Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 06/26/1997WATER UTILITIES BOARD MINUTES June 26, 1997 3:10 - 5:30 p.m. Light and Power Training Room 700 Wood Street COUNCIL LIAISON Chuck Wanner (Arrived at 4:10 p.m.) WATER UTILITIES BOARD CHAIR Paul Clopper - Phone: 223-5556 STAFF LIAISON Molly Nortier - 221-6681 MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Clopper, Chair, John Bartholow, Vice Chair, George Reed, Ray Herrmann, Randy Fischer, Robert Ward, John Barnett, Alison Adams, Bob Havis, Dave Frick, John Morris, Tom Brown, Joe Bergquist, Howard Goldman, David Lauer, Tom Sanders STAFF Mike Smith, Wendy Williams, Gale McGaha Miller, Dennis Bode, Ben Alexander, Steve Comstock, Bob Smith, Molly Nortier GUESTS Jose Velazquez, Project Manager from Camp Dresser & Mckee Dave DuBois, North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association Dean Smith and Mike Carr, Boxelder Sanitation District John Bigham, Northern Colorado Conservancy District Sue Ellen Charlton, Observer, League of Women Voters Water Utilities Board Minutes June 26, 1997 Page 2 MEMBER ABSENT Dave Rau (excused) Chair Paul Clopper opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: A41NUTES Ray Herrmann moved that the minutes of April 24,1997 be approved as distributed. John Barnett seconded the motion. Molly Nortier said that Laurie D'Audney's and Diana Royval's names were left off the staff list. The April minutes were approved unanimously with the addition stated above. Ray Herrmann also moved that the minutes of May 22, 1997 be approved as distributed. John Barnett seconded the motion. John Moms pointed out on p. 14 that he received credit for a quote which he couldn't have made because he was not present at the meeting. Ms. Nortier said that quote should have been attributed to Dave Rau. John Bartholow referred to p. 11, paragraph 1, last sentence, "light" should be changed to "delight." Alison Adams said on p. 9, the third full paragraph, next to last sentence, the word "be" should be inserted between should and in. The Board voted unanimously to approve the May minutes with the above corrections. David Lauer requested that the unedited version of the discussion of Perceptions of Board/staff relations in the May minutes, be made available to Board members who request it. John Bigham provided reservoir storage information for the CB-T project as of June 26th. He said that Granby is within 1.48 ft. of being full. Willow Creek continues to spill and they are still spilling some water out of Granby. "We shouldn't have any problem filling that by the end of the month," he said. On the east side, Carter, Boulder and Horsetooth are nearly full. "We are within 24,000 ac-ft of having everything full. As you can see, we have plenty of water," he concluded. Mr. Clopper asked if we have passed the peak on the CBT system. "We've actually had two peaks because of the rainy period," Mr. Bigham replied. Gale McGaha Miller introduced Jose Velazquez, the Project Manager from Camp Dresser & McKee who has been working on the Regional 201 Facilities study. "As you will recall, this is the study where several different wastewater entities, Larimer County and the North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association have been working together to look at our options for the future," she began. Looking at all of the different wastewater treatment entities in the area, this study will determine who will need capacity at what time and if it makes sense to coordinate that so they can work together. "This is the first of two rounds of public outreach presentations. Mr. Velazquez has Water Utilities Board Minutes June 26, 1997 Page 3 been making these presentations to other boards and commissions of the other entities. This is one of the last until this is brought to the full public on July IOth. She explained that this is more or less a problem statement kind of presentation: "Here's what we found so far. Now we are asking for input on this information, and then we will begin to develop and evaluate alternatives." Summaries of the overhead slide presentation of the Area -Wide Facilities Planning for Portions of the Cache la Poudre Drainage Basin were distributed. Jose Velazquez began by saying that the project is being done under the auspices of the North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association. "Dave DuBois, who is here today, is our project manager for that," he said. He welcomed questions throughout the presentation. Project Overview Evaluate Wastewater Needs in the Study Area Wastewater Treatment Facilities Wastewater Transmission Facilities 20 to 40 year Planning Horizon (This is a little different from typical wastewater planning facilities. It's usually done on a 20-year basis.) Provide Service to Meet Future Needs Population Growth Water Quality Considerations Study Area A map of the study area was included on the next page. • Study Participants North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association Larimer County Boxelder Sanitation District City of Fort Collins South Fort Collins Sanitation District Town of Windsor (Although Windsor is not in Larimer County, new annexations are in Larimer County for the most part. Because of their location and recent annexations, it made sense to include them.) Not listed is the town of Timnath. They are also a participant. They are currently shown in the South Fort Collins Service Area. They need to be considered as possibly generating wastewater in the future. Water Utilities Board Minutes June 26, 1997 Page 4 Robert Ward asked if this includes all the wastewater providers in this region. "Wellington is not a participant," Mr. Velazquez replied. "LaPorte feeds into Fort Collins; they are in the service area," Ms. McGaha Miller said. "This is what we project the service area will be in the year 2040. Obviously there are some projections that may or may not come true," Mr. Velazquez acknowledged. "We are trying to get a handle on where we might be in a 40-year time frame." Existing Treatment Facilities • Boxelder Sanitation District 2.34 mgd, 4-cell aerated lagoon City of Fort Collins Mulberry Plant - 6.0 mgd, 2 stage biotower/activated sludge process Drake Plant - 23.0 mgd, 2-stage biotower/activated sludge South Fort Collins Sanitation District 3.0 mgd, activated sludge with filters Town of Windsor 2.8 mgd, activated sludge process (Bio Lac process) Water Quality • Existing use classifications and standards of the Cache la Poudre River to which all the facilities discharge or Fossil Creek Reservoir, a tributary of the Poudre River. • Existing programs to protect water quality (NPDES Discharge permits, pretreatment programs, on -going I&I removal) • Review chemical and biological conditions of Poudre (strictly a literature review - no new sampling) • National pollution discharge elimination system (NPDES) limits • Future water quality issues (convened a meeting of all reps. from EPA, all service providers, state health dept., some of the larger industries, i.e. Kodak, A-B about a year ago) "There are not a lot of water quality issues that we see as being different, particularly in the next 10-20 years; 40 years, it's harder to guess." It was noted that there have been significantly good trends happening in water quality. L Water Utilities Board Minutes June 26, 1997 Page 5 Stream Classification and Water Quality River segments (a