Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 02/17/19950 WATER BOARD MINUTES February 17, 1995 3:00 - 4:50 P.M. Water and Wastewater Utility Conference Room 700 Wood Street CITY COUNCIL LIAISON Alan Apt MEMBERS PRESENT Tim Dow, President, Paul Clopper, Dave Frick, Terry Podmore, Howard Goldman, Ray Herrmann, Tom Brown, Neil Grigg STAFF Rich Shannon, Mike Smith, Wendy Williams, Dennis Bode, Gale McGaha Miller, Ben Alexander, Andy Pineda, Jim Clark, Molly Nortier GUESTS George Reed, Citizen Observer Sue Ellen Charlton, League of Women Voters Observer MEMBERS ABSENT John Bartholow, MaryLou Smith, Dave Stewart (all excused) President Time Dow opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: MINUTES In her absence MaryLou Smith asked Terry Podmore to pass on a correction in her Conservation and Public Education report, on p. 10, paragraph 3 of the minutes. She asked that the sentence: "We're almost there, though," be deleted. Ray Herrmann moved that the minutes of January 20, 1995 be approved as corrected. After a second from Dave Frick, the minutes were unanimously approved. UPDATE: NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT No report PROPOSED SURPLUS WATER RENTAL RATES Each year after the irrigation companies have established the annual assessment rates for their water, the Water Board recommends to the City Council the rental rates for the City s surplus water. In their packets, the Board received the proposed rates and an attached table that showed the assessment rates and the proposed rental rates for 1995, as well as the corresponding rates for 1993 and 1994. Water Board Minutes February 17, 1995 Page 2 The proposed rates are based on several factors including past rental rates in the area, current assessments and anticipated supply and demand conditions. The rental prices for CBT, North Poudre, and Water Supply and Storage Company shares are based primarily on market rental rates since there is an active rental market for these shares. With the limited rental markets for the southside ditches, the rental prices are based primarily on assessment rates. Andy Pineda explained that the first four water rights listed are typically the most common water rights that are rented. In all four of those he proposed an increase in the rental rate for this year. "Over the last few years, we have tended to keep those about the same price, with the exception of the Pleasant Valley water," he said. He thinks, because of the low snowpack so far in the Poudre Basin, we will be experiencing a dry year. That means supplies in general are going to be short, and he anticipates that the water rental other entities will offer will be short as well, resulting in an increase in price over last year. "I don't think the prices we are proposing are out of line for what we'll see," he concluded. Ray Herrmann wondered why Pleasant Valley & Lake is so much cheaper per unit yield than the others. "That ditch is primarily a direct flow irrigation system with some very senior water rights. The rental price is generally set to reflect the annual assessment for this Company. There's not a lot of use left on that ditch," Mr. Pineda pointed out. The City owns about 65% of Pleasant Valley & Lake Co, and we annually lease out about 30 shares. "There are some irrigators on the tail end of that system, but very few rental shares are associated with it." "So there's just no market for it?" Mr. Herrmann asked. "Yes, very little," Mr. Pineda replied. Tim Dow asked if these are approximate market rates. "Yes, we try to check with others; and compare that to what we did last year. We also check with other cities to find out what they may be charging for the upcoming year," Mr. Pineda replied. Dave Frick asked if staff thinks water will be scarce. The early snow pack figures for February 1 st for the Poudre Basin came in at 54% of average, Mr. Pineda answered. "This last week we picked up quite a lot, although I still believe we are in a dry cycle," he said. He stressed that we are so far behind that it's going to take above normal snow fall just to catch up to average. Mr. Herrmann pointed out that a big part of the snow season is yet to come. Mr. Pineda acknowledged that there is still about 50% of the snow season left. Usually March, April and half of May are the months that generate the most precipitation for water supplies on the eastern slope, "but we're so far behind," he emphasized. Terry Podmore asked if the others on the list, Arthur, Warren Lake, Joe Wright etc., are ones for which there is little demand. "That's true; with the exception of Warren Lake, very little of the Southside Ditch water is rented out," Mr. Pineda responded. Mr. Podmore noted that there aren't any conversion rates on Sherwood Reservoir and Sherwood Irrigation Co. Mr. Pineda explained that Sherwood Irrigation Co. and Sherwood Reservoir are separate companies associated with delivery Water Board Minutes February 17, 1995 Page 3 of Arthur Ditch Company water. Their primary function is to carry and store Arthur Ditch Company water. Ray Herrmann moved that the Water Board recommend the proposed water rental rates to the City Council. Terry Podmore seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously for the motion. DEMAND MANAGEMENT RESOLUTION ANNUAL REPORT Water Conservation Specialist Tim Clark gave an overview of the Demand Management Report. He began by saying that the Water Conservation program is driven by the Demand Management Resolution that was passed by Council in April of 1992. That Resolution has three elements: (1) Establishes specific quantified goals for reducing per capita water use; 5% by 1996, 10% by the year 2000 and 17% by 2010. (2) Requires the implementation of 12 specific conservation measures. (3) Requires review annually, of progress in meeting goals and objectives, and making adjustments as necessary. He reported that out of the 12 measures, 9 have been implemented, 2 have been partially executed, and work has not yet begun on one of the measures. He added that there is on -going work on most of these too. The measure to do water audits of indoor water use at City -owned facilities, and install more water -efficient plumbing fixtures, has not been started yet. Mr. Clark is planning to at least make an assessment of how much work would be involved in doing this, to see if it's possible to implement it this year. The two measures that are partially completed are No. 3, which is the metering and billing