Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 07/26/2000FORT COLLINS WATER BOARD MINUTES July 26, 2000 3:10 — 4:55 p.m. Fort Collins Utilities Training Room 700 Wood Street City Council Liaison Water Board Chairman Water Board Vice Chair Chuck Wanner (not present) Tom Sanders — 491-5448 John Moms — 491-0185 Staff Liaison Molly Nortier — 221-6700 ROLL CALL Members Present John Morris, (Vice Chair — Acting Chair), Paul Clopper, George Reed, David Lauer, Bill Fischer Joe Bergquist, Tom Brown, Dave Rau Members Absent Tom Sanders, Chair, Robert Ward, Dave Frick STAFF Mike Smith, Wendy Williams, Jim Hibbard, Dave Agee, Dennis Bode, Gale McGaha Miller, Ben Alexander, Marsha Hilmes-Robinson, Dennis Sumner, Molly Nortier GUEST John Duval, Assistant City Attorney John Morris, Vice Chair, opened the meeting in place of Chair Tom Sanders, who was out of town. The following items were discussed: MINUTES Paul Clopper moved that the minutes of June 22, 2000 be approved as distributed. After a second from Joe Bergquist, the minutes were approved unanimously (7-0 with one abstention). Bill Fischer abstained from the vote because he missed the last meeting. UPDATE: NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT (NCWCD) Gene Schleiger was unable to attend, so there was no report. Water Board Minutes July 26, 2000 Page 2 VARIANCE FOR EXCEPTIONAL HARDSHIP — FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS At the June Water Board meeting, Board members discussed the letter from Tom Sanders to Council member Chuck Wanner, regarding the exceptional hardship clause in the Floodplain Regulations. Tom requested that the Council pull Section 10-39 (c) and (d) from the new Floodplain Regulations. Those sections eliminate the need for Section 10-39 h(2) which states: "A determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant; and..." He said that since the Water Board makes decisions about granting variances, he believes that the Board should have an opportunity to discuss the issue of eliminating "exceptional hardship" as a justification for a variance before it is incorporated into the new regulations. Because the Board didn't expect to have a quorum at the June meeting, Assistant City Attorney John Duval was told that he didn't need to come. Although a quorum was attained at 4:00, legal aspects of this issue require the presence of an attorney, so action on the item was postponed until today. Marsha Hilmes-Robinson began the discussion by saying that staff did not have a presentation. They will answer questions and welcome comments on this issue. John Duval, from the City Attorney's Office was also there to answer questions. Paul Clopper related that this item was brought to him a couple of months ago from the Planning & Zoning Board. He referred it to Tom Sanders who learned from staff what the issue behind this was and why there was a need for a change in the Code. "There was a perception out there that the City has increased its design rainfall, and we have made the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations more stringent, even more stringent than the FEMA guidelines. And subsequently, the Council added the Product Corridor dimension. Then they looked at the variance process and proposed the removal of the hardship requirement." A member of the P&Z Board asked Paul why the Water Board wants to make it easier for people to get variances. The person asked why the Board wants to remove the need for showing hardship when the nature of the request meets certain conditions that, at that time, were being proposed to change the City Code. The person said, "you are making it easier for people to get a variance because they don't have to show why now, where formerly they did." Paul's reaction to those comments was that he didn't know what the person was talking about. He had no idea why the change was being suggested. Marsha explained in further detail why the hardship language was in the regulations. The problem that staff has had with past variances that have come before the Board is to go strictly by FEMA guidelines for hardship. She had included a copy of those guidelines in the packets. "It is basically impossible for us to legally grant a variance for hardship," she contends. There are a couple of special circumstances where you could show hardship relating to the unique characteristics of the site. "What we were trying to do is, for those criteria that are not regulated by FEMA, where we have gone above and beyond the FEMA minimum criteria, to give the Board a little more latitude to make those technical judgement calls to grant the variance. But, at the same time, we also have the ability to use common sense, and not get hung up on the hardship issue as being the final draw of whether we should or shouldn't grant the variance. That's why staff included it as one of the proposed changes. Water Board Minutes July 26, 2000 Page 3 John Duval pointed out that the changes are in sub paragraph (c) and (d), Section 10-39. The old regulations didn't have c and d in them. All that language is new. He said that c and d were added in order to except from these kinds of variances, under these circumstances, from the restriction or variance requirements. Section 10-39 h(2) is still there because they are still going to use it in other situations. In those situations addressed in c and d, h(2) would not apply, but the rest of the elements that have to be satisfied in granting of a variance are still there. Those are: showing of good and sufficient cause, (sub paragraph h(3)) "the termination of granting a variance would not result in any increase in flood heights or any additional threats to public safety, or public or private property..." He said you could still deny a variance if you thought there was going to be any increase in the flood heights, for example, even in those situations where exceptional hardship is no longer one of the elements of granting a variance. "I think when you read what FEMA says about what they think exceptional hardship means, it's difficult to imagine there would be any reason for a hardship. They state that it must be a physical characteristic of the property. It can't be the fact that it's going to cost the property owner more to do it one place or another, or that they need the money; those kinds of things don't apply. As a matter of fact, FEMA says that it's difficult to imagine any physical characteristic that can give rise to a hardship sufficient to justify a variance to a flood elevation requirement. John