Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 05/20/1994WATER BOARD MINUTES May 20, 1994 3:00 - 4:12 P. M. Water & Wastewater Utility Conference Room 700 Wood Street City Council/Water Board Liaison Gerry Horak Members Present Marylou Smith, Vice President, Paul Clopper, Howard Goldman, Tim Dow, Ray Herrmann, John Bartholow, Dave Stewart Staff Mike Smith, Wendy Williams, Jim Hibbard, Ben Alexander, Scott Harder, John Nelson, Molly Nortier Guests John Bigham, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District George Reed, Citizen Observer Sue Ellen Charlton, League of Women Voters Observer Members Absent Neil Grigg, President, Tom Brown, Dave Frick (all excused), and Terry Podmore (on sabbatical) Vice President Marylou Smith opened the meeting in the absence of President Neil Grigg. The following items were discussed: Minutes Ms. Smith asked for corrections, additions or comments about the minutes of April 15, 1994. Paul Clopper moved that they be accepted as distributed. Ray Herrmann seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously to approve the minutes. Update: Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District John Bigham was welcomed back after a long absence due to back surgery. He distributed data on river flows, reservoir capacity and weather in the District as of May 16th. He also included a list of the NCWCD Board of Directors with addresses and phone numbers, and a water -related state legislative wrap-up as of May 11th. Water Board Minutes May 20, 1994 Page 2 He pointed out that the District is up to 75.5 % of its active capacity in the reservoirs. "We are currently pumping Windy Gap with one pump," he reported, "which is between 190 and 200 cfs." Two pumps are running at Willow Creek pumping at about 450 cfs into Lake Granby. With that inflow Granby is receiving about 2500-3000 ac-ft a day. With the run-off down 15- 20% of what is normal, the District anticipates that maximum storage will be within 6 to 8 feet in Granby, "but we'll still be much better than we've been for some time," he said. Mr. Bigham noticed from the April Water Board minutes that Eric Wilkinson, General Manager of the District, gave a detailed presentation on what has been happening in the District. It appears that he may have answered many potential questions from the Board. He also said that the minutes indicated that the Water Board may have a work session with the District at a later time. John Bartholow asked about the interruptable supply contracts that the City of Boulder has been working on with the District. Mr. Bigham hadn't seen the contracts and didn't know the numbers, but there were indications from some of the discussions with agricultural people that in those years when they could not meet their demands for water supply, the farmers would be paid for that year and would limit their crops, or not grow them at all. Mr. Bartholow also asked about the freedom of information requests that the District asked of the Forest Service, and were alluded to in the District Minutes. "It wasn't clear in the minutes," he said. He referred to the section about the special use permits which stated that Mr. Hobbs asked the Board for authorization to proceed with some freedom of information requests. Mr. Bigham didn't have information on that and wasn't able to respond. Review of Legal Issues for Water Related Ballot Initiatives Special Projects Manager Tom Gallier prepared a status report on water related legislative issues for Water Board members and staff. The report included a description of two proposed Constitutional initiatives: 1) Water III is an amendment that would prohibit trans -basin water diversions without an affirmative vote of a majority of all "eligible electors" within the basin. Mr. Gallier said there is a reasonable chance that this will be on the ballot this year. 2) Water IV is an amendment that would require the State to defend a strong Public Trust Doctrine, and could seriously undermine the underlying principle of water as a private water right. The Utility's water rights attorneys have reviewed the language, and concluded that it could have serious negative impacts on the City's long-range water needs. Water Board Minutes May 20, 1994 Page 3 Mr. Gallier reported that during the April meeting, the Water Board asked its Legislative & Finance Committee to review this matter. The Committee agreed that the impact on the City's water rights could be significant, and asked for a briefing by City Attorney staff for today's Board meeting. The Board is asking for legal guidance on their response to this initiative. Both initiatives have been approved by the Secretary of State, and have been challenged to the Colorado Supreme Court. Approval by the Court is expected any day, and it appears that some groups may already be gathering signatures. Assistant City Attorney John Duval said, as he understands it, the general question the Board had was what can Water Board members do with respect to advocating positions either for or against state-wide ballot issues? To come up with a response, he looked at three documents: the Colorado Campaign Reform Act, the City Charter, and the City Code. He narrowed it down to what activities are permitted and which ones are prohibited. All three documents restrict, to some extent, the Board's and a member's ability to take certain kinds of positions and do certain kinds of activities. As a permitted activity the Board can pass a resolution taking a position either for or against a state-wide ballot issue. "In my opinion however, that resolution would need to be directed to the City Council asking it to formally take a position with respect to that ballot issue," he explained. The reason it would need to go to the Council is, under the City Code, the Board's