of all City water taps, and No. 11, which is developing water conserving guidelines for City -owned landscaping. He is certain that No. 11 will be completed this year. No. 3 is uncertain, but it definitely won't happen this year. The most significant progress of the 12 measures was developing the standards for proposed developments on landscaping and irrigation. "That is in place now." He clarified that it doesn't include single family residences, only those developments that go through the City's planning process. Along with developing the standards, there is also the task of making sure there is compliance, which means reviewing all the plans. Then the site needs to be inspected to make sure everything is installed as specified in the plans. Other measures that have required on -going work, are leak detection and public education. Water Board Minutes February 17, 1995 Page 4 Progress in Meeting Goals Mr. Clark said that staff continues to refine the mathematical model, which has turned out to be more difficult than one might think. The major problem is how to normalize the weather. "We are to a point now where we can at least tentatively say that, within a range, we know what our per capita reduction has been, comparing the base years of 1987 to 1992 to last year," he explained. Staff feels comfortable in saying that per capita water use decreased in the range of 5-10%. "We will continue to refine that more, and I think we will develop a little more precision, but I would also caution that even when we get a more precise number, I don't think there is any way that we're going to be able to know the portion of the reduction that is due to the City's water conservation effort, let along the specific elements of it," he stressed. John Bartholow was unable to attend today's meeting so he asked Molly Nortier to relate what he thought might be a contradiction in the report on p. 2 under leak detection. In paragraph 2 the first sentence reads: "In June of 1994, the leak detection crew reached the milestone of completing its first sweep of the entire distribution system." Then the first sentence of the next paragraph stated that "during 1994, the leak detection crew was able to check 255 miles of the distribution system, which represents about 56% of the entire system." Mr. Clark can see how that could be confusing. The program started in February of 1993, so they worked essentially most of'93 and halfway into '94 to make it through the system once. By that point they had done 100% of the system, but if you just look at the calendar year of'94, they did just 56%. Neil Grigg referred to the section that said crews located 43 non -visible leaks, and asked "how many (roughly) visible leaks would there be in a given year?" Mr. Clark estimated about 23. Are the major leaks usually in a main or a valve? Dr. Grigg asked. "Most of the time they are in a main," Mr. Smith replied, "but it can be in a connection sometimes." He pointed out that the old cast iron mains are particularly vulnerable, "but as we upgrade the system, the cast iron will eventually be replaced with ductile iron." He added that you rarely see a break in ductile iron. He discussed other common reasons for breaks and leaks, e.g. corrosion. He stressed that "our breaks aren't excessive compared with other communities." Water Conservation Research Tim Clark mentioned that in 1992 the Utility was awarded a $10,000 grant from the Colorado Office of Water Conservation to study the water -saving benefits of amending landscape soils with compost. During 1994 the study was essentially completed, with a small amount of data analysis and the report - writing to be accomplished in early 1995. An executive summary of the report will be distributed to Water Board and City Council members, he said. Metering Program Regarding the volunteer metering program, as of December 31, 1994, 5,127 meters were installed in previously un-metered homes, as compared to the target of 5,200 installations, making it just slightly under target. Since July 1, 1990, 2,509 meters have been installed in newly -constructed homes and duplexes. With these two totals, approximately 40% of single-family residences and duplexes in Fort Collins are now metered. Water Board Minutes February 17, 1995 Page 5 DOMESTIC USE PLANT INVESTMENT FEE POLICY Wendy Williams said that the Utility was recently contacted by two residents who currently get their water from private wells and are concerned about the quality of their drinking water. They approached the Utility to have us look into providing their water service, she said. The code does not address the issue of Plant Investment Fees (PIFs) or Raw Water Requirements (RWR) for customers who use water solely for indoor, domestic purposes. As such, customers would have to pay the full Plant Investment Fee and Raw Water Requirements. Staff looked at the formulas for determining these fees, and is recommending subtracting out the portion of the formula that deals with the lot size. We are proposing to only charge the portion of the PIF and RWR that relates to indoor or domestic use; $400 for the PIF and $518.40 for the RWR, she said. The formula for calculating WPIFs for a single family residential dwelling is: $400.00 + $0.24 per square foot of lot area. The formula for calculating the RWR for domestic water usage would be: 1.92 x <(.18 x No. of Dwelling Units)>. A customer with an average lot size of 8,600 sq. ft., currently would be charged $8,600; a PIF of $2,464, and a RWR of $1200. Of that amount $918.00 is for indoor uses. Using this approach, the customer would initially pay reduced fees. If, however, in the future the customer needed to use treated water for irrigation purposes, they would then have to pay the remainder of the fees. "How would we know if they decided to start watering their lawn?" Tom Brown asked. "We would generate a report twice a year using our Customer Information System. That will show us what their usage pattern is. If it's just indoor use, consumption should be pretty steady. It would be particularly noticeable if it spiked in the summer months," Ms. Williams explained. Would that be metered? "Yes," she answered. "How is this going to be done year after year administratively?" Mr. Brown asked. "There are only two customers who have expressed an interest; there aren't a lot of them out there," Ms. Williams replied. Dave Frick wanted to know how this would be charged for new development, e.g when someone comes