Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 09/24/1998WATER BOARD MINUTES September 24, 1998 3:15 - 5:10 p.m. Light and Power Training Room 700 Wood Street CITY COUNCIL LIAISON Chuck Wanner (not present) Y zi V9 :6:0 MING STAFF LIAISON Molly Nortier - 221-6681 MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Clopper, Chair, Joe Bergquist, George Reed, David Lauer, Dave Frick, John Morris, Tom Sanders, Dave Rau, Tom Brown, Robert Ward STAFF Mike Smith, Wendy Williams, Dennis Bode, Dave Agee, Gale McGaha Miller, Bob Smith, Susan Hayes, Sue Paquette, Matt Fater, Molly Nortier GUEST Don Heyse, Precipitation Task Force Representative MEMBERS ABSENT Alison Adams, Vice Chair Chair Paul Clopper opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: George Reed moved that the minutes of July 23, 1998 be approved as distributed. David Lauer seconded the motion. Mr. Reed pointed out on p. 5 under Wastewater Utility, second paragraph, first sentence that gallons should be gallon. The Board unanimously approved the minutes with that correction. Water Board Minutes September 24, 1998 Page 2 Gene Schleiger was unable to attend the meeting, so there was no update. Dennis Bode distributed the revised NCWCD Carryover Policy passed by the District Board. The policy becomes effective on October 31, 1998. The major change is that the amount of water carried over by a water user will be limited to 20% of the water that would have been available from a 100% quota. If the user wishes to carry over water from one year to the next there will be a charge. The user will be able to use the water just like any other CBT water during the year. The biggest effect the policy should have is raising the quota each year. "It should be a little higher because the carryover water will not be considered in setting the quota." "Overall does staff think the change is good as far as the Fort Collins is concerned?" Paul Clopper asked. "We are not too happy about the fee part of it," Mr. Bode replied, "so the City probably will not carry over a lot unless we really need it." Nevertheless he thinks the policy should work. "Is it going to adversely affect our operations?" Dave Frick asked. "I don't think so," Mr. Bode answered. Chair Paul Clapper called for the annual election of the chair and vice chair of the Water Board. He asked for nominations for chair. He was re-elected as chair by acclamation. Alison Adams, the current vice chair and Tom Sanders were nominated for vice chair. Tom Sanders was elected as the new vice chair. Board members received a portion of the Precipitation Frequency Study in their packets. Susan Hayes began by asking for comments and questions from the Board on the draft report. She said that staff would not be asking for a recommendation today. "There is a lot of information to absorb and understand. Before the Task Force's recommendation comes to you it would probably be helpful to at least see what we have," she explained. Ms. Hayes introduced some of the task force members, three of whom were on the Water Board: Dave Frick, John Morris and Tom Sanders. Don Heyse, a citizen member, was a visitor to the Board. Ms. Hayes continued by emphasizing the complexity of the project. She wanted the Board to appreciate what the group has been doing and why it is taking so long. "It has not been an easy process," she related. She went over the summary of the highlights of the report which appeared in the memo introducing the report. Water Board Minutes September 24, 1998 Page 3 The current analysis does show an increase in the rainfall amount as follows: (1) Current rainfall amount: 2.89" over two hours (2) Proposed regional analysis amount: 3.67" over two hours (3) At -gage analysis (CSU site) rainfall amount: 4.37" over two hours Ms. Hayes emphasized that the 1997 storm greatly impacted the analysis. • The majority of the Task Force currently favors the regional analysis value of 3.67' ; however, additional analysis of data trends is being conducted to get a better comfort level with the results. • There was not a consensus on the Task Force to use the regional value. Some favored the higher, at -gage, value of 4.37". When the final report is submitted, it will include a letter from the Task Force with the final recommendation as well as any minority opinions. • This analysis does not necessarily mimic the way NOAA will conduct their analysis when NOAA Atlas 1I is updated in the next several years. Their numbers will most likely be lower; however, the Task Force felt our use of the data for the regional analysis was most appropriate for Fort Collins. • Impact on the design of drainage facilities due to an increase in rainfall is being studied. Some preliminary results will be discussed at the meeting today. Ms. Hayes emphasized that this analysis was done on limited data. She used a graphic to explain what the data problems have been. (See Figure 1) The first NOAA study used data from 1900 up to the late 1960s. "When we embarked on this study, we thought we had another 30 years of data we could incorporate, plus we had a huge storm in 1997. This would affect our results, plus we would have nearly 100 years of data. That's a good thing to have when you are trying to determine what your 100 year storm is. Unfortunately, it didn't turn out that way. What we have is 100 years of daily data. This can be converted to 24 hour data, but we don't design for a 24 hour storm, so this data isn't that useful to us." "What we do have, and what we need for our study, is hourly data," Ms. Hayes continued. "What's available right now, that is digitized and useful for analysis, is 1948 to 1997. There is data available between 1940 and 1948, but it isn't digitized, so wasn't used for this analysis. We don't know why, but NOAA no longer has the information from 