map showed these segments) Uses by segment (They have various uses and water quality standards: aquatic life, class H warm water, recreation class H and agricultural.) "By and large, we didn't see the uses changing much. Probably the biggest potential change would be Fossil Creek Reservoir." Water quality standards Generally the water quality standards in the Poudre are being met. "Over a 27+ year period, that's pretty good. The trends in quality in the Poudre are better." John Bartholow asked if those trends are significant in a biological sense, or is it just good that things are getting better? "How much better are they getting?" Ms. McGaha Miller said it goes back to the Kodak study. "There hasn't been a great deal of heavy statistical trends -analysis done, but generally things are staying the same or getting slightly better, so we are not expecting a huge difference biologically." "So holding its own might be a better description?" Mr. Bartholow asked. "Generally," Mr. Velazquez replied. "The concept of the biological quality is not well defined, and that's one of the things we talked about at the water quality forum. The concept of water quality planning is changing significantly largely due to the process known as Total Max Daily Loads (TMDL). That is included in the 1972 Clean Water Act. It's been there since the act was passed. However, the process was rarely done by the EPA until environmental groups began threatening law suits. Region 8 was actually one of the last ones to be threatened, but they have not been sued. The problem, in terms of planning, is that EPA never funded or planned to fund TMDL studies; therefore, they have placed the burden on the states as their responsibility. "As far as planning, it's a watershed based approach; it's not individual segments. It goes a bit contrary to the way uses were established in little segments. TMDL takes into account, not only point discharges; it takes non -points, industrial, potential for spills, and what stakeholders think the river or water body should be doing. It also has a large modeling, evaluation piece of which the biological quality is one of the indicators of improvement. This study does not have the scope to do the TMDL," he concluded. "Aren't the TMDLs only required when you don't meet the standards?" Robert Ward asked. "Right," Mr. Velazquez replied. "So, if we have a stream that's in compliance, we really shouldn't be feeling the pressure," Mr. Ward added. "The states that are being sued are those that don't have water quality based standards to begin with, so we're way ahead because Colorado has had water quality based standards for quite some time," Ms. McGaha Miller explained. Mr. Velazquez said that the only thing that could likely change effluent standards for each of the Water Utilities Board Minutes June 26, 1997 Page 6 service providers is if uses were reclassified and nitrogen and phosphorous limits were added. That would be driven largely by water bodies avoiding eutrophication. "Right now, based on this study and work that Fort Collins and Boxelder have been doing in support of their permit renewals, that for at least two permit cycles, which is ten years, the effluent requirements for the dischargers in the planning area won't change," he concluded. Trends in Water Quality Water quality standards are being met in the River with few exceptions. Since 1970, water quality has been improving. Population Projections • Previous Studies (The previous master planning efforts by Fort Collins in the early 90s, the NFRWQPA and the Clean Water Plan and the Town of Windsor population projections) • 1996 projections by Windsor, Larimer County and Fort Collins Planning Departments ("It happened that the County and the City were re -doing their projections and Windsor was redoing its comprehensive plan, so this study worked out well from the timing standpoint.") • Traffic analysis zones (TAZ) The Larimer County analysis was done with TAZ. He pointed that out because that broke Fort Collins up into 73 distinct areas, each with a separate density and occupancy rate. • In planning area, average density of 5 units/acre • In planning area, occupancy rates of 2.4 to 2.5 persons/dwelling unit The change that was made from the TAZ planning was that they allowed each service provider to say "that's the full number we're going to get and how are we going to get there?" The next series of slides points that out. There were population projection graphs for Boxelder Sanitation District, Fort Collins, South Fort Collins Sanitation District, Town of Windsor and for all service providers. The agreement was generally met that the number for population in the 40 or so year time frame, was close to what build -out would be. Boxelder said that they didn't think their growth was going to occur as fast. Their curve starts out slowly and goes up rapidly in the 2020 range. Contrast that with Fort Collins, where a lot of infra -structure is already in place, the feeling was that probably growth would be a little more rapid initially, then routine build -out in the 2020 range, and then it's in -fill kind of growth. The other entities had similar rapid growth scenarios, particularly South Fort Collins, Water Utilities Board Minutes June 26, 1997 Page 7 where they know on the north side of Fossil Creek Reservoir, they have potential development. It will probably level off when the more difficult to develop areas are the only ones left. Windsor was similar to South Fort Collins. Their growth projected three separate rates. "We use the moderate rate." The graph that showed all service providers was quite telling. The current planning area has a current population of about 140,000, and in 40 years will be up to about 240,000. One can see that Fort Collins makes up a large portion of that --maybe not in a percent of the total, but several will double in size. Next, since we know what the projected growth is, how do we translate those rates of growth into impacts on the treatment facilities? Flow and Loading Projections There were two per capita flow contribution estimates 120 gallons per person per day This was for two reasons: the 120 gallons is on the high side of what you find published in standard engineering text. You see numbers there as low as 75-100. The smaller entities (he didn't know about Fort Collins) may use this study to try to acquire state revolving funds. The state questions planning done at greater flow contributions than 120 because they feel, at that point, it's likely that infiltration/inflow is excessive, and that funding some kind of rehab and repair would be more cost effective. 