Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 07/24/1997E WATER UTILITIES BOARD MINUTES July 24, 1997 3:15 - 5:10 p.m. Light and Power Training Room 700 Wood Street COUNCIL LIAISON Chuck Wanner (Arrived at 4:10 p.m.) STAFF LIAISON Molly Nortier - Phone: 221-6681 MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Clopper, President, Robert Ward, George Reed, Bob Havis, David Lauer, Dave Frick, Howard Goldman, Tom Brown, Dave Rau STAFF John Fischbach, City Manager; John Duval, Assistant City Attorney; Mike Smith, Wendy Williams, Gale McGaha Miller, Dennis Bode, Bob Smith, Ben Alexander, Marsha Hilmes, Shannon Gallegos, Molly Nortier GUESTS Robert Triesch and Charles Elkhardt, Newell Recycling Dick Rutherford, Stewart & Associates Sue Ellen Charlton, Observer, League of Women Voters MEMBERS ABSENT Alison Adams, John Morris and Tom Sanders (excused) Joe Bergquist (unexcused) Chairman Paul Clopper opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: MINUTES David Lauer moved that the minutes of June 26, 1997 be approved as distributed. After a second from Robert Ward, the minutes were approved unanimously. Water Utilities Board Minutes July 24, 1997 Page 2 CITY MANAGER'S STATEMENT City Manager John Fischbach visited the Board meeting to apologize for some of the comments he made at the May 22, 1997 Board meeting. "I have talked with several of you and I understand that some of my comments were not received as I had intended them to be received. For that I am very sorry," he said. "I had a misunderstanding of what was going on, so that was partly at the root of what I said. I respect the Board; I respect the relationship of the Board as citizens. I also have a great deal of respect for Mike Smith and his staff. That's a natural tension that will always exist," he stated. "We are very grateful that you came to share that with us, and I appreciate it very much," Paul Clopper said. David Lauer said that he really appreciated that he came also. Others agreed. Paul Clopper said that a quasi judicial hearing is a new experience for the former Water Board members, so he asked Assistant Attorney John Duval to explain the process. Mr. Duval explained that the role the Board will be playing for considering the variance today is that of a quasi judicial body. That differs from the role the Board usually plays as a policy making or legislative body where decisions and recommendations are made to the Council in their decision -making role as legislators. "When you are acting in a quasi judicial role, you are essentially sitting as the judge and jury," he said. As ajury you are deciding the facts and as a judge you are deciding the law. The facts that you will be considering today, are those facts that will be presented by the applicant, and any parties who may be opposing it. The law you will be applying is the law that appears in the City Code concerning the creating of variances, and also the substantive provision of the Code which deals with the placing of hazardous materials within the flood plain. He continued by saying that the Board's bylaws set up the procedures that will be followed today: • Explanation of the nature of the matter and presentation by City staff, • Presentation by the applicant submitting the matter to the Board; • Presentation by any party -in -interest opposing the matter being submitted by the applicant; • Rebuttal presentation by applicant; • Rebuttal presentation of any party-in-interesi opposing the matter submitted by applicant; • Members of the Board may ask questions of any witness who previously testified; Water Utilities Board Minutes July 24, 1997 Page 3 Applicant and opponents are each given an opportunity to make a brief closing statement; The motion, discussion and vote by the Board. Article H. Flood Hazard areas, under Flood Prevention and Protection in the City Code, were distributed to the Board. Mr. Duval referred to Section 10-38 which sets out the variance procedure to be followed in this hearing. Sub paragraph (c) and all the paragraphs under it list the relevant factors and standards that the Board can consider in making a decision. In sub paragraph (d) it indicates that in granting the variance the Board can also attach such conditions as deemed necessary in furtherance and purpose of this article. Section 10-39 talks about conditions for variances. Sub paragraphs (d) and (e) are the meat of the conditions and standards for granting of the variance: (d) Variances shall only be issued upon the determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief. (e) Variances shall only be issued upon: (1) The showing of good and sufficient cause; (2) A determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant; and (3) A determination that the granting of the variance would not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public as identified in this Chapter or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances. Mr. Duval emphasized that the Board must find that all of those exist with respect to this variance application. Mr. Clopper asked that the minutes reflect that the Chairman of the Board conducted the hearing such that all eight of the steps listed earlier were mentioned even though there may be no business relating to some of them, e.g.; No. 3, a presentation by those opposing the variance. There were no opposing parties at the meeting. Mr. Duval mentioned that the hearing today is being recorded and will be part of the record that will go up on any appeal of the Board's decision