Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 11/19/1998WATER BOARD MINUTES November 19, 1998 3:15 - 4:58 p.m. Fort Collins Utilities Training Room 700 Wood Street CITY COUNCIL LIAISON Chuck Wanner (Present) WATER BOARD CHAIRMAN Paul Clopper - 223-5556 STAFF LIAISON Molly Nortier - 221-6681 MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Clopper, Chair, Tom Sanders, Vice Chair, David Lauer, Dave Frick, Alison Adams, John Morris, Joe Bergquist STAFF Mike Smith, Wendy Williams, Dave Agee, Dennis Bode, Gale McGaha Miller, Bob Smith, Jim Hibbard, Kevin Gertig, Dennis Sumner, Beth Molenaar, Molly Nortier. GUEST Morgan Byars, Observer from Ayres Associates MEMBERS ABSENT Tom Brown, Robert Ward, George Reed, Dave Rau Chair Paul Clopper opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of October 22, 1998 will be reviewed and approved at the December meeting. Gene Schleiger from the District was unable to attend, so there was no report. Water Board Minutes November 19, 1998 Page 2 I: ' • .t� a �. l ��: � ' • • � �_ di alai`i���[al`►><a1►��t3x��_Y1/:MY_ti1►1 NOW I M The Precipitation Frequency Study Task Force recommended the adoption of an increase in the 100- year design rainfall from 2.89" to 3.67" for a 2-hour storm. After considerable discussion, the Water Board, at their October meeting, voted 7-1 to accept the recommendation of the Task Force. Bob Smith received a letter from the Brown Farm Fairbrooke Stormwater Subcommittee on November 2, 1998 opposing the use of the 3.67" rainfall amount. In the second to last paragraph of their letter they stated: "Analysis shows that Fort Collins is an extreme within the region. The majority of the largest regional storms occur in Fort Collins because the City experiences preferred storm tracks. Because of this, we believe the GEV analysis results from the CSU gauge data should be applied for the City as a whole, with a 4.4 inch 2-hour 100-year storm. In addition, we believe that there is solid scientific justification for using the 5.5 inch value in modeling storms on the west side of Fort Collins. We know that the 1997 storm gave our neighborhood a peak flow rate of 1700 cfs, from an estimated rainfall of 6.5 inches in 2 hours. Therefore, we believe that the Fairbrooke channel, Brown Farm Detention Pond, dam and spillway, and Rodeo Detention Pond should be designed to accommodate a 5.5 inch 2-hour storm." Bob Smith responded to the letter by reviewing what the Task Force and Water Board had recommended to the City Council. He explained that staff will now solicit input from the community on the proposed revision to the criteria and will ultimately ask City Council to revise the criteria with the final rainfall number. Staff is expecting to conduct the outreach from the end of November to the beginning of December of this year. They hope to present the item to Council in January. W. Smith said the Neighborhood's request to vary the criteria from 3.67" to 5.50" was somewhat premature since the 3.67" number has not been adopted by Council and is only a recommendation from the Water Board at this time. Technically the 2.89" number is still in effect until Council acts on it. "After discussing your proposal internally, staff feels the appropriate audience to consider your recommendation would be during the outreach activities and during consideration of this item when it is before Council. Until this is resolved we have held up any hydrologic activities associated with the projects in the Fairbrooke Heights area," Mr. Smith wrote. Nobody was at the meeting representing the Brown Farm neighborhood. Alison Adams was in agreement with the part of Bob Smith's letter that stated it was somewhat premature to request varying the criteria at this stage of the game. Tom Sanders pointed out a sentence in the letter from the neighborhood stating that the world is warming up. "They must have better information than we do," he remarked. For his second point he said, "To extrapolate that high a level is premature because there isn't enough of a data base to do it." He thinks the number the Task Force decided on is sufficiently high for the kind of information Water Board Minutes November 19, 1998 Page 3 that was available. "Five inches per hour is awfully high; we can't design everything for that," he stressed. Mike Smith announced that there will be an open house on November 30th. "People who have concerns, comments and questions can come to that. When the Council considers it, citizens can also make their comments then." Dr. Sanders questioned some of the comments in the letter saying there is documentation that there is more rain on the west side than the east side of town. "There is an indication of that, but there is no proof," he asserted. Paul Clopper asked if we have ever designed a particular element of the stormwater infrastructure for a larger than designed event; some kind of variance where we said we need to build this particular component for a much