160 gallons per person per day They used 160 gallons largely based on existing data which showed numbers as high as 200-225 ppd. There was considerable debate about even using a number like that. They used 160 because they felt it was a good compromise on the lower number. That takes into account just the population that is going to be growing. It is likely those will be added to new areas with newer sewers which should have lower levels of infiltration. The study accounted for existing infiltration/inflow by taking the current maximum month flow of about the last three years; average day flow over a 30 day period in the maximum month, and saying that was the starting flow. Every service provider is trying to manage that infiltration/inflow through on -going maintenance programs. Anytime you decrease existing base infiltration/inflow it affects future capacity. This was not an I&I study. They did not look in detail at flow charts. It was noted that they did not assume that the I&I will continue at its worst in the future. BOD projection 0.25 lbs per person/day (185-250 mg/L) (standard domestic sewage) Water Utilities Board Minutes June 26, 1997 Page 8 Future capacity requirements - adding to the current 1996 base loads times the per capita contributions on the change in population they derived the future capacity requirements. Summary of Existing Capacities and Current Loadings for Flow and BOD 5 Loadings A chart showed the flow (mgd); the existing capacity and current flow, and the existing capacity and current load for BOD (lb/d) for each of the facilities and the total service area. Specifically, existing capacity for Fort Collins was 29.0 mgd per day (that's the two facilities), and the current flows are at 23.4 mgd (that includes the 1.8 mgd that is contracted to A-B under the assumption that there is a commitment to that). The existing BOD capacity for Fort Collins is 68,675 lb/d and the current load is 39,284 lb/d. The total service area existing capacity is 37.14 mgd per day; current flow is 26.3. BOD existing capacity is 833,908 lb/d with the current load totaling 32,913 lb/d. Boxelder Sanitation District Projected Flow Current Capacity: 2.34 mgd • YM 120 gpcd 160 gpc 1996 1.50 1.50 2020 2.31 2.58 2040 5.05 6.23 Fort Collins Projected Flow Current Capacity: 23 mgd at Drake Plant 6 mgd at Mulberry Plant. 29 mgd Total Y= 120 gpcd 160 gpcd 1996 23.4 23.4 2020 27.7 29.2 2040 28.0 29.5 At a 29 mgd total flow and 120 gpcd there is no need for an hydraulic expansion. Probably, if it's at the higher number, there is less capacity; but that means, from an engineering standpoint, they are looking at only the units that provide flow, i.e. pumping units, clarifiers, etc., as opposed to treatment units that have a limitation on BOD loading and that kind of capacity. No where in the future does the Fort Collins facility exceed the BOD capacity. The kind of expansions that are going to be needed are not those that add BOD capacity. "Is this with or without the A-B capacity?" Mr. Bartholow asked. "One is with and another is without; we have them both ways," Mr. Velazquez replied. "You can see that the A-B capacity doesn't have a big impact on it," he added. The graph shows that somewhere in the future an hydraulic expansion is probable, so there is reserve capacity. E Water Utilities Board Minutes June 26, 1997 Page 9 South Fort Collins Sanitation District Projected Flow Current Capacity: 3.0 mgd • YM 120 gpcd 160 gUcd 1996 1.70 1.70 2020 3.46 4.04 2040 4.10 4.90 South Fort Collins Sanitation District is the interesting one. You can see the current 1.70 gpcd going to 4.10 and 4.90 in a 40 year time frame. "It's a timing issue for them. They will need to expand in 2003, but it actually. matches their planning because their facility is planned with the regional plant in mind. Windsor Projected Flow Current Capacity: 2.8 mgd • YM 120 aDCd 16 ¢ocd 1996 1.50 1.50 2020 3.16 3.71 2040 3.77 4.52 Windsor is currently 1.5 mgd going to somewhere between 3.7 and 4.5. All the smaller facilities are right in the same area as far as sizing and capacity needs. Hydraulics is what controls Windsor. Their expansion need is somewhere in the 2010 range. This is a good example of saying, "why not just one expansion, or perhaps two smaller expansions to meet the 2040 requirements?" Interestingly Windsor has no need for BOD capacity expansion. What this points to in the planning process is maybe there is some extra capacity there where nutrients become an issue. Alternatives Development for each Facility Part of the study through the years will be how to phase the expansions. Part of the alternatives development phase is where public input will be solicited. Looking at Boxelder, for example, in the year 2010, they are projected to run out of BOD capacity. For planning purposes for the next 30 years, they have said, "let's try to split this and take logical unit capacity expansion." This has been done for each of the service providers. Total Study Area Projected Flow Current Capacity: 37.14 mgd • YM 120 ¢ocd 160 apcd 1996 28.1 28.1 2020 36.7 39.5 2040 40.9 45.1 Water Utilities Board Minutes June 26, 1997 Page 10 From a total study area standpoint, going from a 37.14 mgd capacity to a range of a little less than 41 to 45 mgd, there is a need for additional capacity. "What we need to start thinking about is how do we obtain that? How do we get the capacity that's there now, in the 20 year time frame, so that other entities can use it; what are the physical requirements and what are the administrative management requirements? The next slide summarized the impact of the 120 gpcd and the 160 gpcd. This is the total study area and it does have A-B flows in it. Based on hydraulics, in the year 2013 or so, we would have to have more capacity available if we're going to get this higher 160 gpcd, a 120 gpcd contribution would push capacity needs out almost 8 years. "With time we're finding that maybe it's not as cost effective to connect I&I as we thought it was back when grant money funded it. It doesn't give the answer but it basically tells us where we are headed. Here again, the BOD level in the total study area shows there is some excess capacity now. We've got BOD and we probably need flow. We need to use some of those facilities better. Are there operational changes, and what are the technical needs to get that capacity applied where it needs to be? Needs in the Study Area More stringent effluent limits will not be imposed in the near term (in the 10-20 year term -- 40 years out it's harder to say) Shortfalls in hydraulic and organic capacity will occur. Organic capacity is not as big an issue in some of the facilities Most of the needs will be at the smaller facilities "We need to determine the economies of scale and what's the best way to use our resources? We're here today to start putting together those technical alternatives." Most of the graphs had alternative number at the top. "We are up to 23 different alternatives." Neat Steps in the Study Develop a comprehensive list of technical options that: will meet the treatment needs in the service area will be based on input from the participants. Screen alternatives to develop a list of preferred alternatives for further consideration that will be based on criteria developed with the participants. Develop "Management Attematives" that may be needed to implement technical alternatives. Water Utilities Board Minutes June 26, 1997 Page 11 (Not only the technical needs for the study area, but what sort of management is there: governmental agreements that are needed, is it going to make sense in the long term that capacity will be available? Some of them will not be hard engineering, so they will have to be "factored in.") Evaluate alternatives in detail, including costs and environmental impacts Recommend alternative, including an implementation plan which includes scheduling ("When we say an alternative, that may be an alternative with some options.") Comments and Questions from the Board Paul Clopper recognized some of the other participants in the study who attended today's meeting: Dave DuBois from the