as well as any evidence that comes in today. Under the City Code, appeals from Board, such as this, go directly to the City Council and essentially are based on the record. The record that is being created today is the one the Council will consider in deciding Water Utilities Board Iv7mutes July 24, 1997 Page 4 whether to overturn or uphold the Board's appeal. Mr. Clopper understood that any evidence collected between now and an appeal cannot be entered. "There are some exceptions to that written in the Code: It depends to a large extent on what kinds of grounds for appeal that the appellants, whoever they might be, assert. Depending on the grounds of appeal they assert, they may or may not be able to admit new evidence for the Council, but generally, there is not that much new evidence. It's usually based upon the record that's created for the particular board or commission for their variance hearing," Mr. Duval explained. Mr. Clopper asked for a show of hands of those appearing on behalf of the applicant. There were three: Richard Rutherford with Stewart & Associates and Robert Triesch and Charles Elkhardt with Newell Recycling. He asked if there were any objectors. There were none. Marsha Hilmes, Floodplain Administrator from the Stormwater Utility, gave the staff presentation. A packet of information on the variance request was mailed to Board members prior to the meeting. Ms. Hilmes indicated on a map that the property in question is located in the Dry Creek floodplain at 300 West Hickory St. The application for a variance to floodplain regulations was submitted for the Board's consideration and action by Newell Recycling of Denver, Inc. What the Board will be looking at, in terms of the variance request, is City Code Section 10-53 (4) which states that: "No new critical facilities shall be located in the 500-year floodplain. Critical facilities are defined as 'structures or facilities that produce, use, or store highly volatile, flammable, explosive, toxic and/or water reactive materials..."' The variance request is to construct a new facility with above ground gasoline, antifreeze and oil storage tanks in a designated floodplain. Ms. Hilmes pointed out that Newell Recycling is requesting to use the existing facilities (office, pole barn, storage shed) on the property. They are not proposing to add any additional structures. Ms. Hilmes explained that this request deals with critical facilities in 10-53 (4) of the City Code as stated above. Part of what Newell Recycling is proposing to install is an above the ground storage tank that would hold gasoline, antifreeze and oil. The storage tank is what is considered a critical facility because it will contain hazardous materials that are flammable. It would be a new facility on the site. What will be decided today is if the measures they are taking to flood proof the storage tank is enough to overcome the threats posed by flooding. Part of their facility is a recycling center. They recycle old cars, refrigerators, etc. Part of that process is to make sure that all of the gasoline and oil are out of the vehicles, so they siphon it to the storage tank. "Generally there is not very much oil or gasoline left in old cars," she said. The measures the recycling company is proposing to flood proof this facility are fairly extensive. Ms. Hilmes referred to a handout in the packet that described an Enviro-vault. It is a concrete and Water Utilities Board Minutes July 24, 1997 Page 5 steel structure "that provides security with its tank/vault/tank construction. It is a virtual fuel fortress and offers the most cost effective means of dispensing fuel in today's highly regulated storage tank market." She said that the Enviro-vault would be elevated to be 24 inches above the base flood elevation at this site, making it above the 100-year flood elevation. City criteria specify 18". The vault will have a concrete berm around it as well. In addition, the Company proposes to construct a concrete berm around the entire perimeter of the property to contain floodwaters or any spills that might occur. They would have sandbags on site to block the entrance to the facility. She stressed that this is a fairly low velocity zone; it's on the edge of the floodplain. The Enviro-vault is a very strong structure that will not float away or be hit by a truck. "These types of issues are mitigated by the flood proof measures they are proposing," she concluded. Ms. Mines mentioned that the criteria the Board is looking at today are City criteria. They are not National Flood Insurance Program type of criteria. "We must follow NFIP criteria, but part of the NFIP states that cities can establish criteria that are stricter than the national criteria, and that's what this 'Critical Facilities' issue is. The City wanted to have something a little stricter in its Code and the NFIP recognizes that," she stressed. The Board has two variance options: 1) To deny the variance request based on the above cited City Code. 2) To grant the variance request with the condition that the proposed flood proofing measures be implemented. Staff Recommendation: The staff recommendation is variance option two. Because of the extensive flood proofing measures that have been proposed for the site, the threat of damage to the storage tanks by flooding has been greatly reduced. Therefore, the flood proofing measures mitigate the flood hazard and the reason for the critical facilities' criteria. Mr. Clopper suggested that the Board hold off questions until all