Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 10/22/1998WATER BOARD MINUTES October 22, 1998 3:05 p.m. - 5:15 p.m. Light and Power Training Room 700 Wood Street CITY COUNCIL LIAISON Chuck Wanner ( not present) STAFF LIAISON Molly Nortier - 221-6681 MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Clopper, Chair, Tom Sanders, Vice Chair, Alison Adams, David Lauer, John Morris, Robert Ward, Joe Bergquist, Dave Rau STAFF Mike Smith, Wendy Williams, Dave Agee, Dennis Bode, Bob Smith, Jim Hibbard, Bob Smith, Ellen Alward, Marsha Hilmes, Bill Switzer, Susan Hayes, Glen Schlueter, Kevin McBride, Basil Hamden, Sue Paquette, Matt Fater, Clayton Kimi, Donnie Dustin, Beth Molenaar GUESTS Don Heyse, Precipitation Task Force Representative Jim Allen -Morley, Sear -Brown MEMBERS ABSENT Tom Brown, Dave Frick, George Reed Chair Paul Clopper opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Water Board Minutes October 22, 1998 Page 2 MINUTES David Lauer moved to accept the minutes of September 24, 1998. John Morris seconded the motion. Joe Bergquist said the last full sentence on p. 6 should read: "Mr. Bergquist pointed out that there is a move in the Denver region to throw out a 1935 storm like this because it was way out of line." On p. 4, second paragraph, 4th sentence Tom Sanders said "is" should be changed to "it" and "at all" should be deleted. The motion to accept the minutes, with the corrections, passed unanimously. UPDATE• NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT Gene Schleiger, from the District, was not able to attend, so there was no report. Dave Agee began by saying that staff is back with a proposal for the Board to review on Stormwater development fees. Last week Mr. Agee met with the Council Finance Committee to discuss about $31 million worth of water bonds that we are in the process of issuing. The only question they asked is if growth is paying its own way. "I pointed out that we had just adopted new Plant Investment Fees (PIFs), so it is." The development fees on the Stormwater side are basically the equivalent of the PIFs on the water and sewer side. When staff began with this, they wanted to choose a methodology that was simple, understandable and easy to administer. "I think this proposal does that," he said. "You will recall when we did water and wastewater PIFs, we used the equity method, and what that assumes is that existing customers have provided equity in the system, and buying into the system is going to have to compensate them for that built up equity." He explained that what equity consists of is your assents less your liabilities. He provided an example to show how that works. "Let's say that Mike Smith and I decide to form an investment partnership where each of us puts in $1000. We decide to buy and sell some investments for a period of time. After 5 years, we decide to ask Wendy Williams to be a new partner. Are we going to let Wendy in at $1000? Probably not if the equity that has been built up is greater than the $2000 we have in it. If that's $6000 she is going to have to pay $3000 to get in because our equity is each equal to $3000 if $6000 is what the investments were worth." In the case of Stormwater, we are looking at the equity that customers have in the system. First we take the replacement value of the improvements. We looked at all the improvements that have been constructed in the Canal Importation Basin and inflated those to 1997 values using Engineering News Report (ENR) factors. Then we estimated improvements that we would be building in 1998. We add those two figures and that's the total replacement value of the $7.218 million improvements. From that we subtract the liabilities; we have outstanding bond principal that is applicable to this basin. We also have a small amount of borrowing from other basins, so our equity in this basin by existing customers is $3,499,000. Currently, in that basin we have 6,797 ERUs (Equivalent Residential Unit). That is an 8600 sq. ft. lot with a light runoff coefficient. We like to think of it as a single family E Water Board Minutes October 22, 1998 Page 3 equivalent. The equity per ERU is $515. If you look at the current fee broken down in terms of ERU, it's $488. For Canal Importation, based on this method, we would propose a 5.5% increase. Mr. Agee then explained what the fee structure would look like for each individual basin. A summary table is below: Canal Importation Current $488 Proposed $515 Chanee $ 27 Dry Creek $395 $483 $ 88 Evergreen/Greenbriar $790 $732 $ ($58) Foothills $515 $521 $ 6 Fossil Creek $180 $518 $ 348 Fox Meadows $511 $586 $ 75 McClelland/Mail Creek $294 $713 $ 419 Old Town $328 $243 $ ($85) Spring Creek $172 $322 $ 150 West Vine $553 $609 $ 56 In all the ten basins, Fossil Creek, McClelland/Mail Creek and Spring Creek are the ones where potentially, there could be a substantial change. City -Wide Look Mr. Agee said the last time staff brought this to the Board staff said they weren't sure they could do a city-wide fee. "We went ahead and looked at it and discussed it with the City Attorney's office, and they continue to study it. At this time, they aren't saying we can't do it until the attorneys approve it. Here is what it would look like on a city-wide basis: Total Replacement Value $32,716,164 O/S Bond Principal 11,216,108 Working Capital 06 98 944 Equity $27,599,000 City-wide ERUs 58,023 Equity Per ERU $476 Current Average Fee $422 Current Weighted Average Fee $349 David Lauer asked if the working capital is sitting in just two places. "Foothills, McClelland/Mail Creek and Fox Meadows are the three that have a significant amount of built up working capital," Mr. Agee responded. "If you did this, would those three have to share that working capital with the other basins?" Mr. Lauer continued. "We already know, because we have done the city-wide fee Water Board Minutes October 22, 1998 Page 4 concept on the monthly fees, that other basins are going to be able to use those fees to build in other places. One of the things that basin by basin does is complicate things in terms of what we do when we have the city-wide concept on the monthly fee side and a basin by basin concept on the Code. It forces us to make some assumptions to decide who gets a piece of the pie as we go. Basin by Basin Pros and Cons RM • Development pays its own way -- "Either way you look at it, development pays its own way. We have equity in the system and developers must compensate existing property owners for their equity in the system." • Revenues stay within the basin --- "That doesn't mean too much because we have city-wide on the fee side." • Correlation of revenues and improvements • Customer -accepted philosophy --- "They know that in different basins the development fees are different." • More Closely tied to each basin --- "It reflects at this time the equity built up in each basin." • Fees based on Basin equity and parcel runoff contribution Complex accounting and tracking of revenues Different fee amount for each basin City -Wide Pros and Cons EM • Development pays its own way • Same fee city-wide • Simplified accounting and tracking of revenues • Consistent with O&M and monthly capital fees 6 The community benefits Water Board Minutes October 22, 1998 Page 5 • All revenues are pledged to bonds --- "Even if you borrow from one basin, development fees in another basin are pledged to make bonding." • Spreads costs over larger base • Consistent with water and wastewater • Fee based on city-wide equity and parcel runoff contribution •, Requires City Code changes Change in philosophy from existing This concluded Mr. Agee's presentation. He asked for questions and comments from the Board. "We are not trying to force a quick decision," he assured the Board. "We are looking to see if the Board agrees with the concept. Next we will go to three Council committees; Growth Management, Finance and Utility and Technology. We also need to have a Council study session and then take it to Council in January. We have about 3-4 months of work ahead of us." "As we did with the other fees, when we are finished with the public process, we'll be back," Mike Smith stated. "Actually, we are scheduled with the Council for a study session on December 22, so we can come back here in November," Mr. Agee clarified. Chair Clapper thanked Mr. Agee for his presentation and called for Board questions. "Are we asking if we want an increase basin by basin or city-wide?" Joe Bergquist asked. I think we are asking two things," Mr. Agee replied. "Do you like the basin by basin or city-wide concept, and do you think the methodology does what it's intended to do which is to be cost based and that development pays its way?" Mr. Clopper proposed that the Board use the procedure that was used for the city-wide issue on the monthly fees. To review, there would be two separate votes; one for city-wide versus basin by basin and second on the methodology. "You have pointed out that the sewer and water fees are uniform throughout the City," Tom Sanders began. I don't think Stormwater fees are the same. The situation is different for each basin. There may be some areas of the City that we choose not to develop because the storm management is such a costly item that it's better that we don't do it. The equity aspect sounds good to me, if Mr. Agee's analogy is accurate." "It almost seems that the issue of basin by basin versus city-wide with respect to these types of fees, puts the Water Board in a position of determining where City growth will or will not occur," Alison Adams commented. "I don't know that its a role the Water Board should assume; that's the Council's job. I also don't know that the cost of development would deter someone from developing an area. Water Board Minutes October 22, 1998 Page 6 I just want to make sure that the Board is not left with the decision of where growth should occur," she concluded. Mr. Clopper appreciated Ms. Adam's sensitivity to that and "it's good to get it on the record," he said. "This is one of the issues we discussed when the Water Board and Storm Drainage Board merged. We discussed the need that staff has to use the Board from time to time, as a sounding board for the greater community. That's a legitimate request from staff, and of course we simply making a recommendation. City Council can accept, reject or modify that recommendation." "I just wanted to make sure that our recommendation deals with the technical aspects associated with the storm drainage in each area, not that we in any shape or form are trying to determine how growth occurs in the City," Ms. Adams emphasized. "The fees should reflect the technical aspects." "On the Water and Wastewater sides, we do have uniform fees but the costs are quite different," Mike Smith explained. "We are in the process of planning a $10 million pipeline to serve the southeast part of the City. Their water PIF is the same as the person who is on the west side of town near the water treatment plant." "You're saying the analogy is much closer?" Dr. Sanders asked. Mr. Smith said "if you wanted to get picky about it, it costs more to serve certain areas than others." It occurred to Mr. Smith as Mr. Agee was giving his presentation, "if we do basin by basin, the calculations of equity, including reserves as we go along, may build up equity in the basin that exceeds what could be there. We are doing monthly capital fees city-wide. How are you going to allocate future cash for the basin, and how are you really going to say this is the equity for this basin when it may not be?" "Frankly, that's one of the difficulties of the basin by basin concept" Mr. Agee acknowledged. "If we do that, we are going to have to make some assumptions and some allocations. If you go city-wide you don`t have the problem of worrying about each basin and how much equity it has." Mr. Agee talked with Mr. Gallagher, a consultant for water and wastewater PIFs, about this. He said he was perfectly comfortable with using cash reserves as part of the equity as long as they are truly reserved for capital and won't be used for O&M costs. We have to take all the reserves and divide them equally among the basins," Mike Smith said. "Otherwise you are going to have a future false equity. We know that because we have already said there will be some basins subsidizing other basins. That's the concept of sharing," he pointed out. "Does that concern disappear with the city-wide program?" Ms. Adams asked. "Yes, because you put it altogether," Mr. Smith replied. "Does the city-wide concept allow us to determine priorities in the basins that haven't yet built up their funds?" John Morris asked. "We've already done that," was the answer. "So what we are really saying here, for example with the McClelland/Mail Creek Basin, is if these 9,000 households are added into a city-wide fee, then this 142.9% increase of their equity per ERU disappears," David Lauer clarified. "At that point they are not buying into the basin, they are buying into the city-wide system," Mr. Agee replied. "Is it appropriate for us to think of these development fees for Stormwater totally analogous to PIF tap fees for water and sewer, or are there differences?" Mr. Clopper wondered. "One of the Water Board Minutes October 22, 1998 Page 7 differences I thought about is the calculation turns out to be the same, but on the water and wastewater side you are looking at capacity units to develop your per tap charge," Mr. Agee explained. "With Stormwater it is not capacity per se because there really is no capacity; it's improvements to the system. The reason the basins are broken down by ERUs is because per square foot the improvements are the same. With water and wastewater it's not the same because you have different size taps." "To stretch that a bit farther, the different size taps mean it's bigger," Mr. Smith pointed out. "Is there any link to how the fees were established before?" Mr. Bergquist asked. "We have 172 now in Spring Creek." "For one thing, these fees were last updated five years ago. There have been a number of changes since then," Mr. Agee responded. "The other thing is the fees in the past were not developed on the cost side but the