concluded that from most of the variance hearings he has participated in, one could argue that there was never an exceptional hardship. By strict terminology of the Code, the variance shouldn't have been granted. "I guess there was this thought that we shouldn't have it in the Code," he said. Bill Fischer wondered if there should be a motion. John Duval explained that what the Board would be voting on is making some sort of recommendation to the City Council, but this ordinance has already been adopted, so you would have to be making a recommendation that they change it. David Lauer asked what Tom Sanders was recommending in his letter. Paul Clopper replied that in his letter dated June 16a' he asked the Council not to adopt this particular change until the Water Board had an opportunity to discuss it. He asked them to pull that item from the consent agenda on June 20a'. Paul stated that there will be some situations where the Board will be looking at a parcel that is not in an area that is more restrictive in the floodway than FEMA. In those cases, we would still be considering hardship for a variance. "It depends on what they are asking for," Marsha replied. "If applicants, located in the floodway, were trying to say that they should be allowed to encroach into a one -foot floodway instead of staying out of the 1/2-foot and a 1/1Os' foot floodway, you could look at granting that variance, but you still would have the flood heights that they would be increasing by encroaching into those floodway areas. They might also be increasing the velocity, so you would have a reason for not allowing the variance for those reasons." Paul wanted to clarify when we would invoke h(2). Next time the Board considers a variance request, the Board must decide if hardship is part of the equation or it isn't. He was not clear under what circumstances the Board would be looking at the hardship issue. Water Board Minutes July 26, 2000 Page 4 Marsha referred to a FEMA Regulations table versus a City Regulations table that was distributed to Board members. What the table showed was a comparison between the FEMA regulations for certain criteria and City criteria. The third column was the general criteria that are being used for all the floodplains besides the Poudre River. The final column was Poudre River regulations that have been adopted. If you look at floodway width, if someone would say they wanted a less restrictive rise in the floodway, that criteria in the general City floodplain as well as the Poudre River would be criteria where hardship would not have to be considered because the floodway criteria are more restrictive. However, you would still have all the other technical criteria that would apply there. "All the shaded areas are things that are more restrictive than FEMA," she said. Many of the requests for variances that staff has seen in the past have dealt with the critical facilities clause, which FEMA doesn't have as a minimum regulation. That is one the City adopted above and beyond the FEMA regulations. In the recent past, other requests have been related to remodels, where applicants haven't been able to meet the floodproofing height that may be required, for example. When you go back and look in the files at the older variances, there were some from Alta Vista where houses were being torn down and rebuilt. There were some variances for not elevating as high or being allowed to construct a larger structure in the floodway than what was originally there. FEMA did an audit on the City for those, "but we won't see anything like that coming through anyway," Marsha assured the Board. "What are the ramifications of a FEMA audit when they are critical of the number of variances that are being granted?" Paul asked. "Ultimately they could put the City on probation if it's in a FEMA designated floodplain," Marsha replied. "In those cases, you are even violating FEMA minimum standards because of a no rise criteria for being in a floodway." She explained that the City could be put on probation from the National Flood Insurance Program. "If you didn't clean up your act you could be expelled from the program, which would mean that people would not be able to purchase flood insurance anymore, resulting in not being able to refinance or sell their homes." She stressed that those ramifications would be a long way down the road. Prior to that, I•EMA might require the City to do some additional analyses or do some improvements to help mitigate the situation, or actually fix the problem that was created by elevating the structure or compensate for the amount of fill that was placed in the floodway. For the criteria that are above and beyond the minimum criteria, for the critical facilities clause, for example, which is not a FEMA standard, the City gets CRS credit for having that standard. The consequence for granting variances "right and left" for a variety of things, and not upholding the criteria, would mean that FEMA would stop awarding points to the City. "If you have a variance occasionally where you have a good justification for it and have mitigated the threat, they take that into consideration." Mike Smith pointed out if someone has a variance request for the criteria in the white areas on the chart, the exceptional hardship request has to be considered because it's a FEMA floodplain regulation. "Only when we adopt something more strict, can we consider a variance without using that hardship." John Duval said that City designated floodplains are another area where you can grant variances without hardship. "Let's say, for example, that somebody on Spring Creek, in one of the Water Board Minutes July 26, 2000 Page 5 floodplain areas, wanted to add some new development, and part of their acreage was overlapping into the floodway, David Lauer proposed. "If they came to the Board for a variance, based on some hardship criteria, is that what we are talking about here?" he asked. "No, we wouldn't have to ask them to show any hardship," Paul replied. "It depends on which floodway they are in," Marsha added. "If they were in the 1-foot floodway that's been adopted by FEMA, we would have to ask for a hardship, but if they were outside of the 1-foot floodway, that was in the 0.5 ft. City adopted floodway, the hardship would not have to be looked at," she explained. "That's why that 0.5 ft. is shaded?" Dave Rau asked. "Right," Marsha replied. Marsha said the Council adopted this new language on June 20a'. Paul Clopper was concerned that the Board knows which way to go