1900 to 1940, so we lost 40 years of data. Even though we gained 30 years of data, we lost 40. The revised rainfall numbers represent 1948 to 1997 data only. The future NOAA study, they have already informed us, will be using their current digitized available data which is 1948-1997. They will not be going back to try to reclaim the early data for the hourly events." Mr. Rau asked if they intend to use the undigitized data. "They haven't indicated they are," Ms. Hayes responded. Water Board Minutes September 24, 1998 Page 4 "As a result, we don't have any more confidence in the numbers we are getting, based on the last 50 years of data, than we had in the first 70 years of data. Due to the concern over the loss of the first half century of data, we decided to look at the rainfall trends at 5 gages. How did the first half of the century compare to the last half of the century? We did a very simplistic analysis." To date, we have looked at Boulder, Waterdale which is Loveland, and Fort Collins. It's rather inconclusive. Fort Collins went up significantly comparing the latter half of the century to the first half. There is almost an inch of difference in total rainfall. For Boulder is has hardly changed at all. For Loveland it has actually been a little drier the last half of the century. When we started talking about using a regional analysis versus an at -gage analysis, the data that is available really makes a crucial difference. That's why there is a difference between 4.37" and 3.67". Boulder and Longmont are having an effect on the numbers because they have a drier record than Fort Collins. Certainly there are reasons to use at -gage because it represents what's actually happening here, and it did include the 1997 storm. We felt strongly that we should use the actual event recorded at the gage. But, because we have lost the first half century of data, it doesn't recognize that the first half was drier. The 3.67" value may be conservative; we don't know. It is still limited by the data available. As of the last Task Force meeting, the majority of the members present were leaning towards the regional analysis because of the lack of data available. She acknowledged there is a split on the committee; there is a minority point of view. That minority view will come to the Board in letter format from the Task Force. She went on to explain how the 1997 storm affects the information. When you only have 50 years of data and you have this huge storm that far exceeds anything else that is plotted, it really brings the curve up. As we add more data over the years and the decades, the value will most likely go down. "We won't know in time to implement our master plans," she stressed. "We have a 15-year build -out schedule now. We are in a position where we can't wait to collect additional data." There is going to be a future NOAA study. It will include Colorado and surrounding states. "They won't use the same region we have chosen. Our Task Force felt comfortable with the region we chose, whereas NOAA will likely take too large a region that would not be representative of Fort Collins. NOAA will only use the 1948-1997 data; and it will take several years to complete. Our consultant estimates 3-6 years. Their final rainfall value may be lower because they will use a different region. We don't think that's appropriate for us because we don't agree with their region. We also think our method, the General Extreme Value method is more representative of our data." Ms. Hayes went on to explain the effects on our facilities. One thing that total rainfall does not give us is the distribution of that rainfall over time. When you think about going from 2.89" to 3.67" in 2 hours, what you are going to see is a more uniform rate of rainfall over that two hours. "It's all Water Board Minutes September 24, 1998 Page 5 volume, basically. Our peak rainfall intensity did not go up; we are just seeing it rain harder for longer." Matt Fater put together some distributions looking at early peaks, mid -peaks and late peaks and ran it through some of the models. "What we are finding is for basins that don't have on -site detention, such as Old Town, our peaks aren't increasing much at all. For the basins that have on -site detention, such as Spring Creek and Canal Importation, those ponds are over -topping due to the increased volume, and that's what is causing our increase in peak. We will be able to solve that problem by increasing volume in the basin. How that will translate into dollars will be dependent on the basin, the land value, whether or not we have room to expand, or if it's surrounded by houses. It will be unique to each basin how it will pan out financially,"she explained. Mike Smith asked if the numbers Matt Fater ran are based on 3.67"or 4.37". On 3.67", Ms. Hayes replied. "Is the minority report going to based on the 4.37?" Mr. Smith continued. "That's correct," she replied, "and for the reason, that many of us agree with, that Fort Collins seems to be unique along the Front Range. We appear to be in a preferred storm track and we get some of the heavier storms and the data shows that. I think the concern with the rest of the committee is we have lost 50 years of data," she said. "As a result of all this, are we going to get new IDF curves for the City and do 100 down to two years? Would that take the place of NOAA IDF curves we have been using?" Tom Sanders asked. "Yes, and actually they may not change much." Ms. Hayes answered. Dave Rau asked if Stormwater is going to upgrade all of our facilities to meet the new criteria. "I would say not necessarily," Ms. Hayes replied. "One, we won't have to in some cases," she added "What about the ponds that are undersized?" Mr. Rau continued. "I think if we are going to add volume, the benefits need to