revenue side. We compared revenue from new development to revenue from existing development to see if those percentages were in sync with the amount of developed and undeveloped land in the basin," he explained. "That's right," Bob Smith said. "That's how you track it as basin fees are established. You go back to the master plan to find what percentage is developed and undeveloped and compare the percentage to improvements. That gives you a base to start as far as the basin fee. You look at your percentages to see if they are still accurate. For example, if Spring Creek is still 60% - $40% as it was 5 years ago; if it's not, you can make an adjustment. You also look at what is yet to be built," M. Smith said, "and divide it up according to the equity in the system. Those are the same discussions we had with the water and wastewater PIFs." "Do you see how things will play out in a developers' agreement like this? Will it make things more difficult under a city-wide concept?" Mr. Clopper asked. "For the developers who develop in a basin now, it is relatively inexpensive. How are they going to see the city-wide plan?" "It will all be the same, but there will be adjustments," Mr. Smith replied. "Once that is established it will be simpler." He acknowledged that some will get a windfall and some will "get a shock in the pocket. However, it really shouldn't change that much." Evergreen/Greenbriar is the most expensive. That basin is becoming built out so we see less activity there. I don't know the stormwater fees that development pays. I think street oversizing fees might make a difference," John Morris observed. "It's just one element among many that isn't proportionally compared to street oversizing," David Lauer said. "We hoped that development fees would push development away from areas where you don't have to spend as much money," Mr. Rau commented. Tom Sanders continues to think the basin by basin concept should be retained because of the variation of costs among the basins. "I will vote to keep it basin by basin," he said. ACTION: Motion and Vote Alison Adams moved that the Board recommend the city-wide concept for Stormwater development fees. John Moms seconded the motion. Those in favor were David Lauer, John Morris, Alison Adams, Paul Clopper and Dave Rau. Those voting no were Tom Sanders, Robert Ward and Joe Bergquist. The motion passed 5-3. Mr. Clopper asked Mr. Bergquist and Mr. Ward to briefly state Water Board Minutes October 22, 1998 Page 8 why they oppose the city-wide concept. Mr. Ward said that Dr. Sanders' argument is pretty persuasive. "It seems to me we have a situation where fairness is difficult to determine in terms of growth paying its own way. If you go one way with one fee and another with the other fees, you are allowing both arguments to prevail," he explained. Joe Bergquist said for people who don't have major problems the basin by basin is more fair to them. "It was made quite clear in the other discussion that city-wide has the same problem," he said. Mr. Lauer asked if there was any middle ground between basin by basin and city-wide that would be considered in terms of the regionalization of various basins. Mr. Agee said that what you are really looking at is each parcel's contribution to the system in terms of runoff. That's why we have the runoff coefficient as part the formula in the City Code, so City residents have less fees for the same sized lot as you would for a business that has a parking lot. I don't know if you can look at it regionally, but you can look at it parcel by parcel. You are still differentiating your cost that you are allocating to someone based on the actual property's contribution to the system. "The value of going city-wide is much easier because it would be a lot cheaper," Dr. Sanders said. "Just because I don't live in the Mail Creek Basin doesn't mean that I don't benefit from stormwater improvements on Spring Creek," Mr. Rau asserted. "I don't take issue with that" Dr. Sanders replied. "There is a benefit that our neighbors don't flood down the way, but there is also a disincentive financially when you build your house right on the creek bed and expect the City to provide flood protection. City- wide doesn't give an incentive to that person not to build on the creek bed," he argued. "There are future issues coming up about discouraging development in the floodplain. With city-wide you can build anywhere at the same cost" he insisted. "It's a completely different issue," Ms. Adams contends. Dave Agee asked for a second recommendation on whether using the "equity buy -in' methodology fairly distributes the cost of new development. "Should we use that method to develop fees?" "How long do we do this?" Tom Sanders asked. "Do we update this every so often, like every 5 years?" "How often we do that is one issue. If we get to the point of doing it as it's done with water we'll build in, not only existing equity, but our improvement plan to set it up every 5 years," Mr Agee replied. "This is something the former Storm Drainage Board used to look at periodically," Mr. Clopper pointed out, "but this is the first time since we've merged that we've had a chance to discuss it" "We would like to set it for every 5 years as it is for water and wastewater," Mr. Smith stated. ACTION: Motion and Vote Tom Sanders moved that the Board recommend that staff use the equity buy -in method for calculating stormwater development fees. Joe Bergquist seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously for the motion. Susan Hayes began by saying that at the last meeting, the Board discussed a lot of the technical background of the Precipitation Frequency Study, so she won't be going over that again, but she will Water Board Minutes October 22, 1998 Page 9 review it if anyone has questions. The purpose today is to present the final Task Force recommendations, to review the Basin Impact results and to review the New Land Development Impacts. She introduced guests Don Heyse, citizen representative from the Task Force and Jim Allen - Morley from Sear -Brown Group who did the Land Impact Study. From staff Sue Paquette and Matt Fater helped out with most of the analyses on the basin impacts. Ms. Hayes handed out the final memorandum from the Task Force. It's nearly the same as the one included in the packets. It has been reformatted and there is one new recommendation from the Task Force, which was to add the installation of rain gages. "We had already intended to do that but Dave Frick suggested we include it in the memorandum so Council gets the message that we should make sure that happens," she said, "and that we implement a data gathering program," she added. The second item the Board received was a refined Exhibit C Land Development Impacts. When she had originally prepared this for the Board, she did not have the complete analysis. This replaces the Exhibit C included in the memorandum. The third item Ms. Hayes handed out was copies of the slides she used for her presentation. Rainfall Study Results • Current City of Fort Collins 2-hour design rainfall, 2.89". • 2-hour