Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 06/17/1994V. WATER BOARD MINUTES June 17, 1994 3:00 - 5:04 P. M. Water & Wastewater Utility Conference Room 700 Wood Street Council/Water Board Liaison Gerry Horak Members Present Neil Grigg, President, Marylou Smith, Vice President, Tom Brown, John Bartholow, Howard Goldman, Ray Herrmann, Dave Frick, Dave Stewart Guests Black & Veatch Consultants: Bruce Long, Harley Bryant, Jim Abbott, Dave Butler Council members Bob McCluskey and Gina Janett Sue Ellen Charlton, League of Women Voters Observer Staff Rich Shannon, Mike Smith, Wendy Williams, Dennis Bode, Keith Elmund, Ben Alexander, Curt Miller, Tom Gallier, Gale McGaha-Miller, Scott Harder, Owen Randall, Molly Nortier Members Absent Tim Dow (excused), Terry Podmore (on sabbatical) President Neil Grigg opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Minutes Paul Clopper moved, and John Bartholow seconded that the minutes of May 20, 1994 be approved as distributed. The Board concurred unanimously. Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District: Update No report Presentation of Draft Water Treatment Facilities Master Plan Mike Smith explained that the purpose of today's presentation was to provide a preview of the executive summary of the Draft Water Treatment Facilities Master Plan. He pointed out that the presentation was being videotaped so that people who had to miss the meeting would be able Water Board Minutes June 17, 1994 Page 2 to see it at their convenience. Bruce Long, Harley Bryant, Jim Abbott and Dave Butler, consultants from Black & Veatch, were introduced. Bruce Long, with the help of Harley Bryant, gave a 35 minute presentation on the findings and recommendations included in the executive summary. Following are some highlights from the Water Treatment Facilities Master Plan Executive Summary: Background Information The City supplies treated water to more than 102,000 people, and produces over 9 billion gallons of treated water per year, or an average of 25 million gallons per day (mgd). Maximum day usage has reached 61 mgd. The Utility recognized that careful planning is required to continue effective service on that scale, so the FCWU initiated a Water Treatment Master Plan in late 1992. The purpose of the B&V project was to review past efforts, assess existing conditions, project future needs, and develop a comprehensive plan for the next 20 years. The draft Master Plan was prepared in cooperation with the City's W&WW Utility staff. The results of this planning study were heavily influenced by the City's recently adopted Drinking Water Quality Policy, and it was also influenced by the Water Demand Management Policy. The Drinking Water Quality Policy adopted in October 1993, establishes drinking water quality as a high priority for the City. This policy sets specific goals for managing and operating the City's raw water resources and its treatment and distribution facilities to ensure that high -quality treated water is reliably provided to all residents of the City and to FCWU customers outside the City limits. According to the executive summary, the Water Demand Management Policy, adopted in April 1992, directly affects projections of future water usage. As a result of the water conservation goals and specific measures set forth in this policy, the capacity of the treatment facilities required to meet future needs is significantly reduced. The assumptions and findings of the Water Treatment Facilities Master Plan indicate that new facilities to increase treatment capacity and improve reliability will be needed within the 20-year planning period. These improvements will enable the goals of the Drinking Water Quality Policy to be consistently achieved. Master Plan Purpose Water Board Minutes June 17, 1994 Page 3 * Provide the facilities to meet future treated water needs. * Ensure that the quality of the treated water delivered to customers consistently meets or surpasses regulatory requirements. * Ensure that the quality of the treated water meets customer expectations. * Provide operating flexibility to meet fluctuations in usage and raw water quality. * Provide sufficient redundancy, standby facilities and emergency procedures to ensure water supply reliability. * Supply high quality treated water at the lowest practical cost. Planning Process Planning for treated water service is influenced by a number of interrelated factors: the planning period, the current service area, the future service area, the Northern Colorado Regional context. projected water usage, and regulatory requirements. All of these are explained in detail in the summary. Findings and Conclusions The findings and conclusions in the summary serve as the basis for the Master Plan recommendations. As a public water supplier, the FCWU must provide high quality drinking water to its customers, reliably and cost-effectively.. Customers are vitally concerned with the safety of drinking water, but aesthetic criteria are the primary indicators used by the public to judge the quality of their water. The customer expects sufficient quantities of high quality water to be available at all times. This requires facilities with adequate capacity and dependable backup. Cost-effectiveness results when well -designed and coordinated facilities are operated efficiently. General Findings 1) The FCWU service area will not expand significantly. 