in with a townhome saying it's irrigated as a common area with wells or irrigation water, would you use the same formula and would we be setting a precedent? "Actually, we have two of those now. They usually have separate irrigation taps," Mike Smith replied. "Usually townhomes will have a service to the townhome itself and a separate tap for the irrigation system," he added. "Do they pay the reduced PIF for that," Mr. Frick asked. On the ones we have converted back, we have refunded their PIF for their irrigation tap, Mr. Smith recalled. Usually the multi -family is structured differently from single family. "I guess I can't answer your question because I'm not sure how that is broken out," he said. "We generally charge per living unit on a multi -family unit." Mr. Dow asked what the Utility did in the past when a request like this came up. "This is the first time that we have tried to revise it to meet those needs," Ms. Williams answered. "What if I told you I was no longer going to water my lawn; that I was just going to put gravel there and not irrigate again, would you refund my PIFT' Tom Brown asked. That wouldn't address your PIF. The real issue here is this person could have a 40 acre lot that they're not going to irrigate, and Water Board Minutes February 17, 1995 Page 6 that could be a substantial amount of money at $0.24 a sq. ft., Ray Herrmann pointed out. Ms. Williams said that the homeowners making this request both have large lots. When a developer requests information about PIFs, if he has a separate raw water irrigation system, how is that handled?" Mr. Herrmann asked. Does he have to pay the additional square footage fees anyway? "No, because those are usually multi -family, based on per unit," Mr. Smith answered. He explained that multi -family, for three units or more, is just a per living unit cost. "It's $1,000 + $600 per living unit," Ms. Williams added. Ray Herrmann pointed out that the formula for a residential building with three or more dwelling units, printed in the staff information, includes the $0.24 per square foot of lot area. Mr. Smith and Ms. Williams said it shouldn't have been included there. Mr. Smith can't recall someone with a new development saying he was going to use raw water for irrigation. Mr. Herrmann said he receives his treated water from East Larimer County Water District (ELCO). "Nobody with the ELCO District irrigates with ELCO water, it's too expensive. They all irrigate with wells," he said. Mr. Smith said, "this way we'll be able to address most of those." "But it would be a blanket policy that applies to new as well as existing property to be consistent," Mr. Frick verified. "It would be," Mr. Smith replied. Mr. Herrmann stressed that it doesn't seem reasonable to charge somebody an irrigation fee if they are watering with raw water from a system they developed themselves. "We would encourage that practice, and it would be nice if they did it," Mr. Smith said. "If we reach an agreement with homeowners such as this, can we be sure the agreement would have the condition in it that if they didn't do what they said they were going to do concerning outside irrigation, that we could come back at a later time; in other words, not have a permanent waiver of the PIF," Mr. Dow suggested. "I think we want to write that into the ordinance, so if the situation changes, the City has the right to charge a PIF," Mr. Smith responded. "Have we had any developer say that they were going to build a sub -division and would do all of the irrigation with raw water to save on PINT' Mr. Herrmann asked. "We have had people talk about doing it, but nobody has ever done it," Mr. Smith replied. "So this customer is going to have two reports run on their water consumption? Do you think you'll run into any problem with the Privacy Act?" Dr. Grigg asked. Mr. Brown brought up another hypothetical situation: If their pump is broken for a month in the summer, and they use City water; after the pump is fixed, are you going to see a change? It may not be a big change if they're only on it for a month. What sort of criteria will you use to decide what's a change and what is not? "What we were looking at is making a change for permanent purposes, and not just a month," Ms. Williams explained. Water Board Minutes February 17, 1995 Page 7 Mr. Herrmann thinks that a real problem could occur when the next homeowner comes in and doesn't know the PIFs were never paid, and suddenly the new homeowner starts using the water to irrigate a flower garden, e.g. Mr. Dow asked what staffs timing is on this? "There is no set time frame; but one customer would Eke to have it done as quickly as possible," Ms. Williams answered. Mr. Dow suggested that we table this until next month giving staff the opportunity to draft an ordinance addressing some of these issues before we take a final position on it. "That would be fine," Mr. Smith said. Mr. Clopper wasn't clear about another aspect of this. "I'm assuming that the physical connection to our system would be made by the homeowner hiring their own contractor. We're not assuming the cost of actually hooking them up, are we?" "That's correct. The homeowner would be responsible for that cost," Mr. Smith replied; Mr. Herrmann summarized that what we are looking at is that somebody could get a bill of approximately $800-1,000 for a 3/4 acre lot. "The person we are talking with has a lot size of 19,500 sq. ft., which means they would be paying a PIT of over $5,000, and a RWR of over $2,000," Ms. Williams responded. Ray Herrmann moved that the Water Board table this item until next month at which time staff will provide the Board with a draft ordinance addressing the concerns that have been discussed. Tom Brown seconded the motion, and the Board passed the motion unanimously. KODAK'S NORTH POUDRE SHARES Should the City of Fort Collins enter into an agreement with Kodak that would provide that Kodak transfer its North Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC) shares to Fort Collins in exchange for a firm delivery of water annually from the City to Kodak? Water Board members received in their packets, background information on this issue which included a chart that evaluated the yield from Kodak's NPIC Shares. Dennis Bode gave the highlights of this issue. For some time Kodak has been looking at the possibility of changing from owning their raw water to entering into an arrangement where they receive their raw water more like our customers, through a service contract. For the last several months Fort Collins and Greeley have had discussions with Kodak. Fort Collins has been presented with a proposal which provides that: 1) Kodak transfers 623.5 NPIC shares to Fort Collins. 