outweigh costs. We would have to look at an individual site to see if it's worthwhile doing that. If it's fairly simple to increase the volume of a pond, we could incorporate that into our master plan update," Ms. Hayes responded. She added that they would look at the basin as a whole and determine the cost/benefit ratio. "One individual project may not be cost effective, but combining it with all the projects in the basin, the benefits may outweigh the costs." Dave Frick pointed out there are a lot of ponds that were done early on that are already undersized even with the existing criteria. "It's going to add to it but it's not going to be the sole reason that the pond could over top." "Are you expecting to come back next month with a formal recommendation to the Board to approve, modify or do whatever we need to do with it?" Mr. Rau asked. "Yes, the next step will be to pull our Task Force together for one last time to draft a recommendation. We will prepare more detailed information about potential cost impacts etc., and expect to be back next month with a final staff recommendation." Ms. Hayes said. "At this point I don't expect any delays," she added. Water Board Minutes September 24, 1998 Page 6 "One thing we need to keep in mind as we are considering this," Mr. Frick began, "is the fact that we are going to end up with higher numbers than Loveland and Larimer County. When we do basin studies with Larimer County, we will have inconsistencies in our data. We need to consider how we are going to interact regionally when we look at our basins. There are going to be some differences, and we are going to have to deal with that," he concluded. "It's going to become more of an issue as Larimer County gets more involved in stormwater issues," Mr. Rau noted. "West Vine is an example; it's part in the, City and part out. Do we use County numbers in the County and City numbers in the City?" Mr. Frick wondered. "Another point that has been brought up is how this is going to affect the Poudre River," Ms. Hayes said. "We are not anticipating a change at all in the Poudre River because it is based on 100 years of river gage data, so we feel pretty comfortable with those numbers," she related. "Plus, it's driven by the upstream basin which is not along the Front Range. We don't expect that to change. It will change the local inflows to the River, but those flows don't drive the floodplain on the River," she explained. "This rainfall study is affecting the development in the floodplain issue because people want to know how our floodplains will change before we make a decision on how we should restrict them. With the numbers we're seeing, they may not change dramatically if we take the tack that we are going to increase the detention volume if we need to. With the Poudre River we can at least begin that discussion without worrying about adopting this." "There was a sense of controversy that came through in reading what was included in the packets," Mr. Clopper said. "I would like to hear from you or any of the other Task Force members, if there were pro and con issues that didn't relate to the differences in the data sets and statistical issues. Were there other issues that added to the sense of controversy?" "Yes, there was a discussion about the methodology we used, but I think we are all in agreement that the General Extreme Value method is most appropriate," Ms. Hayes responded. "There was also a discussion about how to handle the 1997 storm, and whether we should use a known value of 10 inches at the center of the storm versus what was recorded at the gage. It was determined we use what was recorded at the gage. There certainly was the opportunity to reduce that value and treat it as an outline, but we chose not to," she concluded. "There is no question that it is a valid piece of data," Tom Brown began, "but it may really have a large effect on mean values; larger than it should if you are really going to characterize it for the long term. We have all the rough estimates, but the general impression is it's a very unusual storm," Mr. Brown asserted, "and when you put it in with 50 years of data, it carries a lot of weight. I think you need to be able to justify putting in such an extreme value in 50 years of data," he stressed. "I think that's why the recommendation is to go to the regional analysis rather than `at gage.' That does mitigate the effect of the `97 storm," Ms. Hayes explained. Mr. Bergquist pointed out that there is a move in the Denver region to throw out a storm like this in 1935 because it was way out of line. "They have isolated the storm to be an extreme event and tossed Water Board Minutes September 24, 1998 Page 7 it out." "I think the compromise that's been done is good; not to completely ignore the storm but to mitigate its effect by using other data. We would have a hard time throwing it out," Ms. Hayes responded. "Would you explain what you mean by bringing in other data; i.e. Loveland and Boulder?" Mr. Brown asked. "We did an at -site analysis and a regional analysis. The regional analysis incorporated Boulder, Longmont and Fort Collins data. We chose Front Range communities that had similar characteristics to Fort Collins. Loveland didn't actually have enough hourly data," Ms. Hayes replied. "How about Denver?" Mr. Brown asked. "We did not choose Denver because we didn't feel it was represented as a community right up against the foothills, and that's why we didn't choose Greeley," Ms. Hayes responded. "The principle here is if you use more data, the value will go down," Mr. Brown clarified. "The effect of the `97 storm would be less," Mr. Frick added. "The other aspect of the study that we haven't talked about is the qualitative rainfall pattern part," Ms. Hayes continued. "We discussed the fact that it may rain