2) The FCWU service area population is expected to grow more slowly than the population of the City as a whole, but a substantial increase of nearly 37% is still projected. 3) Regionalization of treated water service within the Fort Collins metropolitan area is Water Board Minutes June 17, 1994 Page 4 unlikely during the 1995 to 2015 planning period. 4) The FCWU service area treated water usage will range between 79 and 87 mgd by the end of the 1995 to 2015 planning period. 5) The FCWU provides drinking water to its customers from a single conventional water treatment facility. 6) Peak production capacity of the WTF is affected by raw water quality and the duration of high usage periods. 7) Adequate production capacity to meet projected peak day usage will be achieved as part of other necessary treatment process improvements. 8) Maintaining a high degree of aesthetic quality will continue to be an ongoing commitment. 9) Regulatory requirements for public health protection will continue to be a major influence on WTF upgrades and operations. To ensure compliance, optimum performance will be required at every step in the treatment process. 10) Implementation of hydroelectric power generation is not economically feasible. Specific Findings - Source of Supply: 1) The raw water transmission systems need improvements to increase reliability. 2) Selective source use is an effective strategy for treating seasonal water quality problems. Specific Findings - Treatment Processes: 1) Settling process facilities need improvement to ensure public health protection and regulatory compliance at future water production rates. 2) Treatment process modifications will be needed to accommodate increased Poudre River water use. 3) Inadequate treated water storage has made it necessary to vary the flow through the WTF to match system usage, jeopardizing water quality. 4) Potassium permanganate is effective in reducing manganese, but permanent facilities Water Board Minutes June 17, 1994 Page 5 are needed to improve performance and reliability. 5) Taste and odor treatment using existing facilities is only partially effective. 6) Additional data are needed to accurately assess the impacts of proposed regulations. Specific Findings - Support Systems 1) Most of the existing chemical systems need improvements to reduce %waste and enhance performance. 2) Miscellaneous electrical system improvements are needed to increase reliability. 3) Recycling filter backwash water saves water but may carry concentrations of pathogens back to the plant. 4) The waste solids handling procedure could be made more efficient and cost-effective. 5) Data management practices should be improved to increase operating efficiency and cost-effectiveness. 6) Emergency preparedness planning needs to be completed. RECOMMENDED PLAN The Recommended Plan incorporates the recommendations developed through the master planning process into a comprehensive program to address current and future needs described in the Findings and Conclusions. It does not include construction of additional treatment facilities at a new site, or any improvements specifically to increase the production capacity of the WTF. However, implementation of the recommended improvements will effectively result in an increase in treatment capacity due to efficient design and optimized performance. Proposed new facilities will be designed to provide adequate capacity to meet future treated water usage based on the projections in the Master Plan Report. To further ensure that water usage does not exceed capacity, it is recommended that the FCWU carefully monitor population growth and the increase in treated water usage. If it becomes apparent that usage will exceed the production capacity of the WTF, a revised plan to provide the necessary increase in capacity will need to be developed. Source of Supply The availability of raw water from two separate sources is one of the City's premier assets. Water Board Minutes June 17, 1994 Page 6 Selective use of the two sources is the FCWU's first line of defense against seasonal water quality problems. However, to take full advantage of this asset, improvements to the raw water delivery systems from both Horsetooth Reservoir and Poudre River will be required. 1) Conduct a Source Water Management Study. 2) Obtain decree modifications, complete environmental impact assessments, and perform other preliminary work associated with the proposed new Poudre River raw water transmission pipeline. 3) Construct a new raw water transmission pipeline from the Poudre River to the WTF. 4) Complete a second connection to the Horsetooth Reservoir outlet. Treatment Process Improvements Specific recommendations are made to improve performance effectiveness and consistency, to enhance reliability, and to increase efficiency. 1) Conduct additional studies of manganese occurrence in Horsetooth Reservoir. 2) Conduct taste and odor studies and implementation of flavor profile analysis program. 3) Install media, piping, and controls in new filters. 4) Construct a new treatment train. 5) Convert existing basins for manganese and taste and odor pretreatment. 