the testimony has been presented. The next step in the process was the presentation by the applicant. Robert Triesch, from Newell Recycling began by saying that his presentation was nearly identical to what staff had presented to the Board. He emphasized that their company is involved in this kind of operation in Denver and Colorado Springs. "When we talk about gasoline and antifreeze, it would be a very small portion in Fort Collins in contrast to Denver, for example. In Denver we buy 16 whole automobiles a day; here we probably would buy one or two a day," he pointed out. Most of the old cars have been sitting in a field or behind somebody's house; they are usually out of gas, but his company must anticipate that there could be gas in them. "If a person brings in a vehicle with gas in it, we would rather remove the gas, as a precaution, than have them dump it somewhere." He related an experience with this problem Water Utilities Board Minutes July 24, 1997 Page 6 about 15 years ago in Austin, Texas. "They had a law saying that we couldn't receive cars with gasoline any longer. We said we weren't going to take these whole cars unless the gasoline was removed. Their fire department was sued by people who were burned by taking off their own gas tanks." He stressed that their company removes the gasoline and the oil safely. He mentioned that the Enviro-vault even filters the oil and the gasoline, so it can be re -used. Mr. Triesch went on to say that, for the rest of the property, they will put a 2-foot cement berm around the perimeter where the fence line is right now, "so if it does flood things won't wash out of this area." There may be water in the area, but it's not going to rush through and go down -stream. Furthermore, there is nothing there that will be floatable. In Denver, the Company is next to the South Platte River, and there are sandbags on site at all times if there is a threat of flooding. The site there was okayed for a 500-year flood. Sandbags, of course, would be available at the Fort Collins site as well. Mr. Clopper moved to the 3rd item on the list which was a presentation by any party -in -interest opposing the matter being submitted by the applicant. Nobody was present to oppose the matter. Since there was no opposition, item four, rebuttal presentation by applicant, and item five, rebuttal by those in opposition, weren't necessary. Item 6, members of the Board may ask questions of any witness who previously testified, was next in the procedure. George Reed wondered if staff had any thoughts about other alternatives besides flood proofing this piece of property, e.g., raising the ground level, taking it out of the floodplain. Bob Smith replied that filling the site is hard to do because there are existing buildings. "Of the mitigation measures we looked at, these made the most sense." "So there weren't any other measures that fell in the category of more minimum than this?" Mr. Reed asked. "No," Mr. (Bob) Smith answered. "You can't have a gasoline tank in the floodplain," Charles Elkhardt said. "We can go about it another way. That's why I mentioned the experience in Austin," Mr. Triesch continued. "We can say we will accept no fuel tanks and we won't drain oils or antifreeze. We will say to a customer, 'you can bring in a vehicle, but you will have to drain it.' The problem it's going to cause is, if they have to drain it, where will they put the gas, oil or antifreeze? They will probably put it next door in a vacant lot, for example. That's why we want to make sure it comes to us because we know how to take care of it," he emphasized. Mr. Elkhardt mentioned a letter, included in the packets, from Colorado Springs. In it they praised Newell Recycling because "they were tired of having people dump antifreeze on the street." Mr. Reed pointed out that animals are attracted to antifreeze and are poisoned by it. He also mentioned the hazards of people draining the gasoline tanks. "As far as your business is concerned, you aren't saying you will go out of business if you can't do this kind of recycling?" Mr. Reed asked. "I want to emphasize that I'm very much in favor of recycling," he added. "We would continue to operate," Mr. Triesch replied, "but what I'm concerned about is that we would turn customers away as we had to Water Utilities Board Minutes July 24, 1997 Page 7 do at the Austin facility, and they would end up dumping the gasoline, etc. somewhere else. He mentioned that people who are buying car bodies today, in Fort Collins, aren't taking care of them in the right way. "This will help people do it the correct way," he stressed. Dave Rau assured the Board that the above the ground tank "isn't going anywhere, because I specified the design of above ground tank installations." Mr. Triesch also pointed out the concrete berm that would be built around the vault. Mr. Reed commented that "it sounds like there may be some hardship to the public if we deny the variance." He added that it appears to be about the minimum variance that could be asked for. "Is there any hardship to you if you don't get the variance?" Howard Goldman asked. "There could be a recycling reduction because you would be turning cars away," Mr. Rau suggested. "If I tell someone that he has to drain the gas, oil and antifreeze, he might decide to let that car sit there for another 20 years," Mr. Triesch predicted. Dave Frick asked what the company currently does with the vehicle fluids here. "We don't have an operation here. We're trying to buy the Hickory