North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association; Steve Comstock, City of Fort Collins; Dean Smith and Mike Carr from the Boxelder Sanitation District. He invited all of them to take part in the discussion. John Bartholow asked if Camp Dresser & McKee's contract extends through the development of the implementation plan. "It includes the implementation plan but it's not a detailed plan," Mr. Velazquez replied. He emphasized that it's not going to be a capital improvement plan. "It's a ball park look at the costs and about when they should need them under the master plan." "Given that each entity gets to, what appears to be a decision point, at a different junction in the future, what could be leveraged so that there is an impetus to participate as a group?"Mr. Bartholow continued. "It's probably linked to where they could save money," Mr. Velazquez replied. "In a way South Fort Collins has already made that decision. This gives them an opportunity to revisit it. They decided on their last expansion to double their expansion from 1.5 mgd to 3 mgd, even though their flow projections for the shorter tern said they probably need a little more than that. We went to their board and they agreed that their numbers were similar to ours, but their decision was to see where Fort Collins goes with the regional study. It's a good opportunity for Fort Collins to determine if they should spend the money here, now. If Fort Collins says they don't need the capacity, that is a decision point for South Fort Collins, but it's also the point for them say: 'Fort Collins, you have at least thought about that, let's carry it out to the next step, and allow us to participate somehow.' That's a management alternative concept." Randy Fischer noted that Fossil Creek Reservoir plays a critical role in the whole planning process because two of the major service providers discharge to that water body. "That's correct," Mr. Velazquez responded. "If the classification of that reservoir should change dramatically, would that change your thinking?" Mr. Fischer asked. "It ripples through, because, not only does it change the wastewater discharge effluent management strategy that has been established for that body of water, Water Utilities Board Minutes June 26, 1997 Page 12 but it goes back into water rights," Mr. Velazquez replied. "What is the driver there. I think that what that says is some of the alternatives need to have high levels of treatment, so when that driver pops up that says we want crystal clear water in Fossil Creek Reservoir, you can project, approximately, the costs you're looking at." He mentioned that at the County presentation last week they received a copy of the draft Fossil Creek Area Land Use Plan. That was the first time they had seen it. In the document it is mentioned that water quality considerations may change. "We have to have that information available in the study," he stressed. "It seems to me that Fossil Creek Reservoir is a keystone in the whole plan," Mr. Fischer asserted. "It is and it was acknowledged as such. Everyone has said that it's a critical piece of the water quality planning in the Poudre, particularly with these two segments of the River," Mr. Velazquez responded. "You mentioned contact recreation, and the City of Fort Collins is buying open space around the reservoir," Mr. Fischer continued. "What about Thornton, when they get the call for their share of the water in that basin?" he asked. "Are they going to sue to clean the reservoir up for some purpose?" "Actually, the impact would probably be the other way, with that classification for use, you don't want water to go below a certain point. The quality issue is probably not as much as the quantity issue. When a user becomes used to a water level in a certain range, and Thornton says they need water out of there, that's going to be the issue,"Mr. Velazquez explained. "I also can't say that Thornton will never sue you over water quality," he added. "There was an analysis done in the 1988 master plan," Steve Comstock began, "that looked at mechanical phosphorous for the treatment facility, so there already is a number back there. The difference between Fort Collins and South Fort Collins is that we have the option to go to the Poudre River," he pointed out. "One of the things that Larimer County is looking at is a change in their policy framework that would drive a lot more development into the rural parts of the County," John Barnett related. "Were you aware of that and how would that change your projections?" he asked. "We are aware of it. The way we're looking at this, and I'm not completely well versed on this, but the drive is to try to get the development fairly centralized, leaving the overall densities fairly low, but in that one area there is a higher density, and therefore, those people likely would be served by sewer, and more likely to be than if they were on 25-35 acres," Mr. Velazquez explained. "The household wastewater flow of 160 number seems high," someone said. "Not nearly high enough according to some of us, Gale McGaha Mller remarked. "It is high, but the real number, particularly in the last two years when it's been quite wet, had numbers as high as 220-225 gpcpd," Mr. Velazquez acknowledged. "There is a concern that if you don't acknowledge that a high number can happen, you could miss what is really going on in your collection system. Every system is different. South Fort Collins' numbers were about 119, and this doesn't include some commercial/industrial flows. Windsor's number, if you took out flows that came from Kodak, was 115. Boxelder's was Water Utilities Board Minutes June 26, 1997 Page 13 higher, above 200, but they have identified some known sources of I&I. It was acknowledged that, over the last 15 years, I&I reduction projects had a big bang initially, but by and large, people are finding that infiltration comes back. "It's a difficult animal to fight," he stressed. "Some of the repairs have the same kind of life as a sewer system. He gave some numbers that were derived from a fairly recent I&I study. He admitted that there is not much data out there from the real working world on I&I and the effectiveness of the I&I removal programs. "Is this plan going to be used to bring all of these entities together to make some sort of regional decision, or are they all going to make their own individual decisions that may or may not incorporate some regional components," Alison Adams wanted to know. "They will be able to make their individual decisions. This plan can not force them," Mr. Velazquez said, "although it will identify it as management alternatives." Ms. Adams thinks the regional perspective should be encouraged. The decision criteria are quite different when looking at it from a regional perspective rather than an individual perspective," she pointed out. "The primary purpose of this study was to identify opportunities for cooperation," Ms. McGaha Miller related. "I just don't see that in these overheads, that, in the end, regionalism is the main purpose," Ms. Adams stated. "As I said, we are up to around 28 alternatives, and the last 10 are regional in some way," Mr. Velazquez pointed out. "Those are very difficult to put a number to exactly. The idea is to get agreement among all the study participants that those are the logical ones to look at, and the logical ones that we at least consider. It's not going to