6) Upgrade dual -media filters to mixed -media filters. 7) Implement flow equalization and storage utilization procedures. 8) Construct disinfection contact chamber and new chlorination facility. 9) Complete the ozone pilot studies and evaluation program. 10) Expand water quality monitoring for regulatory assessment. 11) Upgrade settling process performance. Support Systems Water Board Minutes June 17, 1994 Page 7 1) Consolidate chemical systems in a new centralized chemical feed and storage facility. 2) Complete miscellaneous electrical improvements. 3) Membrane filtration should be studied as a possible process option for the backwash water recovery facility. 4) Add a backwash water recovery facility. 5) Upgrade waste solids handling facilities. 6) Implement a data management program. 7) Complete the emergency response plan. Staffing Implementation of the Recommended Plan will not require significant changes to WTF staffing. The most important exception would be the addition of the recommended Data Management Specialist. Better source water management will also increase the need to analyze water quality and process data as the basis for operational decision making. This expanded workload could require an additional staff position. Implementation Implementation of the Master Plan is the series of actions that will put the recommendations into practice. Successful implementation is dependent on establishing priorities which will guide the scheduling of necessary activities which, in turn, will establish the basis for financial planning. Schedule Timing for each of the recommendations in the Master Plan was selected on the basis of one or more of the following factors: * Urgency of the problem being addressed. * Projected increase in treated water demand. * Timing of anticipated regulatory requirements * Disruption to plan operations. Water Board Minutes June 17, 1994 Page 8 * Coordination with related improvements. * Staff loading. Capital Expenditures Projected capital budget figures were summarized in Figure ES-2 of the Executive report. All costs are in 1994 dollars. For preliminary budgeting, the costs were allocated to the year for which they need to be budgeted rather than to the year in which the money will be spent. Roughly half of the engineering/administrative cost was assigned to the design phase and allocated to the year in which design was shown to start. The remainder of the engineering/administrative cost plus the total construction cost for the given item was allocated to the year when construction is shown to start. The amounts for studies and pilot testing programs were allocated to the years the study or program is scheduled to start. It should be kept in mind that this projection is intended for preliminary budgeting and to illustrate the anticipated timing and order of magnitude of capital expenditures. Implementation of nonstructural recommendations that primarily affect operations (e.g., data management system) and operation and maintenance costs are not included. Design and construction durations are assumed and may change during actual implementation. The timing of implementation of individual elements may change as well. Ongoing Planning The Master Plan provides a sound basis for developing and implementing the improvements needed to maintain the level of high quality service directed by the City's Drinking Water Quality Policy. However, since actual future conditions may differ from those forecast, the FCWU should establish a procedure for monitoring and revising the Master Plan to ensure that it continues to reflect actual conditions. Questions and Comments Dave Stewart asked how often manganese is a problem. Bruce Long replied that "we have been seeing it a minimum of 3-4 months per year;" but in reality, it probably causes concern more often than that. Manganese is not a health related issue; it's an aesthetic quality issue, he stressed. However, it's one that is quite visible to our customers. He went on to say that manganese is becoming a greater problem, and the frequency of manganese events is more regular. How you treat it impacts the effectiveness of other elements of the treatment process, he said. Neil Grigg wondered if the age of Horsetooth (40 years old), and increases in population and n L Water Board Minutes June 17, 1994 Page 9 recreation near the Reservoir, could be exacerbating the problems. The aging process is probably one of the factors contributing to more frequent manganese events, Mr. Long explained. Even if you had total control of the Horsetooth water shed going back for many years, you would still have a manganese problem eventually. And furthermore, the measurements that are used now are far more exacting than those used previously. "What we do know for sure is that there are more frequent manganese manifestations in Horsetooth, and staff is struggling with the impacts on water treatment," he stated. John Bartholow asked if ozone replaces chlorination or supplements it. "That's one of the major questions in the country right now," Mr. Long replied. It is likely that ozone will be used in between sedimentation and filtration. One of the things we do when we design ozone systems is make sure the ozone is dissipated before the filtration step. Because