Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 04/24/1997WATER UTILITIES BOARD MINUTES April 24, 1997 3:12 - 5:20 p.m. Light and Power Training Room 700 Wood Street COUNCIL LIAISON Chuck Wanner (Present at Meeting) WATER UTILITIES BOARD CHAIR Paul Clopper - Phone: 223-5556 STAFF LIAISON Molly Nortier - Phone: 221-6681 MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Clopper, Chair, John Bartholow, Vice Chair; George Reed, Alison Adams, Ray Herrmann, Randy Fischer, Tom Brown, John Barnett, Robert Ward, Howard Goldman, David Rau, John Morris, Joe Bergquist, Tom Sanders, David Lauer STAFF John Fishbach, City Manager; Mike Smith, Wendy Williams, Gale McGaha Miller, Dennis Bode, Ben Alexander, Bob Smith, Jim Hibbard, Kevin Gertig, Owen Randall, Kelley Gonzales, Mike Herbst, Beth Voelkel, Molly Nortier GUESTS Kevin Duggan, Coloradoan John Bigham, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Sue Ellen Charlton, League of Women Voters Observer Randy Gustafson, City of Greeley Diane Slater, CSU Student MEMBERS ABSENT Dave Frick, Bob Havis (both excused) Chairman Paul Clapper opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Water Utilities Board Minutes April 24, 1997 Page 2 MINUTES Ray Herrmann moved that the minutes of March 27, 1997 be approved with the following corrections: George Reed asked that the word "should" be omitted on p. 13, paragraph 1, line 3. "My intent would be better if it is dropped," he explained. Ray Herrmann pointed out on p. 14, paragraph 1, line 6, "come" should be "some," and on p. 11, 3rd paragraph, line 4, "out" should be "our." David Lauer referred to the 2nd full paragraph on p. 10, line 4 where "City of Fort Collins" should be "City of Greeley," and on p. 16 under Other Business, John Duval's last name was misspelled. After a second from Alison Adams, the corrected minutes were approved unanimously. John Bigham distributed the Northern Colorado -Big Thompson Project reservoir and SNOTEL numbers as of April 24th. Carter is 96.73%, Horsetooth is at 89.39% and Granby is 74.66%. He mentioned that the South Platte SNOTEL sites picked up 5% in the last 24 hours. As expected, the District Board set a 500/o quota for deliveries from the Big Thompson Project. A carryover from the 1996 water year of nearly 69,000 ac-ft combined with a 50% quota, will provide an average water supply for the region. In addition, snowpack continues to be above average in both the Colorado and South Platte River Basins. On the west slope the District thought earlier that the runoff was going to be between the minimum and most probable, "now it looks like it is going to be between the most probable and the maximum," he said. He anticipates that there could be as much as 100,000 ac-ft of potential spill. "As long as we can keep the tunnel running, we will try to bring over 500-550 cfs and issue that non -charge water to the river commissioner for anybody on the east slope who can put it to beneficial use," he related. John Bartholow referred to the District minutes. He asked Mr. Bigham to explain what the significance of a section 131 contract is for the City of Greeley in terms of their change applications. "I can't give you the specifics on that," Mr. Bigham answered, "but I will find out." "That's the number the District uses to refer to a permanent contract now," Dennis Bode said. "It used to be called a Class B contract. It's normally what is used now when an entity converts its temporary use permits to a permanent contract," he explained. Mr. Bigham said he would get the exact wording for Mr. Bartholow. Board members received in their packets, background information on the Utilities' volunteer metering program, the results of a survey of unmetered customers, a compilation of what has worked and what hasn't worked in the program, metering program objectives, and the advantages and disadvantages of three proposed options. Staff recommended option C. Water Utilities Board Minutes April 24, 1997 Page 3 Wendy Williams began by introducing staff that have been involved in the metering program. Stab s objective for today's meeting was to provide background on the program, and get a recommendation from the Board regarding where they want staff to go from here. She explained that the mandatory metering program began for Fort Collins as a result of State law. It was not something that came out of the Fort Collins Water Utilities. "We were the only city of our size that didn't have a water metering program," she stated. In 1990, the Colorado General Assembly adopted HB-1106, the Water Metering Act, requiring that, within a certain period of time, all major water suppliers meter water use and bill accordingly. As a result of that Act, City Council appointed a Water Demand Management Committee composed of three Council members and three Water Board members. They looked at how the City was going to comply with that State law. They recommended that Water Utilities implement a voluntary program recognizing that to meet the deadline that was set in the State law, the City would probably have to go to a mandatory program at some time. The Committee also decided that they would like to set a date for compliance a little bit ahead of the State law "so we would have some time to catch up if we needed to." The State law required that everyone be metered by the year 2009; the City Council directed by the year 2005. "That was what the Utilities geared up to do," she said. At the time that the program was put into effect, the City was already metering all commercial and all multi -family units. "Basically what we needed to do was catch up with existing residential and duplex customers." When the program was begun, there were 19,573 customers in that category. Staff anticipated that they would need to meter about 1,300 a year, but with the exception of 1992 when 1,600 volunteered for meters, "we have lagged behind that goal." "This year we are really seeing a significant drop off, and if things continue the way they are going, we anticipate that we will install less than 800 volunteer meters in duplexes and single family units," she predicted. To date the Utilities have used a number of different methods to generate volunteers. Newspaper articles have consistently been the most effective. "However, the problem there is it is short lived." Staff has used direct mailings to the point that customers are beginning to report that they have received three of them over the years; "Do not send me another one," they say, "if I wanted to volunteer, I would have!" Staff has also had displays at the library, environmental fairs, any place that was appropriate. "Of course word of mouth is an effective way of getting the word out, but it also has its down side for customers who end up paying more," Ms. Williams concluded. "As we have watched the trend of fewer and fewer volunteers every year," she continued, "we have recognized that the time has probably come to look at some different methods." Staff began working with a consultant, a graduate student from CSU. She did a survey to generate some firm data on which to base a mandatory program. It was an 8-page survey mailed to 850 randomly selected unmetered customers; 430 were