functions and duties are specifically stated as: "to advise Council on issues of water rights and issues concerning the water and wastewater system." There is also a provision that Council can give the Board such other rights as they decide by ordinance. As far as he knows, there are no other specific ordinances giving the Board any additional rights. Furthermore, the City Charter provides that all matters concerning policy are vested in the City Council. "If you adopted a resolution as a Board and distributed it without directing it to the Council, it could be argued that you were attempting to make policy on behalf of the City," he said. Mr. Duval recommends that if the Board decides to adopt a resolution, that it be directed to the Council. On the other hand, members of the Board can expend personal funds, personal time, and give in kind contributions in support of any ballot issue just like any other citizen, "but you wouldn't be able to take a position as a representative of the Board, and you certainly couldn't spend City funds or use City property to advocate that position." Mr. Duval further emphasized that after a position is taken and that recommendation is forwarded to the City Council, no public funds should be expended to distribute the resolution or the position taken, to the electorate at large (e.g. no press releases or mailings). Water Board Minutes May 20, 1994 Page 4 Tom Gallier explained in more detail the status of each of the proposed initiatives at the request of the Chair. He also explained why each of them has been challenged to the Colorado Supreme Court. Vice President Smith thanked John Duval for explaining what the Board is permitted to do and what they are restricted from doing with regard to the initiatives, and Tom Gallier for the thorough briefing on water legislation and the proposed initiatives. Cross Connection Control Ordinance (Rules and Reaulations) At their April 15, 1994 meeting the Water Board voted to recommend that City Council adopt changes in Municipal Ordinance 165, 1986. These changes updated the terminology and provided for the Council to adopt any rules and regulations necessary to implement and administer the cross -connection control program. After considerable discussion, the actual Cross -connection Control Rules and Regulations were referred to the Water Board Engineering Committee for further review, and to pursue an opinion from the City's legal staff on two specific questions. The Engineering Committee met on May 4, 1994. Minutes of that meeting were included in the Board's packets. Dave Stewart, Chair of the Engineering Committee, reported that the Committee looked at the issues associated with the Cross -connection Control Program. They concluded that the Utility is constrained by the State regulations, and because of that they decided to go along with the staff recommendation to approve the regulations as defined. Assistant City Attorney John Duval prepared a memo for Board members explaining some of the legal ramifications of not complying with the State regulations. Dave Stewart moved that the Water Board recommend to the City Council approval of the Cross -connection Control Rules and Regulations as presented. Ray Herrmann seconded the motion. The motion passed by a 6 to 1 vote. Tim Dow voted against the motion for the same reasons he articulated at the April meeting. At that meeting Mr. Dow referred to an article in Irrigation Magazine, January, 1994, stating that double check valve assemblies have a good record and there is no documented case that they cause any contamination of the water supply in residences of the U.S. He said that the requirement by the State is an overkill relative to the residential segment of the community. He also pointed out from the article cited earlier, that the American Backflow Prevention Association's president stated in 1994 that "with a proper testing program, double check backflow prevention devices are adequate protection for lawn sprinklers that do not incorporate fertigation or chemigation, or use reclaimed water." For further background into the discussion that took place on this subject, please see the Cross - connection Control Program excerpt from the April 15, 1994 Water Board minutes. Water Board Minutes May 20, 1994 Page 5 Jim Hibbard announced that Council passed on first reading, the changes in the ordinance that were recommended at the May meeting. He said that the Rules and Regulations will probably be considered at the Council's second meeting in June. Temporary Water Construction Rates According to the summary included in Board packets, the City of Fort Collins Water Utility currently charges a temporary construction rate for premises under construction. At issue is whether the current policy makes sense, as the amount of water used is probably minimal and administering the policy is problematic. Wendy Williams explained that fees are paid at the time a construction permit is obtained. The contractor is paying on a monthly basis for the right to use water during the construction period, whether or not they use water. Scott Harder explained further that under Section 26-118 the Utility Director is authorized to charge temporary construction rates between the time that a permit for water service is issued and a meter is actually set. The idea is to recover the cost of water made available on site during the construction period. "It is an immeasurable amount of water deemed to be pretty small," he said. Based on the first quarter of 1994 we anticipate another record year for development activity, Mr. Harder related. If the pace continues through '94, construction rates are expected to generate $25,000 this year. Plant Investment Fees (PIFs) for '94 are about 50% above where they were last year. Typically we