Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 07/23/1998WATER BOARD MINUTES July 23, 1998 3:10 - 4:58 p.m. Fort Collins Utilities Training Room 700 Wood Street CITY COUNCIL LIAISON Chuck Wanner 5-18Y0 §14 oxei OM V4111. ' I I I - STAFF LIAISON Molly Nortier - 221-6681 MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Clopper, Chair, David Lauer, Joe Bergquist, John Morris, George Reed, Robert Ward, Tom Brown STAFF Mike Smith, Wendy Williams, Dave Agee, Bob Smith, Gale McGaha Miller, Ellen Alward, Susan Hayes, Marsha Hilmes, Leslie Mooney, Beth Molenaar, Molly Nortier GUESTS John Gallagher, Black & Veatch Kyle Henley, Coloradoan Gene Schleiger, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District MEMBERS ABSENT Alison Adams, Vice Chair, Dave Frick, Tom Sanders, Dave Rau, Howard Goldman Chair Paul Clopper opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Water Board Minutes July 23, 1998 Page 2 Robert Ward moved that the minutes of June 25, 1998 be approved as distributed. Joe Bergquist seconded the motion. Paul Clopper pointed out on p. 3, second paragraph, first sentence, that "floodway" should be "floodwave." The Board unanimously approved the motion with the correction. Gene Schleiger was introduced as the new liaison from the District. He is replacing John Bigham who gave briefings to the Water Board for nearly 10 years. Mr. Schleiger distributed the operations report from the NCWCD. He began by saying that the system is about 80% of capacity, and there is space for an additional 119,000 acre feet. Horsetooth is roughly 50% of capacity which is down slightly from what we would normally see in this kind of year. "We have to consider that the last 4 or 5 years have been quite wet," he noted. He continued by saying the District is running about 500 ac-ft through the tunnel from the west slope. There are 21 ac-ft going down the southern pipeline, about 300 ac-ft down the St. Vrain, 13 at the Big Thompson and about 200 coming out of Horsetooth. He suggested that Board members look through the rest of the report at their leisure. He referred to the next to last sheet in the report labeled East Slope CBT Project Deliveries. There is a definite pattern of what has happened this year. In the first part of May the District made non -charge water available and that filled the canal out of Horsetooth to within 1,200 ac-ft After that it dropped back to virtually no flows. "We had a `drop dead' date of July 15th for carryover water that was in the system. With that everybody filled the canals to capacity. On July 16th we dropped back to almost no flows. Having it bounce up and down like that creates somewhat of an operational problem," he said. He pointed out that some of the changes in the carryover program that the District is contemplating will probably address some of that issue. He added that June happened to be the second highest delivery month that the District has recorded in the past 10 years. "In June of 1994 we delivered about 44,000 ac-ft and we were at 31,000 this year. July is probably going to be close to one of the top numbers we have delivered in July. It has been running heavy especially with the carryover in there." He then asked for questions. Water Board Minutes July 23, 1998 Page 3 "Do you have any unusual plans for the rest of the season?" George Reed wondered. "We're going to try to keep our names out of the newspaper," he laughed. He said the District is trying to stabilize the flow into Horsetooth at this time. Mr. Schleiger presumed that John Bigham had briefed the Board on the leakage of the dam and what the plans are to try to draw it down to see if the hydraulic loading would have an effect on the seepage. "We had a couple of weeks where we intentionally drew down the level of the dam and that was back in the May period when the non -charge water was there. We want to go down low enough so we can go in this fall and drill across the face of the dam and install some more monitoring devices to study further what's going on. When we got past those couple of weeks of not wanting to put water in, we were counting on some rains in the spring and a little higher runoff. Suddenly it turned hot and we couldn't bring over enough water. We had the tunnel flow coming from the other side of the hill and that basically was enough to meet the demands of the Big Thompson, but it didn't allow us to get water to Carter or Horsetooth Reservoirs. As a result, we saw some significant drops when we were running about 1400 cfs. That's 2,800 ac-ft a day out of that reservoir. That's when the press began forgetting that the reservoir had been built for agricultural and municipal use and not primarily for recreational use. There are flows coming into Horsetooth now. We would like to stabilize that drawdown and keep it in a more normal pattern." Other than that, the District is just hoping to get enough out of the outlet works to keep everybody happy if it stays hot and dry. Mr. Clopper asked about the historic water levels in Horsetooth. "This is the four-year average," he said. "Since it was filled the first time, how low has it gone prior to this period? Has it ever gone this low before?" "Oh, yes," Mr. Schleiger replied. "We drained it in 1978 to do some work on it. Part of that was the result of a slide that came in at Soldier Canyon which was affecting the Fort Collins water intake. It has probably been lower on several occasions if I would go back and look," he said. `By September loth will it be dry again?" David Lauer asked. "No, our projection gives us quite a lot in there by the end of September," Mr. Schleiger answered. "Part of the problem with the seepage is that we have kept it at extremely high levels for the last 4 or 5 years," he concluded. In April John Gallagher of Black & Veatch gave a presentation on the Water and Wastewater PIFs, Wendy Williams began. At that time staff was asking for a recommendation to take it to City Council. "The issue was raised of how we were handling multi -family. Staff was asked to take a look at whether or not it made sense to come up with a multi -family PIF that looked at irrigation as a separate component. That's