of that, to maintain the quality of the water in the distribution system, we are still dependent upon the use of chlorine. "Is that practiced in European cities where they also use ozonation? Do they also use chlorination to maintain the quality of water in the pipes?" Dr. Grigg asked. "Yes they do," Mr. Long replied. They sometimes use chlorine dioxide. Their distribution systems are much smaller than ours. B&V works closely with an institute in Europe that shares their evaluations of chlorine. The recommended plan does not include ozone at this time. Ozone could be added to the treatment process should it become necessary to meet more stringent future regulations. The FCWU has started a pilot testing program to evaluate the treatment impact(s) and effectiveness of ozone. Poudre River and Horsetooth Reservoir waters are being tested separately and in various combinations. The pilot testing program will also provide the information needed for future design and construction of ozone treatment facilities. Bob McCluskey asked if there is any alternative to extending the existing Poudre River pipeline? The existing pipeline is a combination of about 4 or 5 different pipelines from the early 1900s through 1985, when the last piece was constructed, Harley Bryant explained. It is about 9 miles and has numerous Poudre River crossings. There is a significant risk of losing the pipeline from wash -outs. Some of the old concrete pipe was installed in the 1920s and is not very reliable, so the pipeline is at some risk at this point. B&V tried to ascertain where the best place was, in terms of water quality and cost, to take water from the Poudre River. "For water quality we want to take it above the North Fork and right below the old water treatment plant," Mr. Bryant said. If it is taken below that, there is lesser water quality. Another way is to take it out of the Munroe Canal Diversion which is above the old treatment plant, and use some of the existing facilities. The greatest impact on the plan was whether or not the water had to be pumped from a lower elevation into the plant; if pumped, the cost of treated water to the customer would essentially double. Water Board Minutes June 17, 1994 Page 10 Neil Grigg asked if B&V looked at exchanging water out of Horsetooth rather than building another pipeline; in other words, assessing management alternatives. "That's recommended in the source management study," Mr. Bryant replied. "But what that does is continue your reliance on Horsetooth water, and if you have some kind of spill, for example, you remain at risk of losing a large portion of your total supply." Mr. Long added that Utilities that only have one source of supply struggle. Moreover, those that have one are looking for a second just so they have flexibility. "The unexpected can happen," he stressed. "With respect to the cost numbers in the report, and the way they play out through time," Paul Clopper began, "how does that line up with our intermediate range planning budget for capital improvements?" he asked. "Does it blow our previous ideas out of the water? Where do we fit here?" he asked. Mike Smith said that "it certainly has an impact on it." Gina Janett asked if there was any opportunity for some kind of cooperative or regional effort. Mr. Bryant said there are all sorts of possibilities. The Tri-District plant has only one source of supply right now, Horsetooth Reservoir. The Bureau of Reclamation is in the process of scheduling maintenance on the reservoir, at which time their source will be shut down for a period of time and they will be dependent on Fort Collins for a temporary supply. Mike Smith commented that the Tri-District has expressed interest in sharing the cost of the pipeline with the City. Harley Bryant explained that in terms of cooperation with Greeley, they have a pipeline that is quite old. They have to maintain a delicate balance; if they put too much in, it leaks out, if they don't put in enough, groundwater seeps into the line. Gina Janett asked if there is a way to distinguish between the quality and quantity components of the plan. Mr. Long referred to an overhead which listed the various driving forces for each of the recommended system improvements. Each of the proposed improvements to the Water Treatment Facility is, in part, being driven by pending or anticipated water quality regulations. Mr. Long emphasized that the presentation today was a "taster" to provide ideas about the various issues. "We can come back any time to expand on any of those issues," he said. Tom Brown, asked about the cost estimates which total about $58 million. How accurate would you characterize the cost estimates? Were you conservative or liberal? Mr. Bryant said that they added 25% in almost every case. "So it was your best estimate, plus 25%" Mr. Brown remarked. "That's right," he replied. "What about inflation?" Ray Herrmann asked. "It's strictly 1994 dollars," Mr. Bryant answered. "You'll have to inflate those as you go along." Mr. Brown also asked if, in general, the City were to do all that B&V is recommending, "would we be buying a Cadillac or a Dodge?" Mr. Long began by saying it is not a Cadillac. "It could be characterized more in the category of a Chevrolet Impala." Utilities