would expect approximately half that amount of revenue from construction related fees. Mr. Harder said staff is bringing options to the Board today because of problems experienced in administering the construction rate program. The reasons are: (1) The Utility often enters into a temporary billing relationship with the developer. Upon installation of the meter, the Utility begins billing the owner of the premises. Based on the carried number of construction rate accounts, approximately 250, and a turnover rate of 2 or 3 months, staff will open, close and process approximately 800-1000 accounts during the year. In addition, collection and payment is sometimes a problem. (2) Construction rates are sometimes charged prior to a water tap being in place. This occurs primarily in infill development. Developers of inside -city lots may chose to pay only the foundation and footing fee (F&F fee) up front, and delay the rest of the capital charges, thus delaying payment of the construction rates. Water Board Minutes May 20, 1994 Page 6 Developers of outside -city lots do not have this option due to County requirements; therefore, outside -city developers, on the average, are paying more in terms of construction rates than those inside the city. There is also a premium on outside -city rates of 25-50%. Also there have recently been a few federally funded projects for lower income housing which, as a condition of financing, requires that all fees be paid prior to each phase of construction. Mr. Harder explained. (3) There is also an equity issue with applying a rate of one-half the normal minimum monthly charge to multi -family developments. If you look at duplex, triplex and four-plex developments, you see that the rate can be almost three times the monthly rate for a single family home. "Again we don't have a lot of firm data on how much water is actually used during construction," he reiterated, "but it is unlikely that the amount of water used during construction of a four- plex is that much greater than for a single family dwelling. " What staff is proposing today is essentially the results of two options they have looked at: 1) Discontinue collecting fees. "We find we can save significant administrative effort and cost with this option," Mr. Harder said. Essentially the cost would not only be in Water Utility staff time, but also Utility Billing and other departments of the City. 2) Collect a fixed construction water charge at the time of issuing a permit Mr. Harder explained that with this option you would actually determine some kind of fixed period of time over which construction normally occurs (perhaps two to three months) and build a separate fee in as a separate cost item in the plant investment fee (PIF). A very small amount (e.g. $10415) would be collected up front for the water used during construction. Staff recommends that Water Board recommend to City Council that the Utility discontinue charging temporary construction rates. Paul Clopper remarked that the recommendation makes sense for residential, "but what about large construction projects?" Mr. Harder explained that for big projects, at least at CSU, the meter is normally set a little earlier. Mike Smith added that construction meters are generally set on hydrants; e.g. at the new Fort Collins High School site they set two construction meters. "You're not proposing to discontinue that?" Mr. Clopper asked. "No, this would be for residential and very small commercial," Mr. Harder replied. Water Board Minutes May 20, 1994 Page 7 Mr. Harder stated that staff cautions against adding something to the PIFs. "The PIFs need to be kept as pure a concept as possible to maintain the defensibility and the cost basis for the fee, which is essentially a completely separate capital cost issue," he emphasized. Tim Dow suggested that collecting a fixed fee when the permit was issued would provide more administrative flexibility. You could, for example, set up four different numbers based on specific criteria. There would be no administration, and it would genefate some revenue for the Utility. MaryLou Smith pointed out that what Mr. Dow is suggesting would not be a part of the PIF. Mr. Harder thinks a prudent step would be to do a short survey and try to determine some kind of reasonable construction time for various types of construction. Dave Stewart remarked that if they use 100 gallons over three months, "we lose more water in the system in a day, so it would be hard for us to justify." Mr. Stewart said he had no problem with a fixed fee as long as it's based on cost of service. John Bartholow said he was agreeable to what is being recommended. "So you don't know what your typical bills have been for the last few years for new development?" Howard Goldman asked. For construction rates, it's a set flat fee; there's no meter on the site; Mr. Harder replied. "It's not based on use; it's just one and one half times the charge based on meter size," Wendy Williams added. "We know how many folks are doing this, but we don't know how much they're using," Mr. Harder concluded. Tim Dow moved that this item be tabled so that staff can consider further the comments of the Board regarding the administration issue, how the rate is charged and how it will be paid, and return with the additional data. After a second from Dave Stewart, the motion passed unanimously. Report on Joint Meeting in Greeley with Governor Romer Ray Herrmann began the discussion by saying that the essence of the Governor's address with regard to the Forest Service issue was, "let's not get into a law suit unless we have to." Mr. Herrmann remarked that there was confusion in the audience about bypass flows and the Nebraska endangered species issue. MaryLou Smith pointed out that the meeting was primarily about the