more and harder on the west side of town than it does on the east side. Currently the result is, yes it does appear to, but it is not statistically significant enough to adopt a different criteria. Our Task Force has never approached the subject. We have been so engrossed in the statistical analysis. That will be the one final decision we have to make in our next meeting and come back to you with a recommendation," she explained. George Reed said what would help him is a way to summarize the consequences of one decision or the other. "Understand that I'm coming from the side of financial reasons, because we had Stormwater Committee members who were really strong on holding the line on our capital fees, etc. For many years we tended to, it appears, underestimate. What are the consequences of overestimating in this case? I would like just an executive summary stating the reasons for going to `this' number or the main reasons for going to `that' number," he suggested. "You had a consultant looking at specific development to determine what infrastructure up scaling needed to be done, if any, by virtue of going to these higher numbers," Mr. Clopper began. "Will that also be included for next month?" "Yes, it will," Ms. Hayes said. "Do you have any feel for what that is?" Mr. Rau asked. "What it will most likely do is increase the detention volume they need." Ms. Hayes replied. "I mean bottom line for costs," Mr. Rau added. "It's hard to know. It will depend on each site, Ms. Hayes replied. "Each site will be unique. What we were concerned about is if this will increase the peak flows coming off the site into the ponds. Would we have to put in more storm sewers, bigger inlets, etc.? If you believe the preliminary results, it doesn't look like it will; it's just more volume they will have to retain on their site," she explained. "That's going to take more land and that isn't cheap," she added. Mr. Brown further clarified his observations on the minority opinion issue. "I would like to point out that, in addition to the minority opinion that would have you use a larger estimate, there is a legitimate minority opinion that would have you throw out the `97 storm all together, like Joe Water Board Minutes September 24, 1998 Page 8 Bergquist said has been considered in other places. I'm not suggesting that but I don't think it's more extreme than it is to overemphasize that." Ms. Hayes concluded that the Board will be making a decision about this item at the October meeting when she will have further information for them to consider. Paul Clopper reported that last week the City Council passed, on first reading, by a vote of 6-0, approval of the Water Board's recommendation made two months ago, to adopt City-wide financing, as opposed to the basin -by -basin approach, to bring the capital stormwater improvements schedule forward to a 15-year build -out period. "There was a concern about development paying its fair share and what proportion of the capital improvements that we are now accelerating, are going to be borne by developers versus existing citizens," he said. "Several of the Council members echo a concern on that issue. That is something staff will be looking at and bringing to the Board. Dave Agee said staff is hoping to come to the Board in October with a proposal relating to that issue. He emphasized that the Stormwater Utility does charge development fees and those are updated periodically, and it is time to update them again. "The methodology we use is to review the program to determine if development has paid its own way." Staff does that by comparing the ratio of undeveloped land at the time a master plan was adopted, to the total land in a particular basin. "We compare that to fees generated for new development, both from monthly capital and development fees and the percentage of revenue that generates over time to see if development is in fact paying its own way," he explained. "After looking at that we would present some adjustments, if they are needed, that we could use in each basin." Mr. Agee provided a Stormwater New Development Fee Work Plan for September 21, 1998 through January 19, 1999. "According to the schedule, might you have a summary by the next meeting that would describe how that is done for Stormwater capital improvement projects?" Mr. Clopper asked. He mentioned that former Water Board members, prior to combining the Storm Drainage and Water Boards, have not heard that. "We hope we can get this done within this time frame," Mr. Agee said. "Our plan is to bring it back to the Board," he said. Dave Frick wondered if there was any logic in considering a uniform development fee rather than basin -by -basin. Mr. Agee replied that with different topography in different basins, it makes sense that those fees would not be uniform city-wide. "The City attorney was extremely nervous about that versus what we just did. They want to make a really close tie to development impact fees," Mike Smith related. "When we suggested early on that we could do that, they said they were okay as far as monthly capital and O&M fees were concerned, but the impact fees made them nervous. They like that close tie, but their concern doesn't mean they wouldn't do it," Mr. Smith added. "Aren't some Water Board Minutes September 24, 1998 Page 9 of the highest fees in basins that are more developed?" Mr. Frick asked. "Just in terms of steering development towards in fill rather than out in new areas, going to a uniform fee would give a little better preference to evening the playing field. That's using the fees for land use decisions, and I don't know if we want to get into that," he acknowledged. "Maybe it would be better to keep them separate, and you could lower them for in fill if you want to go that way," Joe Bergquist suggested. "In the