completed. Approximately 65% of unmetered customers who have Water Utilities Board Minutes April 24, 1997 Page 4 lived in the City more than 10 years are not ready to have a meter installed. Other survey results showed: • 61% have no intention of installing a meter at this time. • 60% believe that having a meter will cost them more money. • 75% are either neutral or disagree with mandatory installation. • 42% feel it is the City's responsibility to initiate meter installation. Most respondents feel it is their responsibility to initiate the process of having a meter installed, but are not yet ready to do so. • 69% believe that metering is the City's way of encouraging water conservation. "It's very clear that the City hasn't done a good job of getting the word out that it is a program mandated by the State," she acknowledged. "Yet, 66% believed that a mandatory program was going to be necessary at some time," she added. Ms. Williams related that the consultant further evaluated customer intentions to meter by adjusting the results with data from an earlier customer survey conducted at the end of 1991. The results suggest that only 1,200 additional customers were ever likely to volunteer for a meter, which would explain why it is becoming more and more difficult to generate volunteers. Ms. Williams went on to explain what the Utilities have learned from the voluntary program. What Has Worked * Having customers initiate the request for a meter. It reduces the number of phone calls and paper work and the amount of time it takes to administer it. * Hiring an in-house plumber has lead to more reliable, higher quality work and improved customer satisfaction. * Monitoring customer satisfaction with the installation process. As this may be the only contact many customers have with the Water Utilities, customers are asked to fill out a comment card after the installation has been completed. The response rate has been good, and approximately 85% of the respondents have rated the scheduling and installation process as "very good". * Using one contractor for meter pit installation simplified contracting and scheduling, and improved the quality of work "We handle the inside installations, but for the outside installations we have hired an outside contractor." Mr. Clopper asked what percentage are outside. Ms. Williams said that about 70% are inside and 30% outside. Water Utilities Board Minutes April24, 1997 Page 5 What Hasn't Worked * Recruiting a steady and adequate number of volunteers. * Optimizing operational efficiencies. "The ups and downs create problems," she said, "because you get all your volunteers in a short period of time; you want to manage your work load so you don't have to bring on additional staff, and yet you want to install the meters in a timely manner when you have requests." * Contracting with plumbing companies. Costs, plumber availability, and work quality were difficult to control. * Installing more than 1, 400 meters per year. In 1992, 1,641 volunteer meters were installed, taxing staff and resources. Approaches to Accelerate Meter Installations Ms. Williams said that staff has looked at three approaches to accelerating meter installations. Each was evaluated against the objectives of the metering program, which are: * Complete metering on schedule (December 31, 2005). That's the deadline set by City Council. * Manage costs. * Manage workload. Existing staff can handle 1,400 installations a year, if travel time between appointments is minimized. * Maintain high level of existing customer satisfaction with the process and quality of work. * Minimize employee abuse from customers who strongly object to having a meter installed. * Stagger meter installation so future maintenance will also be staggered. "The meters have a set life, and if you install all of them in one year, you could have tremendous maintenance if everyones' meters went out at the same time," she explained. She noted that regardless of which approach is selected, staff will develop a plan to inform customers and address their concerns. A consultant will help with this effort. She said that staff has invited Kevin Duggan of the Coloradoan to work with them. "He has done a great job of writing articles for us previously trying to promote the program." This option would continue the current voluntary program, but add an "incentive" to volunteer. Increases in the flat rate would be phased to motivate additional customers to volunteer. Water Utilities Board Minutes April 24, 1997 Page 6 Advantages Customers will continue to have a choice to a certain extent. The customer would initiate contact with Water Utilities, reducing repeat phone calls. Each increase would result in new "volunteers". Disadvantages * Cost of service study might be needed to justify rate increases. The City Code and City Charter have stipulations with which the Utilities would have to comply. * Increased flat rate might increase total Water Utilities revenues in excess of amount permitted by City Charter. * Intensifies the perception that metering is designed to increase revenue. * Customers may feel they are being economically coerced to meter. * It might be difficult to anticipate the number of volunteers, making it difficult to manage the workload. * Volunteers would be scattered throughout the City, making it difficult to schedule installations efficiently. This also impacts the crews that evaluate and repair curb stops. * There is the possibility that increasing the flat rate disproportionate to the metered rate, could result in the metered rate having to go up significantly when everyone is on the metered rate. "One of the things staff saw in the marketing study was that, overwhelmingly, people prefer to have a staggered rate increase," she stressed. This option would require that a meter be installed when a home changes ownership, in addition to existing marketing efforts to recruit volunteers. It is being used currently in Longmont and Denver also used it to some extent. She explained that in the original bill that went to the State General Assembly, that was what was proposed. However, the Realtors were strongly opposed to it and managed to get it removed from the bill in its final form. "What we are proposing is slightly different because we would be the ones responsible for the associated costs, but we recognize there would be some problems associated with this approach." Basically the way it would work is when a home is put on the market, either the buyer or the seller would be responsible for installing the meter in a certain period of time (Longmont uses 45 days). Advantages At the time a home changes ownership, the customer would contact the Utilities to have a meter installed. Problems associated with calling customers would be reduced. Water Utilities Board Mnutes April 24, 1997 Page 7 All new homeowners would receive metered water service, regardless of whether the home was new or existing. Disadvantages * Based on the numbers that staff looked at, there aren't enough homes being sold in our service area that are currently unmetered to make up that gap. During 1996 2,149 existing homes were sold within the City limits. There is no way of knowing how many of