Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 03/23/19900 • Water Board Minutes March 23, 1990 Members Present Henry Caulfield, President, Tom Sanders, Vice President, Neil Grigg, Dave Stewart, Ray Herrmann, Terry Podmore, Tim Dow, Tom Brown, Marylou Smith, Mark Casey, (alt.), Paul Clopper (alt.) Guests John Bigham, Agency Coordinator, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Staff Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Andy Pineda, Wendy Williams, Jim Clark, Molly Nortier Member Absent Tom Moore President Henry Caulfield opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Minutes The minutes of February 16, 1990 were approved as distributed. John'Bigham distributed the Snow - Precipitation update. He said that unfortunately, most of the snow that has fallen on the western slope has been relatively dry. Granby Reservoir is between 17-20% of active capacity, which means there are about 70,000 AF left in it that is usable; the balance is dead storage. Currently the tunnel is shut down for repairs, etc. The numbers from the South Platte Basin look good but they have been dropping: the last three days, 1-2% per day. The biggest concern is that so much of the soil moisture was depleted last year, that a large portion of the snow melt this year will be absorbed by the soil to bring the moisture content back up. The Northern District Board will be meeting on April 13 to set the quota, among other things. Mr. Bigham encouraged Water Board members to attend. It begins at 9:00. He also announced the Spring Water Users meeting on April 11 at the University Park Holiday Inn. Each Board member had received a copy of the agenda. Andy Pineda added the City's perspective to the water supply situation. He said that the situation appears to be improving significantly from what it was a month ago. At Cameron Pass and Joe Wright, conditions are currently favorable. He also pointed out that there are still two months left when precipitation is usually heavy. Water Board Minutes March 23, 1990 Page 2 Agreement with Fort Collins -Loveland Water District Board members received copies of the agreement to review prior to the meeting. Mike Smith summarized the major provisions of the agreement: 1) It provides for a one way sale of treated water from the City to the District. 2) The time frame for the sale includes the next four summers: 1990, 91, 92, and 93. 3) It provides for a maximum of 3 MGD for the District. 4) It is expected that the District will only buy water during the summer months. 5) There will be two points of delivery: one on Lemay Ave. near Harmony Rd. which exists today, and a proposed connection on Taft Hill near Horsetooth Rd. The cost of those connections will be at District expense. 6) Cost of service price as determined by staff, is E.51 1/2 cents per 1,000 gallons. Dave Stewart asked what it costs the City to produce that. Water production cost is approximately 17-18 cents. 7) The District will supply its own raw water. Mr. Smith said that the issue for the Board's consideration is whether, over the 4-year period, the City should include an increase provision. He suggested that the provision could state that the District's rate would increase the same percent as the general rate for the City. The Board concurred with his suggestion. Mr. Smith reminded the Board that this is an interim agreement until the District completes their treatment plant expansion. Henry Caulfield expressed concern about the City's capacity for the next few years. The City is expanding to 74 MGD peak capacity, soon, he said. "How are we for the next 4-5 years?" "We would have plenty of leeway up to about 1993," Mike Smith replied, "but we don't want to go much past that," He added,"that's assuming the present rate of growth." Mr. Caulfield pointed out that the peak day for 1989 was 60.6 MGD, and the District's portion would be added to that. "A hot dry year, or some kind of malfunction at the plant could cut it pretty close." Dave Stewart asked if the City has first right of refusal. In paragraph 3 of the agreement, Paul Eckman has stated that if the City fails to deliver, the District shall indemnify the City and hold us harmless from any actions or claims. To answer Mr. Caulfield's concern, when the modifications at the treatment plant are completed in April we will have four production lines, so if we had mechanical failure, presumably it would just be in one line, not all four, Mike Smith explained. Water Board Minutelb • March 23, 1990 Page 3 Tim Dow asked if we will be required to install any additional lines. "At the other point of connection on Taft Hill Rd., they will have to put in some lines to get to that point," Mr. Smith replied, "and the District will own those lines." Mr. Dow suggested a modification on p. 4 the last sentence of section 4 where it reads: "The City shall provide, own and maintain the metering devices used at the two points of delivery," add that the District will own any other lines, etc. installed during the agreement, so they are liable for them. Mr. Caulfield reminded the Board that the timing of this agreement relates to the fact that the City is considering a regional plant with the District. The new plant will come on line and make this unnecessary 3 or 4 years from now. Ray Herrmann moved that the Water Board accept the agreement with the changes suggested: The changes related to provisions for an escalator clause for rate increases, and that the District will own any lines installed during the agreement. After a second from Dave Stewart, the motion passed unanimously. Letter from Thornton "Now that Thornton has completed their engineering study, they are willing to talk about their plans," Mike Smith related. Mr. Smith has spoken with their utility director, and he is willing to have their staff meet with the Fort Collins Water Board. "Thornton wants to get to court and get it settled," he added. Dennis Bode mentioned that staff has received the engineering reports on the Thornton project. Henry Caulfield