larger storm? "The only times I can think of higher design values is if you have embankments higher than 10 feet, and then you're in the State Engineer's Office and the PMP design storm," Bob Smith replied. "We did design for the 100-year design storm for the BNRR embankment and modeled the 500-year storm for the embankment stabilizations." "Was the minority opinion to do the 4.37" plus the 5.5" or just the 4.37"? Mr. Bergquist asked. `Both," Mr. Smith replied. Chair Clopper concluded that it didn't appear to be necessary for the Board to do anything about the letter at this point. The Board can wait to see if there is any feedback or additional information that comes out. 11 MI MA FROMM Two years ago staff began meeting with representatives from neighboring water districts to discuss opportunities for cooperation, according to a memo Board members received in their packets. The group became known as the "Water Cooperation Committee." In the past, each of these districts served areas that were separate and distinct from the City. The service areas for Fort Collins - Loveland (FCLV) and East Larimer County Water District (ELCO) and the City have grown together and there are cases where it is more practical for one provider to deliver water into another provider's area. Such is the case with certain portions of the FCLV service area. When the Water Cooperation Committee began to meet, FCLV needed to build a large transmission line along the southern edge of the City to deliver water to some of its customers. The City already owns a large transmission line that can serve this need, and it is considered wasteful for FCLV to build another in the same general area. Likewise, the City can also benefit by exchanging treated water with FCLV. Furthermore, there are times when sudden shifts in water demand require a change in treatment processes that is energy intensive. By exchanging water with FCLV, such a costly Water Board Minutes November 19, 1998 Page 4 process change can often be avoided. The ability to exchange water can also provide much needed flexibility in the event of an emergency such as a problem with one of the water supplies. Both facilities can benefit from exchanging treated water during capital improvements construction and on an ongoing basis. A simple, practical approach to these needs is for the City to receive treated Soldier Canyon water into its distribution system at the treatment plant site, and for FCLV to take an equal amount out of the City's large transmission line. The intergovernmental agreement proposed, enables such an exchange of water and sets forth the terms and conditions of the exchange. The intent is for the amount of water exchanged to be equal with the water metered and any significant difference paid for at a rate outlined in the agreement. The agreement also spells out compensation terms for use of the City transmission line. Operational details such as responsibility for maintenance and repairs of City and District structures are included in the agreement. Water quality monitoring frequencies, treatment standards and procedures for dealing with emergencies are outlined in agreement exhibits so that customers are assured of equally high quality water, whatever the source. A commitment to close communication and ongoing coordination between the two treatment plant managers is included as well. The agreement includes an acknowledgment of intent to further cooperate with the three districts in the future, but also includes various conditions for termination. There is no significant fiscal impact to this agreement, as the amount of water to be exchanged should be equal. If anything, both parties could see a financial benefit of this cooperative effort in terms of preventing duplication of facilities and mutual planning efforts. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Water Board advise Council to adopt this intergovernmental agreement. Gale McGaha Miller said this agreement is actually the result of years of analysis, discussion and contemplation on the part of City staff as well as staff at the Soldier Canyon Treatment Plant and participation from Fort Collins -Loveland Water District, ELCO and North Weld County. "We have come to a point where our treatment processes are very similar and quite complimentary, and with the growth of the City, we have come to the point where having the ability to swap water is beneficial to all parties involved." She went on to say that initially a group from the City came up with a laundry list of all the things they saw as possible barriers to sharing water, and they addressed them one by one. "That's when we began to have discussions with some of the other parties. One of the keys was ongoing communication. One of the things that is addressed in the agreement is the formation of an ongoing group of people on both sides to continue communication and to commit to future cooperation. "I see this as one step of a possible series of