Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 09/15/19940 • WATER BOARD MINUTES September 15, 1994 3:00 P.M. - 4:12 P.M. Water and Wastewater Utility Conference Room 700 Wood Street COUNCIL LIAISON Gerry Horak MEMBERS PRESENT Neil Grigg, President, Marylou Smith, Vice President, Tom Brown, Terry Podmore, John Bartholow, Dave Frick, Paul Clopper, Tim Dow, Howard Goldman STAFF Wendy Williams, Dennis Bode, Ben Alexander, Curt Miller, Scott Harder, Molly Nortier GUEST George Reed, Citizen Observer MEMBERS ABSENT Ray Herrmann, Dave Stewart Vice President Marylou Smith opened the meeting and conducted the meeting until President Neil Grigg arrived. The following items were discussed: MINUTES Dave Frick moved that the minutes of August 19, 1994 be approved as distributed. John Bartholow seconded the motion, and the Board unanimously voted to approve the minutes. UPDATE:NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT No report CONSTRUCTION WATER RATES Background information was sent to Board members in their packets about this item. Scott Harder reminded the Board that a couple of months ago staff brought the issue of construction water rates to the Board. He explained that a temporary construction rate; of 1/2 the applicable flat rate or minimum metered rate charge for the size of the metered tap, is currently being charged for premises under construction, starting on the date the permit is validated. Water Board Minutes September 15, 1994 Page 2 The reason staff has asked the Board to review this item is because there have been a number of equity concerns raised about the construction rates, and there is also some difficulty administering the program. Mr. Harder called the Board's attention to item 3 on page 2 of the summary. There are several reasons why administration of temporary construction rates is difficult. First, the W&WW Utility often must enter into a temporary billing relationship with the developer of the property. Upon installation of the meter, the Utility begins billing the owner of the premises. The Finance and Accounting Dept. logs several transactions to set up and close-out the accounts. In some cases, bills to developers have become past due and ultimately uncollectible. The second reason is that construction rates are sometimes charged prior to a water tap being in place. This occurs primarily in infill development. Developers of in -city lots have the option of delaying all fees except the foundation and footing (F&F) fee, thereby delaying the monthly construction rate. Developers of outside -city lots are required to pay all utility fees prior to the county issuing an F&F permit. Also, there have recently been a few federally funded multiple family housing projects which, as a condition of financing, require that all paper work be submitted and fees paid prior to each phase of construction. And third, in the case of multi -family developments, construction rates may not equitably reflect the cost of water used during construction. For instance, the monthly construction rate for a four-plex is $16.82. That is almost three times the $5.99 monthly rate for a single family dwelling. It is unlikely that the amount of water used during construction of a four-plex is that much greater than the amount used for a single family dwelling. Staff did an informal survey of development and construction people in the community to gage water use during construction, and discovered that there is justification for the charge. "In a nutshell, the last time we came to you, we suggested looking at a couple of options: either discontinuing the fees, which can raise up to $20,000 in a good year, or collect a fixed amount at the time the permit is issued," Mr. Harder stated. The second option is the one that staff is recommending the Board adopt today; namely that we collect a fixed construction water charge at the time a permit is issued and adjust the multi -family rate to reflect the meter size rather than the number of units. The amount of the temporary construction rate would remain at one-half the applicable minimum monthly charge for each size meter. Duplex structures would be charged the same rate as single family structures. There would be a new line item on the permit charging for three months of construction rates. There is a cost of service type component to these rates, Mr. Harder explained. It's not only the use of water for things like washing down equipment, keeping down dust, mixing cement, etc. on the site. There is also a "readiness to serve" component to these rates. When construction begins on a site, the Water Utility puts into motion a number of things to get the system ready L u Water Board Minutes September 15, 1994 Page 3 to serve the customer, and there are associated costs. Staff feels there is a solid cost basis for the fee. Staff recommends that construction rates for multi -family structures be based on the size of the meter rather than the current practice of charging based on the number of dwelling units. "If the construction was unnecessarily protracted, would a fixed fee necessarily cope with that situation?" Terry Podmore