when they receive a request for a variance, and also that staff is comfortable with this from a legal perspective and from the perspective of the floodplain regulations administration. "We want to make certain that with this new language, we aren't going to have problems with FEMA." Relating to Paul's first point, Marsha responded that when she receives a variance request, she will make sure to highlight in the general summary whether the hardship does or does not apply to this particular case. She and John Duval can discuss it ahead of time and make that determination, so the Board is not confused. She said that the only way she thinks the City would have problems with FEMA, is if we throw out and ignore all the technical aspects: i.e. increased flood heights, hardship on other property owners, impact to the property where the variance is being requested, (high damage potential, loss of life), or increased risk to emergency response people because of granting the variance. Joe Bergquist asked if staff brought this language to Council. "Yes we put it together," Marsha replied. Jim Hibbard explained that staff fielded a few questions from Council, so they were aware of it being there. They had some of the same questions that the Water Board has. "Is there any way to make it easier for the people making the requests to know if it's worth the effort to try to present a hardship case?" George Reed asked. Marsha said that she would probably say, "you can try, but good luck." She added that staff tries to tell them if they can support them or not. They get the packet ahead of time and receive all the materials the Board receives. "Most of the time they know whether they are pushing the line," she stressed. She alsc said in most of these requests there are multiple things going on. It's not just a simple monetary issue. Board members agreed that the FEMA guidelines concerning hardship are confusing and not very helpful. Paul thinks it would have been more helpful if they would have said: "We really don't know what to tell you, but as an appeals Board, use your best judgement." ACTION: Consensus John Morris suggested that discussion be closed on this item since it has been clarified. The Board agreed to support the change, as there was no strong desire to reverse Council's decision. Water Board Minutes July 26, 2000 Page 6 UPDATE WATER OUALITY CONCERNS FOR HOSRSETOOTH RENOVATION PROJECT Mike Smith began by saying that staff filed some mitigation measures that they hoped the Northern District would agree to implement. Staff continues to work with them on those measures. They have agreed in concept, but not yet in writing. Those measures are: • To pursue the construction of a multi -level or flexible outlet so adjustments can be made as to where to take water out of Horsetooth; • To install remote monitoring devices at the reservoir to monitor water quality for 5 or 6 parameters and receive instant readings at the plants; • To require that the District perform further studies involving the reservoir; • To consider the feasibility of putting a perimeter around the inlet/outlet in order to restrict boating directly over the top of the inlet/outlet; • To encourage the County to restrict boating on the reservoir during construction if there is a serious water quality problem. • To encourage a process of coordination and communication Dave Rau asked if "serious water quality problem" is defined. Mike answered that it would be determined by staff. David Lauer asked if there is a noticeable increase in petroleum products in the reservoir now. Ben Alexander replied, "not in the petroleum products, but we are noticing an increase in turbidity." He said the sediments are becoming exposed with the combination of motor boat wave action and wind wave action. "Has it had an effect on treatment?" David asked. "It will eventually," Ben replied. Currently it doesn't appear to be a problem for the plants. Dave Rau asked if there has been a change in raw water turbidity. "It's higher this time of year than it has been in other years," Ben said, and added that it's running about 12 NTU at the bottom. At the plant intake it's 6 or 7 NTU and about 3 or 4 up through the water column. On the surface it's about 7 or 8 coming in, which is not driven by what is going on at the reservoir. Perhaps it is being driven by the increased velocities of the channel. Mike Smith said all of these mitigation measures will be put into a condition of the environmental assessment. "What was the reaction of the District to the EA comments presented by the City?" Dave Rau asked. Mike replied that they were quite angry. He explained that staff had been communicating with them for months and providing information. When they issued the draft EA, "it looked like we didn't exist." Gale added that staff had been discussing water quality issues in general with them for years, actually since they began doing the studies on the dams. Mike explained that part Water Board Minutes July 26, 2000 Page 7 of the problem is that their focus is on water supply, and they are not into water quality. They have some constituents, or suppliers like the City who really don't place a high priority on water quality. Then they have Fort Collins and the tri-districts saying that quality is relevant. David Lauer asked if this attitude is also true of the Bureau. Mike stated that the City didn't hear much from the Bureau. "They have been quite composed when they have dealt with us, whereas the District has been visibly hostile." "How have we communicated with them in the past about this?" Dave Rau wondered. "Staff to staff," Gale replied. "Have they ignored you?" "Yes," Mike answered. Ben explained that there have been some organizational changes in the Bureau's Loveland office. With the turnover and lack of continuity, it hasn't been clear what their involvement was, nor has there been an indication of who was going to take the lead on this. "Consequently, we didn't have a clear chain of communication with the Bureau, but that is being implemented with this process that we want them to agree to. The response from the Bureau, so far, has been very good. Their water quality people have been in touch with me," Ben related. They will be meeting with staff to devise some plans to discuss and determine the water quality issues. At this point it is hard to determine who is representing the Bureau. Mike commented that it is rather confusing because it's the Bureau's project; they own it and are responsible for doing it, but the Northern