proposed that the Water Board approach this from the point of view that they plan to organize themselves to cope with the problem. "Have we hired our attorney for this who specializes in water court proceedings?" he asked. Mike Smith replied that Mike Shimmin has been hired. The next question is what role the Water Board will have in its committees, Mr. Caulfield said. He asked if the City Council has said how they are going to handle themselves in relation to this. We haven't had any word on that yet. Tim Dow stated that he wishes to be on the record that he is a counsel of record for some of the parties to the Thornton law suit. "If we are going to discuss what the City ought to do from the strategy standpoint, even though our clients' interests are pretty well lined up with the City's, I probably shouldn't participate in that," he said. Water Board Minutes March 23, 1990 Page 4 "From what we will be discussing today, I don't think it has any bearing on what my perception of conflict of interest is," Mr. Caulfield responded. Other Water Board members with possible conflicts: Dave Stewart is working on water quality aspects for Water Supply and Storage Co. Tom Moore was recently elected president of Water Supply & Storage Co. Tom Sanders is involved in doing a project for the City of Thornton. Ray Herrmann asked if Phases 1, 2 and 3, as Thronton presented them in their letter, are accurate, what are the ramifications for the City? Mr. Caulfield said one of the issues probably would be the practicality of the return flow. Dave Stewart asked what the cost projection is on an acre foot basis. Phase 1 is about $4500, was the answer. Mr. Caulfield went on to say that if they weren't having the return flow, the only thing they would be able to transfer would be the consumptive use. "They are trying to get around that by having a return flow, so they are hoping to get the wet water equivalent for the whole amount. As he sees it, the attorney's problem is to protect the situation, so if they didn't have the return flow, they would get only a right to the prior consumptive use of that water. Mike Smith suggested two options for the Board to think about: 1) Staff is examining the Thronton engineering report; the attorney and consultant are also looking at it. When all of them have finished their appraisal of the report, staff could bring the issues that have been identified, to a Water Board committee. 2) Staff could also make copies of the lengthy report for a Committee to examine and see if they concur with the issues that staff, the attorney and the consultant come up with. After the issues have been identified, the next step would be to develop a strategy with the attorney and the consultant as to how to approach it. There may be other entities with whom the City may be cooperating in the law suit; such as the Northern District. Paul Clopper asked if staff has identified any of the other potential objectors and tried to look for any areas of commonalty and provide a united stance. "We have done some of that," Mr. Smith responded. "We will probably be seeing one effort by the City, the Northern District and PRPA to try share in some of the expense in evaluating the report," he said. "This is the first time any of us have seen what's going on, so we aren't yet aware of how it will impact us," he added. Water Board Minute March 23, 1990 Page 5 In terms of the time frame, Thornton is anticipating being in water court in the fall. "Is that going to happen?" Paul Clopper asked. "They are trying to railroad it," Mike Smith contends. Our attorneys and other attorneys will say that's too soon and ask for more time, he assured the Board. John Bigham verified that the first thing the District plans to do is ask the judge for at least two more years. The Thornton document is at least 600 pages long, and somewhat confusing and unorganized, he said. If we think in terms of staff and the attorney doing the basic research, then the question is which members of the Board could constitute a special committee? Henry Caulfield began. A Thornton Strategy Committee was appointed: They were Neil Grigg, Paul Clopper, Tom Brown and Ray Herrmann when he is available. Paul Clopper agreed to be chairman. Staff will consult with the committee when there is something to report. It will probably be 6-8 weeks before any preliminary information will be available. A Demand Management Committee has been created by the City Council as a result of the bill in the legislature that would require meters state-wide. The three Council members selected to serve on the committee are Bob Winokur, Dave Edwards and Susan Kirkpatrick. Wendy Williams brought the Board up to date on the status of the state legislation on meters. The bill has passed through both houses. There were a couple of amendments during the process. At first the bill contained a requirement that by Sept. 1, 1990, whenever there was a transfer of property, a meter would be installed. The customer would be charged for the installation as a part of the closing costs. The realters objected to that, so it was re -worked. The way it reads now, by the year 2000, 50% of existing facilities must be metered; by the year 2005, 50% of the remaining unmetered service connections should be metered; and by the year 2009, all existing facilities should be metered. Any new construction must be metered beginning July 1, 1990. The bill will go next to a conference committee. Any time you have amendments made in the second house, you are required to have a conference committee, made up of 3 members from both house and senate, Once they come up with a recommendation it goes back to full house and senate for concurrence. Then it goes to the governor's office. "It appears that the bill will pass soon," Ms. Williams predicted. The Water Board members that President Caulfield selected to serve on the Demand Management Committee with the three Council members were Neil Grigg, MaryLou Smith and Tom Moore. "They were heavily involved with the metering issue a few