emerge from the study that these agreements are in place. There are contractual and legal issues that we aren't going to answer in this study," he acknowledged, "but hopefully we will identify those opportunities." "This all comes back into the North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association ( the 208 group) and the area -wide water quality plan update," Ms. McGaha Miller said. "This project will be incorporated into the area -wide water quality plan. Next time somebody wanted to do a construction action, it would be evaluated against that plan in terms of consistency and practicality." Mr. Velazquez said that in the 70s EPA pushed regionalization. Today there is not as much emphasis on that; as a matter of fact, it may be going in the other direction, that maybe the smaller facilities offer some benefits. "From a management and regulatory point of view, personally, I think EPA found that it's easier to regulate entities that have 34 mgd as opposed to the 185 mgd." Robert Ward wanted to make sure he understood something. "As I see it, we have the capacity to treat the organic waste loading with the existing system out to the planning years. Theoretically, in this planning area, we don't have to expand for the next 4-5 years. The main reason is the inflow issue we talked about earlier, and the fact that perhaps our per capita use is higher, and much higher in some cases, than.others. When I talk to other people around the country, people always ask me, why do you use so much water in Colorado on a per capita basis? I always assumed it was irrigation, but these numbers are the wastewater flows. Do we have unusually high inflows here or unusually high in -home use?" "No it's not the in -home use that is the major component, it's the infiltration when the Water Utilities Board Minutes June 26, 1997 Page 14 ground water table rises. We see it in almost every front range community that has gone from agricultural use to more urban use, and there are a large number of irrigation facilities," Mr. Velazquez responded. "It's probably at that point that most individual houses haven't started using their high water. Most people don't turn their sprinkler systems on until late April and May. "Then other parts of the country don't have high water tables?" Mr. Ward persisted. "Oh no, they're huge. "I'm involved in a bio-solids study in Springfield, MO where they have 350 gpcpd," Mr. Velazquez said. "It's not a unique problem," he stressed. "It's unique in how each system reacts to it and how it can be fixed." Mr. Velazquez asked Mr. Comstock about the Fort Collins numbers. Mr. Comstock said it can range as high as 200 in the winter to as low as the 130s-140s in the summer (BOD). "Domestic sewage, if you consult a textbook, is typically 175-250." Mr. Velazquez noted. Mr. Comstock said it is worse from the older sections of town. "We see more dilutions from the Mulberry facility than the Drake facility," he added. "Keep in mind that Fort Collins has a continual televising and analyzing program to correct I&I," Ms. McGaha Miller related. "We have a lot of miles of pipe and a lot of old pipe, so it's going to be a life-long endeavor." "I appreciate that, and I think other cities have that, but these numbers you see in the publications are always lower on the average, than what we have here," Mr. Ward insisted. "What are some of the typical low numbers?" "75-100, 125," Mr. Ward replied. "Obviously you are going to have some leakage in any sewer system," Mr. Velazquez pointed out. "It doesn't make good sense to plan for that low a number," he asserted. "That's not my point," Mr. Ward stated. "I'm wondering if you are going to look at the situation where that number seems to be high, and perhaps some fundamental reason that we may want to devote time, regionally, to look back at some of those flows and try to understand why we continue to be so high. Are you going to continue to examine that, or you just going to say that's what it is?" he asserted. "That's not in the scope of this study," Mr. Velazquez responded. Mr. Comstock related that Fort Collins currently has a project that will start at the main interceptors at Mulberry. "That should begin in a year." "The other piece of that, from an administrative and managerial standpoint, is that I&I does not automatically end when you go on private property; considerable flow comes out of the connections on private property," Mr. Velazquez explained. He has seen cities that allow basement drains to be put into the sewer system even though it was against their building code. "These types of things have built up over 75 years of development," he said. "It's difficult to look at collection sewers on a regional basis because they have all been done as individual entities." "Your projections of when given entities would need additional capacity, seem to be based heavily on your estimations of population growth," Tom Brown began. "I'm wondering what kind of confidence you have in that single set of population figures," he said. "What we did was compare all the population growth figures from the 1996 work, to work done by each individual entity, and by the regional association too," Mr. Velazquez explained, "and for the most part, they matched fairly Water Utilities Board Minutes June 26, 1997 Page 15 well. We also gave each entity an opportunity to change the slope on the curve as long as they ended up at the same place. Obviously, this is a tool that they are going to have to look at. On a regional basis, it doesn't have as big an impact. That would be one of the advantages of regionalization." "These projections become pretty important if different entities are going to work together," Mr. Brown observed, because they are going to need the capacity at different times." Ms. McGaha Miller said they spent more time on that element of the study than any other, understanding the critical nature of trying to pin down those population projections and the timing of them. "A good example of that might be the assumption of Fort Collins at 29 mgd because of the two facilities, one being upstream of the other, and that the south part of town grows more quickly," Mr. Comstock explained. "It changes that look somewhat," he added. "Have we been good in the past at estimating what the population would be?" Mr. Brown wondered. "Typically, we have guessed on the high side," Mr. Velazquez replied, "and these numbers are a lot lower in the long run, reflecting the feeling that we don't want a big strip city from Pueblo to Cheyenne. That was probably part of the impetus for the County and City planning to take place to try to be realistic on these numbers. We didn't have control over what those numbers should be. In the 40-year time frame, they will change again --no doubt about it." Bob Havis asked about the practicality in terms of using gray water for irrigation, and whether the practicality of distributive treatment systems or more centralized treatment systems, to develop water re -use varieties is feasible. "We have not looked at it yet but that is a good point," Mr. Velazquez. "Those are some of the alternatives that we ought to be looking at. It is just a matter of to what level and where you do it." "Does the BOD capacity include sludge handling and disposal?" Mr. Havis continued. "We looked at the processes within each plant, but we didn't do an in depth look at sludge