District is coordinating and facilitating it. Ben doesn't characterize the situation as the City trying to do something that the District doesn't want. Staff has been working with them to try to expedite the process of the environmental assessment, but along with that, to get the water quality concerns included in it and properly addressed. It was not the City's intention to move the project off schedule. "We felt there were some concerns that needed to be worked out regarding the timing of the pipeline," he stated. He concluded that staff has been working very closely with the District to try help them write the assessment. "Our input was discounted," he said. "Is the new agreement more acceptable to staff?" John Morris asked. Mike Smith said staff thinks it's the next best thing to delaying the project "Our intent was not to delay it. Even after we made our comments, they were still not clear about the funding; even as of a couple of weeks ago. Mike said that the District was very upset with Fort Collins for jeopardizing the funding, but he isn't sure they actually know what the funding status is. George Reed commented that, from what staff has related, it sounds like the article in the Coloradoan was pretty accurate. Dave Rau asked what the next step is. "When we get an agreement with the District, we will write another letter stipulating the measures that we think all those involved have agreed to. Hopefully, they will agree and re -issue the comments with the final EA with the contingencies, and proceed with the project," Mike responded. Someone asked, "What if they don't?" "We have a chance to comment again," Mike replied. "A personal appeals process would probably knock the project off schedule," Ben stated. "Is the District rejecting hands down, the idea of delaying this until the Pleasant Valley Pipeline is completed?" David Lauer asked. "Yes," staff replied. "They said they just can't do it," Mike Water Board Minutes July 26, 2000 Page 8 added. "What is their justification for saying it has to happen now?" David continued. "Because of the funding," Ben replied. "They say the matching percentage now is very favorable and they don't know what's going to happen with re -elections, etc., if it is delayed," Gale explained. "Their feeling is that the percent match on their end is going to go way up," she added. Mike commented that the District is probably in the best position to address that. Dave Rau pointed out that the health and safety issues have become more important over time. Mike agreed that the safety issue is the scary one. Regarding the safety aspect, if construction is delayed, the Bureau will place restrictions on the dam, "and that will be it," Mike explained. "They have always said that there was not an eminent danger," Gale mentioned. "From the safety aspect they could put this off for 4 or 5 years, but from the a funding perspective, that may not be possible." She observed that the language didn't come out quite the same in their communication with the public. Ben added that staff doesn't see a reason for a water quality problem with the level of restriction that provides the needed margin of safety. "The 5,380 ft. elevation is one that we see nearly every fall," he said, "so those sediments have been washed out many times." George Reed was confused about the reservoir level during the construction of the flexible outlet connection. It seems to him that that would require the reservoir to be drawn down below their outlet, your inlet, to do work around it. "I have no idea what the City is recommending," he said. Mike explained that they would probably put a bulkhead down over the outlet as they do when they do repairs. They can do that when the reservoir is full. He said the District is not too keen about the flexible outlet. A consultant did a study for them, which seemed to indicate that the flexible outlet was just as expensive as a solid multi -level outlet at a higher elevation, which they prefer. Ben added that it would be much easier to install a flexible outlet after the Pleasant Valley Pipeline is in service because you have the opportunity to rely on Poudre water alone. Tom Brown said he was confused about the boat issue. "It seems very vague," he said. Mike said that when the water is lowered enough the ramps end before the water starts. "There was one ramp left that still extends into the water. We don't know if there will continue to be boating, or even whether people will want to continue to go boating with the lower levels." he said. "If it causes a water quality problem, we'll say no boating." The County agreed to that because they didn't want boats on the reservoir either if they affect water quality. "You can take care of most problems if there is enough money," Tom remarked. "I suspect that it would have to get to a point where we couldn't treat the water the way we want to treat it," Mike responded. Water Production Manager Kevin Gertig, will make every effort to treat the water to current high standards. "It would have to be pretty bad for him to say that this is unacceptable." As mentioned earlier, if the hydrocarbons were a problem, the water treatment plants would have to use powdered activated carbon, "but there's a fine balance to that solution," Ben noted. He emphasized that there are multiple challenges when you start pushing the capacity of different processes at the plant. The positive side is that we are already beginning to see a decrease in boating activity, "and we are not even near the low levels yet," he pointed out. David Lauer asked at what rate the level of the reservoir is going down. "Is it a rate that is faster than usual?" "It hard to define `usual"', Ben answered. In drought years, when there is a high E Water Board Minutes July 26, 2000 Page 9 demand for irrigation water, it can go down very fast. "The fastest we have ever seen it go down was in 1977. We were without any inflow into the reservoir because the Big Thompson flood had taken out the connection across the Thompson Canyon," he recalled. He said it seems to be dropping fairly fast, but he hasn't compared the rates. It's totally dependent on the call for water on ag. land. Our water plants pull some demand, but the bulk is going to the canal to the north. They will increase that as ag. land needs the water. He emphasized that they must make beneficial use of the water. They have to try to match the demand with the target level they are shooting for to start the construction. Tom Brown said it seems that we are hoping