regional rainfall 3.67" - 27% increase. • At -gage analysis resulted in 4.37" two-hour rainfall - 51% increase. • 3.67" rainfall distribution peak intensity same as 2.89" - 9 in/hr at 35 minutes. • 4.37" rainfall distribution peak intensity 12 in/hr at 35 minutes. Important to the presentation on Basin Impacts and Land Development Impacts was, for the 3.67" rainfall, peak intensities did not go up; for the 4.37 they do. "That does affect the results for the runoff remodeling," she said. Summary of Task Force Recommendations The majority opinion was to adopt the regional 100-year, 2-hour design storm of 3.67". Adopt uniform rainfall across Fort Collins - The reasoning is included in the Task Force Memo. Build additional recording rain gage sites. Start gathering data so if, in the future, we want to adopt a pattern we can. "Are we making this so the telemetries are at real time from the rain gages or are we just doing it for data?" Tom Sanders asked. "The former," Ms. Hayes replied. "We will use that as our data base as well?" he continued. "Right, it's a dual purpose. We are designing this so we can collect information on streamflow as well as the storm events," Marsha Hilmes," replied. Water Board Minutes October 22, 1998 Page 10 "When we are talking about additional rain gage sites, how many will you be installing and where?" David Lauer asked. "We will be installing 7 new precipitation gages this year, six new streamflow gages, and then tying into one existing streamflow, also tying into 4 existing precip. gages. They will all be exactly the same telemetry for collecting data. That's our base information. We have developed a master plan that includes many more sites across the City that we would like to implement over time," Ms. Hilmes explained. One challenge the Board gave staff was to look at what kinds of basin impacts would be seen, what kinds of impacts might be seen on the improvements proposed in our master plan, as well as the impacts on new land development by adopting a higher rainfall, Ms. Hayes continued. She reminded the Board that this information is not to be used to say no we shouldn't go to a higher rainfall. It's background information so the Board knows what those impacts are. "We feel comfortable with the 3.67 as a good estimate," she said. Preliminary Results - Basin Impacts We had to look at the City as a whole. It was time consuming to look at every single basin because we would have to update all our models, so we picked some representative basins. We looked at Canal Importation, Foothills, Lower Dry Creek, Old Town, Spring Creek and West Vine Basins. They are a good representative cross section of detained basins, undetained basins, highly urbanized versus not so highly urbanized. Preliminary testing of those basins. Difference between 2.89" and 3.67" runoff not as significant as 2.89" and 4.37" difference, due to peak intensity change. Basins without detention are not as affected by the rainfall increase as those with detention. - The basins that have a lot of on -site detention are more severely impacted by an increase in rainfall because those ponds begin to overtop once it goes beyond 3 inches, and that increases the peak downstream. In basins such as Old Town where you don't have a lot of on -site detention, we don't see a very high increase in peak flows, because there aren't any ponds detaining and overtopping. Because that peak intensity didn't go up, that is what drives peak flow rates. Intensity Duration Frequency (IDF) Comparison Ms. Hayes then projected a chart that showed the Intensity Duration Frequency (IDF) Comparison. It is an illustration that shows how the peak intensity has not gone up. The left side of the chart goes from 0-10 inches per hour. The purple is the old IDF curve which was approximately 9 inches per hour, the new one is also about 9 inches per hour, a 100-year storm with a frequency of 3.67. Where we see the increases are in the latter part of the storm. We see more intense rainfall for a longer period of time in this storm. There is a lot of volume falling in the last hour of this storm. What drives the peak flows is the 9 inches per hour rate for 5 minutes, and not the intensities on the lower half of the curve. That will affect volume very greatly, but it does not affect peak flows. Water Board Minutes October 22, 1998 Page 11 Basin Comparisons All the information about the various basins was included in Board packets. Ms. Hayes briefly went through each of the representative basins, contrasting and comparing them. According to Exhibit B, assessing the exact impact of increasing the rainfall criteria is difficult to do. Each basin is unique and will respond differently from another basin, depending on the existing drainage facilities and those proposed in the master plan. Impacts of Increase in Rainfall on Master Plans Staff looked at the Rodeo Arena Pond in the Canal Importation Basin on the western edge of the basin upstream of Overland Trail. Under our current criteria we would need about 34 acre feet which is an 11 ac-ft increase up to 45 when we increase our rainfall. In this case it's a fairly minor increase in cost because land is fairly inexpensive, and it's virtually undeveloped. There is considerable open space and it is not restricted by structures. We have utility conflicts and land use conflicts, but it's not houses built around the edge. In this case it's a fairly minor impact. When you go to the Taft Hill Rd. Pond, however, there was a significant increase in volume from 69 ac-ft up to 112 ac-ft. This increased the cost by 35%. The bulk of this cost was in land cost. We would be ponding onto the land where there are houses, which means we would have to buy them out. Improved land is a lot more expensive than less improved land. The summary of how this increase will impact our master plans is: We can control the peaks in our channels where we have already built facilities by adding more detention. Detention costs will vary depending on the site. If it's an existing pond with structures around it, it will be more expensive. If it's a pond that has not yet been built, we have the opportunity to design it in and get land cheaper. Until we have done master plan updates for all of our basins, we won't know the exact impacts, Ms. Hayes concluded. Land Development Impacts The Water Board also asked staff to examine the impacts on land development. "We hired Sear Brown Group, who are experts in this field," she began. They do modeling and a lot of land development in town. They took a couple of sites in the southern portion of the City and asked, "How would we have designed these sites based on 3.67 inches?" Staff also looked at some of the generalizations you can make about impacts on land development: Off -site flows may increase. Right now new development has to pass the 100-year existing flows through their site. If they have detention ponds upstream of them that will now be overtopping, they will have to handle that flow through their site. They don't have to detain it on their site but they need to have a spillway they can pass it through. Water