them are already metered or are outside our service area. * Home sales are scattered throughout the City, making it difficult to schedule installations efficiently. * Home sales fluctuate seasonally, making it difficult to manage workload. * Realtors may object. * There is no concrete way to track all home sales. (Longmont is having a difficult time with it.) This mandatory approach would result in the systematic installation of meters in the remaining unmetered single family homes. Staff is looking at dividing the City into areas at half -mile intervals, which would then be randomly selected. As areas are scheduled, customers would be notified that their "number was up" and crews would be installing meters in their neighborhood. It would then be the customer's responsibility to contact the Utilities to schedule an appointment. Crews might be working in more than one area of the City at a time. Advantages * Control over the number of homes metered each month. Plans could be made to catch up to goals. Be able to offer quality and timely service. * More efficient use of employees' time and resources. Targeting selected areas means that access and service line problems can be identified ahead of time. Travel time is reduced when working in one neighborhood at a time. * Customer notification could target the special needs of specific areas of the City. For example, letting customers who live in the older parts of town know that the Utilities has a zero interest loan program to help with the cost of replacing galvanized service lines. * Levelizes the impact on the budget and revenues. * Randomness addresses the issue of perceived equity. Water Utilities Board Minutes April 24, 1997 Page 8 Disadvantages * Customer does not have a choice. "However, in reality they don't because it's a State law," she pointed out. * It may be difficult to schedule access with homeowners who don't want a meter and therefore don't respond. Staff is looking at some ways to handle that; e.g. perhaps after 2 no responses, the meter is installed outside. * There may be some difficulties dealing with unhappy customers. * The Utilities will have more of a presence in some parts of town; e.g. curb stop repairs or replacements, where neighborhoods may be impacted. Recommendation Staff recommends proceeding as quickly as possible with Option C for all the reasons listed above. This item, with the Water Utilities Board's recommendation, is tentatively scheduled to go to City Council in June. "The longer the Utilities puts this off the more difficult it will become to catch up without having a real impact on staffing, budget, etc.," Ms. Williams stressed. Discussion Ray Herrmann asked how staff would handle the recalcitrant customers who refuse to have a meter. "When Denver Water Dept. put together their program, they anticipated that there would be some recalcitrant residents. They actually put their employees through a program with the police and set up a program to have the police there," Ms. Williams explained. Laurie D'Audney pointed out that they installed 87,000 meters and never had to involve the police. Mr. Herrmann asked if employees are prepared to work on Sundays and nights in order to work with people who can't be there during regular hours. "We have looked at expanding to some evening hours; we currently install meters one week night during the summer," Ms. Williams related. "We probably would need to consider some Saturday hours; Sunday absolutely not,"she added. "What happens if the City doesn't comply with the State's deadline, what can they do?" Tom Sanders wondered. "There are no consequences identified in the State Law," Ms. Williams replied. "What was the City's reason for setting the goal of 2005 as opposed to 2009?" Tom Brown asked. "To give us a little leeway, so we would gear up our program and complete it by 2005, but if we fell behind we'd have some catch up time," she explained. "Are there samples of the notices Denver used?" John Morris asked. "I support "C" but I'd like to know how you will explain the mandatory requirements, and what the consequences are after two no shows." "Denver actually put together quite a thick packet of their entire metering program; they had samples of their door hangers, their letters, etc. It's well documented," Ms. Williams responded. Water Utilities Board Minutes April24, 1997 Page 9 "What are the disadvantages of combining all three options?" David Lauer wondered. "The major disadvantage is the difficulty of administering several different programs at once; we'd like to keep it as simple as possible," Ms. Williams replied. The mandatory program would also take advantage of the voluntary program. "If somebody wanted to volunteer, we would still put them on the list." "Could we establish a policy, for example," Mr. Lauer continued, "that a meter be installed when a home changes ownership, on top of the mandatory?" "We could but because of the problems we've seen other cities have with this approach, we would rather not attempt it," Ms. Williams answered. "What kinds of problems?" he asked. "There is no good way of tracking home sales. Also depending on whether it was a buyer or seller responsible for the installation, other cities found that it didn't get done in a timely manner, resulting in the closing being delayed making the Utilities the `bad guy'," she explained. "It has the same problems, as mentioned earlier, that it's scattered throughout the City and also houses sell seasonally so you get an influx of volunteers at one time; it would compound the problems such as work load, etc.," Ms. D'Audney added. Alison Adams asked if it is possible to target a selected section of town with a public information/communication program so they know ahead of time what to expect. "Absolutely," Ms. Williams answered, "and that's what we plan to do." Ms. Adams thinks doing it section by section in a defined area with that kind of approach, would help, in many cases, with the buy -in of some of the people who would be giving the City a hard time. "Where there are neighborhood groups, we would be meeting separately with them," Mike Smith related. "And we can address problems related to a particular area, e.g. galvanized pipes," Ms. D'Audney pointed out. Ms. Adams reiterated that you must reach people in specific areas and address their specific problems, "and your recommendation ' C' maybe abetter way to do that." Mr. Herrmann wondered if it might be better to deliberately select a particular area for that reason, rather than selecting them randomly, so you could work logically from one area into another. "Ideally we would like to have a couple of different sections that we are working in," Ms. Williams stated. "We would like them to be scattered between the areas where there are already meter sets in the homes, where it's an easy job to install them, mixed with'other areas where there could be outside meter pits. This also helps to control the budget," Ms. Williams explained. "Although it will be randomly selected, we need to have some flexibility." "When you started out with 19,000 residential customers, how many are there today?" George Reed asked. "As of the end of March we still have 12,161 