it won't be a problem, because use will go down, and if it is a problem, we will try to accommodate it until water quality becomes a problem and we say no more boats. The alternative to that is to make a judgement now about the level of the reservoir below which the City would eliminate boating. "The ramp on the swimming beach would accommodate boats down to 5355," Ben said. Before that, the other ramps end at an elevation of 5380. "When we made our recommendation to the draft environmental assessment, I suggested 5360." In one article in the newspaper, the County was thinking of adding another 20 ft. down from 5380, which would put them at 5360. He sent e-mail to the Northern District at that time saying that staff didn't want to see that extension. He didn't want them to spend money putting down cement that they might not be able to use. He said he doesn't know the cutoff point; perhaps it is 5360. The maximum elevation during the construction project will be 5360, but there will be variation within that throughout the course of the project. The low levels could get down to about 5325. John Morris concluded that staff will watch the water quality levels closely and keep the lines of communication open with the District and the Bureau. According to the memorandum included in the packets, in 1997, the City adopted the first biennial budget for 1998 and 1999. The adoption of a two-year budget plan enabled City Council and staff to move from an environment of short-term budgeting to one more focused on long- range policies and service planning rather than incremental one-year service needs. The 2000-2001 biennial budget was adopted in 1999. As part of the budget process, Council adopted an "exception process" to deal with minor adjustments to the second year. Exceptions are first reviewed by the City Manager and then by Council to determine which exceptions will be funded. Dave Agee said that staff is seeking input from the Water Board regarding the exceptions relating to the water utility funds. Budget exceptions must meet one of the following criteria: • The need for adjustment is related to current services that, without adjustment, will significantly impair the provision of that service. • The adjustment was specifically directed by the City Manager or Council. Water Board Minutes July 26, 2000 Page 10 • The need for adjustment is a result of new programs or enhanced services requested by the community. Attached to the memo were two exceptions, the first was being proposed by staff and relates to the Mandatory Metering Program, and the second was directed by Council during the original budget adoption process. Mike Smith explained that this is an off-year budget. The only items for an off-year are additions or exceptions. Dave Agee said what he would like from the Board is a letter to the Council regarding each of the exceptions. He went on to say that, in addition to the adjustment for the mandatory water metering program, funds for instituting an Illicit Discharge Stormwater Monitoring Program are being requested. He explained that last year, Council requested additional emphasis on stormwater quality monitoring. According to the request form, classical chemical monitoring of storm runoff has been shown to provide only limited information about the health of urban streams and has been dropped from EPA phase II stormwater permit requirements. Dave said what Council originally wanted was similar to what Stormwater has done with their rain gauge program where there is automatic monitoring. "We want you to be testing the stormwater for pollutants," they said. Staff disagreed with that approach. Rather then coming to a conclusion on that, Council said they would put it on the exception process for this year. Staff has had a year to think about it "and we are coming back to Council with our own proposal," he said. Since any water quality monitoring must be undertaken with specific goals in mind, staff recommends that additional monitoring be used to identify and correct illicit discharges to stormwater. This will provide the most immediate positive impact on the stream environments by providing the necessary information to identify and halt illicit discharges to stormwater. The major elements of this program will include: • Identifying and mapping all storm sewer outfalls • Creating enforcement measures • Locating priority areas and sampling them to characterize pollution sources • Tracing pollution upstream to the source • Removing the pollution source The Mandatory Metering Program request was made by Utilities staff because they felt that adding a second installation crew would help to enable metering staff to meet the 2005 deadline directed by Council in getting all unmetered water accounts metered. Dave said the adjustment for this program shouldn't affect rates. Ongoing funds are available in the Water Fund to fully fund this exception request. On the other hand, the Stormwater request will require the Utilities to increase rates. He said in 2001, we are scheduled to raise rates 8% over what they are now for Stormwater. We need an additional 1.3% in order to cover the $76,250 in ongoing costs. "That's important for the Board E E Water Board Minutes July 26, 2000 Page 11 to think about," he said. "Is that every year?" a Board member asked. "Not every year; that would be just one time, but future increases are built on a higher base," Dave replied. "That's an ongoing cost in current dollars," he added. Gale McGaha Miller discussed the discharge program. She related that Council had asked from time to time if the City was doing enough chemical water quality monitoring in the urban watershed. The intent of those questions seemed to convey that the City install stations throughout the watershed and monitor for certain key parameters during rainstorms to determine the quality of the urban streams. "What we found, and it seems to be the case nationwide, is that you can pretty well predict what is going to happen with water quality from the streams after a rainstorm by the land uses around it," she explained. Rather than trying to figure out a couple of key parameters that you could test for, collection of data really wouldn't help you in doing anything towards preventing that pollution. "It would be much better, in our opinion, to shift the emphasis of the monitoring to help identify areas in town where there are illegal or improper connections in the stormwater system, and working to correct those as a pollution prevention program. We like to monitor