2) Fort Collins delivers a firm yield of 1,200 acre feet per year to Kodak. That water (probably CBT) would be transferred to Greeley who would continue to deliver water to Kodak. Water Board Minutes February 17, 1995 Page 8 3) Kodak would not pay any future annual assessments on the shares transferred. Mr. Bode continued by saying that since the City of Fort Collins has North Poudre shares already, it seems to make sense that Fort Collins could use those shares and possibly Greeley could use some of the CBT water. A highlight, in terms of the North Poudre water, is that it includes both direct flow and storage rights on the Poudre River, and also CBT water. Each share is made up of those two sources. "Because of the uncertainty of what we have with Poudre River water and what a change in use case might result in, we based evaluations on just the CBT portion of the North Poudre shares," Mr. Bode explained. In a year that the CBT system has a 60% quota, that would yield 2.4 Ac-ft per share, so it would take 500 shares of North Poudre to deliver the 1200 Ac-ft in that type of year. Those were the criteria that the parties settled on, Mr. Bode said. The other 123.5 shares that would be turned over would be payment for future assessments on the 500 shares. Mr. Bode referred the Board to the table on p. 4 of the handout. "We looked at the historic yields of the CBT portion of the North Poudre shares," he began. From 1957 through 1994 the average CBT quota was about 74%. The yield for the North Poudre shares for the CBT portion was 2.9 Ac-ft per share. The yield for 500 shares averages 1,474 Ac-ft. "You can see, for a 60% quota year, we are at exactly 1,200 Ac-ft, which would be the amount delivered to Kodak," he indicated. In other years when the quota is higher than that, there would be some surplus water that the City could use. He also noted that there have been two years in the past where we've had only 50% quotas; when you have a 50% quota you are slightly short on the 500 shares. The last two columns show that when you add the total number of shares of 623.5 you get an average yield of 1,838 Ac-ft, or a surplus of 638 Ac-ft. "We think there is some ability to smooth out that surplus," he said. Also, in the dry years we tend to have higher quotas, so there is some surplus water that will be available. Dave Frick asked what the additional yield on North Poudre direct flow water was in the years 1983 and 1990. "You will recall that 1983 was a very wet year, so it was a high run-off year," Mr. Bode replied. "I'm sure we had all kinds of direct flow water in that year," he added. In 1990 it was probably an allocation of about 4 or 4 1/2 Ac-ft per share (he didn't recall exactly) of North Poudre water. "The unknown is, if we went through a change in use on North Poudre shares, we might not get all of that; it may be something less, but even if we received half of that, we would have some additional water. "Is the average yield per share of 2.9 Ac-ft just the CBT portion?" Neil Grigg asked. "It's my understanding that the other water that North Poudre has would add significantly to that 2.9; is that correct?" "It would add to it," Mr. Bode answered. "There is probably an average of 2 1/2 to 3 Ac-ft •- • Water Board Minutes February 17, 1995 Page 9 per share delivery from Poudre Basin supplies. If you went through a transfer, you could get 50 or 601/o of that which you could use." In the text Mr. Bode mentions that an additional I to 2 Ac-ft per share could be realized. "Did you present only the CBT portion of the shares because that portion is firm and we can use CBT however we need to?" Dr. Grigg asked. "It would seem to be firmer based on historic quotas, etc." W. Bode responded, "unless there is some major change in the way CBT water is allocated," he added. Mr. Bode mentioned that the Water Supply Committee spent considerable time on this issue, and they may have some additional thoughts. Committee member Dave Frick related that the Committee approached the subject from several angles to see if "it's going to cost us anything." It does cost money out of pocket every year because we will be spending money on assessments, he said. However, over the long haul, we end up with more water that we don't have to pay for. In addition, if we have to go through a transfer on North Poudre for our existing supplies anyway, to add a few shares to it is not going to affect the cost of doing the transfer. The Committee essentially concluded that it looked like a good situation no matter which way you approached it; the only difference being the annual assessments. "I assume we're getting a big portion of that back because they have to pay for the 1200," Mr. Herrmann said. "Under the arrangement, they wouldn't have an annual payment," Mr. Bode clarified. The way they pay is with the 123.5 shares that they turn over in addition to the 500 shares. He added that staff determined that we could rent out about half of the 600 shares in addition to providing the supply back to Kodak. There would be another 200-300 shares that could be leased out. Looking at it in the short term, that would reduce those annual costs to perhaps $20,000. "It's an investment in the future, Mr. Frick remarked. Terry Podmore asked if Fort Collins gets a chance to purchase the CBT shares. "We don't in the proposed agreement, Mr. Bode replied. "I would assume if Kodak decides to sell those, that they would be on the open market," he said. George Reed, Water Board citizen observer who works at Kodak, commented that the Kodak plant has gone through several steps to secure their water supply for the plant. Kodak would probably approach all municipalities at first to offer them the existing CBT, and the remainder the company would turn over to a broker. Howard Goldman wondered what the $20,000 a year would buy if it wasn't spent this way. For $20,000 you could buy, for example, 4 shares of North Poudre stock each year, Mr. Bode replied. Dave Frick asked what kind of capital investment that was. "I think if you multiplied it by the present worth value, $300,000 could buy about 60 shares of North Poudre," Mr. Bode calculated. "If the market value goes down, we still have an infinite commitment to water," Mr. Herrmann