Board Minutes October 22, 1998 Page 12 Street capacity is not expected to change. That's because the peak intensity has not gone up. What they calculate for the localized flows in the street, in storm sewers and inlets, won't change drastically. Flood plain development - If under current conditions, before we can go back and retrofit, we have ponds overtopping and more flow downstream, we won't have accurate BFEs for Ms. Hilmes to regulate to. We will have to run models and get that updated. Implementation Issues - How do we retrofit existing ponds owned and maintained by homeowners associations? Do we say they are allowed to overtop or do we have some methodology to help them retrofit their ponds and does the City take that on? Again, as we do master plan reviews, we can evaluate the impact of each pond to determine if it should be retrofitted. There will also be Larimer County coordination issues. Within the Urban Growth Area (UGA), Larimer County will be adopting this, but they will have problems with what they tell somebody in Loveland or Laporte because we are going to have different rainfall criteria than the rest of Larimer County. They have told us they don't have a problem with the City implementing it within the UGA, and even when basins go outside their UGA they would agree to doing the master plans with the increased rainfall. Land Development Impacts Pertaining to Detention Ponds For detention ponds, the biggest impact is going to be an increase in volumes. • Release rates for ponds may not be impacted. - We found there is not a typical site that absolutely releases at an historic rate as required. Other issues are involved which control the release rate. • Increased volume for ponds. • Ponds may be deeper. - Need to evaluate criteria on how deep they are allowed to be. • Additional earthwork costs either for berming or excavation. • Potentially more land needed for ponds. - This would increase the cost for development. • Possible increase in inlet pipe size due to higher ponding elevation. It is all very dependent on the site. The two sites that Sear Brown looked at were Ridgewood Hills and Stetson Creek. Water Board Minutes October 22, 1998 Page 13 Summary of Impact Costs - Ridgewood Hills First and Second Filings • Ridgewood Hills is in the Fossil Creek Basin, on Trilby Rd. between College and Shields. • Total Site acreage = 122.43 acres, 215 lots and 7 detention ponds. • Total cost increase for Development = $25,200 • Total Cost Increase per Lot = $117 • Using Lot price of $4.00/sq. foot. Ms. Hayes referred to a graph. Increases in pond values were shown in red. There were very minor increases, mainly into the freeboard that was there. In talking to Sear Brown, the information we received was, "if you know this up front and you can lay out your site to include this additional volume, there shouldn't be much of an impact at all on land. It is difficult if you have to retrofit, but usually a developer can shift the lot somewhat, etc. Summary of Impact Costs - Stetson Creek First Filing The second site that was looked at was actually an existing site. It has already been built out and the ponds are already there, so you can almost look at it from a retrofit standpoint. Stetson Creek is in the McClellands Basin, south of Harmony along Timberline Rd. • Total Site Acreage=18.29, 44 lots, 2 detention ponds - Only one pond was impacted by an increase in volume. They would have to do some berming along the road and berming along the channel to get the volume they needed. They would have needed to regrade their pond to make sure the lots were up high enough. In this case the cost was higher because there are far fewer lots. • Total Cost Increase for Development = $7,032 • Total Cost per Lot = $160 • Using Lot price of $4.00/sq. Ft. Ms. Hayes asked Mr. Morley if this had been laid out from the beginning would it have been even less. "Yes, considering that the detention ponds are used as green space areas, and there is always that requirement anyway. You generally aren't heavily impacting lots anyway. If you raised the water from a foot to a foot and a half, that's not going to go out on the adjacent lot boundaries. "It also depends on the topography and the type of site. If you had a flat site, it would be more problematic than a rolling site," he added. Sear Brown also found that the release rate had an impact. For example, Stetson Creek had a much larger outflow rate, so it had less volume increase, whereas Ridgewood had a far more restricted rate per acre and had a larger volume increase for the detention pond. "You have to view this as just two examples and not as a general rule," he cautioned. "I think because the peak intensity is not increasing, some of the highly structural measures that cost a lot, such as storm sewers and inlets, aren't being impacted," Ms. Hayes remarked. "There is no cost increase, which is helpful." She also pointed out that Mr. Morley's comment about variable release rates is typical now, even under the 2.89". Water Board Minutes October 22, 1998 Page 14 Ms. Hayes said there were no good commercial sites to look at because typically they aren't modeled with SWMM and they use all rational methods to the ponds. "As I mentioned at our last meeting, we are going to have to deal with a better method for sizing the ponds on commercial sites because right now it won't take into account all the volume at the end of a storm." Ms. Hayes ended her presentation. She asked for questions and comments. Paul Clopper asked if Ms. Hayes was requesting a formal recommendation from the Board of 3.67" "Yes, I am," she replied. Mr. Clopper asked the people who were on the Precipitation Frequency Study Task Force to identify themselves in case there were specific questions directed to them. "Is there any kind of formal presentation from the minority opinion?"Mr. Clopper asked. "Only in the letter, but Don Heyse is here if you would like him to explain that opinion," Ms. Hayes said. ACTION: MOTION, DISCUSSION AND VOTE Robert Ward moved that the Board recommend approval of the Task Force recommendations. Alison Adams seconded the motion. Minority Opinion Mr. Clopper asked Mr. Heyse to present the minority opinion of the Task Force before a vote was taken. Mr. Heyse said the 1997 storm actually covered a large area. On the west side of town there were actually three separate storms over a period of 31 hours. There were more than 12 inches in three separate spots over an 8 mile stretch of the western part of town. "Unfortunately, we didn't have very good data for most of that area," he said. "When we looked at the historical data, there was virtually no data from that area. It leaves you wondering what happened in past history in this area. A minority of the group felt that this storm was not that unusual. We looked at the campus volume in 1902, 1938 and 1951 when the campus experienced severe flooding. In 1938 and 1951 there were reports of very heavy rainfall on the west side of town. Our feeling was there was a tendency for much heavier rainfall on the west side of town that was not being