Forest Service Special Use Permit, and most of the comments were directed to that. She added that it was good as usual to meet with other Boards and talk about common issues. Paul Clopper said that, in his opinion, the most valuable part of the meeting was the dialogue that developed, and making the Governor aware of the group's perspectives and the importance placed on the issue by the northern Colorado communities. Water Board Minutes May 20, 1994 Page 8 John Bartholow commented that since this was the first joint meeting of the boards that he has attended, "he had nothing to compare it with." Probably in years past there was more interaction among the city water boards, he surmised. Mike Smith pointed out that ordinarily in past meetings the group focuses on one particular issue, and then discussion is opened up for any other relevant items. Marylou Smith concluded that with such a large group it is somewhat difficult to get substantive dialogue, and to arrive at specific decisions, but it is always valuable to interact and get to know your counterparts from a neighboring city. Staff Reports Treated Water Production Summary The information provided in the packets was straight forward and the members had no questions. It was stated that the numbers were right on target. Financial Status Report Scott Harder reported that on the operating revenue side, both water and wastewater were within 5% of where we were year to date last year. However, on the PIF side, last month he reported that we were 25 % and 35 % over where we were last year, but those numbers have jumped up to more than 50% over where we were last year for both water and wastewater. "We don't see anything slowing down at all," he remarked. Marylou Smith commented that staff may need to review the figures on being able to meet the 1-in-50 drought level, and perhaps revise the projections. Forest Service Special Use Permit Update Mike Smith provided a handout to Board members for their private reading on the Proposed Joint Operations for Mainstem Poudre River Flow Enhancement (Constant winter release of 10 CFS). He said it involves another modified option from the entities to the Forest Service to enhance the Poudre River mainstem aquatic habitat through cooperative management of water supply facilities, without adversely affecting the water supply yield of these facilities. "We'll see how it goes with the Forest Service," he said. We hope that by the next Board meeting, the FS will have made up their minds about what they plan to do with the proposal. Committee Reports Water Supply Committee No report Legislative and Finance Tom Gallier announced that he was informed shortly before the meeting that Congressman Allard has written another letter to the Mayor regarding the proposal to convert Rocky Mountain National Park into a wilderness area. He is asking again for input on this issue. Apparently he has a number of concerns, not just relating to water, but to land use too. The Legislative Review Committee of the Council has received some reasonably positive feedback on this issue Water Board Minutes May 20, 1994 Page 9 from the Natural Resources Board. "Our opinion is that this issue more directly impacts the Northern District than the Utility," he said. The specific provision of the bill, which seems to be the major problem, pertains to the CBT project facilities within Rocky Mountain National Park. The District's attorneys have composed some alternate language that is supposed to make the District feel more comfortable. "That's where the matter lies," he said. He has no idea of how it stands in Congress at this point. Mr. Gallier went on to say that Council would like to pass a resolution that would be generally supportive of the concept as long as the concerns of the NCWCD would be resolved with negotiations. "My guess is it is going to be a real tough sell," he speculated. Rep. Allard has some land use kinds of concerns, Estes Park is concerned about losing economic development, and Loveland has some concerns as well. However, Larimer County has taken no official position. Ray Herrmann asked what CBT structures are in the Park. The tunnels, the power plants, the pumps, and Mary's Lake, John Bigham replied. Mr. Gallier said that the key thing the District is concerned about is the access. "If they had to do some major work on the tunnel, they need to feel comfortable that they can do that without a major road block," he explained. Mr. Bigham commented that the District wonders why it should be a wilderness area; "it has all the protection it needs now. " Tom Gallier also pointed out that this may reopen the issue of Federal Reserved Water Rights "which we just put behind us." He doesn't know how much of an issue that would be, but it has been raised. Mr. Gallier said staff will get a draft of the legislation before it goes to the Council, and will make sure the Legislative and Finance Committee sees it. Conservation and Public Education Chair Marylou Smith said that staff informed her that conservation measures 8 and 9 of the Demand Management Resolution passed on the consent agenda on first reading at the last Council meeting. Those are the measures that pertain to landscaping requirements as they relate to water conservation. Jim Clark worked with a sub -committee of contractors and consultants in the community on those measures, and the Water Board reviewed the measures, after the Conservation and Public Ed. Committee met and refined them. The Committee recommended that they be reviewed by the Council/Water Board Water Planning Committee, which recommended that the Council adopt them. Ms. Smith said the Committee will meet in September to begin thinking about an annual report they want staff to prepare and present to the Council in January relating to the