water and wastewater side we do spread it over the whole system. You can do it; it's just a matter of what exists today and any planned improvements to the system," Mr. Smith said. "We can always run the numbers and see what it might look like," Mr. Agee suggested. "I think it's more of a legal issue than a practical one," Mr. Smith concluded. David Lauer said it seems that the City Attorney would be concerned about the larger number of people who would complain if it were a City-wide situation. "Most of the people who would complain aren't here," Mr. Smith asserted. "It would seem the biggest bulk of land is in the more undeveloped basins; Fossil Creek, for example, whereas Old Town and Canal Importation have little undeveloped land left," Mr. Frick pointed out. The development fees in those basins would not impact fees in the larger basins very much such that you could be encouraging more in fill," he added. "You go from Spring Creek at $2175 to Evergreen/Greenbriar at $10,000; Old Town is $4100 and Canal Importation is $6100, so there is quite a wide range," Bob Smith pointed out. Susan Hayes said it depends on the improvement thinking. In Greenbriar they have severe problems, and yet there is quite a lot of undeveloped land. "I know there is encouragement to develop more land along Dry Creek," Mr. Frick said. "Lowering those fees may encourage more development there from a land planning standpoint. It may make some sense there, whereas I don't know if it would impact Spring Creek or Fossil Creek much at all," he added. Bob Smith referred to the Monthly Financial Status Report in the packets that showed the year to date revenues from the Stormwater new development fees. "One of the factors in the calculation of revenues is that we collect from new development," he stressed. "You will see that we collected nearly $700,000 in development fees in 1998. Four years ago, they were around $300,000." Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported that for August the City used 3,658 ac-ft of treated water which is about 94% of what was projected for August. "For the year to date through August we are about 96% of what we had projected," he said. So far during September we are about 5% above average. The rain a few days ago may have brought that down a bit. "Everything appears to be fairly normal," he concluded. None of the standing committees met since the last Board meeting. Water Board Minutes September 24, 1998 Page 10 Because Howard Goldman is no longer on the Board, Paul Clopper pointed out that a volunteer is needed to chair the Legislative and Finance Committee. The current members of the Committee are Robert Ward, Alison Adams and Tom Sanders. Ms. Adams already chairs the Liaison Issues Committee and Dr. Sanders chairs the Engineering Committee. Robert Ward volunteered to take over as chair. Water Supply and Regional Issues Mr. Clopper reminded the Board that a few months ago the Water Supply and Liaison Issues Committees spent considerable time developing a white paper on water supply and regional issues. The Board decided to review and update the Water Supply Policy. "We have been so distracted by the Stormwater issues that we haven't even talked about this topic for quite some time," he remarked. He asked for a staff update. Dennis Bode related that staff has been working on the data; particularly concentrating on the supply and demand situation. "We have some projections and we are trying to get some information there. I would suggest that the joint committee may want to meet in October sometime for a briefing from staff on where we are. Paul Clopper asked that this item be included on the agenda since there hasn't been an update for several months. "Is there much going on with the Metro Area Committee and the Northern Coalition Group?" Mr. Clopper asked. "We continue to have meetings," Mr. Bode replied. "The Northern Regional Water Coalition meets every two months." Essentially, they have been reviewing the water supply systems of all the entities within the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The other main item is that the Northern District is doing a regional demand study. "That will help with some of the regional views of where our future needs are," he said. Mr. Bode has attended two meetings of the Larimer/Weld Water Issues Group. Currently, they are trying to focus on the goals of the group and where to go from here. "One of the things they talked about was to have someone facilitate the process of reaching the goals they want to strive for." They recently invited a staff person from Thornton to discuss the Thornton Project. Robert Ward has attended a number of the Group's meetings. He mentioned that the group has been trying to educate themselves about the different perspectives related to water use on a regional basis. "I gather there has been some frustration developing because they don't seem to be doing that," he commented. Regarding Thornton, David Lauer said they are trying to get someone to help them get the water to Thornton. `Eventually this water is going to be taken from upstream sources of the Poudre rather than downstream from Greeley to Fort Collins," he said. "Their staff person was talking about Water Board Minutes September 24, 1998 Page 11 returning water and how they were planning on developing a pipeline system." "They are still thinking it could be several decades before they would be building any pipelines," Mr. Bode stated. "In the shorter term, they are beginning to focus on improvements to their water treatment plant in the Thornton area and then doing river exchanges so they could take water back up the South Platte. Long term is the pipeline project," he explained. "Are they going to let Poudre flow down to the Platte and divert farther up?" Dave Rau asked. "With