picked up by the CSU rain gage. That is why the minority opinion group advocated two points: (1) A differentiation from west to east and on the west it would be higher than 4.37. (2) Use a higher value of 4.37" for the entire City Joe Bergquist asked if the voting included the entire package. "I think we separated into two groups: the majority felt they wanted to use the town as a unit, and a minority felt that the west and east parts of town should be separate," Mr. Heyse replied. "If you didn't get your separation, you wanted a higher rainfall amount?" Mr. Bergquist asked. "There's a good argument for that," Mr. Heyse said. "We shouldn't neglect other parts of town. In fact Marsha Hilmes raised that point. We might want to raise it again that statistically one of these intense storms happening on the west side, could hit the east side as well. We would not want to leave them unprotected." "We should also take into account what happened this last time with the runoff," David Lauer pointed out. "The impact of the runoff Water Board Minutes October 22, 1998 Page 15 was just as great on the east side and perhaps greater, was it not?" "That's the way the system works though," David Rau said. "If you have a storm on the west side of town, you have to get it all the way through town. You have to have your main facilities able to carry the flow." Ms. Hayes clarified the minority opinion. It wasn't expressed that if they couldn't get a differentiation from west to east their fall -back was the higher rainfall; it was both. "They wanted both the higher rainfall plus a differentiation from west to east and on the west side it would be higher than 4.37 inches." "Did you look at the cost for the 4.37"9" Mr. Bergquist asked. "No, we didn't look at the cost," Ms. Hayes replied. "You didn't raise the cost after you made a decision, did you?" Mr. Rau asked. "The impacts of the 4.37" in terms of total runoff are included in the tables," Ms. Hayes pointed out. "You can tell the peaks are going to be significantly higher and the volumes are going to be significantly higher with 4.37 inches," she stressed, "as a result, the costs would be significantly higher." Tom Sanders commented that he attended only about half of the Task Force meetings so he felt he wasn't as informed as he might have been had he been at every meeting. "I think most of us agree that there probably is a difference between the west and east parts of town. The data to justify that was insufficient. The best records we have are the CSU data which did not pick up the heavy parts of the storm. It's the age old problem of not enough data. For the discussions I was involved in, there were some legitimate arguments, but we just didn't have enough justification and data to back us up," he explained. He also pointed out that we don't want to be too far away from what the regional analysis will be for the foothills. "I think we all agree that the foothills area is the toughest for estimating rainfalls." David Lauer asked about the dates and instances when the campus was impacted. "The campus was flooded," Mr. Heyse replied. John Morris pointed out that that could be independent of the amount of rain because of the infrastructure that has been constructed and the growth patterns. "Instead of doing it all together like the City does, we broke it all up," he said. "I had a flood plan for several years and I never had any support until the 1997 storm." he stressed. "We realize that we will never have all the rain gages we need because we will never know where rain will fall," Alison Adams said. "At least with the first phase of rain gage installation, do you think there will be enough on the west side so we can start collecting data, so in 5-6 years we might have some information to show there is some disparity between west and east? Maybe then we would have a better justification for dividing the City if that looks like what needs to happen." Marsha Hilmes explained that the initial gages are primarily on the west side. The reasoning behind it is that more often the rain goes from west to east. The main focus behind it was early warning. That's why the focus is there. There are some on Collindale Golf Course; they are located in many different places." ACTION: Vote Paul Clopper called for the question. "All those in favor of adopting the Task Force recommendation to accept 3.67" per 2-hour 100-year rainfall amount, raise your hands," he asked. David Lauer was Water Board Minutes October 22, 1998 Page 16 opposed. The motion passed 7-1. Mr. Lauer explained that he tends to agree with the minority opinion that there appears to be a history of more intense and more volume of rainfall on the west side, which would make the rainfall amount more in the range of 4.37". Robert Ward commented that what's been done here has raised a lot of questions. "Why did NOAA throw away 40 years of data? That shocked me. It appears there is an opportunity to do a lot more work in this area, and there is with NOAA working on it. I don't think it's the type of thing where it ends with this vote," he stated. "I would like to think that we would continue to try to look at it, even to the point of involving graduate students at the University to do research in this area. However, with the information we have now, I feel comfortable with the recommendation, but I would also like to be in a position to revisit this as new information comes in," he concluded. "I would eventually like to divide the town into different regions," Joe Bergquist stated. "I think we need a lot more real data, but I think we are moving in the right direction," Ms. Adams concluded. Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported that for September the City used 3,321 ac-ft of treated water which is about 94 % of what was projected. This was the warmest September on record. "How do you arrive at that; the wannest temperature for the 30 days?" Tom Sanders asked. "You take the high plus the low and divide by two," Beth Molenaar explained. Nolan Doesken does the calculations, she said. Mr. Bode referred to the graph that showed the projected and actual water demand. "It's always interesting to see the different patterns we've had," Mr. Bode said. Robert Ward was curious about the 93% water projection versus actual demand. "The actual demand is consistently tracking under the average projected," he noticed. "I know it's jumping around a lot, but I'm just curious, if you were to look over time, are you seeing any impact from our water conservation efforts?" "I think it's changing primarily because of the meters that are being installed," Mr. Bode replied. "Do you try to build that into your projections?" Mr. Ward continued. "That's right," Mr. Bode answered. "You notice at the beginning of the year it is tracking almost what the average projected was," David Lauer pointed out. "Then we start filling that gap beginning in April and May," he added. "That's when the meters kick in," Mr. Ward said. "It's not quite that precise," Mr. Bode stated. "If you look along the line about 2/3 of the way down where it says ratio, you get a