asked. "No, if we were looking at a lot of those situations where construction was inordinately protracted, there might be a concern, but we don't find that to be the case," Mr. Harder explained. "Often a contractor will opt to rent water via a hydrant meter for increased volume and water pressure, so they are paying for their water use," Wendy Williams explained. To give you an example of the magnitude of the proposed change, we have a large project that just paid permit fees last week. They will be building approximately 140 units, and we looked at what they would be paying over the course of construction. They would pay a rate of about $1020 a month in construction rate monthly fees, as opposed to what is being proposed now, a one time charge of $1200 based on all their 2 inch meters. And the developer will be paying for water via a hydrant meter. This really wasn't much of an issue previously because for large multi -family developments, they staggered their fees. Under the HUD construction, they are required to pay all of their fees up front. Neil Grigg asked if staff has had feedback from people in the construction area. "Yes," Ms. Williams replied. There have been a number of recent examples, and she cited those. There haven't been major concerns among single family type developments; it's primarily multi -family development. "This is just for residential development; how do you handle commercial development?" Tim Dow asked. "For commercial we use hydrant meters which record consumption," Mr. Harder replied. "If they were charged up front they wouldn't get a hydrant meter?" Dr. Grigg wondered. They would still pay based on consumption, Ms. Williams replied. With a hydrant meter, they get a bill when we take the meter out and look at the total use. "So they get hit with two charges, the first charge and when the meter is disconnected," Dr. Grigg reiterated. "I guess I'm getting confused between these two issues you're bringing up," Tom Brown began: one is the overcharging of the multi -unit development, and the other is the issue of how to bill for construction water. How much of the problem goes away if you just amend the inequity towards the multi -units? If you dealt with that by adjusting the rates to more adequately reflect how much water is actually being used during construction, then have you dealt with the issue? If not, what problem is remaining? "We don't have a good feel for the amount of water that is Water Board Minutes September 15, 1994 Page 4 being used during the period the construction rate is being billed," Ms. Williams acknowledged. Generally hydrant meters are only used during construction of large projects," she pointed out. "So the typical small development would have a construction water charge assessed at the time a permit was issued?" Dr. Grigg clarified, "and they wouldn't have a hydrant meter. How would they get their water, from a hydrant or from a tap that was installed?" "A tap," Mr. Harder replied. "So the charges would be picked up through the regular billing?" Dr. Grigg continued. They would be charged the construction rate through the regular bill process until the time a meter was installed, Ms. Williams replied. Dave Frick asked when the meter is installed. "Usually the meter is set toward the end of the construction period," Mr. Harder said. In the meantime they would use water through the tap. If the Board takes an action to recommend this, will it then go to Council? Dr. Grigg asked. "Yes," replied Ms. Williams, "it would require an ordinance to implement this policy." Tim Dow moved that the Water Board recommend to City Council that the Water Utility collect a fixed fee for construction water and charge the multi -family construction rate to reflect the meter size rather than the number of units. Paul Clopper seconded the motion. Mr. Dow added that it makes sense to him to have this kind of policy. "Is this an alternative to the hydrant meters?" Terry Podmore asked. He didn't see the hydrant meter mentioned anywhere. Is it an either or situation? "Isn't it the case that this would occur only if there isn't a hydrant meter?" Tim Dow asked. "But it doesn't say that," Mr. Podmore insisted. "It's fine with me to amend the motion," Mr. Dow said. Mr. Harder said it is probably worth clarifying. "So at the time someone takes out a permit they have option a or b; and they can choose which one they want?" Paul Clopper asked. Ms. Williams stated that staff hadn't looked at the status of the hydrant meter very closely. The problem again is not knowing what their normal use would be and if a one time charge would be adequate, particularly for an extended project that was delayed. Staff probably would rather look at something that was a one time fee and then some charge that was based on the final meter reading on the hydrant meter. Dave Frick pointed out that someone might say, "I want just a hydrant meter; I don't want to have to pay $1000 up front." "So we may not want to give them an either or choice," Mr. Dow suggested. "I think for large construction we would want to have a fee that was based on the meter size, and then also