progress on the Demand Management Resolution requirements. Engineering Committee and Cost of Service Ad Hoc Committee No reports Water Board Minutes May 20, 1994 Page 10 Regional Water Supply Strategy Update No report Regional Wastewater Service Issues Update Boxelder Sanitation District Mike Smith reported that the Boxelder Sanitation District recently elected two new board members. It appears that both of the them may be supportive of regionalization (i.e. working cooperatively with the City). "This may change things; we'll just have to wait and see," he said. "If at some point customers of Boxelder were concerned enough about their service, we may have some leverage to bring them into the City," MaryLou Smith remarked. "I would strongly suggest that the City doesn't promote it," Dave Stewart asserted. "If they want to come into the City, they approach us; we shouldn't go to them and say we're going to give them a reduction in their rates of 20%." Ms. Smith understands that Boxelder has been causing some problems. For example, there have been a few developers from out of town who decided not to locate here because they would have been in the Boxelder District, and they weren't satisfied with what Boxelder could provide. Mr. Stewart stressed again that he strongly disagrees with trying to encourage people to come into our system by setting low rates. Ms. Smith is concerned that more and more of our City population is served by groups that we don't have any control over. She thinks that those citizens should have the same quality as those we serve in the Utility. "It's important to make sure we are on a good legal footing, but it's also to our advantage to look into bringing them into our system," she maintains. "I think that's a very simplistic look at it," Mr. Stewart insisted. "What's it going to take to bring Boxelder up to code? We are looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions worth of investment." Ms. Smith assumed that we would extend our pipe to bring them into our system; she had not thought in terms of retro-fitting their system. Mike Smith explained that in terms of treatment we would be using our facility, but system -wise, we would probably be using their pipes. Mike Smith stressed that the City is in a "wait and see" position at this time. We sent Boxelder letters saying we are interested in working with them, he said. At this point it is up to them to contact us. Paul Clopper asked what the main sources of dissatisfaction with the District are besides the situation with prospective developers. The equity of the rate structure seems to be an issue with some of their customers, Mr. Smith responded. Boxelder developed some surcharges on Water Board Minutes May 20, 1994 Page 11 commercial property with 8 or 10 units that are not being charged the going rate; there is an extra surcharge for pollution purposes. This appears to be a rather unconventional procedure and not very well supported. It may cost a substantial amount to upgrade their system, Mr. Smith continued. Mr. Stewart asked how many miles of pipe they currently have. "We have approximately 350-400 miles of pipe; they probably have less than 100," Mr. Smith replied. Mr. Stewart thinks it would take at least $200,000 to upgrade that system, if not more. Boxelder is going to be required to upgrade their system if they are to continue to provide wastewater treatment. They are currently working on generating funds to pay for some of their major problems. They have some serious infiltration/inflow problems, Mr. Smith explained, and they also have some pretreatment difficulties because they don't have an approved program. "Regionalization is a great concept," Dave Stewart acknowledged, "and I don't have a problem with that, but I think we need to be cautious about it." A photographic developer in the Boxelder District, for example, doesn't have anybody monitoring him on a regular basis. If you are in the City you do have someone checking you on a regular basis. The issue with Boxelder that the Utility is most concerned about is that they want to expand their lagoon system for the treatment of more wastewater, "and we are not supportive of that because we don't think that system treats wastewater as well as secondary and advanced treatment," Mr. Smith explained. "From an environmental standpoint, I would agree with regionalization, but I think bringing them into our system is too expensive," Howard Goldman stated. "I think it would be a big financial burden for us because we are not getting the equity base for doing it; in other words, we're not receiving anything other than a big bill, especially if their revenues are going to go down if they come into the City," Dave Stewart argued. Tim Dow asked if it would be worse 5 years from now with the system into Fossil Creek. They are trying to make some improvements now, Mr. Smith replied. The hope is that the situation will improve, but the fear is, we may end up worse now or later. Mr. Bartholow pointed out that they are in the Urban Growth Area, so ultimately we are committed to take them in. Other Business Members up for Re -appointment Marylou Smith asked which Board members are up for re -appointment. Molly Nortier said that Terry Podmore and Dave Frick are at the end of four-year terms, and Howard Goldman has completed the term of a member who resigned. Water Board Minutes May 20, 1994 Page 12 Water Board Survey John Bartholow asked if the results of the Water Board survey have been completed. Molly Nortier said that two surveys have not been returned, but the results from the others have been complied, and she hopes to include a summary of the results in the June packets. Adjourn Since there was not further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:12 P.M. WaterB±: r c e�tary