a series of gravel pits along the South Platte, they would be able to exchange the Poudre water back up so they could use it," Mr. Bode responded. Mr. Clopper brought up another item under regional issues. While he was reading the Greeley and Loveland Water Board minutes, he noticed that Loveland is talking about cash -in -lieu -of rates of $3300-3400 and Greeley is up $3900. "Where are we today?" he asked. "We are at $2700," Mr. Bode replied. "Is it time, within the next couple of meetings, to revisit that issue?" Mr. Clopper wondered. "We may be getting close, but I think things may have leveled off some for CBT prices. They are between $3000 and $3300," Mr. Bode said. "One of the things I picked up in the minutes," he continued, "is the philosophical approach to this. Last time we set the rate, there was discussion about whether CBT is the only criteria to use." "Are we getting water or cash these days?" Tom Brown asked. "We are getting both," Mr. Bode answered. "I think since the price went up, we are getting a smaller percentage of cash, whereas prior to that we were getting a larger percentage of cash." "I noticed that other communities are continuing to rachet upwards," Mr. Clopper remarked. "Greeley divides the CBT price by .7 to get their numbers. They have a little different system, than we do," Mr. Bode explained. Report on Meeting at Chamber of Commerce Molly Nortier distributed minutes from the meeting at the Chamber of Commerce that the Chamber provided. Paul Clopper summarized the meeting at the Chamber. The major topic for discussion was the development in the floodplain position which staff and Board members drafted recently and approved at the July meeting. He thanked the Board members and staff who attended. Bob Smith, Susan Hayes and Marsha Hilmes attended from staff and Alison Adams, David Lauer, George Reed, Tom Sanders and John Morris were there from the Board. "Staff did a fine job of presenting the issues at the beginning of the meeting," he said. They explained the thinking behind the recommendation to re-examine our floodplain policy with a basin by basin approach. "I gathered there was a sense of relief from the people representing the Chamber of Commerce," he remarked "Some of them thought there was already a policy that had been rammed through and implemented. We explained that the position we presented was basically the beginning of an outreach program seeking their input and also of other boards and organizations. He asked if there were comments from others who attended. Water Board Minutes September 24, 1998 Page 12 Bob Smith said there is a plan to create a guidance team made up some boards and commission members and some other representatives. "We would also like a representative from the Water Board who could participate in this task force assigned at the October meeting. It will be made up of members from the Natural Resources Board and the P&Z Board, for example, so we can hash out the issues before the policy goes before the public." "I think one of the more fruitful items that came out of the Chamber meeting was the recognition that we need to decide what the process is going to be from here on out," Mr. Clopper related. Mr. Smith mentioned that there are a lot of misconceptions about the existing policies and regulations, so the process will begin with an orientation meeting of the task force. "We will then formulate ideas about what we would like to see. We will be mailing each Board member a memo from the City Attorney's office about the legal ramifications of the proposed policy. That should be going out next week," he said. "We are anticipating that it will be November of next year before we get all of these issues resolved. We will tackle the Poudre first. That floodplain issue isn't going to change," he concluded. Natural Resources Board - Gateway Park Update Mr. Clopper attended a Natural Resources Board meeting a couple of weeks ago because they were discussing Gateway Park. Most of the discussion involved the different sources of funding which has reached a total of $1.1 million. A large portion of that will be used to undertake improvements to Highway 14 at the entryway to the old treatment plant site in the Poudre Canyon.The Board concentrated on appropriate versus inappropriate uses of monies from different pots that make up that $1.1 million. There was considerable discussion about the issue of process which is a relevant issue to the Water Board. "Now they have the money; now they need to do something with it. The question is who is going to take the lead? What is their relationship to Parks & Recreation and the Water Utility? It should be noted that the Water Utility still owns the property. Several years ago the Water Board talked about the possibility of providing an educational opportunity by establishing some kind of water museum at the old treatment plant site. "Who's going to take the lead in doing that?" During the latter part of the meeting, the Natural Resources Board posed those types of questions. "Now that they have the money, things are going to start happening, and the question is who is going to do what?" "Staff -wise the city manager has asked the Parks & Recreation Dept. to take the lead," Mike Smith related. David Lauer requested that the Water Board take formal action to support a recommendation that Council create a Gateway Park Planning Committee. He included a list of stakeholder groups: Larimer County, Fort Collins Water Utility, U.S. Forest Service, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado State Parks, Lower Poudre Residents Association, Rafting and Kayaking Outfitters, Fort Collins Breakfast Optimists, Sierra Club, Friends of the Poudre. City of Fort Collins Parks & Recreation was added at the meeting. Mr. Lauer's idea was to act as a