Board has some concerns. It may not be necessary to have the full impact when the economy is not doing particularly well. • Ohlson: I don't have enough information to make a recommendation. • Skutchan: Can we ask for more from staff? Land Use Code — Natural Resource Protection Standards, Doug Moore & Ted Shepard This item was rescheduled for the August 20, 2003 worksession. Natural Resources Advisory Board August 6, 2003 Page 8 of 8 I-25 Subarea Plan — Board approval of Draft Recommendation • Fischer: It's been a month since we took action regarding this memo. The memo has been sent out to the Board for review. Do I have your approval to send the memo? • Murphy: When you send these out if you don't get any comments I see that as meaning it's ok. Everyone has an opportunity to look at it. • Otero: If you miss the deadline, you miss the opportunity to provide comments. The Board agreed it was ok to send the memo to Counicl. Announcements • Stokes: There will be a field trip to Roberts Ranch, on Thursday, August 28. Roberts Ranch is a large ranch in the northern part of the county. We'll meet here at 281 at 7:30 a.m. If you'd like to come, please let us know. This field trip will be in lieu of the regularly scheduled NRAB Natural Areas Committee meeting. • Fischer: I would like to plan a field trip to Halligan Reservoir. • Otero: I would like to have their plans first. • Stokes: The recommendation from Paul Zucker regarding how to revamp the development review process is out in draft form, and should hit the streets pretty soon. • Stokes: Chapter 3 of the Master Plan has been handed out. We're presenting concepts, not looking for thumbs up or thumbs down. We would really like your feedback. There will be a public open house on September 30. Review and Approval of Minutes The July 2, 2003 minutes were approved as written. Review of NRD Capital Improvements Budget 2003-2012 Every department has been asked to put together an inventory of capital expenses. We have a dedicated tax stream. We've prepared a budget that projects expenses over time. This information will be coming back in different forms. It will be included in the land conservation chapter of the Natural Area Master Plan revision. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 pm. Submitted by Terry Klahn Admin Support Supervisor