years ago --each with a different stance," Mr. Caulfield related. Water Board Minutes March 23, 1990 Page 6 Mr. Caulfield recommended existing reports on the subject of demand management for members who are relatively new to the Water Board. He also suggested that any Board member who is interested, may attend the committee meetings, although they probably will not be able to participate in the decision making process. Tom Brown and Terry Podmore were interested in attending, possibly as alternates. MaryLou Smith, having been a member of a previous Council/Water Board committee, didn't think that would be a workable plan. "It's difficult enough for six people to come to agreement without the addition of new ideas when a new person is present," she believes. She thinks it is better for the person who must be absent to catch up on what has transpired at the meeting that was missed. Mike Smith remarked that the Council/Water Board Water Supply Committee worked very well, and now the Wastewater Master Plan Committee has been very effective also. Both committees have been very helpful to staff by providing perspective, focus and direction. Molly Nortier explained that minutes of the joint committee meetings are sent to all Water Board members so they are kept aware of what has happened at the last meeting as well as a preview of what is going to be discussed at the following meeting. Mr. Caulfield suggested that if there is a particular issue that staff thinks the Board should discuss before a final decision is made by the committee, they should feel free to bring it before the full Board. Paul Clopper asked if the metering bill says anything about having to read the meters once they are installed. "No, it doesn't," Wendy Williams responded. Mr. Caulfield requested that copies of the final legislation be distributed to all Board members. Mike Smith anticipates that the first meeting of the Demand Management Committee will be arranged within the next 2-3 weeks. Staff Reports Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported there was nothing unusual in the treated water production numbers that the Board received. The heavy snow that the City received recently, will reduce demand. "Sometimes we see lawn watering as early as March and April," he said. Mr. Caulfield asked about rentals. Once the Northern District sets the quota, and we look at our reservoir supply, etc., staff will look at rental possibilities, Mr. Bode explained. "We have had a large number of requests to rent water this year," he added. Water Board Minutes' • March 23, 1990 Page 7 Committee Reports Legislative and Finance Committee Wendy Williams reported that there is one basin bill that has never emerged from the first committee. The chances are it will be withdrawn, she said. Neil Grigg asked the status of the "State Engineer" bill. "It's still in the original committee," Ms. Williams replied. It has been heard several times but never voted on. In the latest version they are considering creating a new commission, referred to as the Water Resources Commission, which the state engineer would report to. When it was originally drafted, the Water Conservation Board was the entity that would make all the decisions and the State Engineer would have reported to the director of that board. Tom Brown asked what legal standing the state has to force the issue of metering. Tim Dow explained that they determine that it is a matter of state-wide concern. It's the legal justification of imposing it on home rule cities and others, he added. Mr. Brown continued: Denver uses their water and we use ours; how can the state argue that it's a state-wide concern? "The state argument is based on water conservation policy," Ms. Williams replied. Neil Grigg suggested that Fort Collins could file suit and test the constitutionality of the legislation. Henry Caulfield contends that the City Council would not choose to test this. Engineering Committee Chairman Dave Stewart reported that they are in the process of reviewing the Wastewater Master Plan study. "Staff and their consultants have done an admirable job on the study," he stated. There will be a report for the April Water Board meeting, he said. Other Business Mr. Caulfield asked about the status of Halligan Reservoir. Mr. Smith said that he and Dennis Bode have been working with the North Poudre Board. Paul Eckman is preparing a first draft of an arrangement or an agreement that might be presented to their board. What is the yield in relationship to the cost? Mr. Caulfield asked. The Woodward/Clyde report didn't get into the yield, Mr. Bode replied. "It seems to me we ought to look at that question," Mr. Caulfield asserted, "before we get very far in discussing legal contracts." Mr. Smith said, "that will go right along with it." Water Board Minutes March 23, 1990 Page 8 Dave Stewart explained that Woodward/Clyde's report was just a first effort to determine if it's worthwhile to go further. In that report we decided it was worthwhile to go on and: 1) extend the contract for another year with North Poudre; and 2) have Dennis Bode and Andy Pineda look at the 3 different sizes. Mr. Bode remarked that staff has gone far enough with their analysis to feel comfortable with the yield. "What about that way of getting more yield versus other alternatives we might have? Mr. Caulfield asked. "We haven't met with staff yet to review all of those numbers," Dave Stewart concluded. "You have all seen in the minutes my update on the NRA Task Force proceedings," Mr. Caulfield began. The report is out and the Water Board secretary will get copies to Board members. The main focus is on a local development of a water management museum and educational project at the Power Plant, and possibly, in the future, a cooperative effort with Greeley on a National Heritage Corridor concept. There was nothing new on the Wilderness legislation. At this point the Board went into executive session to discuss legal issues. The meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m.