catalyst for the Council to formally adopt a planning committee that would include representatives of all eleven of those entities. The Natural Resources Board is planning Water Board Minutes September 24, 1998 Page 13 to take the same action. "That would then take the process forward and feed the group that would be responsible for recommendations to Council as to how the planning process should proceed." He went on to say that the City of Fort Collins and Friends of the Poudre are planning to hold two public meetings between now and next summer; one of them on October 23, 1998 at the Lincoln Center. "We will be inviting the public to participate in a brain storming session facilitated by Craig Forman and Wally Picconi from Parks to get input on what people would like to see in terms of design of the Park, and how we are going to go about protecting what needs to be protected up there," he said. Robert Ward mentioned that Loveland has a mountain park in the Thompson Canyon where their power plant used to be. "It might be worthwhile to find out how they developed it and how they manage it, etc. I know they have created educational stations there where children are taken on tours. Joe Bergquist asked about the Greeley Land exchange. "We are proceeding with the Forest Service on the land exchange," Mike Smith responded. "Our efforts with Greeley are on hold at this point." "Have you heard anything more from the Greeley Water Dept. about their 80 acres?" Mr. Lauer asked. "There is a piece of land at the mouth of the Canyon that they still want to sell. Mike Powers from the City and K-Lynn Cameron from County Parks are working directly with them to try to purchase it jointly," Mr. Smith explained. "Any of the land exchanges around the treatment plant are on hold right now, but we still hope to arrange something. The process with the Forest Service is moving ahead." Mr. Clopper thinks the concept of a park planning committee is a good one. He asked if staff thinks it is something we want to do. "Sure," Mr. Smith replied. Mr. Clopper asked for a motion. ACTION: Motion David Lauer moved that the Water Board recommend to the Council, the creation of a Gateway Park Planning Committee to include, but not be limited to the groups listed above. Dave Rau seconded the motion. Mr. Clopper asked if there was further discussion. Mr. Ward asked if the $1.1 million is available right now. "Yes," Mr. Lauer replied. "Is there going to be pressure for this to occur more quickly, or what's going to happen to that money?" "The GoCo portion of $900,000 has to be used within a 2-year period from the time it was allocated. All that money is designated to re -align highway 14, and that will begin this fall or next spring," Mr. Lauer explained. "How long will that money sit around before this group gets itself organized?" Mr. Ward continued. "This planning group is to design the interior of the park not to design the re -alignment the highway," Mr. Lauer replied. "That's up to the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)," he added. "There is another grant from Colorado Byway Foundation that is about to be approved for another $230,000 that will allow for the building of a restroom facility, paving the Water Board Minutes September 24, 1998 Page 14 parking lot in the back of the old water treatment plant, putting some picnic tables in there and reinforcing the bridge. Mr. Bergquist asked why we have to go to City Council. "Because it will give the project more fire power," Mr. Lauer answered. Mr. Clopper added that it will also go further towards looking at operations and maintenance and management issues. "When this park is built, will it still be owned by the Utilities?" Mr. Ward asked. "No, we can't be in the park business," Mr. Smith replied. "Furthermore, the City Attorney has reminded people many times, that before the park plans go much farther, somebody had better compensate the Utilities because the Charter doesn't allow the Utilities to be in another business and it doesn't allow our property to be used for other things. It creates a problem, because nobody has that money," he explained. "Could it be leased?" someone asked. "You could do a real value lease, but you can't do a "dollar per year" type lease," Mr. Smith replied. "Is there a thought to use the treatment plant up there for educational purposes?" Mr. Rau asked. "There have been all kinds of ideas," Mr. Smith replied. Mr. Lauer said that Poudre Landmarks is working with the parks group to apply for historic designation of the treatment plant. "That plant would be ideal as a water education tool," Mr. Rau stressed. "There is a prohibition in the Charter for the Utilities to do any renovations up there unless it is utility related," Mr. Smith pointed out. "Is the issue here whether the City Council should be creating a park planning committee to work on the issue of compensation to the Utility?" Tom Brown asked. "I think it is more an administrative issue for staff," Mr. Smith replied. "As far as the planning committee is concerned, it is appropriate for the Water Board to recommend, in the form of a letter, that the Council create such a committee?" Mr. Clopper asked. "Yes, that's fine," Mr. Smith said. "In that letter will there be a statement of what this committee's objective is?" Mr. Ward asked. "Yes," W. Smith replied. "This group's main purpose is to design the park and find the money for that, but they won't deal with the fact that the Utility owns the land," Mr. Ward asked. "The objective is not so much to find money for it," Mr. Lauer answered, "because most of the money is in place, and there are grant applications for additional monies." He summarized how they will be involved: (1) To design the park and be involved with City Parks & Recreation in the actual building of