cooperative efforts that we could take with the Soldier Canyon Treatment Plant. Water Board Minutes November 19, 1998 Page 5 Essentially, this agreement enables Fort Collins -Loveland to take water out of our large transmission line to different places in the southwest edge of town, and allow them to provide us with the same amount of treated water pretty much directly across the road from their plant to ours. "Haven't we been doing that for years?" Tom Sanders asked. "Yes, and they've been paying for that. The difference is, we also have need of water; it's not a one way street. We have need of additional flow while we are shutting down temporarily during construction on the master plan improvements. It also allows us to have emergency backup and more operational flexibility. Under this plan, instead of them just buying from us, we would take an equal amount from their plant which would go directly into our distribution system." "Five years ago we considered this issue," Dr. Sanders began, "and the problem was water quality differences." "Actually, it was nine years ago," Ms. McGaha Miller said. "You are right," she continued, "we had a lot of concerns about water quality. We developed an agreement that specified a number of conditions. Everyone agreed at the time to those conditions. That was when their plant was a direct inline filter plant. They are now conventional, and we are using similar processes. They have gone to chlorine dioxide. Their filter plant has become considerably more sophisticated. They monitor the same number of parameters and at the same frequency that we do, even though they have fewer reporting requirements. That was one of the first stumbling blocks that we struggled with when there were concerns on our end. They were more than willing to go above and beyond in terms of the additional monitoring, etc. Bob Reed, who runs their plant, has even made a commitment to keep in close contact with Kevin Gertig, our water production manager. If he decides to make a process change, Kevin will know about it ahead of time. It's really a very different situation than it was in 1989," she concluded. "Do we have their water quality data to compare to ours?" Dr. Sanders continued. "Yes," Ms. McGaha Miller replied, and "it is comparable." "Does their water taste the same?" Joe Bergquist asked. "I would say so," Kevin Gertig replied. "Do they just take water out of Horsetooth?" Mr. Clopper asked. "That's correct, at this time," Ms. McGaha Miller answered. "One of the future plans we are discussing is sharing the new pipeline from the Poudre," she added. "One of the other things, with the present situation, where now we just sell water to the District," Mike Smith began, "we are using our treatment plant capacity for them. This will allow us to get that back, and lower the capacity for the future." "I have no problem with this agreement as long as we don't compromise on the quality of the water," Dr. Sanders stressed. Ms. McGaha Miller said she did not distribute the agreement itself. "We completed it about six months ago and it took the lawyers the rest of the time to work it all out between the two organizations. There are two exhibits to the agreement and one of them is a table of all the different water quality parameters. She went into a little more detail about what was actually in the table. "Will we be sharing records?" Dr. Sanders asked. "Yes," Ms. McGaha Miller replied. Water Board Minutes November 19, 1998 Page 6 She continued by saying that the other exhibit in the agreement is a flow chart that shows if any water quality parameter exceeds the early warning target value, there is a procedure to correct the problem immediately, or temporarily cease water production, whether the problem is on our side or theirs. These exhibits are actually included as part of the agreement. The only other problem Dr. Sanders continued to have is if the City and the Districts both pulled water out of Horsetooth, "but if we pulled water out of the Poudre and they pulled it out of Horsetooth, there might be problems down the road. They are two different kinds of water." "We're blending those two now and that's something we discussed," Mr. Gertig responded, "and it's certainly a concern. We are going to have to evaluate that as it goes along. At Soldier Canyon, if they start treating Poudre water, which is one of their desires, we'll see some benefit of going back and forth. We are just going to have to proceed slowly to make sure we don't have a conflict." "Will they have a chlorine residual?" Dr. Sanders asked. "They actually made their plan for a little higher residual because of where they go to in the system," Mr. Gertig replied. "However, they are going to install booster stations, and that was a concern of Keith Elmund, Environmental Services Manager, in terms of having a higher concentration at the upper end. They are apparently in pre - design and what they plan to do is boost it out east so we don't