lot of variance because of the weather. "I know that, but this curve seems to smooth that out," Mr. Ward asserted. He reiterated that he was looking at how the actual is consistently slightly under the average that staff projected. He was wondering if the conservation programs are beginning to show up in data like that. "I think they are, but the difference you see there is probably not because of Water Board Minutes October 22, 1998 Page 17 conservation, it's just the weather. "The rainfall this year is about normal, isn't it?" Mr. Ward asked. "It's pretty close," Mr. Bode replied. Annual Progress Report on Floodplain Management and Community Rating System The progress report was included in packets for the Boards' information. Marsha Hilmes said the report is an annual requirement of the City's participation in the National Flood Insurance Program's Community Rating System (CRS). The CRS is a program that provides an incentive for communities to go beyond the minimum FEMA requirements for floodplain management. "We want to maintain our class 6 rating which allows our residents to get a 20% discount on their flood insurance," she said. "There are only a few communities in the U.S. that have a higher rating than Fort Collins," she added. She stressed that even more important than the discount on insurance is the improved health and safety of the community. The highlights of the report show that the City has been working hard on the education components. "Since the flood we have been trying to do considerably more awareness activities. Next year there will be a lot more discussion under the flood warning and forecasting section. That's where we will be adding streamflow and precipitation gages, and identification systems, i.e. our telephone dialer and radio station enhanced weather information from the National Weather Service." She concluded that this is an update of all the tasks that must be documented for FEMA purposes. Tom Sanders asked if there is any way, with the dialing warning system, to differentiate between the ring for the warning system versus someone trying to sell you something. "When someone is trying to sell you something there is a pause before the voice picks up. This system will not have the pause," she said. "That's the only small difference. What we can do on most of the systems is that it will generate a report for us saying whether they got a real person. Most systems will have the option to press 1 if you understand the message. It will report back that 50% of the callers, for example, got the message and it was recorded on 10 answering machines. If you get an answering machine it will keep redialing. Some systems will even do alternate dialing, home phone, cell phones and pagers, e.g.; one system does all three at once," she explained. She added that almost all of them are tied to the Geographic Information System. "We will have City maps there so you can have a defined area that you can call and you can have it preset. You can call in and say I want scenario no. 5 and it will call those. You can also have it set to call creek areas first and expand out to the 100 year and 500 year floodplains." "Does any other city in the country have this?" Dr. Sanders asked. "There are quite a few California cities that have this, not the super model version, but different versions," Ms. Hilmes replied, "and communities use it for other things besides emergency response, letting people know that it's leaf pickup day, e.g." "I think you wouldn't want to use it for anything other than extreme emergencies," Dr. Sanders remarked. He thinks it might degenerate to something like leaf pickup day. "I think where we are heading with it now is just for emergencies," Ms. Hilmes responded. "The Police Dept, may use it for hostage situations, etc." she said. It was suggested that information about it be put in bill flyers so everyone knows what the number is, etc. Water Board Minutes October 22, 1998 Page 18 "How much federal money did we get by becoming a `Project Impact' partner?" Paul Clopper asked. "We received $500,000," Ms. Hilmes said. "This part is not in the `Project Impact'; it was left over from the hazard mitigation money from FEMA from last year's flood, specific for the early warning system." "Is all of the `Project Impact' grant money going towards education programs?" Mr. Clopper asked. "A lot of it is going towards education programs, and trying to tie all of this information into the real-time flood inundation mapping systems. The flood inundation mapping project is the big project for Stormwater," Ms. 01mes replied. Joe Bergquist wanted to know what was happening with the flood marking the Stormwater Utility did on Spring Creek. "I didn't think much of it until we were walking with some friends from Denver and their little kids. They were quite impressed with the level of the water, etc. and they talked about it for a couple of hours," he said. "That's what we wanted to happen," Ms. Hilmes stated. "So far we have not had a single negative comment," she stressed. "We want to expand that to more signs along the bike trails and that sort of thing," she added. "Did we ever make a decision about the Canal Importation improvements, and was that money ever spent?" Mr. Bergquist continued. "The Canal Importation money was CDBG money and it is being used on the Avery Park Pond improvements. The other project that was funded with FEMA money was the Floodproofing Project "Our Flood Proofing Project is going along very well," Ms. Hilmes replied. "Several homes are completing that now. We are trying to get some additional money to continue the program," she concluded. Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program No Report There were no committee meetings this month. Legislative and Finance Robert Ward attended a special water committee meeting for the Legislature dealing with the Denver Basin Study. He learned at the meeting that a bill will be introduced in the 1999 legislature to fund the feasibility of a South Platte Decision Support System. The purpose of that is to update the sophistication of water management in the South Platte Basin. "It should be interesting to see how that develops," he said. He asked Dennis Bode if he foresees any impact of that decision support system influencing the way we manage water in this area. Mr. Bode said it may depend on the area it includes. "It could have some potential to affect us," he said. "Is that going to affect Thornton's long range or immediate plans in terms of what they intend to siphon from our system up here?" David Lauer asked. "It seems that it has the potential for being used to usher water down to the state line for endangered species protection," Mr. Ward responded. "I understand what they are doing is to track water management better," he added. He wasn't familiar with how those operate. "I know C] • Water Board Minutes October 22, 1998 Page 19 there is one on the Colorado and they are developing one on the Rio Grande, and there will be one on the South Platte." "I think it is a better tool to analyze different scenarios," Mr. Bode