St. site, and we currently have a contract on it. We hope to close on it as soon as we get everything taken care of," he explained. Mr. Elkhardt pointed out that, besides vehicles, they get aluminum cans, screen doors, refrigerators etc. that normally would go to a landfill. Mr. Frick was confused about the purpose of the wall around the perimeter of the property. "It's mainly to take care of our property if say a hundred -year flood occurred," Mr. Triesch replied. At their Denver site he said they take concrete that has been refused at a job site "and that truckload comes to our facility where we pour paddings down to use as a surface. They last five or six years. Denver and Colorado Springs are big sites so you can concrete for a long time, but the Fort Collins site is not large." He continued by saying that on top of the wall they would place a 4 ft. wooden fence to screen the area around the entire property. Mr. Elkhardt added that it isn't mandatory to construct a wall, "but we do it so we don't get water in or discharge anything out." Mr. Frick asked how they handle site drainage. "In Colorado Springs we have a large recovery pit. When it fills up, we normally pump it out with hoses, and on a sunny day we recycle it back in there and in about four cycles it evaporates," Mr. Elkhardt explained. "We also do that in Denver," Mr. Triesch added. "In fact there we built a huge wall in the ground to collect all the rainwater we can because we use water there to cool down our machinery, and then we recycle it. That way we don't have to use so much city water; in fact, city water use has been cut almost in half," he emphasized. He said they have been considering using a big sump to pump water into a large tank, and then recycle it on a dry day. David Lauer asked if there are alternative sites that the Company has looked at for the facility in the Fort Collins area. "We've looked at a lot of sites, and this one suits us the best because the buildings are already there, and the buildings work to our favor," Mr. Triesch responded. "Is there an existing Water Utilities Board Minutes July 24, 1997 Page 8 business there now?" Mr. Lauer continued. "No, a seal coating company moved about 6-8 months ago," Mr. Triesch replied. "Will the Dry Creek Diversion have any effect on whether this will be in the floodplain in the future?" I& Reed asked. "When the diversion goes in, probably in five years, this property will no longer be in the floodplain," Bob Smith replied. Mr. Triesch pointed out on the map that they already have a `fault" around the Fort Collins property. He indicated where the railroad lines he on the map. "RR property is always above the floodplain, so we are already protected from a 100-year flood," he said. David Lauer asked Marsha Hilmes if the Stormwater Utility is responsible for compliance and if they have a schedule for inspection over a 5-year period while the Company remains in the floodplain. "They have already filled out the floodplain use permit which states what they are going to do. We sign off on that. Then, after they have installed everything, their engineer would have to certify that they have constructed those facilities. Beyond that, there is no inspection period over that five years," she explained. There were no more questions from the Board, so President Clopper closed the question period. He then gave the applicants an opportunity to give a brief closing statement. The applicants said that everything had been covered in the presentations and question and answer period. As was noted previously, there were no opponents present. The final item on the procedure list was the motion, discussion and vote by the Board. ACTION: MOTION, DISCUSSION AND VOTE Dave Frick moved that the Board grant the variance under the condition that the proposed flood proofing measures be implemented. Robert Ward seconded the motion. Mr. Clopper asked if there was further discussion or comments that the Board would like to make for the record. Seeing none, he asked for a show of hands for the vote. The vote to grant the variance was unanimous. The applicants thanked the Board for granting the variance. They think their recycling company will be an asset to the Fort Collins area. After discussion and three nominations, two of which declined, President Clopper called for a vote to table the election until the August meeting. It was also pointed out that four members of the Board Water Utilities Board Minutes July 24, 1997 Page 9 were absent. Dave Rau moved to table the election until next meeting. After a second from Robert Ward, the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Clopper pointed out that the Conservation and Public Education Committee has been reduced from four to two members with the departure from the Board of Ray Herrmann and John Barnett. John Barnett was the chair, so a new chair was needed. David Lauer agreed to be the new chair. Mr. Clopper asked for another volunteer for the Committee. Seeing none, he said he would ask again for volunteers at the August meeting. Wendy Williams reported that the Legislative and Finance Committee met two weeks ago and looked at the budget in far more detail than the Board will today. "What you are going to look at today is a little different from what you have seen before because, those of you on the Water Board had not seen the Stormwater budget, and those of you from the Storm Drainage Board had not seen the Water & Wastewater budget," she began. "Also, you are going to see a two-year