have that higher residual near town." "Is the chance of not having enough water when we need it a possibility?" Mr. Bergquist asked. "Will we end up having an area of town that is not served?" "Actually, I think it's the other way around," Ms. McGaha Miller replied. "This kind of an arrangement helps us both out in terms of high water demand situations where we can get the water where it needs to go." "Yes, that is correct," Mr. Gertig agreed. "There will not be a problem in terms of demand in looking at the overall demands, as Mike Smith pointed out." "Do they have a private testing laboratory doing their tests now?' Mr. Clopper asked. "They do have a process lab, but they send their regulatory tests out "Have you talked about the City doing those tests?" Mr. Clopper continued. "That's certainly a possibility as far as on -going discussions," Ms. McGaha Miller answered. David Lauer pointed out that the summary mentions if there were an imbalance in the exchange, one party would pay the other party, which is what has been going on up to now. "That's exactly right, although it's just been one way," Ms. McGaha Miller explained. "Wouldn't it make sense to have an exchange credit system?' Mr. Lauer asked. "The way it works is it is figured at the end of the year," she replied. "They may get a lot from us for awhile and we may get a large amount from them for awhile. If, at the end of the year it is not even (a difference above 2%), we settle up. Whoever has more than 2% pays the other, and it's based on the cost of treating water." Water Board Minutes November 19, 1998 Page 7 Ms. McGaha Miller went on to say that the agreement also sets forth a rate of payment for the use of the transmission line by Fort Collins -Loveland. "It took awhile to determine how to do that equitably," she acknowledged. John Morris asked if there was something in the agreement if something happened in the future where there was some kind of technology change. Would we be tied to that obligation?" "That wasn't based on a regulatory requirement," Ms. McGaha Miller said. "Is there anything that obligates us to do something we may not want to do?" Mr. Morris continued. "Not in terms of designing processes," she answered. "Is there any way either partner can break the relationship?" Dr. Sanders wanted to know. "Yes, there are termination terms in the agreement," Ms. McGaha Miller replied. "It's a rather long termination period (5 years) between giving notice and actually terminating," she added. "That sounds like a long time unless you look at the time involved. Let's say Fort Collins decided to terminate, it would take Fort Collins -Loveland a long time to build their own transmission line." She added that we can suspend swapping of water anytime if one water source does not meet internal water quality standards. "What's the benefit to them in use of the transmission line compared to what they have been paying us for treated watefl" Mr. Lauer asked. "In the old agreement they were paying slightly under retail rates," Tun Hubbard explained, "which has all the components from meter reading to distribution and transmission built into it. Under the new agreement, if there is an imbalance, they are paying strictly for the cost of treatment. For the transmission line they are just paying for a proportionate share of the cost of that particular transmission line that goes from the treatment plant to the point at which they are taking the water out. It's kind of an apples and oranges comparison." "What I am looking for is the real buyer figure of what they are going to pay for the use of the transmission line," Mr. Lauer clarified. "Is it a very small fraction of what the water was worth?" "I don't think so," Ms. McGaha Muller answered. `Because it's an exchange of water, we are going to get gallon for gallon in the swap," Mr. Hibbard added. "The only thing they really have to pay for is that they are giving us water at the treatment plant and we are giving them water in the distribution system." "They have been paying us up until now, right?" Mr. Lauer asked. "Yes, I don't know what the actual dollar amount is," Mr. Hibbard said, "but it's based on a peak day rate. He gave an example and explained exactly the way it works. "Essentially what we are doing is renting them capacity in our transmission line for that rate," he said. "Is the rate for the transmission he going to go up?" Mr. Lauer continued. "Not unless we amend the agreement," Ms. McGaha Miller replied. "The capital costs are pretty much fixed, and we may want to review the O&M costs periodically," Mr. Hibbard explained, "but they are not going to be changing very rapidly unless there is some significant cost change. There would probably be a cursory review annually and perhaps a proposed change every 3 or 4 years," he said. Water Board Minutes November 19, 1998 Page 8 "Is there a point when we are going to have to upgrade the transmission line because taking extra water for the