of the size of Fort Water Board Minutes June 17, 1994 Page 11 Collins across the country are looking at the same options. The potential for things you might consider a Cadillac today could be something required 4 or 5 years from now, he pointed out. "Our sense here is that this is a very functional, dependable set of estimates," he concluded. How reasonable do you think our Demand Management Policy is in terms of reduction in water use? Mr. Brown asked. "I think the 17% target reduction is achievable as long as there is a continuing education process," Mr. Long replied. "One of the things I appreciated when I read the Customer Satisfaction Reports prepared by Maritz Marketing Research, Inc., is that customers are asking for more information. What I sense from that is that this is a community that is aware of issues and one that is trying to be more responsive to its resources," he remarked. The water policies adopted by Council were instrumental in providing direction for the study, Rich Shannon began. However, there is not a policy which addresses the issue of regional cooperation and what that means to us in the future. It's important to note that because we don't have as firm a direction in policy form from the Council in that area as we have in the other two, that's not been factored in. "Before discussion is finished, we would like to get a little clearer sense of where that value is compared to the other two values, but it's not yet on the table," he said. Dr. Grigg pointed out that the Water Board agenda has two regular items on regional subjects. The Board has had many discussions on regional issues over the years . "For many years we have thought it was important, but `some people' always seem to be in the way," he remarked." Gina Janett related that council members from various cities in the region have been getting together on a voluntary basis. The first topic for discussion happens to be open space to help separate the cities. "I think the time is ripe to approach the subject of regional cooperation in water issues," she said. Dr. Grigg emphasized that the Board is "ready to go" on regional cooperation. Moreover, the three water boards from Greeley, Loveland and Fort Collins have had productive discussions on this subject at their last few meetings. Ms. Janett continued by saying that she was thinking about the late 80s when the economy wasn't doing so well, versus the thriving economy now. When things aren't going so well towns are competing, and when we're growing as we are now, we're not competing, "so this is a very positive time to initiate ideas for cooperation," she contends. Dr. Grigg said that one of the big drivers of regional cooperation for water treatment is federal regulations. There are all kinds of regulatory issues down the road where the smaller districts will have to decide if they are going to get ready for these or rely on Fort Collins as being more capable to take the lead. Water Board Minutes June 17, 1994 Page 12 Paul Clopper asked if the Tri-District was involved in any elements of the study or "did you just use them to establish the service area boundaries and the projected growth?" Certain elements were discussed with them, but overall they weren't much involved in the process, Mr. Bryant responded. "Will B&V have a continuing involvement in this effort, or is this a stopping point now?" Dr. Grigg asked staff. Mike Smith said that "they will stay with us while we go through this process." Of course what has been presented today is just a draft report. "Hopefully as we did on the Wastewater Master Plan, this will evolve into a final plan following approval from Council. We may have other options that we may want B&V to look at," he concluded. At this point Mike Smith took the group through graphs with some projected financial figures and rates for the next five years. He pointed out that projections show that there could be a $4-6 difference in the monthly rate after the initial phase of the master plan is implemented. Dave Stewart asked if that included the pipeline. "The pipeline isn't in there because it is out of the 10-year planning period," Mr. Smith replied. What you see with the pipeline is another jump in the (red line) on the graph. Mr. Smith continued by pointing out that, in 1999, without the master plan, the typical monthly bill for water would be $27. With the master plan, the typical monthly bill would be $32. Mr. Stewart asked "what happens if we don't do this. In other words what's going to happen to our costs if the EPA has to fine us for not complying with regulations?" Law suits can be in the magnitude of millions of dollars, Bruce Long answered. He stressed that "you don't compromise in terms of the community's health." The risks we have now are far more complex than in years past. For example, for people with AIDS or other immune -system related diseases, there is the potential for serious complications. Tom Brown asked if the numbers are cost -of -dollars or inflated. "Those are actual projections for the years that they occurred. We have used a 3 % inflation factor for the last several years," Mr. Smith replied. From a recent survey the City did with Front Range cities, Fort Collins is approximately in the middle, Mr. Smith continued. "That's