budget," she added. Starting next year, the City is going to a biannual budget. "We will prepare a two-year budget but it will be appropriated on an annual basis." With a series of overheads, she summarized each of the budget areas. She began with the Water Fund. "The guidelines that we had this year were to try to keep all of our funds to a 3% increase. If you will remember in the past, we looked at about a 2%. This year we aimed for a 3% increase because we are in the middle of a classification study which will impact our personnel costs." Since Human Resources doesn't yet know what the impact will be, they directed departments to budget for a 3% increase, and also put aside an additional 1.5% for any adjustments that need to be made. In Payments and Transfer, the big items are capital projects, PILOT, General Fund charges and Utility billing." Also, the water assessments are going up quite a bit. This is because about a 60% increase is expected during the next five years for CBT shares related to the aging system. Bond Interest and Bond Principal are also large items on the P&T list. "You can see that Art in Public Places is something we've had in there for the last couple of years. For the budget as a whole, there is a 3.84% increase for the Water Budget. For staffing there isn't much change. "In fact as you look at all three funds, while there may be little change in the fund, if you look at them all combined, it is pretty much staying the same." The 1999 Water Fund increased by 49.52%, most of which is related to Capital Projects (which in 1999 is going up 140.58%). "Those are the projects you have already looked at as part of the Water Treatment Master Plan," she pointed out. In terms of O&M, there is not much of an increase, only 2.64%. "As a whole, the budget is within target of what we were aiming for, but the capital projects Water Utilities Board Minutes July 24, 1997 Page 10 jack it up," she concluded. The next overhead was a comparison of 1997 and 1998. "It is pretty much tracking right along," she said. Next there was a comparison of the 1998 and 1999; "that's where you see a number of the capital master plan projects come into play." Tom Brown asked Ms. Williams to explain the difference between PILOT and the General Fund Admin. charges. "The PILOT is just the payment in -lieu -of taxes," she said. "In other words, if we were a private entity rather than public, that's what we would be paying, and that's 6%. The General Fund Admin. charges are what we are paying for services rendered; for example, the City Attorney's and City Clerk's offices. One is like a tax and one is paying for actual general fund services," she explained. "I assume we get something back for the PILOT," Mr. Brown continued. "No," Mike Smith replied. "That is something that is set by City Council and it was increased last year from 5% to 6%," Ms. Williams related. Howard Goldman asked, "6% of what?" "Of our revenues for that year," Ms. Williams replied. "It's not just estimated. As the revenues come in each month, 6% goes to a PILOT revenue account." "Do they take that from the districts too?" Dave Frick asked. "No," Mr. Smith replied. "Why do we pay it if the Districts don't?" Mr. Frick asserted. "Our policies tell us to pay it; the districts' policies don't," Mr. Smith stated. "That automatically gives them a 6% advantage on their services," Mr. Frick remarked. "You're right," Mr. Smith acknowledged. "We are very well aware of that. Staff has asked that question, and the City Attorney has not come up with any way to advise the Council on how to assess the districts. Maybe we can ask that question again," Mr. Smith said. "That issue will only grow," Robert Ward remarked. Mr. Smith suggested to Chuck Wanner that he "gets more attention when he asks that kind of question." "The record should reflect that every year at this time the Board questions the PILOT, and wonders why we pay it," Mr. Goldman observed. "Who else pays the PILOT?" someone asked. "Light and Power does, but not Stormwater," Ms. Williams said. "Other departments pay the admin. charges, but no one else pays the PILOT except the Utilities," Mr. Smith added. "Along the front range, the majority of the communities siphon off funds from the Utilities for that purpose," he noted. "The utilities are treated as if they were a commercial entity." Mr. Lauer clarified. "That's right," Mr. Smith replied. "Essentially, what they are doing is charging the ratepayers an additional tax that they aren't calling a tax. The persons who pay their water and/or electric bill don't think that they are also paying a tax above the sales and property tax," Tom Brown pointed out. "Why don't we consider becoming a district?" Mr. Frick remarked. "That's always an option," Mr. Smith replied. Someone also mentioned that there may be advantages to becoming a private enterprise. Ms. Williams said that the City used to show the PILOT separately on the Utility bill, but it was too confusing for customers. Dave Rau asked why the General Fund Admin. charges have gone up almost 13%. "There is a formula they use that relates to budget and capital projects. As your budget changes compared to other budgets for the whole City, they pro rate it. If we have a big year for capital, we're going to be hit harder with a higher percentage of the admin. charges. As our budget goes up and down, so Water Utilities Board Minutes July 24, 1997 Page 11 does our pro rats share," Mr. Smith explained. City Finance takes an average of a certain number of