for water quality in the streams, but we don't want to collect a lot of data that doesn't give us any useful information or advances the cause of preventing pollution." That's when staff suggested that we introduce the illegal connection program described previously. "What do you mean by illegal connection?" Bill Fischer asked. "An example would like a car wash whose drain is supposed to be connected to the sanitary sewer, but instead has a pipe that dumps directly into a stream or the stormwater system," Gale explained. She said that any kind of commercial or industrial process should be going to the wastewater treatment plant to be treated. By ordinance, those things are not supposed to be there, but some still persist. "We can go through and systematically identify those. It's a huge job when you think of all the gutters we have in town and all the different activities," she stressed. "That's one of the things that will be required of us under new Stormwater Regulations. There are six minimum measures under what's called Phase II Stormwater Regulations which are the ones that apply to us." She said the City will be applying for a municipal stormwater permit which covers all City activities. The measures include: • Putting in best management practices as we do in our Stormwater projects, and which includes some education; • Identifying and correcting illicit connections She said we are doing, and have been for quite some time, the other measures as part of our watershed approach to stormwater quality. The illicit discharge part is a big project to tackle and staff hasn't advanced very far with it yet. Bill Fischer wanted clarification. He asked if we don't do something along these lines, could we potentially risk being in violation of the regulations? "Yes, eventually," Gale replied, "although we are in a time period now where we don't have to actually apply for the permit until the year 2003. There is the sense that these permits are going to be pretty soft from a regulatory point of view because stormwater is a `tough critter to condemn"'. "They have been from the industry side," Dave Rau interjected. Gale believes it is the right thing to do and the City is going to have Water Board Minutes July 26, 2000 Page 12 to do it eventually. "Our thought was, since Council is very interested in our doing water quality monitoring, why don't we target monitoring to support the illegal connection program. It would lead to pollution prevention activities and improve the water quality. Moreover, it will be required sooner or later anyway, and it's a very practical approach," she concluded. She said that what staff is asking for in this proposal, is one FTE, with a one-time $27,000 request for office space and a vehicle. The remaining cost is overhead, salary and benefits for one person. George Reed asked if the illicit connection program is based on the fact that the City "is going to find something." "We have to prove that we have identified illegal connections and corrected them, and that comes straight from EPA," Gale responded. "One thing we have going now, that works very well, is that we have someone in Stormwater who will go out and respond when neighbors complain about other neighbors. Many times you have to catch them in the act, and if you can't catch them in the act, you can't do anything. That piece is well in place, but as far as what needs to happen with a systematic identification throughout townit is going to require a fairly major GIS effort. It's not unlike the Industrial Pretreatment Program that monitors all the industries to make sure that they aren't discharging anything they shouldn't. We plan to run it like a regulatory program." "Is this basically the dry weather survey?" Dave Rau asked. "That's exactly what it is," Gale replied. "Essentially the Council wanted us to do wet weather monitoring which doesn't tell us anything we don't already know, so we are suggesting the dry weather monitoring," she said. Dave Rau related that the City and County of Denver has been doing this for quite some time. His company has done dry weather monitoring work for them, and it's amazing what they find. Dave Agee went on to say that when Council adopted the 2000-2001 budget, they planned for a 10% rate increase in 2000, which is already in effect, and 8% in 2001. That ordinance has not yet been adopted. If we did nothing, we would present that to Council next October and go with an 8% increase. "If we work this into the budget, which was not in the original budget, the Council would be increasing expenditures, and accordingly, we would have to raise revenues, instead of 8%, by 9.3%." Joe Bergquist asked if 8% and 10% are due to the city-wide fee that was adopted. "Exactly," Dave replied. "The reason for all of these increases is essentially due to the construction program. In 1998, we raised rates 21% and then 10% at the end of last year. That was just to keep up with debt service on these huge construction projects, he reiterated. Bill Fischer asked if there would be an additional 3% above what is there. Dave replied that it would be an additional 1.3%. "If you look at an average per customer bill which we say is $7.40, it would be an additional 10 cents a month, in addition to the 60 cents we are already going to go up," Dave explained. "That would be an increase of about 70 cents; of which 10 cents of that would be due to this program." "Would this be in perpetuity, or until the regulations say you don't have to do it anymore?" Bill asked. "I would expect in perpetuity," Gale replied. First, it's a major undertaking that is going to take many years, and second the City is always growing and changing, so we're going to have to go back and re -inspect. She acknowledged that there may come a time when we may not need one FTE; it may take only a 3/. or'/2 time person. Bill pointed out that for most people the 1.3% may not be much, but for some people it is, and we 11 Water Board Minutes July 26, 2000 Page 13 need to be aware of that. Nevertheless, he thinks, from a cost/benefit standpoint, it will be more beneficial for the City to do it now, than put it off for another year or more. He said he was in favor of doing it now. Vice Chair John Morris asked if the $458,776 for the Mandatory Metering Program will only be available until all the meters are installed. "Basically yes," Dave replied, "although we are supposed to have that done by 2005." He acknowledged that it might not go away entirely. Although we will have completed the mandatory