a charge for the use of water." Mr. Podmore thinks that needs to be specified. Dave Frick suggested charging a one time fee based on the size of the service and then issuing a hydrant meter to those developers who want one. The contractor who is building 10 houses could get a hydrant meter too if he wanted to," he added. If they use a lot of water they should be paying for it. Mr. Podmore asked if staff needs to re -draft the recommendation and bring it back to Board, or does staff have enough of a sense of the Board's concerns to modify the approach? Ms. Water Board Minutes September 15, 1994 Page 5 Williams stated that her preference would be to have the Board approve the concept and have staff resolve the issue of double billing for construction water. Staff will update the Board on this issue at the next meeting. Staff was asked to clarify that for the record. President Grigg called for the question. The vote for the amended motion was unanimous. STAFF REPORTS Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported that water use for the month of August was about 87% of what was projected. Precipitation was above average for August; two good rains lowered the demand. For the year we are close to 100% of what was projected. Financial Status Report Scott Harder reported that the water side operating revenue is about 6% above where it was last year. "We are beginning to see the effect of a hot summer," he said. For operating revenue on the wastewater side, which is essentially revenues from rates, we are 5 % above last year. Plant Investment Fees (PIFs), which reflect new construction, are about 35 % above where they were last year on the water side. On the wastewater side PIFs are 67.9% above last year's fees. "It appears that things are not slowing down in new construction; the amount of PIFs has reached a record level. " "Have you done any projections of future growth, or anything interesting that we could learn from all that?" Dr. Grigg asked. "I would be willing to do that for you," Mr. Harder replied. "I just thought it might be interesting," Dr. Grigg responded. "Do you think growth will continue at this pace?" "It looks like we are actually seeing growth year around; three or four years ago it slowed down in the winter," Mr. Harder said. Actually last year was a very good year, and we are significantly ahead of that this year, Ms. Williams remarked. Forest Service Special Use Permit Update As was reported earlier, the records of decision were issued at the end of July for the special use permits that were up for consideration, Dennis Bode said. That began a 45-day appeal period which ended this week. "You may have read the article in the Coloradoan this morning about the appeals to the Forest Service decision," he said. Both the City of Greeley and Water Supply & Storage Co. filed appeals as well as several environmental groups. Greeley and WSSC felt that they needed to preserve some rights. As far as the environmental groups, "my sense is that they appear to be more serious about their appeals, and probably will push some issues." The Forest Service recently provided draft copies of the proposed easements; it looks as though we are moving towards easements rather than special use permits. The attorneys have been involved in reviewing those, and are beginning to work with the FS on the language of those easements. Water Board Minutes September 15, 1994 Page 6 Mr. Bode reported that this morning there was a hearing before the Interim Legislative Committee. Utility outside counsel Mary Hammond and Peter Fleming attended the meeting and planned to comment on the permitting process. He hadn't heard how that meeting went. Paul Clopper said he sensed from the article in the paper that although there wasn't a specific appeal involving Joe Wright, by virtue of the fact that there is a joint operations plan, we are bound up with Greeley and WSSC. "My understanding is that we are going to be drawn back into the controversy because of our involvement in that plan." "I think we are likely to get drawn in one way or another," Mr. Bode remarked. It may not be because of the joint operations, although there is a potential for that. Some of the groups, particularly the Audubon Society may think that all of the permits on the Poudre include Fort Collins. "I think their major issue is the Platte River recovery program that is being developed, and they are concerned that the biological opinion may be flawed," he added. "What is the joint operations plan?" Dr. Grigg wanted to know. That's the plan where Greeley, WSSC and Fort Collins will release water in a certain pattern below Barnes and Chambers by essentially continuing flows in the river during the winter months. "We would work together to release water from the high reservoirs. In the record of decision Greeley and WSSC are required to participate in joint operations; Fort Collins is not. Our requirement is providing the flows, releases or bypasses. "Who is going to make the decision in these appeals?" Dr. Grigg asked. "I think that goes to the regional forester," Mr. Bode replied. "Do you have any idea where it will