noted. "Do you think it will look at delivering water for endangered species and perhaps look at water quality?" Mr. Ward asked. "I'm not sure what the intent of the Decision Support System is. There is considerable work being done in those areas already," Mr. Bode replied. "Do you know who is introducing that bill or what the motivation is?" Mr. Lauer asked? "No, I don't," Mr. Ward answered. "It's just South Platte's turn; as I understand it, they are intending to do this in all the basins," he added. "The DSS is in the Colorado Water Conservation Board's strategic plan." Dennis Bode announced that Tom Brown, Chair of the Water Supply Committee, wants to set up a meeting of the Water Supply and Liaison Issues Committees. Mr. Bode asked Board members who would be involved in those two committees to meet briefly after today's meeting. • JU' : 101 Restrictive Floodplain Development Guidance Task Force and Work Plan Bob Smith referred to the sheet handed out today listing the Restrictive Floodplain Development Work Plan and the Guidance Task Force. Regarding the membership list, Mr. Smith asked Water Board members to feel free to volunteer to be a part of the Guidance Task Force. Paul Clopper felt it was his responsibility to volunteer as a representative of the Water Board. According to the work plan schedule, the commitment to the Restrictive Floodplain Development Task Force should be about a year. "What are they going to be asked to do?" Dr. Sanders asked. "We will tackle the Poudre River area first," Mr. Smith replied. "We will define, by the middle of next summer, what we want to accomplish with the Poudre River, above what we have now. We will use the Poudre as a standard for the other areas, e.g. Old Town, or Spring Creek. Some of the Work Plan has already been completed. An orientation session has been scheduled for December. Initial public comment and review by boards and commissions will occur in January. January - June they hope to develop a draft of Implementation measures and a Task Force review. In July and August they will receive public comment, and in September, recommendations from boards and commissions. In October they hope to have the final Task Force recommendation to the Growth Management Committee, and in November the plan is to have a recommendation for Council. Paul Clopper asked if anyone else would like to represent the Water Board. Joe Bergquist said he would be a back-up for Mr. Clopper, "but I can't promise I will be there all the time," he said. ACTION: Motion and Vote Tom Sanders moved that Paul Clopper represent the Water Board on the Task Force with Joe Bergquist as the alternate. Alison Adams seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously to support the motion. Dr. Sanders suggested that Mr. Clopper and Mr. Bergquist update the Board regularly on the Task Force activities. Bob Smith assured the Board that they will be very much Water Board Minutes October 22, 1998 Page 20 involved. It was stressed that any Board member would be welcome to attend any of the meetings. David Lauer announced that he probably will be a representative for Friends of the Poudre on the Task Force. Change Dates for November and December Board Meetings Because the regular Board meeting date for November falls on Thanksgiving, the Board decided to meet on Thursday November 19th. The December meeting was changed to December 17th because the regular meeting would have been on Christmas Eve. Creating Steering Committee for Gateway Park Mike Smith announced that the Mayor and City Manager have given the green light for the Water Board to proceed with making a recommendation to create a group for the Gateway Park Steering Committee. He will also check on that with his counterparts in the City. "We haven't written any letters yet," Paul Clopper added. He will keep the Board informed on any new developments. Greeley's Non -Potable System Development Policy Robert Ward read in Greeley's August minutes that they have a Non Potable System Development Policy. According to the minutes, the primary purpose of the program is to avoid costs associated with using treated water for irrigation. Mr. Ward asked if Fort Collins has such a policy. "We don't have anything formal," Dennis Bode replied, "but we have done a lot of work in that area; such as homeowners' associations greenbelt areas where it makes sense." Mr. Clopper recalled an incident where a homeowners association wanted to disconnect treated water that was used for irrigation and connect a raw water line. "There was some problem about cross connection." Tim Hibbard explained that the City wanted to make sure we were protected, but it is generally a case by case basis on green belts. "If you do have a non -potable system you must have it protected from the potable system." Mr. Bode said there is a provision in the City Code that allows for a rebate on the Plant Investment Fee (PIF) if they convert from treated water to raw water for irrigation. That's probably the closest thing to a formal policy." "Where do they get the raw water?" Mr. Bergquist asked. "Usually from one of the irrigation ditch systems," Mr. Bode replied. "Should we have a formal policy?" Dr. Sanders wondered. "I was surprised that we don't have one," Mr. Ward remarked. Inquiry About Point of Use Treatment Mr. Ward said he received a inquiry from a reporter who was writing an article for a local magazine or newspaper. He wanted to know if all the claims being made about our water by the manufacturers that sell point of use treatment, are accurate. Those claims say we do in fact have dangerous substances in our drinking water. "Do we have data that would contradict that?" He remembered some data comparing our water to bottled water. "That would be available in our annual report," Mike Smith responded. "Can we say what would happen to the water if you installed some of those units?" Mr. Ward asked. "All it does is change the pH," Dave Rau said. Mr. Ward told the reporter to call Keith Elmund, the Environmental Services Manager. "With the filters, people are not in the habit of taking care of those systems," Mike Smith explained. "If they break, it's bad." "Have we Water Board Minutes October 22, 1998 Page 21 completed our consumer confidence report?" W. Ward asked. "I know the final regs. came out in September. Are we developing that?" "Yes, we are working on it," Mr. Smith said. "That might be a place where this kind of information would be very useful," Mr. Ward suggested, "because these kinds of articles in newspapers and magazines scare people." Public Meeting on Gateway Park David Lauer announced that tomorrow night (October 23) there will be a second public meeting on Gateway Park. It will be held at the Columbine Room at the Lincoln Center at 7:30 p.m. Kevin Cook, a Naturalist, will talk about the wildlife people can expect to see in Gateway when it's opened up. Tom Johnson will give a 40 minute presentation on the watershed. Since there was no further business, David Lauer moved to adjourn. Alison Adams seconded the motion. The meeting was closed at 5:15 p.m. Water Board cretary