years. They begin by budgeting for the General Fund; then they distribute those costs among all the departments. They determine which services are shared, e.g., City Attorney, Finance, etc. They then apportion that to all the other funds. "What our budget is determines what percentage we pay," he said. He added that, "we have no control over any of that." He mentioned that the Utilities have "hassled with the formula through the years." He acknowledged that there probably is not a right or wrong way to do it. "Is the increase mostly due to an increase in the water fund budget or because the General Fund appropriation went up?" Dave Rau asked. "I'm not sure," Mr. Smith replied. "We'll have to look at the allocations to see what was funded. "I expect that, on the water side, it's because we have a substantial increase in capital projects, so the lion's share is due to our budget." He mentioned again that they take a three or 4-year average. "The General Fund is projecting a 4 1/2% increase in the budget," Mike Smith said. "Does that mean that everyone else reduced their budgets?" someone asked. "Actually when we sat in budget meetings with the City Manager, the Utilities had less of an increase than the General Fund," Mr. Smith replied. "In fact the City Manager was complimentary to all the Utilities for keeping the increases low. The General Fund has other needs, I guess. They can spend anything you can give them; if they are allowed 4'/2%, they spend it," he remarked. He also noted that the GF budget tracks with sales taxes; most of the money comes from sales taxes and they have gone up pretty significantly." The Utilities main source of revenue is through the rates. "We don't see a lot of growth in that. We are seeing 2% growth, where they are seeing 10-12% increases in sales taxes. If we had that kind of growth in our revenue, we would never have to raise rates," he concluded. Ms. Williams continued with the capital projects that are expected for 1998 through 2002. In 1998 the biggest items are the master plan facilities, and a treated water reservoir. "We will be designing and constructing a 2-mgd reservoir on the northwest side of Fort Collins to help with high pressure. Many of the expensive master plan facilities are included in the 1999 budget." Someone asked how the Utilities plan to pay for this. "We will be having 60/6 increases on the water side for the next five years," she replied. "Our plan is to continue to levelize the rate increases?" Mr. Clopper asked. "Yes," Ms. Williams replied. Ms. Williams went on to the Wastewater budget for 1998. "Here we are seeing a decrease in capital projects," she began. "It's nice to have an increase on the water side in the same year that we have a decrease on the wastewater side," she remarked. In Payments and Transfers there is a total decrease of 261/o resulting in a total budget decrease of 15.47%. Mike Smith pointed out in the Admin. charges there is very little increase. "You will notice that there is an increase in the meter reading expense," Ms. Williams said. "A couple of years ago, once we had enough of our customers metered to start billing them for their wastewater based on their water consumption, we started sharing that cost. It Water Utilities Board Minutes July 24, 1997 Page 12 used to be paid 100% by the water fund. Now, as we get more customers metered, the percentage goes up." She added that the metering issue will be going to Council on August 5th. (That was changed to August 19th.) The wastewater Fund for 1999 doesn't reflect a lot of change. "Here again, if you look at the Admin. charges, because you have two years of very little budget change, the percentage of change for the GF is only 4.50%," Mr. Smith related. Another overhead graphic showed the capital projects going down. "Other than that, everything else is tracking consistently." Ms. Williams said. Another graphic showed how the budget is divided up: personnel services, capital projects, etc. Personnel services went up while capital projects went down. As for capital projects, there aren't as many as on the water side. The big thing there are improvements at the Drake Facility, and those are primarily related to capacity and also to improve the quality of the effluent. Some work needs to be done at the Mulberry Plant as well, e.g., adding UV capacity, and upgrading for nitrogen removal. David Lauer asked if the two plants are combined. "Yes, they are," Ms. Williams replied. "We are going to pay for this with the following increases for the next five years: 2% 2% 4% 2% 4%. For the Storm Drainage Fund, "this is where you are going to see the most changes due to the reorganization. The City has a program budget format and the programs Stormwater previously had were different from the Water and Wastewater fund programs. Some personnel were moved around and there were some changes in the budget as a result. For example, some people have a portion of their salary paid from one fund and a portion paid out of another fund. In the Minor Capital Outlay, there will be a large increase in 1998 to purchase some equipment from the Streets Dept. Currently, Streets does the minor capital maintenance and repairs for Stormwater. Three permanent employees and one part time employee from Streets will be moving to a new program, Stormwater Drainage and Detention, which will be a part of Distribution and Collection. Minor Capital funds will be used to purchase the equipment they currently use to do Stormwater maintenance. In the long run, this