commented. I think one of the reasons this arrangement may work is that it still provides a firm yield from Kodak every year, yet it provides surplus water that can fit into the rest of our resources, and will allow us to even that out in years when it is needed," Mr. Bode stated. Water Board Minutes February 17, 1995 Page 10 "Is there flexibility in the agreement if Kodak should need less water?" Mr. Goldman asked. "The current arrangement is a firm delivery of 1200 Ac-ft." Mr. Bode answered. "At what point, if we have a drought, do we go negative on this; a 50 or 100 year drought?" Mr. Herrmann asked. "I'm not sure that we know, but if you look at the years when we had a 50% quota, it would probably be a more severe drought than the 1-in-50," Mr. Bode replied. He added that it depends on how you look at it. If you look at just the 500 shares, then you can go negative when you have a 50% quota. "I think the District looks at that as being very rare, if it's in a drought period," he stressed. For example, in 1983 they went to a 50% quota, but that was because it was a wet year. "That's the down side," Mr. Dow remarked. But there's the benefit of having more water most of the time. "In that case even North Poudre water itself would yield some," Mr. Frick pointed out. Mr. Bode emphasized that there is a lot of potential to work with all the shares in the company, and do some temporary things if you are in a short year. "So this is a win, win situation any way you look at it?" Mr. Herrmann asked. "I think it is a good situation," Mr. Bode concluded. Tom Brown added that the Committee discussed the situation for two hours and also came to that conclusion. Water Utility Staff recommends that the City enter into this proposed agreement with Kodak. Neil Grigg moved that the Water Board recommend approval of the agreement. Ray Herrmann seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. STAFF REPORTS Treated Water Production Summary Andy Pineda reported that January usage was about 1,400 Ac-ft, so "we're pretty much on track, he said. Utility Quarterly Report, October, November, December 1994 Paul Clopper asked if the chlorine residuals were measured at any of sampling stations, or is it just measured at the plant. "One of my friends recently moved to the ELCO District and noticed that the water tasted like a swimming pool there compared to ours," he related. Ben Alexander said that there are several stations in Fort Collins where it is measured, one being out near the PRPA building. "We get that data on a weekly basis; that's one indicator of how to set it at the plant, he added. He also gave the numerical range of the residuals. Mr. Alexander explained that the key to being able to feed that low a dosage, is the particle removal process at the plant. There are not a lot of things left in the water to induce a chlorine demand, so we can get away with very low dosages. Also, we have the benefit of not having distribution systems that are as long as other utilities' systems; they have to "jack it up" in order to maintain the residual at the far end of the system, he explained. Paul Clopper appreciated knowing the range of the residuals. Financial Status Report No report Water Board Minutes February 17, 1995 Page 11 Boxelder Sanitation District Update Mike Smith reminded the Board that they had discussed at the last meeting when they want to meet with the Boxelder Board, and the Board asked staff to monitor the process of what Boxelder is doing with their site application. Gale McGaha Miller has done research on the matter and consented to give a report. Ms. McGaha Miller said that the last she heard directly from Boxelder, they were hoping to have a site application in to the 208 agency for that agency s March meeting. They have not submitted anything to the County yet, which they should do before that March meeting, "so it's getting down to the wire, and I would say it's doubtful at this point that they will make the deadline for a March meeting," she stated. Dave DuBois, who is manager of the 208 agency and Ed Schemm from Larimer County Health, met with Dean Smith, Manager of Boxelder Sanitation District, after the last site application process, and told him that he must perform an alternative analysis as part of the next site application, Ms. McGaha Miller related. David DuBois called Ms. McGaha Miller a couple of weeks ago to say that he had a conversation with Dean Smith, and was told that Boxelder would be sending Fort Collins a letter asking for information on the cost to provide services as opposed to having to do the alternatives analysis. "We have not yet received that request for information," she said. On a parallel track, Boxelder is also trying to find out if they need to go through a City planning process and/or a County planning process for this project, she related. The lagoon expansion would be mostly on City property which is in City limits, and some of the work would be done on their existing property which is not in City limits. "From a procedural point of view, it's a little tricky for them," she said. Their attorney, Rick Zier, sent letters to both City and County planning asking them for an interpretation. "At this time, I don't know what the County has told them, and the City is still trying to figure it out," she added. Mike Smith said the issue of when to meet with Boxelder had not been resolved at the last meeting. The options continue to be to try to meet with them before the site application process is completed to discuss that or wait until it's finished to discuss more regional issues, etc. He thinks the first meeting might be a bit more adversarial in nature, while a second meeting could be more of a "plan for the future" type meeting. Those are two options for the Board to consider. Mr. Dow asked if staff has any recommendations. "Frankly, I'm not sure there is a lot to be gained with the first option," Mr. Smith said. The second option may be a more productive meeting, he suggested. In either case if the site application is approved or disapproved, "I think it would be a more productive meeting," he added. If it is not approved it would provide an opportunity for them to let us know how we could help them out, and if it is approved, we could discuss how we can work together in the future. Water Board Minutes February 17, 1995 Page 12 Paul Clopper said that it would be prudent to examine whether we run the risk of being perceived that we are "lying in wait for them," if