unmetered," Ms. Williams replied. "What I wanted to know is, are half the people in the City going to be ticked off?" he said. "It's 40-45% of the total unmetered customers," Ms. D'Audney said. "We are looking at total homes versus 12,000?" Mr. Herrmann offered. "The new homes are already metered," Ms. Adams pointed out. "What is the total number of residential customers?" Mr. Smith asked. "The total number of accounts is 24,163," Ms. D'Audney said. Water Utilities Board Minutes April 24, 1997 Page 10 "If we don't do anything, is the City willing to take the consequences?" David Rau asked. "That would be something the City Council would need to address," Ms. Williams replied. "If this is a problem that is being imposed on us, we seem to be given a choice here," John Barnett began. "Options A&B apparently won't work, so choose option C. There's something about that set of choices that doesn't feel right, when the Board is given the option to pick one of them. I don't feel comfortable taking that problem on and owning it under those circumstances," he asserted. "It's a mandatory program supposedly by the State, but they weren't necessarily willing to enforce it with a lot of teeth. It sounds like City Council may or may not take on the responsibility with some teeth, so it puts us in a difficult position." Mr. Herrmann pointed out that the original arguments on the Water Board started a number of years back. At that time there were 11 members, and 3 were adamantly opposed to meters under any conditions, and "at one point we agreed to never talk about meters again. At which point, the State stepped in. My opinion is that the State is getting the City to-do the right thing," he stated. "The State told us to do it because it's a water conservation measure," he stressed. "The City must get the word out that it's a conservation measure and it's mandatory, but the City is not necessarily against it," he insisted. "As far as I know, the Council supported it." Mr. Reed recalls that it was a national EPA driven measure to promote water conservation. Ms. D'Audney pointed out that she thought it came out of the Two Forks decision. Mr. Sanders thinks the most unpalatable option as far as the public is concerned is "C" because it is forced. According to the latest staff projections, we are looking at utility rates going up 6% for the next 5-6 years, "and that's not going to get a lot of support, and then we'll be doing this!" He still thinks the voluntary approach is best, particularly if people understand the issue. He noted that 60% still don't understand that metering is mandatory. He also thinks option B has potential. The fact that the Realtors are against it, isn't a reason to reject it, he insists. "Whenever a house is exchanged, it has to have a meter in it before it can get an occupancy certification; that's easily done." He added that as far as option A is concerned, "if metering is so great, then the flat rate should go up anyway, because we're saving water and money by metering." Furthermore, he contends that metering doesn't save water or money. "It's costing us a half million dollars each year to implement this program; for the nearly $6 million the City has spent on this so far, I would rather have us buy shares of Horsetooth water," he concluded. Mike Smith related that there are provisions in both the Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund and the new Drinking Water Act revolving fund that require an approved, adequate water conservation plan. Funds come through the EPA and are administered by the Colorado Water Resources and Power Authority. "I think you would have trouble proving to the State that you have such a plan in place if you aren't metering. "Is it true that we're the only city in the State that isn't metered?" Mr. Reed asked. "The only city of it's size," Mr. Smith said, "some smaller ones aren't metered." Water Utilities Board Minutes April 24, 1997 Page 11 Tom Sanders pointed out that 13% of the water in this area is for municipal supplies and 87% is for agriculture, "and there are no savings in the ag. area at all. As you know, with the Appropriation Doctrine if you save water you lose it; most people don't understand that concept. Perhaps in other states, metering may save water, but it doesn't in a state like this," he contends. He insisted that a metering program needs to be established with a minimum of public outcry, "and option C by itself is trouble." Paul Clopper said that option C is the most efficient way to proceed, "but clearly we all acknowledge that a certain percentage of the citizens are going to be upset. I assume they are randomly scattered throughout the City. With option A you're going to have to deal with those people all at once, but you're going to have to deal with them at some point anyway," he said. "In terms of the cost savings and efficiency of option C, it seems to make the most sense." Mr. Sanders agreed that it's the most efficient, but it's the worst one for public relations. Ms. Adams doesn't think C is necessarily the worst option for public relations. "I think it gives you an opportunity to target areas and talk to these people, and that would probably be more effective than holding town meetings and be lucky if you get 50 people to show up three nights in a row. With Option C you can focus on areas one by one," she stressed. Howard Goldman observed that in the long run it's going to cost the City more money if all the meters aren't installed by 2009. For the State to enforce it, it is going to have to sue the City and after a court order, the judge is going to fine the City until it comes in compliance with the State law. "That will cost the taxpayers more money," he contends. "On the other hand, we have until 2009 to try to convince somebody to change the law, and I don't see anybody doing that. If you truly think it's irrational and that metering doesn't save water, then try to convince someone to take that argument to the State legislature and try to change the law. If you can't do that, then we need to implement option C and convince people that 'they are shooting themselves in the foot' if they don't install a meter as soon as they can." John Barnett thinks there probably is a legal defense a person could make against metering and against a State law that requires metering, because of the Prior Appropriation Doctrine and therefore, you most likely would lose water rights because of it. Dave Rau agrees with Tom Sanders about conservation and agriculture. "Your money would be better spent lining laterals, and taking that water for other users," he advised. "Farmers who use trickle irrigation save water at about 70% a year," Mr. Sanders said. Mr. Rau contends that a farmer who lines his ditches is dumb if he can sell his water in five years; "you're just throwing your money away!" Dr. Sanders pointed out that if you use xeriscape, you save water, but that means you eliminate grass and trees in your front yard. He has always thought that it was a quality of life issue in this town to preserve green grass, trees and bushes. "If we want that, it doesn't make sense to go to metering," he insisted. He believes that if you're really serious about saving