handling. Obviously, you could take 2 or 3 projects doing planning for bio-solids reuse. Right now, in place, all the facilities are pretty good," Mr. Velazquez responded. Mr. Clopper asked the other participants if they had questions or comments. Dean Smith commented that the Board of Directors at Boxelder and certainly their staff is very grateful to the City for their cooperative participation with the District on primary water quality issues and any interaction between the two districts, vis-a-vis a discharge to the River. "We have been very well served by Jose Velazquez and CDM," he stressed. "I think it is going to be a wonderful planning tool for all the entities when we pass the phase of management recommendations, and come to the conclusions, it certainly will help Dave DuBois in his job at the Association." He added that it has been very positive for all the participants. "It's a good, well done study," he concluded Ms. McGaha Miller said that giving this presentation early gives Board members a chance, early in the process, to provide input. "When we come back with specific alternatives, it will give you another chance for input. If something occurs to you outside of this meeting, please feel free to contact me with your comments or questions, and I will pass those on to Jose Velazquez," she concluded. Water Utilities Board Minutes June 26, 1997 Page 16 Paul Clopper reported that he met with staff earlier this week and went through the draft mission statement that was discussed at length at the May meeting. They came up with something similar that they are calling "Functions of the Fort Collins Water Utilities Board." "This is what we envision suggesting to the Mayor be included in the City Code. It basically enumerates four major tasks: (1) Advising the City Council regarding water, stormwater and wastewater policy issues related to: Water rights planning, acquisition and management Rates and development fees Annual budgets Service area and drainage basin delineation Master planning Development design criteria Water conservation Drought emergency Regulatory issues Water quality issues Regional cooperation/coordination Local, State and Federal legislation (2) Acting as a quasi-judicial body regarding: Floodplain regulation variances Stormwater fee disputes Determining raw water conversion factors Storm drainage design criteria (3) Providing advice and citizen input: Acting as a sounding board for staff Reviewing proposed policies and actions affecting utility customers (4) Advising City Council regarding other water related policy issues: Environmental and recreational uses of water Regional and State water issues and projects Obligations to citizens outside the Water Utilities service area ACTION: MOTION AND SECOND Mr. Clopper explained that section 4, which broadens the historical purview of the Board, is the outcome of discussions at a meeting of the Water Supply and Liaison Committees. "With the Board's approval, Mike Smith and I will take the mission statement to the Mayor to determine what route she Water Utilities Board Minutes June 26, 1997 Page 17 would prefer, a work session or other options." Chuck Wanner doesn't think it's going to be a problem. "It looks good to me," he said. Mr. Clopper asked for the Board's approval to forward the mission statement through Chuck Wanner to the Council. Robert Ward moved that the Board forward the statement as suggested. John Barnett seconded the motion. Bob Havis asked for clarification of the last item under section 4. Tom Brown explained that it has to do with the difference between the City and the boundary of the service area of the Utilities; the first being larger than the second. "It's the difference between citizens and Utilities customers," Mr. Clopper added. "If that's not clear, maybe we should try to make it clearer," Mr. Bartholow suggested. Tom Brown acknowledged that perhaps the term "citizens" is not clear; is it Fort Collins, northern Colorado, or the County? "It could be interpreted any way. "Maybe citizens of Fort Collins," Mr. Clopper suggested. "I could see a couple of interpretations of that," Dave Frick said. "One is the fact that we are acting to represent citizens who are served by other water districts, but reside in the City, and second, there are some other situations where we are dealing with people served by the Water Utilities residing outside the City. It does seem a little confusing." He cited a similar situation in Greeley. It raises the issue of policy in that type of situation. "I don't know if we are in that situation now. Maybe that's the purview of overall planning, so we don't need to worry about it." he concluded. Alison Adams pointed out in the second item under No. 4 that "regional" is not defined and could be anything. Randy Fischer pointed out that the Storm Drainage Board has seen some fairly significant problems where unincorporated areas were receiving drainage from the City, for example, Dry Creek drainage. "That's a good point," Mr. Clopper responded. George Reed noted that one of the standing committees is Conservation and Public Education. "I didn't see the word education." It was suggested that the 7th item under number 1 read: Water conservation/information and public education. Tom Sanders felt it was important to include rental fees, related to the surplus water that is rented to farmers, along with rates and development fees, item 2 under No. 1. He also wondered if there was anything in the listings that keeps an eye on the money that is set aside for buying water. Alison Adams said it would be under "annual budget." ACTION: VOTE Paul Clopper called for the question. The vote in favor of the motion was unanimous. Water Utilities Board Minutes June 26, 1997 Page 18 .5 Gale McGaha Miller distributed the 1996 Water Quality Policy Annual Report at the May meeting for the Board to peruse. She asked if they had comments or questions about the report. John Bartholow referred to the values that are in the table that is appended to the report, attachment B. Are these average, maximums or extreme values? "This is a summary, so they would be average," Ms. McGaha Miller replied. "The extremes don't go much higher than that," she added. "When Board members are given the quarterly reports, they can see on a month by month basis what it looks like; there you basically see the raw data." "Anything unusual or out of the ordinary, either good or bad, that you want to point out to us," Mr. Clopper asked. "The theme this year seems to be continuing improvement and that's what is highlighted in most of the areas of the report. We are about the business of looking at ways to improve, whether it's in treatment, monitoring or how we run the rest of the system," she emphasized. Robert Ward said that's probably going to continue in terms of how the Utilities react to the new "Safe Water Drinking Ad." "Generally by the time any new regulations come around, we have been monitoring them for years. At this juncture the new "Safe Water Drinking Act does not bring with it any new regulations, but we are well aware of what's on the board in terms of new disinfection by- products, and that kind of thing. Rules are being proposed now that probably won't be implemented for about 10 years. One of the functions of my job is to track proposed regulations and assess the potential impact on the Utilities to see what we need to