we don4 address the issue prior to their site application. He added that "it isn4 a strong feeling." He assumes that we will have feedback from the State through various channels, and some of that feedback may be negative. Mr. Smith suggested that staff work with Boxelder in the beginning, and after the site application decision, the Board can become more closely involved. Tim Dow thanked Gale McGaha Miller and Mike Smith for the update and asked staff to continue to keep the Board informed. Mr. Smith assured the Board that staff will do that. Water Board Annual Report Board members received the Water Board 1994 Annual report in their packets. Molly Nortier said the report is based on the Board's 4994 Work Plan. She also said that the Water Board Annual report will be included in the W & WW Utility Annual Report which will be completed in the next few weeks. The Board agreed that it was a good report of what they had been involved with in 1994. Reminder of March Meeting Date Because spring break for CSU and Poudre R-1 falls during the regular Water Board meeting date, the majority of the Board members agreed to meet instead on Friday, March 31st at the regular time and place. Water Supply Chair Tom Brown said "as you heard earlier, we spent most of our time discussing the issue of Kodak's North Poudre shares." The only other item that came up at the meeting was the issue of the additional 4,588 CBT units that Kodak will be putting on the market. "Actually they are not going to put all of those up for sale at once," Mr. Smith pointed out. George Reed said that Kodak will "probably" put up about 3200. "Anyway they will be selling far more than we have money to buy, even if we wanted to spend all our money, which is certainly not the case," Mr. Brown remarked. There was some discussion of spending some of our roughly $2 million reserve on some of those CBT units if a favorable price were available, he continued. "We are not suggesting to the Board that it make this contingent on the agreement we just approved. The Committee hopes that it will become a separate issue at some point. President Dow suggested that staff discuss this with George Reed and others, and let the Board know what transpires. Mr. Smith emphasized that one of the biggest problems associated with this issue is not Kodak offering it or our having the money, but the Northern District allowing it to happen. They have come up with some new interim guidelines, and we are over the limit according to them, he said. "Is the District trying to keep CBT in agriculture, or are they just trying to spread it out?" Dr. Grigg asked. "I'm not sure; it's something we will be looking into further," Mr. Bode replied. Water Board Minutes February 17, 1995 Page 13 Legislative and Finance Gale McGaha Miller distributed copies of a Legislative Issues Status Report. Each of the items included a description of the issue, the status of the legislation and a staff recommendation. Ms. McGaha Miller said the long list of items makes it look like a lot is happening but "there really isn't anything happening that directly impacts the Utilities." There are a few issues that conservancy districts and a other utilities might be interested in, she said. "Some of these are the usual annual bills," she added. There is no controversy on the first item, the Wastewater and Domestic Water Treatment Projects Lists. The next item, Unfunded Mandates, was discussed at the last meeting. That has passed the Senate and is in the House State Affairs Committee. The idea is that state general funds don't go to federally mandated programs receiving less than 50% federal funding. "That could impact Clean Water Act programs; it wouldn't impact state Drinking Water Act programs because they get more than 50% state funding," she explained. She wasn't clear how that would work with federal mandates. "The talk among other utilities is that we would prefer to have a state program because we get a lot of help from the state; if EPA were to run it, it would be enforcement only. That seems to be a common thought," she added. We support the Drinking Water Revolving Fund Creation bill which would create a drinking water revolving loan fund similar to the State Revolving Fund used for wastewater projects. It is intended for small communities that aren't able to take advantage of some of the water and power Authority programs. It currently is in Senate Appropriations. "It looks promising," she said. Ms. McGaha Miller said the Takings by State Government bill is one that staff will monitor. It's difficult to see at this point if its going to have any direct impact on us. There is considerable amending of language going on right now. Prescriptive Easements is a bill that has quite a few people nervous, because rights -of -way to access ditches and reservoirs, etc. frequently rely upon prescriptive easements. Some of the conservancy districts and other groups are opposing it in its current form. She believes a sub Committee of the Water Congress has been formed to craft better language for it. The Springs and Wells bill is primarily based on a local dispute, she related, and they are trying to pass a bill statewide to solve a local problem. "Most people are hoping that it's not going to go anywhere, and that the problem will be solved without having to pass a law," she said. The Endangered Species Reintroduction is "the famous wolf bill," she remarked. "We don't have a direct impact, but since we have some endangered species issues with Joe Wright and Meadow Springs Ranch, I tend to watch anything that has the term 'endangered species' in it," she admitted. The Small Community Environmental Flexibility Act is out of committee. It allows municipalities 2,500 and under to phase compliance with environmental regulations over ten years. "It is not clear how it will work with EPA mandated compliance deadlines," she said. CML is apparently working Water Board Minutes February 17, 1995 Page 14 on some amendment language to deal with downstream impacts and watershed agreements, but she wasn't able to get a copy of it. Staff is opposing the bill in its current form, because neighboring communities operating under different compliance deadlines could create strained relations, customer confusion and possible impacts to wasteload allocations. It also creates a disincentive for regionalization. The so called Roan Creek Transfer Bill has been killed. The bill would have directed that fees collected for a