water, sprinkling Water Utilities Board Minutes April 24, 1997 Page 12 systems done right, used at night, and on a timer, save more water. "They should get a tax break," he said. Furthermore, he said, "what have we gained by metering? There hasn't been an increase in water supply. We may have put off construction of treatment facilities for a year or so, but what have we really gained?" he asserted. "Usually when meters are first installed, the consumption is decreased by about 20%, but within 2-5 years that goes down to 5%, than 2% and then you can't see it." "Unless this Board really wants to go back and open up the discussions from 10 years ago, I don't think we're looking at whether to do it or not, but how to do it," Paul Clopper stated. ACTION: MOTION and VOTE Alison Adams moved that the Water Utilities Board recommend Option "C" to the Council. Ray Herrmann seconded the motion. Paul Clopper called the question and asked for a show of hands of this motion because of anticipated opposition. The motion passed 9-6. David Lauer, Dave Rau, John Barnett, Tom Brown, Tom Sanders and Joe Bergquist voted against the motion for the following reasons: Tom Brown continues to believe that a volunteer program is the best way to go for now. "I don't think you end up with all of the recalcitrant people at the end with Option "B", because they're not the only people who don't sell houses. You would catch some of them along with others." True it's not as efficient as "C", he admitted, but he wasn't comfortable with a situation where you must force people to comply. "I don't think we really have to do that at this point. We have another 10 years at least to settle this issue." Joe Bergquist would like to see another option of perhaps working through the City section by section where you do as much as you can by working closely with those people who want to do it, and "move on identifying the houses that you don't have, and wait for them to be sold. This way you are focusing and not forcing anybody," he concluded. Tom Sanders said he is philosophically against water meters in an Appropriation Doctrine state and municipality. "I think the Utilities will end up getting more enemies and more trouble and more telephone calls than they need in the next few years. I also think the Council is going to get considerable heat on this," he asserted. John Barnett has trouble with using force, particularly asking the Utilities to use some rather strong tactics to get people to comply against a law that doesn't necessarily have a lot of teeth in it at the State level. He thinks a secondary issue is that we need to take a look at why there is such strong resistance to metering; try to find out what the perceptions are and correct those. "If in fact water bills do go up, that needs to be dealt with up front. There needs to be a lot of work done with those people who are feeling resistance. I also think that if the purpose behind the measure is water conservation, that there are more effective ways to do that than with metering. If we are going to Water Utilities Board Minutes April 24, 1997 Page 13 conserve water in Fort Collins, we need to look at the problems unique to Fort Collins." He thinks that an option combining the best aspects of "A" and `B" would get us to "let's say" a 90% compliance rate by maybe 2009, and part of that is related to getting out there and dealing with resistance up front. "I would be willing to take another look at option "C" in three or more years, and see if a mandatory program is necessary at that time," he concluded. "Most of my comments have already been stated," Dave Rau began, "but basically I have a problem with the mandatory program. I think we can do more with incentives, and I am philosophically opposed to metering for municipalities. We can get more bang for our buck with water savings in the agricultural field, and then transferring that water back to cities." David Lauer stated that the fact that "the Feds" are probably behind this, is one good reason why the state government is not looking at changing the law "when the EPA is standing up there like big brother. This is like a domino effect. We are standing over our constituency now and saying, 'You have to do this,' but half the people here on the Board who know anything about water say you don't have to do it. I think it's crazy!" He continued by saying that he doesn't think that any of the three options are mutually exclusive. He contends that they could be combined very easily. "It will take a little more work," he admitted, "but it would be more user friendly, and I think that's what we are here for. I think we are supposed to be here to try and serve these people who are paying a'pretty penny' for what we are giving them," he concluded. Paul Clopper was hoping to find "a few carrots in option "C", and there were just a lot of sticks. Be that as it may, I think it's crucial that the outreach program be very aggressive." He recommended a two tier approach. When a portion of town is selected, there has to be a way of working with the rest of the town too. He said he was pleased that Kevin Duggan from The Coloradoan is here today. He also suggested the use of Channel 27. "The two level approach to that outreach is crucial," he stressed. Wendy Williams related that one of the approaches the Utilities hope to use is producing a video that shows what the process is; it could be shown on Channel 27 and taken to the neighborhoods. Ray Herrmann thinks that once staff begins getting out into the neighborhoods and implementing the program, people aren't going to be so much against it. "They're just not going to volunteer. Don't forget the statistics. Many people think the City is going to be making money on it. If that's true, the word has to be spread. There are other reasons to do this; e.g. management reasons. It's not the case that 40% of the people in Fort Collins are against meters; it's simply that 40% will not volunteer," he contends. Mr. Lauer thinks that one of the ways staff can soften the -blow is to be very diligent about sending information out about this. "If there is a 20% difference in terms of the amount of money that somebody will pay when they have a meter, than they do when they are being charged a flat rate, we Water Utilities Board Minutes April 24, 1997 Page 14 really ought to make it very clear that they are going to save money." Wendy Williams responded that "a 20% reduction isn't necessarily a reduction in the cost. With the flat rate, there is no correlation between the flat rate and the amount they are using. There is a 20% reduction in what the typical flat rate customer uses, but they aren't paying based on use. George Reed commented that payment based on use is the reason that he is philosophically in favor of meters. "To me it's a cost of service and the fairness issue. Customers are paying based on what they use." Alison Adams had provided two items for Board packets: a copy of the Northern Regional Water Coalition minutes and a list of their goals/objectives. Ms. Adams would like the WUB to consider the goaWobjectives and decide which ones it can support. She hopes that each Board member will prioritize the goalslobjectives. She