go if it went beyond that; higher in the Forest Service perhaps?" Dr. Grigg continued. "I assume so," Mr. Bode said. "What do you see as the distinguishing factors between a special use permit and an easement?" John Bartholow asked. "They are talking about a 30-year easement compared to the 20-year special use permit; that's the one difference that has been highlighted," Mr. Bode responded. Reading through the information "I'm not sure there are a lot of differences," but there may be some legal distinguishing factors. "I'm sure we'll learn more about that as we go along," he added. "The words have different connotations to me," Mr. Bartholow stated. "An easement sounds like there is an easement for the reservoir site and would have nothing to do with the operation of that reservoir, whereas a permit could have some regulatory control." There is some language saying that an operation plan would have to be approved by the FS, and the reservoir would have to be maintained, and that dam safety inspections would be required, Mr. Bode explained. All of those things are similar to what was required as part of a special use permit. Mr. Bode maintains that there probably isn't a lot of difference, just some legal subtleties. Water Board Minutes September 15, 1994 Page 7 Report on Water Planning Committee Meeting Wendy Williams reported that there was a Water Planning Committee meeting on September 1st. Ken Carlson, from the Water Production staff gave a presentation on manganese. Ms. Williams offered to provide copies of the material from that presentation for anyone interested. Along with the information on manganese staff also provided the committee with a break -down of cost allocations for each of the various improvements from the Water Treatment Master Plan. The next step is to help the Committee grapple with prioritizing the critical pieces of the Master Plan. The next meeting is scheduled for October 6th. Tom Brown asked for an explanation of the difference between the Water Planning Committee and the Water Board in terms of what they deal with. The Planning Committee is a mixture of Water Board members and City Council members, Ms. Williams explained. Committees of that type were established originally so that the full City Council wouldn't have to tackle some of the issues that were going to be time-consuming. In the normal process issues come to the Water Board first. Committee member MaryLou Smith pointed out that sometimes, as she recalls, the issue goes directly to the Committee. Dennis Bode said that the past few committees have dealt with issues that appeared to be controversial or were policy items. For the Water Treatment Master Plan, Council members from the Committee attended a Water Board meeting when the plan was initially presented by the consultants. Ms. Williams noted that originally it was thought that the Water Board would hear the presentation first, but staff determined that having the consultants come for just one meeting made more sense. Neil Grigg thinks the committee's function is to filter through the detailed information and try to reach some agreement before an issue is brought to the Water Board or Council, saving the full council and the full board time consuming discussion sessions. As far as the actual meetings are concerned, the Committee has been discussing the Master Plan in terms of how the plan needs to be revised to make it palatable. "So the Committee's function is not intended to be instead of the Water Board, but in addition to the Board," he believes. Tim Dow said he always looked at the committee's purpose in terms of long term planning where Council wanted to get involved with the Water Board at an early stage and get their input into the process. MaryLou Smith sees it as an opportunity to influence the Council early from the Water Board's perspective, and in a meaningful way instead of trying to tell them what we think in a memo. "The three Council members are there and we have an opportunity to interact with them, and make sure that the issues that come up are understood from the water perspective, not just from the politics or policy making side," she emphasized. Water Board Minutes September 15, 1994 Page 8 COMMITTEE REPORTS Water Supply The Water Supply Committee met today from 2:00 - 3:00. Chairman Tom Brown reported that staff presented the Committee with three opportunities that could potentially affect our water supply situation. They are situations where the City might either purchase some water or be involved in arrangements or agreements that would enhance our water supply, or our ability to manage our water supply. One of the opportunities involves Worster Reservoir, also called Eaton Reservoir, up north on Sheep Creek on the North Fork, a tributary to the Poudre. The second one involves Dixon Reservoir which is down the hill from Horsetooth near the stadium road, and the third involves shares of water that are owned by Kodak. These are all situations where parties have come to the City suggesting or proposing that there might be some City involvement. The Committee spent most of their time discussing the second