probably a good sign," he said. In a 5 year projection we may move up a couple of notches, but we will continue to be approximately in the middle, because the other communities will also have to meet federal regulations, etc. One of the conclusions of the survey was that not too many cities have projections, "which means that not many municipalities are doing financial planning." Gina Janett wondered what affect rate increases will have on demand. With the existing rate structure, projections show revenue increases of about 6-7% over the life of the project, Mr. Smith replied. "If we start tinkering with the rate structure, it could have a major impact." Water Board Minutes June 17, 1994 Page 13 "We're watching this issue closely because in the Demand Management Policy, Council set goals for us to reach. At this time, although we have only about a third of our customers metered, we are seeing some patterns change. Of course, the people who volunteer are probably more conscientious." It's hard to say what will eventually happen, but an effective education program will certainly help. "As we convert to meters will we expect somewhat of a drop in capacity use; is that factored in the 17% reduction?" Dave Stewart asked. "When we are doing our rate and revenue projections, we estimate a 12% decrease in flat rate accounts," Mr. Smith explained. Staff Reports Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported that in May water use was about 9% above what was projected, primarily because of low precipitation and warmer than normal temperatures. "We continue to seethe dry weather pattern," he said. Since the beginning of the year the precipitation has been about 60% of normal. Water use in June has been higher than average, "but everything is going well," he said. Financial Status Report Scott Harder said that operating revenues, as of the end of May, were within 5 % of where they were at this time last year. Plant Investment fees, both water and wastewater, were over 50% above where they were last year. That has dropped slightly, "but we are still over 40% on the water side and over 49% on the wastewater side." He said that the Utility is anticipating some operating revenue jumps with high demand and the heat spell. Forest Service Special Use Permit Update Mike Smith said that it appears there is a somewhat different focus now in the thinking of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Forest Service (FS). The biological opinion of the FWS provides a "reasonable and prudent alternative" which is to be implemented to reduce the adverse effects of the Forest Service's proposed action to renew the special use permit for Joe Wright. The R&P alternative is to be implemented in two phases: (1) an interim measure requiring the City to make an annual payment (during the next four years) of $3,235 (considerably less than when discussions began) into a fund established at the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for the purpose of acquiring water and restoring riverine habitat in the Platte River below North Platte, Neb.; and (2) the City's support and participation in a Central Platte River Recovery Implementation Program to be developed within the next four years. "I think the entities involved have finally recognized that a small community like Fort Collins can't bear the burden for habitat and water for endangered species in Nebraska; it must be done on a basinwide basis," he said. "Didn't this report come out before Secretary Babbitt came into the picture," Marylou Smith Water Board Minutes June 17, 1994 Page 14 asked. It all came together about the same time, Mr. Smith replied. Ms. Smith said that the article in the Coloradoan stated that the governor of Nebraska was willing to sign if the amount of water available for one of their big water projects wasn't affected. "Obviously, they are concerned about Kingsley Dam," Mr. Smith replied. Dave Frick explained that summer releases would make a significant impact because of operation agreements. "I interpreted that as meaning that they aren't going to necessarily pay the dollar per acre foot amount; they may make releases in lieu of that. Another piece of the puzzle is the FS by-pass flow issue, Mr. Smith said. He expects there probably will be a combination of the bypass flows and the joint operations plan. "Actually we could probably recover most or all of the winter water releases," he said. Dr. Grigg asked if the $3,200 is related to the bypass. "No, it isn't," Mr. Smith replied. "Is the $3200 figure firm, or is that to be negotiated?" John Bartholow asked. "We take it to be firm," Mr. Smith answered. Neil Grigg read a portion of a letter by former FS employee Austin Condon, printed in at least three area newspapers. He said: "A 1976 environmental analysis for Joe Wright Reservoir identified the need for minimum instream flows to protect fisheries. The City of Fort Collins in a letter the same year to the Bureau of Reclamation agreed to incorporate a by-pass structure and provide the minimum flows. This was not included in their special use permit for the new dam, so the City didn't do as they promised." Some of the information in the letter appears to be inaccurate. Mike Smith said that staff is researching some of Mr. Condon's