program, with everybody metered, we will switch to having to maintain the meters. He said staff hasn't fully identified how that budget will shift, but at least some dollars will be ongoing, presumably not the $500,000 (approx.). He added that, in addition to the question of should we be doing the illicit discharge program now, "if you have any comments or thoughts about whether this is the appropriate stormwater monitoring to do, now is the time to say that. We're not sure what Council's reaction to this will be. If we're off base, they'll tell us." Dave Rau asked if this includes analytical work "Yes, it will include about $10,000 a year," Gale answered. George Reed asked about the Stormwater budget for water quality. Dave Agee said that the water quality budget in the Storm drainage fund is approximately $242,000 this year. Tom Brown was still somewhat confused about the Mandatory Metering request. You need a second crew, but the money for it is already in the water fund; in other words, it's already being collected. "Why do we need to address that if we already have the money?" Mike Smith said the money is in reserves. "And additional revenues that we have collected," Dave added. Dave said the reason this is an exception is because Council has to give us authorization to spend it. Just because we have it, doesn't mean we can spend it without their authorization. Tom also asked why it is only ongoing funds. "There is no time limit because we contract this out. We are talking about hiring an additional contracting crew to do the installations," Dave explained. "So you don't have the option of requesting money for 5 years, for example?" Tom asked. "It's either ongoing or one time?" "We can clarify that in here by saying, this is ongoing for 5 years," Dave said. "Weren't we ahead of schedule for installing water meters?" Dave Rau asked. "Not recently," Dave Agee replied. "We're falling behind, and that's why we want to do this." Wendy Williams stated that we've never been ahead. "We are now, and that's because we have a second crew," she said. "Because we have added a second crew, we are going to be spending more money this year than we had anticipated." ACTION: Motion and Vote Paul Clopper moved that the Water Board send a letter to City Council recommending approval of these two budget exception requests as presented by staff. Joe Bergquist seconded the motion. Paul also suggested that the Board add a footnote to the letter that the Board agrees with staff that the Illicit Discharge Stormwater Monitoring Program is the most cost effective way to improve the quality of discharged water and reduce stormwater pollution, rather than doing just wet weather monitoring. The Board approved the motion unanimously with that footnote. (8-0) Water Board Minutes July 26, 2000 Page 14 CONVEYANCE OF CAPACITY IN THE SOLDIER CANYON OUTLET TO THE CITY OF GREELEY Dennis Bode said this item is related to the Pleasant Valley Pipeline (PVP) project. He reminded the Board that the project has been formulated as a regional endeavor. The participants are the City of Fort Collins, the City of Greeley, and the three water districts that comprise the Soldier Canyon Filter Plant. According to the summary, agreements have been entered into with the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) to design, construct, own, and operate the pipeline. The design of the pipeline is approximately 50% complete and a draft environmental assessment has been completed. The pipeline is expected to be completed and on line sometime in 2002. Dennis said that staff is in the process of working out an agreement with the City of Greeley that would convey some of the Soldier Canyon outlet capacity to Greeley so they will have capacity during the 5 winter months. They want to use a portion of the PVP to move CBT water from Horsetooth Reservoir back to their Bellvue Filter Plant. The City of Fort Collins currently has considerable capacity in the outlet as shown on the attached graph. The excess capacity far exceeds projected needs for our service area. The plan has been to sell Greeley some capacity in that winter period so that they can bring their Horsetooth water to the Bellvue plant. Dave Rau asked if the reason they need capacity in the winter is because the River is down. Dennis said it was partly a reliability issue with them. There are times when the River freezes up to the point where they can't get enough water from the river. Whether they can use their allocated capacity of 30 MGD depends on River conditions and possibly on expansions at the Bellvue Plant. Since Greeley will share the cost of the pipeline from their plant to Horsetooth Reservoir it reduces the cost of the project for the other four participants. "Any components of the project that are to be used just by Greeley, will be paid for by Greeley," he assured the Board. Where facilities are shared, the costs will be on a pro rats basis. The summary explained that the flow capacities in the pipeline are allocated at 60 MGD for Fort Collins and 60 MGD for Soldier Canyon Filter Plant (Tri-Districts) during the months of April through October. The flow during this period will be from the Poudre River to the two water treatment facilities. During the winter months of November through March, the system will be designed to carry 30 MGD the opposite direction from Horsetooth Reservoir to Greeley's Bellvue Filter Plant. Inter -ties between the new PVP and Fort Collins' existing pipeline from the Poudre River will be made to allow for maximum operational flexibility and reliability during twelve months of the year. The costs of the project are allocated among the parties based on capacity allocated and the segments of the pipeline used by each party. Through regional cooperation, all the project participants are meeting their objectives at a reduced cost compared to the cost of separate projects. Bill Fischer said it looks like in the winter months is when we would be reducing our capacity through the Soldier Canyon Outlet. Would we retain capacity in the summer months? "Yes," Dennis replied. "Is this basically dead space for us?" Bill continued. "In relation to unused capacity, from November through March, we only use about 10% of ours," Dennis explained. "In a hundred years are we going to be wishing we hadn't done this?" Bill asked. "I can't Water Board Minutes July 26, 2000 Page 15 imagine that we would," Mike Smith answered. "If we have it, it's wonderful, but I'd rather make sure we don't need it even in the long run," Bill