reported that the Coalition met again on April 9th following the NCWCD Water Users Spring Meeting and they decided that they would meet every even month; the next meeting will be June 18th. "We also decided that, for all intents and purposes, the meetings will be held at the Northern's Loveland office on the 3rd Wednesday at 1:30 p.m. Anyone is welcome to attend the meetings," she said. She went on to say that she will provide minutes of the meetings to WUB. She pointed out that the January meeting minutes were attached to her memo included in the packets. "The only other thing that members of the Coalition were asked to do was to review the responses to question 12 (22 goals and objectives that were responded to in the survey) and provide, for the next meeting, our top 3 or 4 goals/objectives." At that time she decided that she wanted input on the list from the full board as well. Ray Herrmann asked if all the people in the Coalition are all those in attendance. `Basically, yes, she replied. "It's a group that is open to anybody," she stressed. "It appears that is not necessarily the same people but the same entities are being represented each time," she added. She noted that there are Utilities staff that consistently attend. Dennis Bode suggested that the Board may want to focus on a couple of items in the list of goals/objectives that are more important to this Board: whether it's regional cooperation, establishing water banks or other major issues that are considered important. Mr. Clopper suggested that, for the May meeting, Board members rank the goals/objectives in order of importance (no. 1 being the most important and no. 22 the least), and take a straw pole at that time. Ms. Adams thought that would be good, because she didn't want to just provide her 3 or 4 recommendations to the Coalition. Mr. Clopper said that there probably will be 3 or 4 that rise to the top. John Bartholow suggested that Board members be given the opportunity to add another goal Water Utilities Board Minutes April 24, 1997 Page 15 or objective to the list. Mr. Clopper and Ms. Adams agreed. Ms. Adams added, "particularly if it is one of your top one or two issues that you think may have been missed." At the last meeting it was determined that the Board needs t6 take a head count on standing committee assignments. It was also pointed out that few of the former Storm Drainage Board members have been assigned to committees. Mr. Clopper asked first if there were existing members who no longer wished to be on a particular committee, or would like to change to another one. Two people asked to be removed from a committee because of time commitments. He then asked for volunteers for each standing committee. The revised list follows: Engineering Conservation and Public Education Tom Sanders, Chair John Barnett, Chair Joe Bergquist Ray Herrmann Randy Fischer David Lauer Dave Frick John Morris Dave Rau Legislative and Finance Water Supply Howard Goldman, Chair Tom Brown, Chair Alison Adams John Barnett John Bartholow John Bartholow Tom Sanders Dave Frick Robert Ward Bob Havis David Lauer Robert Ward Liaison Issues Howard Goldman, Chair George Reed Alison Adams Robert Ward David Lauer Note: The Chairman of the Water Utilities Board is an ex officio member of all standing committees. Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported that for March the Utilities treated 1,639 ac-ft which is about 1% above what was projected. "March was on the dry side, and it appears that April, in terms of water use, is going to be below average," he said. Water Utilities Board Minutes April 24, 1997 Page 16 ELCO Exchange Agreement Mike Smith said that the ELCO Exchange Agreement is an item he thought the Board should be informed about in terms of regional cooperation. Staff has been working with ELCO on a housing development (the Dry Creek Mobil Home Park) that is in their area, but the developer has some Josh Ames certificates that he wants to turn in. "We are trying to work out an agreement with ECLO so that they can accept the certificates and then turn them over to the City in exchange for an annual delivery of water to them. That helps ELCO and allows us to get the certificates and it also helps the developer. The Dry Creek Mobil Home Park is a development that the Council has some priority to try to get going. We were asked to help out in any way that we could," he explained. "Could you explain the motivation to get the Josh Ames certificates?" John Bartholow asked. "They are old certificates and they don't have a water quantification on them, but are based on acres. They are still sitting out there and someone could turn them in for something that would use a lot of water on an acreage someday, and the City would still have to accept them," Mr. Smith explained. "They are a liability and we would like to get them turned in if we can," he added. Bob Smith informed the Board that staff went to the Council Tuesday night with an update on the Poudre River Drainage Master Plan. The master plan is divided into two areas, flood hazard and stream stability of the River. "Part of what we heard was the do-nothing alternative regarding flood hazard is not acceptable," he said. The City would help formulate alternatives but the homeowners have the option to opt out. They can say that they don't want to use improvements to protect themselves similar to the Dry Creek Diversion where the property owners decide what they want with a vote. We want to minimize the use of levies on structural improvements and keep the areas as natural as possible. We also expect to look at soliciting funds to help with improvements and lower costs to the property owners. There are many low income residents in the flood areas. He emphasized that the plan is to use structural improvements as little as possible by keeping the areas natural as much as possible. He also pointed out that the County should be considered a partner in the area of stream stability. George Reed also attended the Council work session. He mentioned that the Mayor asked for a work session before this item goes to the Council in the fall. He thinks the Council narrowed down some of the direction of the plan, which means that staff will have fewer alternatives to evaluate. "I think it has given us some direction for the Poudre River through the City from College down to Harmony," he said. Eventually the Water Utilities Board will be asked to provide their recommendation to the Council. Mr. Clopper asked when this will be brought to the Board. "We are looking at this fall some time which is when we go back to the Council," Bob Smith replied. "The next step is to get input from the property owners and provide them with some options. It probably will be at least a couple of months before we bring this to the Board," he concluded. Water Utilities Board Minutes April 24, 1997 Page 17 Molly Nortier pointed out the article in the Utilities newsletter on Flood Awareness Week activities scheduled for May 12-18. Bob Smith explained some of the various activities. 