water export would go to the basin where the water came from. Essentially it applied to those water projects that wanted to lease compact water to out-of-state entities, and actually take that funding to build the reservoir from the project," she explained. "The NCWCD was very much opposed to that," she added. The Enforcement of Criminal Penalties for Environmental Law Violations Bill is a mechanical bill. "We had a one to two-year statute of limitations statewide on violations of environmental law, but it didn't make any difference because the EPA had five years, so if you didn't get enforced upon by the state, you would by the EPA." This would just make the two laws consistent. Ms. McGaha Miller continued by discussing possible legislation not yet introduced. The Private Instream Flows bill would change current practice which allows only the State to hold instream flow rights. The sponsor (Powers) may seek late status for this bill. CWC members generally believe legislation is unnecessary because instream flow rights can be obtained through Water Court. Ms. McGaha Miller doesn't think the possible Ban on Phosphorus Products Bill is going to happen this year, and the Election of Water Boards bill was postponed indefinitely. On the other hand, this year's version of the Water II Ballot initiative does include a provision for election of directors for conservancy districts. "We won't know much more about this until after it goes before the Title Setting Board by March 1st," she said. She added that this initiative may have difficulty in Title Setting because it is not a "single issue" as now required. It is an attempt to amend the water provisions of the constitution to incorporate the public trust doctrine, require election of directors for conservancy districts and provide for the dedication of water rights to instream flow uses. Staff will monitor this closely. The Northern District plans to oppose it. She went on to talk about federal legislation. There is a bill that seems to be receiving a lot of support in the House to abolish the Whole Effluent Toxicity testing program. It's a program that has seen a lot of controversy. Technical people think it's not a scientifically sound test, and they have problems with the variability of it. Moreover, to have compliance rest upon that test and then be subject to enforcement, "is not a good thing." Staff will monitor this bill. "You may all be aware of the federal level Unfunded Mandates which is moving through the houses quite smoothly," she said. It is expected that the President will sign it. The bill won't cover existing laws or those passed before new law takes effect later this year. •- • Water Board Minutes February 17, 1995 Page 15 The Safe Drinking Water Act Re -authorization, a coalition bill similar to what was nearly voted in at the end of the last session, is moving through committee rapidly. Sponsors are predicting a bill will be before the President by the August recess. Clean Water Act Re -authorization: Its sponsor plans an "ambitious schedule" for the bill. Hearings were held in February with full committee markup proposed for the end of April. Paul Clopper remarked that the state bill, Enforcement of Criminal Penalties for Environmental Law Violations "brings up an interesting question." Given the form of City government we have, "let's say the City of Fort Collins was found to be in gross violation of some environmental law, who would go to jail?" "The person who signs the permit," Ms. McGaha Miller replied. President Dow asked if staff is calling for any formal action on any of these bills. "I wouldn't recommend any at this point. None of these directly impact us," Ms. McGaha Miller responded. Paul Clopper asked about the biosolids (heavy metals and selenium) issue in Pueblo. "I guess they won a startling court case," he remarked. Ms. McGaha Miller explained that the City of Pueblo has considerable background selenium naturally occurring in the groundwater. People with basements have sump pumps which they use to pump out the groundwater which ends up in the wastewater treatment systems. The selenium is not from an industrial source, but comes out of the groundwater and is entering the surface water, and it's entering in exceedance of water quality standards. "So they have a problem in their effluent as well as their biosolids." Pueblo contends that EPA had not done a very good job in their science. The court in which the case was heard stated that the change in the selenium standard applies only to this region, but not nationwide at this point. This is different from when the molybdenum standard was changed, she pointed out. "I think it will be a continued process, and I'm not clear at this point what that process is to try to change the selenium standards nationwide. It needs to be decided nationwide," she contends. "If it's bad science for the region, it's bad science for everybody," she concluded. She went on to say that Pueblo i:s also working with the State, primarily, on water quality standards for selenium. The Water Quality Control Commission is looking at revising the selenium water quality standard; for the first time basing a water quality standard not on aquatic life, but on some research done on water fowl that ate selenium -contaminated fish at a North Carolina reservoir. The scientific community will be watching this closely. Conservation and Public Education Terry Podmore said there was nothing more to add to the Demand Management report given earlier by Jim Clark. Engineering No report Water Board Minutes February 17, 1995 Page 16 REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY STRATEGY UPDATE No report REGIONAL WASTEWATER SERVICE ISSUES UPDATE This was included earlier under staff reports. OTHER BUSINESS Joint Meeting with Greeley and Loveland Water Boards Molly Nortier reported that Loveland will be hosting the joint meeting this spring and suggested four possible dates. They would like Board members and staff to prioritize the dates so they will have an indication of the best time to hold the meeting. Ms. Nortier will inform the Board when a date has been selected. Board Members Moving Outside of Urban Growth Area The Water Board discussed the issue of whether or not a Board or Commission member who moves out of the Urban Growth Area (UGA) may complete his/her term. The Board became concerned with this issue as a result of President Tim Dow moving out of the UGA and Vice President MaryLou Smith planning