do in terms of planning to meet those well ahead of time," she concluded. David Lauer referred to p. 9 in the report in the top box called "Cross Connection Control," in accounts remaining to be surveyed; commercial at 388 and residential accounts, 23,977. "What do you mean remaining to be surveyed?" "This is an on -going, permanent program, and those numbers won't always change because, at this point, our cross connection and backflow personnel have surveyed all the existing commercial accounts," Ms. McGaha Miller explained. "Are they finding much cross connection?" Mr. Ward asked. "Of the commercial accounts they have connected, about half of those required assemblies," she said. "That means they are required to meet specs; whether there was an actual cross connection or back flow problem at that time, I don't have numbers for that," she added. Mr. Lauer asked how the watershed study that Ben Alexander reported on a few months ago correlates with this report. Ms. McGaha Miller said that things are changing in Horsetooth Reservoir and that is creating treatment difficulties for the Utilities, and the Manganese problems we sometimes experience. That shows up in the system as at least an aesthetic water quality issue. Water Utilities Board Minutes June 26, 1997 Page 19 Tom Brown referred to the same table on p. 9 in the residential accounts column. It shows that nearly all the 2,800 or so that were contacted required assemblies. "How did you decide which residential accounts to contact?" "I believe these are accounts with sprinkler systems, and many of them are installed without assemblies," she replied. If anyone would like more information, you can contact John Nelson the Cross Connection Control Administrator, or staff would be glad to provide it. Paul Clopper read letters of recognition for each of the departing Board members. Those letters are attached to the minutes as part of the permanent record. Each member was also given a gift certificate for dinner for two at a local restaurant. The departing members, in order of number of years of service, were: RAY HERRMANN (12 years); TERRY PODMORE (9 years); RANDY FISCHER (8 years); JOHN BARTHOLOW (4 years); and JOHN BARNETT (4 years) Each departing member was given an opportunity to say a few words about their experience on the Board. (Note: Ray Herrmann had to leave prior to the recognition and reception. He may be attending the July meeting. Terry Podmore had previously given a parting statement in February when he resigned from the Board.) Of the remaining honorees, John Bartholow was the only one who chose to give a parting statement. He started out by saying that he had "another 8 years worth of things to say." "I think I had been on the Board about a year when Mike Smith and Molly Nortier circulated a survey on how the staff could do better to serve the Board. My last statement on the survey was that I thought the staff here was so good that I really saw no reason for a Water Board. I was chastised by the then president who said, 'never think that thought.' Well, I continue to think that thought. This staff, with one possible exception, (one who met with us last time), has been absolutely wonderful, and a credit to this community. It's been my pleasure to try to help out here." Mr. Clopper encouraged all of the departing members, as Board positions become available over the next several years, to apply again for one of those positions. "We would certainly welcome you back to the Board!" Tom Sanders asked if the Board was down to the attrition size. "We will be down to 13 by the next meeting, and we are supposed to get down to 11," Mr. Clopper replied. That will occur next year when other members reach the end of a term. Mike Smith related that four members reach that limit in 1998, so there will be reappointments next year. Water Utilities Board Minutes June 26, 1997 Page 20 Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported that the City's use in May was about 3% above average and for the year we are 97% of average. Tom Sanders asked if the Poudre has peaked. "I think it has," Mr. Bode replied. Bond Issue Update Mike Smith said that many times during the budget process we talk about bond issues and the Board may not hear updates. "Awhile ago we talked about a bond issue for the office expansion and renovation." That is finally happening. It was projected to be a $2.5 million project. The current project costs are about $1.8 million, and that is approximately what will be borrowed. Included in the bond issue, we are going to tack on the refunding of some of the other Stormwater bonds. The City adopted a policy a few years ago that if you can realize at least a 3% face value savings, bonds can be refunded or refinanced. Interest rates are currently low enough to realize some savings. He went on to say that the Utilities just finished the budget which Board members will be seeing in July. The City Manager is going to ask the City Council to include the bonding needs for next year in this year's issue to avoid dual issuance costs. If the Council agrees, we will save that money, and if they don't we'll have to do it again next year. "We felt that we would be chastised if we didn't bring to the Council's attention the fact that we could save at least $60,000 in issuance costs." Mr. Smith also reported that the bond issues for 1998 are for projects that are in the master plans that were recommended and approved by the Water Utilities Board. Water Supply Tom Brown reported that Water Supply Committee met with the Liaison Issues Committee two days ago. There were 8 WUB members present and 4 staff members. He prepared a summary of the meeting which will be distributed to Board members and staff. He said the Committee discussed the content of the latest draft of the white paper that Robert Ward put together. "We discussed the role of that document. We then discussed the possibility of an update of the 1986 policy that Dennis Bode and Mike Smith prepared in cooperation with a Board committee at that time. It provides more detail about the water supply picture for the City. Finally, we discussed what we heard earlier from Paul Clopper regarding the functions of the Board that were written up and brought to the Board today. Robert Ward mentioned at the Committee meeting that he would give an update on the water issues group that Ann Azari and Janet Duvall organized. "I wasn't there, but they met on June 5th and they discussed the problems that they have encountered on water rights. This is something we had suggested but none of us were there."It involved the objective to streamline the process by which Water Utilities Board Minutes June 26, 1997 Page 21 water rights are changed. The thought was that if we had a group that talked regularly about changes, it could help minimize the objections. The next meeting is going to be August 7, 1997, in the County Commissioners' meeting room. They are going back to meeting at 4:30 p.m, because attendance at the evening meetings was disappointing. "As we have questioned the existence of this group, Ann Azari and Janet Duvall decided that the opportunity for dialogue is the key phrase they are operating under. They would like anyone who is interested to please attend the meetings." Legislative and Finance Howard Goldman said there was no meeting, "but we will have to schedule one before the next Board meeting," he