option, Dixon Reservoir. Owners of shares in the water that is stored in the reservoir are interested in selling, and have been for two or three years. There has been some uncertainty among three City departments about which department should be involved because the water, if it were purchased, would likely be used on City park land. The Natural Resources Dept. also would be interested in the wetland possibilities at the site. Because of the uncertainty, things haven't moved along as quickly as they might have. The Water Supply Committee suggested to staff that they acquire more information, because this option has the potential of being beneficial to the citizens of Fort Collins, no matter which units of the City are involved. The third option involving Kodak is rather complicated and the Committee didn't have time to pursue it in any depth, but they will be looking at it in more detail in the future. "Do any of these involve purchasing more rights or are they more like agreements?" Dr. Grigg asked. "Potentially they involve purchase," Mr. Brown replied. Legislative and Finance Dr. Grigg asked what the interim committee is that Dennis Bode mentioned earlier. Wendy Williams said it was the Legislative Interim Committee and they just had their second meeting. There was considerable discussion last month on the Forest Service permit, she said, and there was discussion again on that today. Staff receives the agenda of the meeting in advance. Conservation and Public Education The Conservation and Public Education Committee also met today. Chairperson Marylou Smith reported that Conservation Specialist Jim Clark brought the Committee up to date on specific measures from the Demand Management Resolution to verify that we are making progress on those items. "We feel satisfied that we are making good progress in all of those areas," she said. Water Board Minutes September 15, 1994 Page 9 She pointed out that ordinances for measures 8 and 9, relating to approving landscape irrigation practices and landscape designs by professionals in the community, were adopted by the Council a few months ago. Those are beginning to be implemented, and Jim Clark has been reviewing some landscape plans. Staff will be preparing an annual progress report that will go to the Council in January on the demand management measures. The second item that the Committee discussed was a xeriscape certification program that Jim Clark is hoping to implement. He was asking for the Committee's input, specifically relating to the possibility for citizens to qualify for an exemption for the height of grass. Ms. Smith said she failed to ask him if that was something he has the authority to enact without having Water Board and Council approval, since it's not a major policy. "I think we viewed it as the type of program we can implement without any major action," Dennis Bode responded. Ms. Smith explained that with this program citizens can receive recognition for developing xeriscaping on their property. The Committee will be giving staff feedback on this. Paul Clopper asked about the green space that is developed and maintained by homeowners associations instead of individual homeowners. "Those plans will be reviewed by Mr. Clark," Ms. Smith related. What happens with other developments where you have associations but you don't have common space landscaping, yet you have homeowner's covenants that tell you what you can and can't do with your individual landscaping, Mr. Clopper continued. "No, we haven't done anything in that area, but we could provide some educational information in those instances with the homeowners' associations," Ms. Smith replied. Wendy Williams explained that all major developments go before Planning & Zoning, and part of that process is conceptual review, which is made up of representatives from the various departments. They provide guidelines to the developers, and one of those is for landscape guidelines. The third item the Committee discussed was an idea brought up by Committee member Terry Podmore. He proposed some ideas for using the old water works building on Overland Trail; e.g. as a water museum. Ms. Smith said that Mr. Podmore will be doing some research into what has already been done, and whether it is something we should be pursuing. Ms. Smith concluded that the Committee will probably not meet again until staff is ready to have them review a draft of the annual Demand Management report; perhaps prior to the Board meeting in December. Engineering Dave Stewart, chair of the Engineering Committee was absent, but committee members John Bartholow and Paul Clopper and ex officio member Neil Grigg all attended the meeting. John Bartholow began by saying that the Committee continued to discuss the Water Treatment Master Plan. They discussed issues like what is the proper role for the Committee in reviewing the master plan, a rather complex document which is also being reviewed by the Water Planning Committee. They had no specific comments on their role, but spent most of the time talking Water Board Minutes September 15, 1994 Page 10 about political issues with respect to growth