insisted. He suggested that it might be preferable to enter into a 50-year lease with Greeley. In 50 years, we would reconsider the question. Dennis explained that we would have to increase our demands by 10 times during those winter months in order to run into a problem. "Why did we design the pipeline so large?" Bill asked. "For the summer months," Dennis replied. David Lauer said, the way he understands it, is that this is just a formalization of something that has been in the works for a long time. This is one of the elements of the overall PVP agreement. "That's right, it has always been anticipated," Dennis agreed. "It's not like it's a new piece of the equation," David added. Under the proposed agreement, the City of Greeley would purchase 30 MGD (46.4 cfs) of capacity from the City of Fort Collins for use during the November through March period. Greeley would make a one-time payment of $192,798 to Fort Collins for this capacity. The cost to Greeley is based on the original cost of the outlet works with appropriate adjustments to reflect the age of the structure and percent of the capacity they would use. Dennis said that we need to go to City Council to formalize it into an agreement with Greeley. Entering into this agreement is another step in completing the PVP project and will provide benefits to both the City of Fort Collins and the City of Greeley. Staff' Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Water Board recommend to City Council that the City enter into an agreement with the City of Greeley to convey capacity in the Soldier Canyon Outlet from Fort Collins to Greeley. ACTION: Motion and Vote Dennis asked if there were any further comments at this point. Bill Fischer moved that the Water Board recommend to the City Council that this agreement with the City of Greeley be approved as per staffs recommendation. David Lauer seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously (8-0). Paul Clopper suggested, as soon as Council approves it, that this agreement with Greeley would be a good subject for staff to showcase in the Coloradoan newspaper, as an example of regional cooperation. STAFF REPORTS Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported that for June the City used 4,028 ac-ft of treated water, just about 18% above our projected use for an average year. June was very warm and dry. For July we are running close to average use, he said. Year to date, we are at about 12% above our projected average use for an average year. He said that for municipal uses we don't tend to see the fluctuations that we do for agriculture. Water Board Minutes July 26, 2000 Page 16 Joe Bergquist asked if the situation with a local brewery that was voted on last meeting, has been settled. Mike Smith said we are making progress. Review of Utilities Annual Report Once again the Board was impressed with the annual report. Mike Smith commended staff member Diana Royval, who always does an excellent job with the report. Boards and Commissions Attendance Policy Molly Nortier included the new Boards and Commissions attendance policy in Board packets. She asked if there were any questions or comments. "What constitutes written notification?" Dave Rau asked. Molly said that an e-mail message would be considered written notification. COMMITTEE REPORTS Water Supply Chair Tom Brown reported that the Water Supply Committee met on Friday, July 21s`. They discussed more of the water supply policy issues. "We specifically addressed regional cooperation issues and additional storage options." He didn't think it was time to go into much detail as to what the Committee ended up with because it is basically in draft form. They had an in depth discussion of the Halligan Reservoir situation. At the end of the year, the Utilities will be facing a decision as to whether or not to extend the option on Halligan. It has been an expensive situation. "We will be considering that again, and other storage issues, at our next meeting on August 180' at 3:00 p.m. They will also be considering the long-term lease of water for open space. This is something that John Bartholow, a former Board member, mentioned recently at a Board meeting. He welcomed Board members, other than Committee members, to attend the meeting. Legislative and Finance Dennis Sumner announced that the Legislative and Finance Committee plans to meet on August I&. Dennis will meet with Bill Fischer, Tom Sanders and Robert Ward to review the water related issues of the City's 2001Legislative Agenda. This is what City Council approves in the late fall to guide staff as the state legislature moves into session at the first of the year. They highlight issues that are important to the City and give direction. The Committee will look at what was on the 2000 agenda and discuss any suggested changes or additions for the 2001 agenda. "We will bring some of those issues to the next Board meeting in August for discussion and consideration," he concluded. None of the rest of the committees met. Water Board Minutes July 26, 2000 Page 17 OTHER BUSINESS City Wastewater Bonds Get High Ratings Dave Agee reported that on July 18, 2000 the City sold roughly $5.7 million of wastewater revenue bonds. "We received a very favorable interest rate on those. We actually hit it on the day when the municipal index was at its lowest," Dave related. While staff was expecting close to 6%, our rate was actually 5.3%. In the process of doing this, the City received a rating upgrade from Moody's, who rates our bonds, from "A" to Al", which undoubtedly had an effect on the rates. We also got a new rating from Fitch, an international rating agency, who rated us "AA-". They hadn't rated our bonds previously. There was a article in the Coloradoan recently in which the City's finance director Alan Krcmarik said, "It's a sign that our utilities are in good shape, and also that Utilities General Manager, Mike Smith has done a good job of managing our water and wastewater facilities." Dave concluded that it's good news that Moody and Fitch thought enough of us to give us those good ratings. "It will allow us to continue to work on some projects." Water Treatment Facility Open House An open house to celebrate the expansion of the Water Treatment Facility will be held on Friday, August 18, 2000 from 10:00 a.m. — 2:00 p.m. Water Board members will be receiving formal invitations with all the details. There will also be an article in the Coloradoan. ADJOURNMENT Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m. Water Board Secretary