statements. Ben Alexander contends that minimum flows were never a part of the Forest Service Permit in the early discussions during the environmental assessment. "At that time they were focusing mainly on the trails," he said. Dr. Grigg wondered if the Water Board should respond to these assertions. He quoted another portion of the letter which says: "In other words, it is Greeley, Fort Collins and the other water developers who have 'broken faith' with the public whose land they wish to continue to use without restriction." Dave Stewart thought it might be appropriate to mention this to the Council or the Council/Water Board Planning Committee. "If Council wants to say something that's their prerogative, but it would not be wise for the Board to write a `Soapbox' response," he asserted. Tom Brown said that it would be appropriate for staff to summarize some of the relevant information and forward that to the Council, saying, "This is what we understand really happened." Dr. Grigg suggested that staff prepare a short memo to the Council which the Board can review at their next meeting. City's Resolution on Proposed Wilderness Designation for Rocky Mountain National Park Congressman Skaggs has introduced a bill which would designate a total of 240,650 acres in four separate areas as a wilderness area in Rocky Mountain National Park. Ninety percent of the Park is currently managed as a wilderness area, and the bill would codify current management practices. Congressman Allard has asked for the City's position on this legislation. • Water Board Minutes June 17, 1994 Page 15 The Council Legislative Review Committee referred this bill to the Natural Resources Advisory Board and the Water Board for their comments. The Natural Resources Board has endorsed the land management concept of the legislation, and they feel that the wilderness designation underscores and provides additional legislative protection to the management system which has historically been used in the Park. They are aware, however, that there are concerns about the creation of reserved water rights through the legislation. That's why its endorsement is related to land management only. The Legislative and Finance Committee of the Water Board believes that the City should follow the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District response to this legislation. NCWCD owns water facilities and rights in the Park, and the City receives some of this District water. The District has expressed reservations about the current wording of the legislation. The Committee understands that the District is working with Congressman Skaggs' office to resolve these concerns. The Fort Collins City Council passed a resolution that supports designating the Park as a wilderness area, provided this designation does not impair the water rights or facilities of the NCWCD, the City of Fort Collins or other communities, and urges the sponsors of the Act to continue to work with the Northern District and affected communities to resolve any concerns with regard to water rights or facilities which may arise from the proposed wilderness designation. The information in the preceding four paragraphs was included in the Water Board packets. Tom Gallier reported that Rep. Skaggs has not yet responded to the changes suggested by the NCWCD. The bill appears to be "in a black hole" in the Congressional sub -committee at this point. It could actually make it out onto the House floor, and could conceivably pass, but it's doubtful that it will. Apparently neither Sen. Brown nor Sen. Campbell will support the bill at this time, and some of the other area cities have both water and land use concerns. Summary of Water Board Surveys A summary of the results of a Water Board survey was included in the Board's packets. Molly Nortier, who prepared the survey, said that the summary of the results should be fairly easy to interpret. "We will be looking for areas where we can make improvements," she said. She asked for questions and comments. Dr. Grigg commented that "it looks like Water Board members think that things are in pretty good shape." There has been more turnover in membership on the Board in recent years than there had been in the past, so there is a need for "constant re-training of ourselves on Water Board issues. Sometimes it's easy to lose our focus." he said. He remarked that we need to remember that we are an advisory board to the Council in an area of a lot of complexity, and the Water Treatment Master Plan that we discussed today, is a good example of that. Our great staff helps to keep us focused, he said. Water Board Minutes June 17, 1994 Page 16 "All and all, it's a good report," he concluded. Ms. Nortier thanked the Board for taking the time to complete the survey. Committee Reports Water Supply Chairman Tom Brown reported that the Committee met today prior to the Board meeting. Staff updated the Committee about the status of the City's water supply. "We are taking a fundamental look at our water supply situation, and options for increasing the amount and reliability of the supply," he said. One area we discussed was the relative benefits of purchase of water rights versus purchase of dry year options. He concluded that the committee will be reviewing the