and wording, etc. They discussed briefly the manganese problem and some options for oxygenating the water near our intake. Paul Clopper recalled that a common thread at the meeting was the need to break down the various proposed improvements to the extent that they can be defined. The three categories that were initially suggested were: reliability, capacity and regulatory compliance. For example, for improvement X, you can say, "we need to do this, and 20% of that goes to reliability and 80% goes to capacity." The committee acknowledged that that's not an easy thing to do; e.g. the political nature of growth and how it relates to capacity questions versus reliability issues. "I think we are still grasping at the categorization task that confronts us, and we are trying to define it and fine tune the process," he concluded. Curt Miller said that staff is working on trying to present a better package with pieces that will be easier to grapple with. Neil Grigg said that these observations line up with what the Water Planning Committee is also trying to do. Cost of Service Ad Hoc Committee Wendy Williams said that staff is taking the Committee's recommendations to the City Council Finance Committee on September 28th. REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY STRATEGY UPDATE Ben Alexander noted that the Horsetooth outlet was out of service on Monday for pre -repair inspection. It was a bit of a tight spot for the City and Tri-District because both plants draw from that. "The Tri-District had asked that the date be put off until September 12th because the demands were so high in August, but the 12th turned out to be higher than our average days in August," he remarked. "The demands were well above 40 MGD, but we survived it alright." During the inspection they learned how to successfully remove the coating in the pipe, a significant discovery. Neil Grigg said he attended a regional meeting recently to which all board members were invited. One of the people who attended was Doug Robothum who is the chair of the Front Range Water Forum. "We talked with him about various issues, and he seemed quite open," he said. Dennis Bode has been attending the Front Range Technical Advisory Committee meetings. Mr. Bode said there is a meeting coming up next week to review the progress of the individual tasks. Dr. Grigg understands in talking with Mr. Robothum that the maximum water that could be freed up from regional coordination and cooperation would be about 34-40,000 acre feet in the metro area, which is considerably short of Two Forks. This inevitably means that the metro area will • Water Board Minutes September 15, 1994 Page 11 have to look towards Northern Colorado for water again for bigger supplies. "Maybe that's jumping to conclusions too quickly," he admitted. Dennis Bode said he hasn't seen any data on that at this point. Dr. Grigg pointed out that Doug Robothum has access to the study that was done by Hydrosphere. REGIONAL WASTEWATER SERVICE ISSUES UPDATE Wendy Williams reported that staff continues to work on the response to Boxelder Sanitation District's request to acquire land from the City to expand their lagoon system. OTHER BUSINESS Coming Events Neil Grigg announced that there will be a celebration of the River on Sunday at Lee Martinez Park. Wendy Williams announced that the Environmental Fair will be held at Library Park on Saturday and encouraged Board members to attend. The Utility has been involved in this event for several years. Proposed Annexation by Town of Windsor Paul Clopper read about a proposed annexation by the Town of Windsor that straddles the Larimer/Weld County line, and it seems it wasn't too far from the future site of Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 3, he said. "Could this impact our use of that site?" Ms. Williams replied that it is very preliminary at this point. Proposed State Instream Flow Committee Appointment Neil Grigg said that Kathleen Fine, a member of the Loveland Water Board, contacted him about an instream flow committee that apparently is being organized in Denver; "I guess out of the Colorado Water Conservation Board." The proposed function of the committee would be to work out conflicts about instream flow issues. Ms. Fine would like to be appointed to this committee. She thinks she could represent Northern Colorado well. "I told her that I would inform the Fort Collins Water Board of her interest in being appointed to the committee. We don't need to take any action, but I think she would be a good appointee. Because she is a Northern Colorado municipal water board member, she would be thinking the same way most of us would," he said. Election of Water Board Officers in October Dr. Grigg announced that his term on the Water Board will end in June of 1995. "I could not continue for another full year as president, so it might be a good time to elect someone else as chairman." He asked Board members to be thinking about their choices for a new president. Water Board Minutes September 15, 1994 Page 12 ADJOURN Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:12 P.M. %1 n _ Water Board ecretary