District would stress our system?" Dave Frick asked. "They are the ones who are experiencing all the growth in the south part part of town," Ms. McGaha Miller said. "If their demand went up significantly, would it require us to upsize the line? Mr. Frick wondered. "The next phase of this effort is that we have just launched a joint transmission line study with the City of Fort Collins and the tri-districts to study those kinds of issues," Mr. Hibbard pointed out. "Quite frankly, we are running out of land between the treatment plant and town to put pipelines in, so it doesn't make sense for us and the districts to build new pipelines. We are basically saying that together we can do better for our customers than we can separately," Mr. Hibbard concluded. "If the parameters that you were testing for the limits would change," Mr. Frick asked, "can you modify the agreement or flow chart "Yes, that's built in," Ms. McGaha Miller replied. ACTION: Motion and Vote Joe Bergquist moved that the Board accept the staff recommendation to advise Council to adopt this intergovernmental agreement. Alison Adams seconded the motion. I& Clopper stated that this fits with the regionalization and cooperative opportunities that are part of the Board's mission. "It's an important step forward." The motion passed unanimously. ACTION: Motion and Vote Each year the City Council requires that the City boards and commissions prepare a work plan for the following year. A draft Water Board Work Plan was included in the Board packets. After considerable discussion Dave Frick moved adoption of the 1999 Water Board Work Plan. After a second from David Lauer the vote to accept the plan was unanimous. After the vote, Tom Sanders suggested that, periodically, copies of the work plan be included in the packets to refresh the Board on its contents and to assess the progress that has been made. The plan will be forwarded to the City Council. The adopted plan follows: Water Suonly (Standing Committee) A. Review and update the City's Water Supply Policy including issues related to: (1) Supply for municipal use and associated facilities (2) Regional cooperation (3) Agricultural economy and open space (4) Quality of water sources (5) City's position on its responsibility to protect the health of riverine ecosystems affected by City water use, and the relation of that responsibility to traditional water supply goals. (6) Recreational/aesthetic flows Water Board Minutes November 19, 1998 Page 9 B. Review opportunities to purchase water rights. C. Review proposed Halligan Reservoir project. D. Monitor protection of basin water supplies. Water Conservation and Public Education (Standing Committee) A. Monitor the mandatory metering program. B. Help promote public education projects. C. Promote awareness of stormwater quality and flood hazards. D. Help promote integration of Stormwater management with community issues and needs. E. Review procedures for informing citizens about the quality of their drinking water. Legislative and Finance (Standing Committee) A. Review and make recommendations on Water, Wastewater and Stormwater related legislation and policies. B. Review Utilities proposed budget, and make recommendations regarding Water, Stormwater and Wastewater rate increases, Water and Wastewater Plant Investment Fees (PIFs), and Stormwater Basin Fees. C. Continue to develop Poudre River Drainageway Plan - Funding policies and implementation. 4. Eneineerine (Standing Committee) A. Review Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) Regional Water Demand Study. B. Review planning and designing phases of construction projects as needed. C. Review Water Treatment, Stormwater and Wastewater Treatment Master Plans. D. Review engineering aspect of Halligan Project. E. Review design criteria. F. Review Dry Creek Floodplain Project. 5. Liaison Issues (Standing Committee) A. Explore implementation of policies regarding regional solutions to current and future water problems. B. Identify proactive steps to develop a regional vision for the management of water, such as water banks, water court modification and future legislation. C. Meet with regional water boards, mayor's commission and related City boards to discuss issues of common interest. Water Board Minutes November 19, 1998 Page 10 D. Maintain and enhance the interaction and coordinated efforts of management matters with Latimer County staff and City Council. E. Review Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) Regional Water Demand Study. 