will result in a cost savings. Stormwater currently pays a 12% administrative charge to Streets for performing this service. Staff is in the process of taking to Council for the second time, the second reading of a bond issuance for Stormwater; $9.465 million, 4.6 million of that is new dollars and the rest is refinancing. Approximately $2 million of that is for remodeling the Service Center facility so that Stormwater employees can be integrated. Mike Smith reported that the bonds were sold last week for good rates. "The market was really good and the refunding went well also; it was more than a 4.4% savings. The overall rate was 5.183%. Dave Frick asked why Stormwater doesn't have a PILOT. "That's never come up and we have not suggested it either," Mr. Smith responded. Water Utilities Board NTinutes July 24, 1997 Page 13 Ms. Williams said, `you don't see as many changes in 1999 because the major changes are already in place." There will be a number of major capital projects in 1998 and not quite as many in 1999. "We are more concerned about permanent positions than hourly," Mr. Smith explained, "they stay the same for the next two years, from three funds. Even though we moved three people over from Streets, we actually reduced three in the Water/Wastewater area, so there is no net increase in personnel." Ms. Williams said that this has been an interesting year in figuring out how we were going to set up programs in Stormwater and how to track it for future years. "There is a certain amount of guesswork involved; it will be nice when we have a couple of years of data to track it." Another slide provided information about capital projects; (the capital projects are budgeted by basin). The City is divided into various basins and five-year capital projections are made for each basin. When the projects get built, depends on things like development requirements, location within the basin, the impact of it and the benefits, so there will be fluctuations within the five-year plan. Overall in 1998, the expected total cost for projects is $2,900,731, a little less in 1999. Mr. Smith emphasized that the projects seemed to occur all at once, although they are spread out over five years. "Is some of that the result of the growth we have seen in the last few years," Mr. Rau asked. "We need to get ahead of the growth for a lot of City projects. In other words, growth drives our projects," Mr. Smith explained. George Reed mentioned that at one time the Board had some discussions about development paying its own way and talked about charging fees for development reviews. "I believe that City Council determined that they didn't want to do that. Has there been any recent discussion about raising money through fees?" Mike Smith noted that the City is initiating a new fee to fund the development tracking system. That is being added to all our fees or we have to take a certain percentage of our fees out to give to the General Fund to nun the development tracking system," he explained. "What we are going to try before the first of the year, is to change the Code so we can add on to the fee instead of taking out of the fee. We want to make it a surcharge on top of our fee and not lose part of the fee. It would be our fee plus .75% instead of the .75% coming out of the fee, which is happening effective July 1st " Bob Smith explained what Mr. Reed was asking about. Two or three years ago an analysis was done to determine how much it costs to review plans. They increased the plan review fees for the General Fund reviews but the Utilities have been absorbing the review costs. "That hasn't been brought up recently," he said. Mr. Reed referred to the Stormwater capital projects, specifically for the Old Town Basin. He said that there is almost a million dollars budgeted in 1998 for Old Town. "What is that area going to look like next summer?" he asked. "The first phase of the project is going to go from the Udal open space Water Utilities Board Minutes July 24, 1997 Page 14 to Riverside and Chestnut St.," Bob Smith replied. "You aren't coming back up MountainT' Mr. Reed continued. "We're headed for Mountain eventually," Mr. Smith said. "2001 is when we pick up both Mountain and College," he added, "so Old Town will not be torn up all at once," he assured Mr. Reed. Mr. Clopper asked Howard Goldman, Chairman of the Legislative & Finance Committee to make any additional comments. `Basically what we will be doing from our Committee is recommending that the full Board approve the budget today," Mr. Goldman said. "I think what is fascinating about the budget process this year in particular is, throughout this past year we have often been pulled off course discussing how the two boards were blending together. As you look at the budget, I think you get a good picture of why we are actually doing this. As you go through the different program areas, you see the historical need for this, and why it made so much sense to combine the Boards." He thinks the Board has lost sight of this at times as they continue to talk about some of the problems. "It was a brilliant thing to do and will help the City tremendously to have all of these units functioning together and realize an increase in efficiency," he concluded. ACTION: MOTION AND VOTE Howard Goldman moved that the Board approve the 1998/1999 Water, Wastewater, Stormwater Budget as presented. After a second from Bob Havis, the Board voted unanimously for the motion. Paul Clopper reminded the Board that the list of functions included in