larger picture at length to determine if they can make some sort of evaluation of options for improving the reliability of our water supply. Paul Clopper asked what the next step is on Halligan Reservoir. "That was mentioned in the meeting as one of the options, but we didn't get into any details," Mr. Brown replied. "The next step in that process is beginning the feasibility study," Mike Smith pointed out. One of the reasons the committee was talking about some of the other options, is the uncertainty about whether the Halligan enlargement will occur because of the difficulty of getting the necessary permits, for example," Mr. Brown explained. Legislative and Finance No report Conservation and Public Education MaryLou Smith said that her Committee will meet on September 16 to begin looking at staff plans for the report to the Council at the end of the year on progress on the Demand Management Resolution. She will be out of the country until Sept. 1. Engineering Dave Stewart asked if his Committee should be involved in review of the Water Treatment Master Plan. Dr. Grigg assigned the Committee to review the plan wherever it is needed. and coordinate that with staff. Cost of Service Ad Hoc Committee Scott Harder will schedule a meeting during the first part of July. The Committee will discuss the 1995 draft Cost of Service Study and will review a draft of the 1995 rate schedule. Mike Smith also mentioned that staff will be presenting a draft of the 1995 Utility budget at the July Water Board meeting. C� Water Board Minutes June 17, 1994 Page 17 Regional Issues As Rich Shannon mentioned earlier in the meeting, regionalization is one of the issues that needs to be factored into long-term plans for managing water treatment, Mike Smith related. "Frankly if the master plan had called for increased capacity, there would probably be more opportunities for regional cooperation," he said. Even with what we are doing, there may be some potential for cooperation; sharing the pipeline, for example. John Bartholow wanted some clarifications about the policy implications of the Urban Growth Area. At the last meeting it was implied that eventually the City would supply all the Utility services within the UGA. "Certainly that doesn't appear to be the case in the assumptions we've seen. Therefore, do we expect the existing service area, the other providers, to continue in that role indefinitely?" he asked. There has been considerable discussion about this, Mike Smith responded. "It seems to me that the districts are going to be stuck with the huge costs of bringing their treatment facilities up to the water department standards," Dave Frick pointed out. We have the ability to be more cost effective in providing that treatment for them, he contends. "What do they do if they can't manage the regulations?" Dave Stewart asked. "It's a reality for our staff, whereas the Districts think they're too small to have to comply," he remarked. "I don't think that's a good assumption," he insisted. Mike Smith explained that some of the rates are based on the size of the community, and the Districts fall into the smaller sizes of not having to meet the same requirements, but eventually they will be. Dave Frick said maybe it's an economy of scale but, he thinks it would be cheaper to enlarge our facility rather than having them improve their treatment facilities. It might also bring our cost per thousand gallons down somewhat, he added. Probably the greatest potential today to save money without compromising quality, Mr. Smith remarked, is to run the two plants together with the same staff. Is there a problem with pumping if we were inter- connected? Dave Frick asked. "If they have to shut down a plant, we can serve them," Mr. Smith replied. Some of their water has to be pumped, he believes. There is significant potential for cooperation, Mr. Smith concluded. Molly Nortier said that Dean Smith from Boxelder Sanitation District received the minutes from the last Water Board meeting in which there was considerable discussion about Boxelder. He called to ask for phone numbers of a few Board members, in order to clarify with them, some remarks that were made at the last meeting. Other Business Tom Gallier Accepts Position with City of Fresno Mike Smith announced that Special Projects Manager Tom Gallier will be leaving the Water & Wastewater Utility to become the manager of the Wastewater Management Division of the Fresno Public Utilities Department. His last day here will be July 1st. An article in "Pipelines" Water Board Minutes June 17, 1994 Page 18 explains what he will be doing. "This was one of the hardest decisions my wife and I ever had to make," Tom Gallier related. "Everyone here has been great to work with, and I will miss all of you," he said. The Board members who took the tour of the Meadow Springs Ranch, which Tom led, were very impressed with his expertise, his humor, and his obvious fondness for the Ranch. Mike Smith said that Tom has done an exceptional job in the resource recovery area, and that his work is widely recognized. The Board expressed regret that Mr. Gallier is leaving, and wished him well in his new job and community. Adiourn Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:04 P.M. Water Board 8ecretary