201 Study Update Last month Gale McGaha Miller reported that the consultant was working on plant capacity issues and collection system capacity. "That is 99% completed," she said. They have moved on to evaluating management alternatives among the various entities to determine what might serve all of them best. "We are still on schedule for late spring or early summer for public participation," she concluded. Mr. Clopper mentioned that there was an article about Boxelder Sanitation District in the Coloradoan recently. A brief discussion followed. Water Utilities 1996 Annual Report Each Board member had received a copy of the Water Utilities 1996 Annual Report. Mike Smith once again commended staff member Diana Royval for doing an excellent job on the report. Board members agreed that it was indeed a fine job. "She's making it more thorough and less expensive each year," Mr. Smith remarked. Paul Clopper wondered what it costs to produce the report each year. "About 5 or 6 years ago, when we added some color, it was running about $3600 and now it's down to about $1600," Mr. Smith replied, "and that's for 200 copies." Ms. Nortier pointed out that the former Water Board and former Storm Drainage annual reports are included in the back of the Utilities report. MGM I UV tott ' • Water Supply Chairman Tom Brown reported that the full membership of both the Water Supply Committee and the Liaison Issues Committee met on April loth. Also in attendance were John Barnett and staff Dennis Bode and Beth Voelkel. He handed out copies of his summary of the meeting. Mr. Brown said that most of the meeting was devoted to the question of whether the City's current water supply policy as articulated in Resolution 88-205 is sufficient to meet today's needs. The resolution specifies in part that the City will maintain sufficient water rights and related storage and delivery capacity to meet the City's water needs in a least a 1-in-550 drought and that the raw water requirement be set to maintain the 1-in-50 supply as additional units are added to the City's water delivery obligation. In other words, as new water using units are added to the City through development, the Raw Water Requirement (RWR) will be set to maintain that 1-in-50 supply. Essentially, that is part of the "growth pays its own way" approach which means that growth provides water as it occurs. "It was characterized at the meeting as the auto -pilot approach to water supply, because it allows the water supply to increase when growth occurs through the efforts of the developer." Water Utilities Board Minutes April24, 1997 Page 18 The Committee discussed whether that policy needs any change and whether the City should be actively involved in efforts, now being discussed, to establish some kind of water bank or to otherwise make an effort to purchase additional water now while it's cheaper so that it would be available later when needed. "There are a number of ways that could happen." The Committee discussed whether doing that would somehow affect the current policy of letting growth provide the water when that growth occurs. "After a long discussion of that topic, we did not articulate a specific reason why the City should change its policy and become directly involved in a water bank or a related effort to purchase water over and above what the City currently needs in its current 1-in-50 supply policy. We will certainly revisit the topic in the future, but at this point, we didn't end up with a specific reason to pursue a change." However, in the course of all that discussion, he thinks there was recognition and general agreement in the meeting that perhaps water supply, as it is currently discussed, meaning domestic, commercial, industrial and park supply, is somewhat limited, and perhaps should be broadened to include environmental uses of water. The one specific example brought up at the meeting was in -stream flows in the Poudre for the City for aesthetic needs, recreational needs, water dilution and for aquatic habitat. The underlying reasoning is that the Water Utilities Board and the Water Supply Policy should be based on improving the general quality of life of the City residents, and not necessarily limited to the water that's actually used in the home, business, industry or in the parks. "There seemed to be general agreement but we didn't end up with any specific recommendation to the larger Board at this time," he said. The Committee scheduled a meeting for May 8th to discuss that topic in more detail. He noted that the discussion of environmental uses of water, raised the question about whether the name Water Utilities Board is really broad enough to indicate these larger uses, and whether the Board's mission is explicit in encompassing that additional use of water. "We didn't think we should be restrained by either the name or the mission at this point," he remarked. At the end of the meeting, the Committee discussed briefly, Robert Ward's draft "white paper," which includes a good introduction to the whole area of water supply, and a list of more specific topics that could be discussed in detail. Mr. Ward will provide a revised draft of the paper at the next meeting and will be glad to receive input from any Board members who would like to review the current draft. David Lauer mentioned the importance of the name of the Board and wondered if perhaps the Water Utilities Board name is too technical. Paul Clopper mentioned that there has been some talk about using the name Water Resources Board instead. Dave Rau said that's what he always calls it internally. "It's really what it is," someone added. "Is there anything to report on the ownership limitations for CBT water that the Northern District is working on?" John Barnett asked. "We didn't get into that," Mr. Brown replied. Paul Clopper said that he, John Bartholow and Dave Frick are working on a draft letter to send to the District Board. That should be available for the May meeting. Mr. Bartholow asked if Mike Smith has found out what the protocol is for the Board sending letters to other Boards. "I checked with the City Manager Water Utilities Board Minutes April 24, 1997 Page 19 and the City Attorney," Mr. Smith replied. Their suggestion was to get the Council liaison involved by showing him the letter the Board would like to send and asking him to check it out with the Mayor for her approval. "If the Board wants to send something, it is good to have the Council and/or Mayor review it, since the Board is advisory to the Council." He added that if it's from the Board there should be a consensus of the Board by a vote, and then allow Chuck Wanner to review it and he can clear it with the Council and/or Mayor. "Surely requesting that the District broaden their policy to make it more flexible, not only for us, but for some others as well, is important," John Bartholow stated. "The other possibility is that the Mayor may want to send it under her signature," Mr. Smith said. Mr. Clopper said a draft of the letter would be available to the Board in May. Mr. Smith said that perhaps he and Paul Clopper and Chuck Wanner could follow up on that. Tom Sanders thinks that the Mayor and Council should be involved in this to get some political push on it, "or I don't think it's going to go anywhere," he asserted. "Another suggestion which Tom Sanders alluded to," Mike Smith