what we did, and Mr. Gallagher has Water Board Minutes July 23, 1998 Page 4 some revised numbers for you," she said. She continued by saying that he and staff will be taking this presentation to the Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce and the Homebuilders Association tomorrow (Friday, July 24th). "As you recall, we had an open house in April, and had a total of three people show up in response to more than 100 letters. Two of the three were from the Northern Colorado Homebuilders Association," she related. What staff is asking of the Board today is a recommendation. "We are taking this to the Council on August 4th," she said, "and we want your support." Mr. Gallagher will go over the changes from the last session. Introduction The City of Fort Collins funds its daily water and wastewater utility operations through rates. Additionally, the City assesses plant invest fees (PIFs) to each new connection to the system to fund its growth related water and wastewater capital improvements. The purpose of the PIFs study was to update water and wastewater PIFs using a structure that is both equitable and practical. Study Findings and Recommendations The principal findings and recommendations of the study are as follows: General The equity (buy -in) method has been used to develop the proposed water and wastewater PIFs. Under this method PIFs are intended to recover the equity that existing customers have established in the water and wastewater backbone facilities. Water Utility Existing water PIFs have been in effect since January 1991. A proposed water unit PIF of $3.39 per gallon per day (gpd) of peak day demand has been calculated for the five-year period, 1998 through 2002, using the equity method. Peak day demands have been estimated for residential and commercial customers using the City's water usage records for 1994 through 1997. Proposed water PIFs have been developed for new single family, multi -family and commercial customers by applying the unit PIF to the estimated peak day demands and are shown in the Executive Summary in Table 1-1. Water Board Minutes July 23, 1998 Page 5 The water PIF for a new single family customer with a 7,000 sq. ft. lot would increase $770 under the proposed PIFs. Wastewater Utility Existing wastewater PIFs have been in effect since February 1991. A proposed wastewater unit PIF of $5.74 per gallons per day (gpd) of average day wastewater flow has been calculated for the five-year period, 1998 through 2002, using the equity method. Average day wastewater flows have been estimated for residential and commercial customers using the City's winter water usage records for 1994 through 1997. Proposed wastewater P1Fs have been developed for new single family, multi- family and commercial customers by applying the unit PIF to the estimated average day wastewater flows and are shown in the Executive Summary in Table 1-2. The wastewater PIF for a new single family customer would decrease $570 under the proposed PIFs. Mr. Gallagher said the report essentially has been completed. Board members received an executive summary of it. He mentioned that he was still working on a PIF for mobile homes and for the wastewater extra surcharges. "We will have those finished tomorrow." The findings are basically what were presented to the Board in April. The one change is in the multi -family area. In the water area, right now, the existing fee includes a fee for duplexes and another fee for multi -family; three or more units. The duplex fee has a domestic fee and an irrigation fee. The multi -family fee does not; it has strictly a per unit fee. "The Board raised the question last time, and I think it was a good one: `Couldn't we have an irrigation element to the multi -family fee?' We went back and met with staff and they provided us some good information that we evaluated. We have decided to combine duplex and multi- family because we think they act the same way in terms of their domestic use and their irrigation usage as well. We are recommending that you add a domestic element to the multi- family fee of about $490, and an irrigation fee of $.27 per sq. ft. of lot area. That's the largest change," he concluded. Water Board Minutes July 23, 1998 Page 6 He went on to say another area that changed slightly was the commercial PIFs, but they have only changed a few dollars "here and there. We looked at the usage data again and found a couple of things that we want to do a little differently." He referred to comparison data on p. 10 of the handout. "We thought it would be useful to compare single family PIFs by lot area" The lot size is on the left hand side of the chart They showed Water existing/proposed and Wastewater existing/proposed and the total. "It is hard to characterize what a typical lot size is in Fort Collins. I used 7,000 sq. ft. because it happens to be in the middle of the chart." Now the existing water PIF for 7,000 sq. ft. is $2,080. We are proposing that it be increased to $2,850. Wastewater is not affected by lot size. The existing fee is $1600 and the proposed fee is $1,030. The net effect for a 7,000 sq. ft. lot size is an increase of $200; about a 5% increase. He said it was interesting to note that the water fee has not changed since 1991, so it's been over 7 years. The wastewater fee has not changed since 1984 for single family. There was an adjustment in 1991 for commercial wastewater PIFs. He referred to p. 11, a comparison of Fort Collins single family PIFs with other front range cities and area water districts. "Your relative position has basically not changed for a 7,000 sq. ft. lot size," he said. Proposed is 4th from the bottom comparing 7 entities and 2nd from the bottom for existing. If it were an 8,000 sq. ft. lot size, the total would be $4,200 water and wastewater combined. He went on to commercial. That is a different story. "We picked a meter size that we thought was representative of commercial which is 1 inch," he explained. Currently, a 1 inch commercial tap would pay nearly $11,000 combined water and wastewater. The proposed would go to nearly $22,000, almost double. At this point, Mr. Gallagher asked for comments and