6. Water Oualitv (Committee of the Whole) A. Review and monitor Water Treatment Master Plan Improvements. B. Review quality trends of raw water, drinking water, wastewater and stormwater, as well as permits and regulations. C. Review cooperative efforts with other water, wastewater and stormwater entities. D. Review efforts to protect sources of drinking water (e.g., Poudre River watershed, Horsetooth Reservoir) from contamination. E. Mitigate Stormwater runoff environmental impacts. (1) Review habitat protection and restoration criteria in master plans. Stormwater (Committee of the Whole) A. Provide for the safe and efficient passage of stormwater runoff. (1) Variance considerations a. Floodplain Management b. Design Criteria Construction Standards c. Stormwater fees B. Improve delivery of services (1) Review FEMA Community Rating System. C. Support efforts associated with the implementation of FEMA's "Project Impact" designation. D. Review and make recommendations on the matter to revise floodplain regulations. 8. Other Items Review and consider, as needed, such items as may come before the Board. 4'9A Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported that in October the City used 1,974 ac-ft of treated water which was 90% of the projected use. Board members received two other graphs. One showed the water use for the year through the present. "You can see the fluctuations throughout the year," he said. There was also a graph of the Snotel sites. "We are beginning to monitor the Snotel at Joe Wright Reservoir and Dead Man Hill. So far it's about average, but it's too early to tell much," he said. Water Board Minutes November 19, 1998 Page I Financial Status The Financial Status reports for October and November were included in the packets. Paul Clopper noted that the month by month report on Stormwater development fees are up and then they're down. "I thought it was interesting the way they track," he remarked. Tom Sanders noticed that the water fund has about $1.25 million as of November. "That's operating money," Mike Smith explained. It's not money for purchasing water. "How much do we have in the fund for purchasing waterT' Dr. Sanders asked. "About $3 million," Dennis Bode replied. "When was the last time we bought water?" Dr. Sanders wanted to know. "It's been quite a while," Mr. Bode responded. Water Supply and Liaison Issues Committees Alison Adams reported that the Water Supply and Liaison Issues Committees met jointly on November 9th. "The Water Resources staff gave an excellent update of where they are in providing the technical input into realizing the Water Supply Policy," she said. They provided a number of spreadsheets that looked at various modeling efforts regarding projected water demands and existing supplies, comparing this with the 1-in-50 safe yield. A number of the spreadsheets and other information are still preliminary, so staff asked that the committees meet again prior to the next board meeting in December. She invited Board members who were interested to attend. The committee members will look at some of the finalizations of the modeling runs staff has been working on. Some of the issues that were discussed after the committee members looked at the results were: Does the projected supply include the whole City and not just the current Utility service boundaries? How does this relate to the issue of regional cooperation? What is the projected water demand based on service area versus the City? Other issues they discussed related to water quality and instream flow requirements; not just domestic or municipal water supply needs, but also how that relates to the River's needs and environmental needs. Staff expects to complete the modeling analysis by the December meeting. "Once we are satisfied with the modeling and technical results, then the committees will look at some of the other issues we discussed at the meeting," Ms. Adams concluded Legislative and Finance and Engineering No reports Water Board Minutes November 19, 1998 Page 12 Conservation and Public Education Chair David Lauer requested that the Conservation and Public Education Committee meet at 2:00 prior to the Board meetings for the next 5 months beginning in January 1999. Stormwater Basin Fees Open House Paul Clopper announced an open house at the Service Center between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. today (November 19th) to present proposed changes to Stormwater Basin fees. Utility staff will be present to explain the proposed changes and answer questions. The changes will be outlined on posted boards. Input received at the open house will be shared with various City Council committees and the Water Board. The proposed changes and a recommendation from the Water Board will be presented to City Council at a study session currently scheduled for January 12, 1999. Board members received a memo about the open house in their Water Board packets. Possible Drainage Criteria for City of Fort Collins Water Board member Dave Frick prepared a memo for Board members regarding possible drainage criteria for the City of Fort Collins. Since the City is considering changes to design criteria, he is proposing that the Water Board and staff consider an addition to the drainage criteria. According to his memo, this would be a "Check Flood" or "Maximum Historical Flood" that would be used to identify potential flood hazards in the design of new