began, "is if you want to have more involvement with Council, you might suggest to them that they adopt a resolution in support of the position. It depends on how heavy you want it." "I think that's a good idea," Mr. Sanders said. Legislative and Finance No report Conservation and Public Education No report Liaison Issues Met with Water Supply Committee Tom Sanders reported that the Engineering Committee met recently to discuss the Proposed Water Treatment Master Plan. "We had an excellent presentation by Kevin Gertig on the Water Treatment Master Plan Improvements," he stated. Mr. Gettig took the committee through each item on a list of 25 projects. Committee members emerged with the feeling that all the items were justifiable. Mike Smith mentioned that each member of the Board received a copy of the information which was discussed by the Engineering Committee, and Board members were welcome to come to the meeting if they wished. Mr. Smith said the question for the Board today is how they would like to proceed. The recommendation from the Engineering Committee was to proceed. "If you, as a Board, would like Water Utilities Board Minutes April 24, 1997 Page 20 more information on this, staff can schedule another presentation in May. After this the plan will be presented to a City Council study session on May 27th," he explained. "Obviously, we would like a recommendation from the Board. If the Board would like to delay this in order to have more information, staff could plan a session with the Council in June, July or August," he added. Mr. Smith said that one of the biggest issues, and the most expensive, is the raw water pipeline which the Board has discussed at past meetings. "That's an extremely important project in terms of reliability for the City," he stressed. With participation by regional entities, the cost to the City is reduced. "You, as Board members need to feel comfortable that we are headed in the right direction. Staff isn't very comfortable telling citizens that, with the current situation, we will have enough treated water if something unusual should happen." Regarding the treatment plant issue, stafrs feeling is that improvements need to be made in order to continue with the program we have developed over the years, of providing the citizens with high quality water and a reliable water supply. Water Treatment staff is on the leading edge of all of this. "We want to give our citizens the highest quality water we can at the most reasonable cost," he stated. "To do that we need to keep things up to the best standards." Kevin Gertig, from the Water Treatment Facility, encouraged Board members to visit the plant and experience first hand the proposed changes at the facility. Staff has put considerable effort into this plan, he explained, and with the change of consultant, we are far more confident, he assured the Board. "We are trying our best to do our homework, and perhaps initiate some savings," he added. Mke Smith also stressed the importance of trying to visit the facility. "Staff members will adjust their schedules to yours," he said. Dr. Sanders recalled that one of the items was the possibility of buying more land from CSU. "We are waiting for the attorneys to reach agreement on that," Mr. Smith replied. Dr. Sanders is somewhat concerned about "putting all of our eggs in one basket"at that one plant. "At one time we envisioned having two production operations; one at the Soldier Canyon Plant and the other at the mouth of the Poudre Canyon," he said. I understand we are now committed to the one plant which requires that we construct the raw water pipeline," he acknowledged. "It doesn't foreclose that option," W. Smith assured Mr. Sanders. "We can always, 15-20 years from now, look at the possible option of an additional facility." He stressed that the work that is being proposed now is not a major expansion. He also emphasized that the City has a large investment in the current facility. "Years ago the Council debated the issue of one or two plants when we moved out of the Canyon," he pointed out. "They decided to do what we are doing now; that doesn't mean that we'can't revisit it." David Lauer asked if the main reason for the pipeline is to increase the volume of raw water supply. "There are two purposes: one is reliability. There are times in the year now when, if something major (transmission problem from Horsetooth) occurred, we wouldn't have enough water to serve the community. "The second reason is that we have a number of existing water rights in the Southside Water Utilities Board Minutes April24, 1997 Page 21 Ditches that we can't take out right now without additional capacity out of the River. We can't exchange them but they are there and we own them. Through changes in use we need to get that water through the pipe. During average or wet years we -don't need them, but if we had a severe drought, we would have to use every drop of water we have, and we can't get it to the plant," he stressed. "Another reason is that some sections of the existing pipe are in questionable condition," Paul Clopper pointed out. "Some of that pipe was laid in 1924-25, but it's still in pretty good shape," Ben Alexander explained, "but we have 20 mgd. diversion capacity off the River right now. Those pipelines cross the River in several places. If we had a major flood we could lose the ability to divert anywhere off the Poudre; we would be relying totally on Horsetooth." Also, our neighboring plant at Horsetooth doesn't have the ability to use Poudre water. If we lose the Horsetooth outlet we must try to supply their needs as well as ours, and it's just getting too tight to do that," he asserted. "In the winter when the Horsetooth outlet is out, together we use more than 20 mgd," Mr. Smith said. "We are using 16-18 mgd. and the rest of the capacity is needed by the Districts. In the summer, if the outlet goes out, we would be in a real bind." David Lauer said, "so this isn't going to replace the existing line. We will have to repair that too?" "It's going to be in the same service also," Mr. Smith replied. "If it ever went out, we would have a backup, even though it will cross the River too. Replacing one River crossing where you can get to it is a lot different from trying to rebuild that line at the Canyon. "Think about the Big Thompson flood and trying to rebuild the pipelines after what happened to that intake." Paul Clopper called for a decision. He asked if everyone had enough information to vote one way or the other or would they like to wait for further information. ACTION: MOTION AND VOTE Ray Herrmann moved that the Board accept the staff recommendation to go ahead with the plan. After a second from Tom Brown, the Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Reduction in Board Size Issue Mike Smith reported that Council adopted a procedure late last year on how the Board will be reduced in size to 11 members. It takes three members of the Council to hear this issue if there is a request to change it. "What the Board needs to do formally, is to request that Chuck Wanner, the Council Liaison, take a recommendation from the Board on this issue to two Council members who will agree to address it.