said. . Conservation and Public Education and Engineering did not meet. The Liaison Issues Committee met with the Water Supply Committee. Stormwater Design Criteria Ad Hoc Committee The Engineering Committee is represented by Tom Sanders on the Stormwater Design Criteria Ad Hoc Committee. Dr. Sanders met with the group a week ago. "They were reviewing their stormwater criteria and how they do calculations, etc.," he reported. Paul Clopper attended also. He mentioned that this was their first meeting, and they will try to meet about once a month. Mr. Sanders invited other Engineering Committee members to attend. Bob Smith related that the main reason for looking at the criteria is geared toward water quality. Meeting times will be announced. Elect new Vice Chair since John Bartholow will be off the Board Re -assign standing committees ADJOURNMENT Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. Water Utilities'Board Secretary Water L&ties • Stormwater - Water - Wastewater In Grateful Recognition To RAYHERRMANN For His Dedicated Service to the Fort Collins Water Board (Water Utilities Board) November 19, 1985 - June 30, 1997 The City of Fort Collins and the Fort Collins Water Utilities Board greatly appreciate your 12 years of exceptional service to the Water Board and recently, the Water Utilities Board. You provided a unique perspective to many of the issues and challenges the Water Board faced during your tenure. Your sense of humor and your candor added both to the content and tone of Board discussions. Your ability to inject balance at some rather heavy moments was always appreciated, e.g. discussions of metering, the dreaded "M" word. The Board and staff are grateful that you chose to lend your expertise to the Water Board for so many years. You were a faithful participant in extra meetings, activities and social events, even representing the Board at a national Water Conservation Conference in Phoenix, Arizona. You became a friend and a valued member of the Board. We will miss you, Ray! City of Fort Collins Water Utilities Michael B. Smith, General Manager Fort Collins Water Utilities Board Paul E. Clopper, President P.O. Box 580 - Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 - (970) 221-6681 City of Fort Collins Water cities Stormwater • Water • Wastewater In Grateful Recognition To TERENCE H. PODMORE For His Dedicated Service to the Fort Collins Water Board (Water Utilities Board) July 19, 1988 - February 20, 1997 The City of Fort Collins and the Water Board (Water Utilities Board) sincerely appreciate your 9 years of service to the Board. Your contributions and dedication to the Conservation and Public Education Committee are commendable. You can feel proud of that committee's accomplishments. Your thoughtful contributions were an asset to Board deliberations. You could be counted on to attend extra meetings, workshops and field trips, indicating your interest in learning as much as possible about the Utilities, and regional issues. We already miss your English accent at Board and committee meetings. We regret that pressures from your job required you to resign from the Board before the end of your term. We wish you continued success in your work at Colorado State University. It was a pleasure working with you, Terry! City y�ooff Fort �Collins Water Utilities Michael B. Smith, General Manager Fort Collins Water Utilities Board Paul E. Clopper, President 1 1 P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-6580 • (970) 221-6681 Waterklities Stormwater - Water - Wastewater In Grateful Recognition To RANDOLPH FISCHER For His Dedicated Service to the Fort Collins Storm Drainage Board (Water Utilities Board) June 20, 1989 - June 30, 1997 The City of Fort Collins and the Fort Collins Water Utilities Board sincerely appreciate your 8 years of outstanding service to the Storm Drainage Board and recently, the Water Utilities Board. During your tenure on the Board you showed a strong commitment to the City and the community. You always did your homework; reviewing materials, asking questions and making comments before meetings. You regularly contributed to effective Board discussions and decisions. You willingly attended extra meetings, participated in field trips and picnics with staff and the Board. You were always concerned about staff s position on the issues. During your tenure you earned the respect of staff acid other Board members. Staff in the Water Utilities and Water Utilities Board members thank you for your service to the community. We thoroughly enjoyed working with you and will miss you! City of Fort Collins Waters Utilities Michael B. Smith, General Manager Fort Collins Water Utilities Board Paul E. Clopper, President P.O. Box 580 - Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 - (970) 221-6681 Water pities Stormwater - Water • Wastewater In Grateful Recognition To JOHNM. BARTHOLOW For His Dedicated Service to the Fort Collins Water Board (Water Utilities Board) June 15, 1993 - June 30, 1997 The City of Fort Collins and the Fort Collins Water Utilities Board deeply appreciate your 4 years of outstanding service to the Board. You made a positive contribution during your relatively short time on the Board. Your election as vice president of the Board demonstrates the respect that other members of the Board have for your leadership skills. Your insightful, thoughtful and intelligent consideration of the issues gave direction to Board discussions and decisions. You always thoroughly did your "homework," demonstrating a commitment to the Board. You attended countless committee meetings, District meetings, Council sessions, workshops, field trips, regional meetings and other special meetings where you regularly made valuable contributions. During your four years with the Board you earned the respect of staff and Board members. The City of Fort Collins and the Water Utilities Board have benefitted from your willingness to share your expertise. We will miss you, John! City o�fFort Collins Water Utilities Michael B. Smith, General Manager Fort Collins Water Utilities Board (ew� Paul E. Clopper, President P.O. Box 580 - Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6681 Water pities • Stormwater • Water • Wastewater City of Fort Collins In Grateful Recognition To JOHN BARNETT For His Dedicated Service to the Fort Collins Storm Drainage Board (Water Utilities Board) September 7, 1993 - June 30, 1997 The City of Fort Collins and the Fort Collins Water Utilities Board sincerely appreciate your 4 years of service to the Storm Drainage Board and recently, the Water Utilities Board. Although your tenure on the Board was relatively short, your impact was significant. You brought a perspective that was valuable and contributed to intelligent and meaningful Board decisions. You routinely attended extra meetings, participated in field trips and picnics with staff and the Board. You demonstrated a commitment to the purpose and functions of the Board. During your four years as a board member you earned the respect of staff and Board members. The Water Utilities staffand other Board members thank you for volunteering your services. We enjoyed working with you! City of Fort Collins Water Utilities Michael B. Smith, General Manager Fort Collins Water Utilities Board ? Paul E. Clopper, President P.O. Box 580 - Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 - (970) 221-6681