their packets was what they looked at last meeting with a couple of minor changes. At the last meeting the Board recommended that these be taken to a Council work session. Mike Smith said a work session is currently scheduled for August 12th. (That has since been changed to Sept. 9th.) Mr. Smith requested that the Board's president and vice president, in particular, try to be there, but other Board members were encouraged to come as well. Mr. Clopper said he especially would like to have the chairs of committees attend. "Work sessions begin at 6:00 and they are usually over by 8:30 or 9:00," Mr. Smith said. He explained that staff will inform the Council that these are the functions the Board has approved and the Board would like to have the City modify the Code to include them. If the Council gives direction at the study session to go ahead, staff will then turn the Board Functions over to the City Attorney's Office to draft an ordinance. The Ordinance would then go to a Council session where it would be incorporated into the Code, he concluded. Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported that in June treated water use was 2,754 ao-ft for the month which is 80% of Water Utilities Board Minutes July 24, 1997 Page 15 average. "That was primarily because of the wet June. So far in July we are running about 15% above average, and it looks like we will probably end the month that way," he said. Dave Frick said he read in the newspaper that the Utility was low on storage and customers were asked to cut down on their irrigation. "Is the treated water capacity problem going to be occurring more frequently?" he asked. Mike Smith related that the City has experienced some very hot, dry weather which resulted in some very high demands. "Two things happened," he said. "Our water treatment staff underestimated some things, and did some maintenance work on the weekend, and couldn't get the system back up on time to catch up." Once the plant was running full speed, staff found that what the consultant showed was the evaluation of the plant, differed from what we actually could run. "We need to discuss that discrepancy with the consultant," he said. "Coming in, we were treating 70-72 mgd rate. We had to use so much backwash water that the effective rate was something like 62-63 mgd. We have some concerns about how the consultant rated the plant and what we are actually getting," he stated. They rate it at 74 mgd. "That's why when I read about it, I didn't think we were that close on capacity at this point," Mr. Frick commented. "We didn't either," Mr. Smith stressed. "Is the backwash normally that large a part of the total?" Mr. Clopper asked. "It depends on what kind of water you have coming in," Mr. Smith replied. "However, it seems like it was a rather high rate. They did change part of their process during that period to correct some of that," he added. The Water Supply, Conservation & Public Education, Engineering and Liaison Issues Committees did not meet this month. Legislative and Finance The Committee met on the budget which was discussed earlier. Paul Clopper reported that members of the Engineering Committee continue to be involved in the Stormwater Criteria Technical Advisory Committee. Minutes of the meetings were distributed at today's meeting. Bob Smith said that, at the last meeting, the Committee basically talked about the parameters in hydrology. The next step is the water quality aspect. Mike Smith emphasized that the hydrology issue is very sensitive in terms of how it is calculated. "Staff has been criticized by the development community on that issue," he remarked. "Do you feel comfortable that you have something workable now?" Robert Ward asked. "Part of the confusion was the different opinions on how the hydrology should be calculated," Bob Smith replied. Having this Committee has been a big step in arriving at a consensus. Water Utilities Board Minutes July 24, 1997 Page 16 Mr. Clopper invited any Board members who are interested to attend the meetings. The next meeting will be on July 25, 1997 at the Stormwater Utility Office. GOCO Grant for the Restoration of Sheldon Lake Mr. Clopper referred to a letter from Mayor Azari which was distributed earlier in the meeting. The Mayor wrote that the City ofFort Collins is applying for a Great Outdoors Colorado Grant (GOCO) for the restoration of Sheldon Lake at City Park. The purpose of the letter was to ask for letters of support for a GOCO grant. Her letter went on to describe the history of the Lake and what restoration work will be involved. Bob Smith related that a study of what the problems are at the lake has already been completed. The lake restoration effort would begin in 1998 and be completed in early 1999. The rough estimate of the cost for restoration is about $180,000, with the local funding match being about $100,000. The Mayor emphasized the need for partners and supporters in the requests for grants. Bob Smith said it would be a big help to have the support of the Water Utilities Board. After discussion, Robert Ward moved that Paul Clopper write a letter to support the grant proposal. After a second from Dave Rau, the Board unanimously approved the motion. Wendy Williams mentioned that she needs to schedule a meeting of the Legislative and Finance Committee prior to the next Board meeting, to discuss Plant Investment Fees (PIFs). She will discuss possible dates with chairman Howard Goldman. Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m. W� Utilitecret�ary