developments. He envisions it to be similar to the Federal Highway Administration's requirement that a 500 year flood be run as a "check flood" when considering foundation design and scour analysis at bridges. Mr. Frick said there is a lot of concern about our design flood not being high enough. In a number of design situations, quite often they will run a flood that is higher than your design flood just to see how the facility performs in a flood in excess of that. The way he is suggesting the criteria be written is, following the design of a drainageway or a detention pond, the check flood be run just to map the effected areas. This would occur on ponds and drainageways that drain an area larger than a certain minimum size. "We know the 1997 flood did not have short term intensities that taxed small facilities," he pointed out. He thinks the check flood could be run on things like the Foothills Channel or larger ponds such as Rossborough Pond. Mr. Frick continued by saying that a check storm would be developed based on data from the 1997 flood that would represent the storm values estimated near the largest part of the storm. "This storm would be standard and used throughout the City on new development. The hydrology and hydraulic analyses would be done only after the facilities are designed using the 100-year event. This `Maximum Historical Flood' would then be run to identify areas of inundation that would have occurred in 1997. This information would be part of the development record and could be used by potential home buyers and emergency response personnel for decision making purposes." I Water Board Minutes November 19, 1998 Page 13 He explained that the "Maximum Historical Flood" would be run as part of all Basin Master Drainage Plans for identification of flood hazard zones outside the 100 year floodplain (similar to what FEMA shows as the 500 year flood zone). "I think calling it the `Maximum Historical Flood' would lend credibility to the information because most people think the 500 year flood is something that never occurs," he said. He added, if somebody was concerned about the potential of their house getting wet if we had another event of that magnitude, we would be able to provide that information. "It wouldn't be used for design; it would be used strictly to run a map. Right now FEMA requires us to map the 500-year event, and this would be the Maximum Flood of Record type of event that we would run instead. The thought is that people would relate to that because they know what happened in 1997." Mr. Frick went on to say that he didn't believe that it would impact designs although he could see some potential for impact; i.e. if a developer was evaluating a design and used this "Check Flood," he may determine that their diverting water onto another property that may not get it now, may have a potential liability which might affect their design. Mr. Clopper thinks it's an intriguing idea. He sent Mr. Frick's memo to Mike Smith, Bob Smith and Tom Sanders. The three of them met and talked about the idea. Bob Smith said they think it's a good idea, not only what Mr. Frick mentioned, but also in the arena of emergency response. "I like the terminology of `Maximum Historical Flood,"' he said, "because that is something everyone can relate to." "It's not ambiguous and fuzzy like an interpretation of a 500-year event," Mr. Clopper commented. "Everyone argues about what the frequency was, etc." "It's a good time to bring this up because we are in the process of revising our design criteria and doing our master plan," Bob Smith pointed out "Even with the concerns raised by the Brown Farm Neighborhood, you may still decide to design to a hundred year event, but if you ran this as kind of a check flood, they could see a similar event, and could compare the difference between then and now," Mr. Frick explained. "Is that a set number?" Mr. Moms asked. "I would suggest that we use numbers that we could develop for a check flood. We would come up with a designed event which perhaps would be close to what has been reconstructed from the kind of the peak or center area of the 1997 flood and use it city-wide," he responded. "You may want to apply an area reduction factor so if you are looking at a section along Spring Creek, you might want to reduce that because that event wouldn't cover the entire basin," he suggested. "The problem is, we would probably never see 5 inches in two hours," Mr. Morris remarked. "At least this would give an indication. If the storm happened in a specific location just as it did in 1997, they would know what could happen," Mr. Frick responded. "We have good discharge estimates at a number of locations," Marsha I3ilmes said. "Going downstream on Spring Creek, we have them at several locations, and on Clearview, Plum and Fairbrooke Channels, and one on Fossil Creek. We have numbers for some of those locations. If you Water Board Minutes November 19, 1998 Page 14 were at Drake