those improvements and (2) To be an advisory group for the long term management and maintenance. It needs to be determined if it will be operated as a Colorado park or whether it will continue to be a City entity and City Parks will continue to be the main player. "It will also be a clearing house for ideas that come in for design of the park." Mr. Lauer clarified that it isn't just going to be the Water Board's recommendation. The Natural Resources Board is doing essentially the same thing in the same time frame. "I anticipate that the Parks Board will be doing something similar. I'm not sure any of the other entities on the list will be taking that kind of action," he acknowledged. Water Board Minutes September 24, 1998 Page 15 Mr. Clopper suggested that the Water Utilities staff draft a letter to the Council, so the staff is satisfied from their perspective. Tom Brown said he was having a hard time knowing how to treat this. "The move to do something appears to be very ill defined and two other boards may be considering something that is also ill defined, and may end up with a different conception of this than we seem to have. There is an organization list of suggested, but not an all inclusive list, of groups that could send a representative to be a part of this committee. "These are groups that have either contributed in kind or money toward development of the park," Mr. Lauer clarified. "I think we are simply endorsing the idea that the City Council take the lead in creating a group that is inclusive of stakeholders if they want to be included," Mr. Clopper said. Mike Smith was concerned that Parks & Recreation has been designated as the lead agency and he isn't sure where they are with this. "Maybe we should first find out what they are doing, and if they are doing something similar, we could support their efforts." "Parks & Rec. is aware that the Water Board and Natural Resources Board are considering a recommendation to City Council," Mr. Lauer noted, "and it's my understanding they want to go along with that." Mr. Clopper asked Mr. Lauer if he would be willing to include a fiiendly amendment to his motion that would say that staff would take the lead in drafting a recommendation and coordinate with Parks & Recreation, and there would be support for a coordinated effort in development of Gateway Park. Mr. Rau agreed that Parks & Rec. should be the lead agency. "That's fine with me," Mr. Lauer responded. "Could we also say that once that coordination is done, we don't need to do anything else other than bless what they have done," Mr. Ward proposed. "Basically you are saying that you support a coordinated effort in development of the park that includes all the stakeholders," Mr. Smith reiterated. There was general agreement. ACTION: Vote Mr. Clopper called for the question. After some clarifications, the Board unanimously approved the amended motion. Mike Smith said staff would draft a letter and the Water Board can endorse it if it needs endorsing. Endorsement of Utilities Budget Mike Smith reminded the Board that during last year's budget review the Board recommended approval of the begriming of a two-year budget. In that budget were rate increases for last year and this year of 6% for water and 2% for wastewater. "We will be taking the ordinance to the Council to change the rates for 1999. It would be helpful if the Board would re -confirm the approval of the rate increases. The reason for bringing this up at this time is that the City has gone to a two-year budget, so this will be a one year check and confirmation. Mr. Agee clarified that the Council already adopted the budget. "All the Council is going to do is appropriate that money this year and adopt new rates which are already in the budget." Mr. Clopper called for a motion. Water Board Minutes September 24, 1998 Page 16 ACTION: Motion and Vote Joe Bergquist moved that the Board re -confirm their approval of the rate increases of 6% for water and 2% for wastewater included in last year's budget. After a second from John Morris, the Board approved the motion unanimously. FAREWELL RECEPTION FOR HOWARD GOLDMAN Before the meeting was adjourned, Chairman Clopper read a letter of recognition for Howard Goldman so it would be included as part of the record. (A copy is attached to the minutes.) He was also given a gift certificate for dinner for two at a local restaurant. Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m. A reception honoring Howard Goldman followed the meeting. Water Board Secretary cn � J fn Q } Z Q Q Z � Q O } LL U� Z W G ui W J m � LL Q Z J LL 0 aQ � LL a0 V� WCL C� O O 0 N O m O W O O co LO O v O M O N O O O O co (6 N i L � I � N +' N O 'O O CJ i O C) 4 C L O N U N N 41 � c + ro N � ro m IN GRATEFUL RECOGNITION K11 HOWARD N. GOLDMAIV For his Dedicated Service to the Fort Collins Water Board August 1993 - August 1998 The City of Fort Collins and the Fort Collins Water Board deeply appreciate your 5 years of service to the Water Board. Your expertise in mediation provided a unique perspective to many of the problems and challenges the Board faced during your tenure. For nearly two years, you had the responsibility of being the chair of both the Liaison Issues Committee (which you initiated) and the Legislative and Finance Committee. You did an admirable job on both committees. We appreciated your commitment to various Board activities. Your well thought out ideas, especially for regional cooperation, contributed significantly to Board discussions. We will miss your quiet, respectful and professional demeanor as a Board member. It was a pleasure working with you. City of Fort Collins Utilities Michael B. Smith, General Manager Fort Collins Water Board r U Paul E. Clopper, Char 700 Wood Street • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6681