to move out of the UGA at the end of March. The Board and Commissions Manual in Membership Limitations states: "No person will be appointed for membership to any board or commission who is not a resident of Fort Collins or the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area." When Mr. Dow became aware of this condition, he called City Attorney Steve Roy and sent a letter to Mayor Azari asking for a clarification of the rule for those who move out of the UGA after serving on a Board or Commission. The rule does not specifically address the issue of members moving out of the UGA; should he or she resign immediately or serve the remainder of her/his term? The Water Board discussed this issue in terms of the current situation of the two Water Board members mentioned above, and a future policy that addresses Board and Commission members who move out of the UGA during their tenure. Related to the short term situation, Board members feel that Mr. Dow and Ms. Smith should be allowed to serve out their terms which expire in 1996. They are concerned that losing both the president and vice president at the same time would be disruptive and would affect the immediate effectiveness of the Board. In Addition to being the president and vice president, Mr. Dow and Ms. Smith are members of the City Council/Water Board Water Planning Committee, and are active in other ways on the Board. It was also pointed out that the Board will soon be losing the considerable experience and expertise of a long time member and past president Dr. Neil Grigg. His three -term limit expires in June. Water Board Minutes February 17, 1995 Page 17 The Board also discussed the long term implications of this issue. While recognizing that this is a policy issue for Council to decide, they think the issue should be addressed. This situation is different from that of a City employee, since Board and Commission members volunteer their time, Neil Grigg and Ray Herrmann pointed out. Neil Grigg moved that the Water Board recommend to the City Council that any board or commission member who moves outside the UGA during his/her appointed term, and who wish to continue to serve until the end of their terms, should be allowed to do so. Ray Herrmann seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously to communicate their position on this issue to the City Council. It should be noted that Tim Dow abstained from the vote, and MaryLou Smith was absent from the meeting. Question about Forest Service Recovery Plan Dave Frick asked if the Utility is paying money to the Wildlife Foundation for the Forest Service Recovery Plan. "We haven't yet," Mr. Smith answered. "In addition, is the Water Congress doing some studies to monitor the program?" Mr. Frick continued. After the Fish & Wildlife Service made their recommendations, their opinions were included in the Forest Service documents, Mr. Smith stated. A group of entities, including a number who were not involved in this from the beginning, decided they wanted to form a group to monitor the Fish & Wildlife Service's development of the recovery program. They elected to operate that organization through the Water Congress, and have them send out bills, etc. The purpose of the group is just to monitor the process, Mike Smith stressed. "You may recall that the City of Fort Collins elected not to participate in that group because we asked the group not to use the Water Congress as that vehicle. We wanted to keep it separate from the Water Congress; Boulder asked for that too," he explained. He added that Fort Collins is monitoring the process separate from that group, trying to avoid spending a lot of money. Mr. Frick thinks the group, which is called the Platte River Project, is spending about $300,000 a year to monitor the Recovery Plan. Mr. Frick remarked that "the water community in general is upset with Fort Collins for not wanting to join with the Platte River group." He understands that the group simply wants to watch out for Colorado's interests when it comes to development of the Recovery Plan so that Colorado doesn't get "dinged" with more than its share of what has to be done; essentially Colorado is the biggest source of water for the plan. "I'm ready to trust the state on this because the Attorney General is watching this very closely, as is the Director of the Department of Natural Resources; it's a high priority for them," Mr. Smith asserted. "I think the state is very aggressive on this issue, not that the Platte River group isn't," he added. Mr. Frick commented that we don't want to get too alienated from other water users, "but, on the other hand, we want to watch out for ourselves." Mr. Smith related that some of the water users are irritated that Fort Collins forged an agreement with the Forest Service. "Frankly, they got off the hook because of what we did. We basically worked out an agreement which gave the Forest Service some ammunition to settle this issue, and saved some legal fees," he contends. "Water Supply & Storage and Greeley didn't have to do what we did," he added. Mr. Smith emphasized that Fort Water Board Minutes February 17, 1995 Page 18 Collins doesn't have an "ax to grind" with the Colorado Water Congress; they do a lot of good work. "We're a member and we support them," he concluded. Art in Public Places Rich Shannon said that the thrust of the Art in Public Places policy that is being proposed is that any capital project would designate a certain amount of money to go into art as part of that capital construction, and that would include Utility projects. "For the larger projects the suggestion is 1% of the budget, which is standard for these kinds of programs around the country," he said. The City Council would like feedback from the Boards and Commissions on this proposed policy. Dr. Grigg commented that if that kind of program is handled properly, it can add a lot to the City. He added that public education projects can be a part of that too. Terry Podmore related that if you have a fairly significant amount of money, you can commission art rather than purchasing art that has already been created. "I think that's worth doing," he said. The Water Board asked for a presentation on this subject so they can learn more about the pros and cons and the policy issues. Mr. Shannon said he would make arrangements for a presentation. ADJOURNMENT Since there was no more business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:35 P.M. Water Boaid Secretary