Rd., you could model what the flow was," Ms. Nimes explained. "That brings in the area reduction factor," Mr. Clopper pointed out. "I think Dave Frick has good idea," Ms. Mimes stated. "The terminology is a lot better than what staff has come up with so far," she said; "for example `worst case scenario."' She added that the only concern she has is the reaction of someone who gets hold of this map and sees what potentially could happen. The liability could be there for the developer and the City knowing that we may be pushing water off slightly different from what we were before that was regulated. "What is no effect or minimal effect versus a big event?" she added. "Right now all your criteria has said that certain things can or can't happen in a 100-year event," Mr. Frick said. "That's what I would see not changing," he added. "Once it's developed and these numbers are out, people in subdivisions may say, `my house is under water because of this event. Why doesn't the City do something about it?"' Dr. Sanders predicted. "If something does happen and the City had a map that shows that it did, we could probably be held liable because we didn't do something about it. That's the down side," he asserted. "I think it's a matter of warning people," Mr. Frick claims. "You are providing the information for their own decision -making purposes," he said. "We have the 500-year floodplain anyway because of FEMA," Bob Smith pointed out. "I think a lesson from the `97 flood was that we finally made a rational step toward informing people about what could happen," Dr. Sanders stressed. "This proposal is an excellent vehicle to put that in perspective," Mr. Clopper added. "I propose that we send this to the City Attorney, and if he says it's okay, we should bring it back to the Board and vote on it," Dr. Sanders stated. Chair Clopper agreed with Dr. Sanders' proposal. He asked staff to keep pushing forward and get the feedback they need from the Attorney's office and maybe the Board could take a formal vote on it next time. Mr. Clopper thanked Mr. Frick for the innovative proposal. Utilities Strategic Planning Initiative Mike Smith announced that the Utilities is working with a consultant, R.W. Beck, to develop a strategic plan for the Utilities. Input will come from several sources, including employees and Water and Electric Board members. He said there are two options for Board members: having representatives from the boards meet with the consultants or having separate meetings for as many board members who can attend sessions with the consultant. He said the ideal time for Water Board would be December 8th, 9th or loth. The consultants would brief members on the three phases of the planning: • Phase 1— Competitive Assessment -- The organization's current situation: its strengths, areas in need of improvement, efficiency of our processes and the effectiveness of our structure. This phase will also include the development of the Utilities' values, vision and mission statements. • Phase 2 -- Strategic Planning -- The changing market and our place in the evolving environment will be addressed. Some topics include: (1) What will be the future standards for Water Board Minutes November 19, 1998 Page 15 customers to measure success and value? (2) What will our organization bring to the market and our customers? (3) What services will we conclude not to provide? Phase 3 -- Implementation and Rollout -- Begin implementation. Dennis Summer is in charge of the project. He said the meeting would probably last about two hours. The consultants will give approximately an hour overview presentation with questions and Board participation during the second hour. The Board decided to meet with the consultant for a dinner meeting on Wednesday evening December 9th, from 5:00 - 7:00 p.m. Metropolitan Water Supply Investigation Report The Metropolitan Water Supply Investigation Final Report was distributed to Water Board members. Alison Adams said the report has finally made its way to public access. "Members of the Water Supply and Liaison Issues Committee have been anxiously awaiting this report because information in it, hopefully, will help us answer some of the questions about our basin protection or regional cooperation, or whatever the Denver/metropolitan area might have on their minds at this point," she explained. She expects, as the Water Supply and Liaison Issues committees pursue the revision of the Water Supply Policy, they will be using information from this report. "I would encourage Board members, and especially members of those two committees to begin looking at it," she concluded. Those Board members who weren't here today will receive copies in the mail. "Are there any specific recommendations in here about northern Colorado water?" David Lauer asked. Dennis Bode and Alison Adams said they have not had a chance to read the report. ADJOURNMENT Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:58 p.m. Water Board Secretary