questions. Tom Brown referred to the comparisons with other front range cities and local district. "Looking at single family, we are a third of Louisville. Are their costs three times what ours are or are they putting other things into their fee?" "I don't know what is in their fee," Mr. Gallagher replied. "We find the comparison is very difficult," he acknowledged, "just for the reason you stated. "Oftentimes water rights are put into a fee or excluded from a fee, for example. Some include the actual physical cost of making the tap which is not a part of the Fort Collins fee. Also there are a number of philosophical differences, I would guess, along the front range as to how you develop a PIF. What facilities would a community like to recover through those fees? How would they state their system capacity? Do they state it on the basis of what is actually being used, or what the total capacity is of the system? And that's an important consideration," he added. Sometimes a community will also make a judgement as to the relationship of how E E Water Board Minutes July 23, 1998 Page 7 much they want to encourage growth in the single family sector or if they want to have commercial pay for more than their share. "But our single family and commercial are both calculated in the same basic approach, Mr. Brown said. "Yes, exactly the same basic approach," Mr. Gallagher responded. Mr. Brown had another question about the future. "If I remember correctly, we were proposing to update these numbers annually based on inflation; is that correct?" Mr. Gallagher pointed out the numbers on p. 4, a calculation of the water PIF unit charge. "This is a five-year projection. If we use the average number of $3.39 in the lower right hand corner, as the basis for PIFs, I don't know how often we intend to update these," he said. Wendy Williams said there was discussion earlier of modifying it every year to build inflation in. Mr. Gallagher built 4% inflation into the numbers, so we don't need to modify them every year. This will stay the same," she said. Mr. Brown asked Ms. Williams to clarify that. "When we originally looked at this we said we would take the average, and then we would take the average and increase it every year by 4% for inflation. That was our major concern in terms of not having it done for so long. One of the things the Board asked staff to do was to build in inflation, so Mr. Gallagher did that early on, so it is already included in the numbers you are seeing." "If you went on an annual basis, this bottom line would serve as a pretty good measure, the fee basis would be in 1998, $2.79; in 1999, $3.31, etc.," Mr. Gallagher pointed out. "We are seeing in our experience, more and more communities using a 5-year average, and not adjusting the fee but every five years," he said, "and they build in inflation." "What does the table on p. 4 say?" Mr. Brown continued. "This table is the basis for developing the unit charge per gallon per day of peak demand," Mr. Gallagher explained. "Line one is the system replacement value and in that line is your historical plant investment and your projected future capital investment. We have inflated the value 4% per year of both those elements in line one. We have taken into account an expected increase in the value of the system over a five year period and then taken an average. "So the inflation factor is already included in each one of those yearly figures?" David Lauer asked. "That's correct," Mr. Gallagher answered. Ms. Williams explained that the Board asked staff to do two things: "you wanted us to build in inflation, and use a five-year average unit charge rate rather than modifying the fee as the unit charges change due to capacity changes." "So up to the year 2002, you are going to take this average of $3.39 and add 4% on to it?" Mr. Lauer asked. "No, the 41/6 is built into the system replacement value," Ms. Williams replied, "which is part of the calculation of the unit." "If inflation had not been included in this, the $3.39 would be a lower number," Mr. Gallagher clarified. Mr. Brown reiterated, "so you are charging the average for all five years, and then at the end of 5 years, this will be re -calculated." "That's correct." Mr. Gallagher responded. Water Board Minutes July 23, 1998 Page 8 Mr. Lauer asked Mr. Gallagher to explain what the factors are for wastewater being reduced on a 7,000 lot. "The decrease in the wastewater PIP is a difficult question to answer," Mr. Gallagher acknowledged, "because I don't know how the current $1600 fee was developed. It was actually developed in 1984. It's hard to know why there is this reduction without some detailed research into the 1984 rates." "Isn't the short answer to your question the fact that we now have the three month wintertime usage data that we didn't have before?" Paul Clopper wondered. "That's very possible because the advent of meters has given us a data base," Mr. Gallagher said. The wastewater PIF for the whole year is calculated on the data that was collected for the 3-month winter quarter consumption average. When it was done in 1984, Ms. Williams explained that the best we can figure out, based on the numbers that we used, is it was estimated on numbers based on the whole system. "As you mentioned, we also have the winter quarter consumption data now. We now have several years of data, so we can base it on actual data. We are more confident with the numbers we have now," she added. "If they were developed the same way, there are a couple of things to factor in, one is the advent of meters. The second is that new homes have more water saving devices in them, and that might have an effect also," Mr. Gallagher related. Mr. Clopper had two questions. "You mentioned that multi -family has two components now, one being the outside use based on square footage. Is the square footage the entire footprint of the development or is it just the green irrigated area?" "We look at the total amount, but then we take 501/o which is what we figure is the irrigated portion of the multi -family," Ms. Williams replied. "For single family residential we take 60% of it," she added. "The $.32 per sq. ft. for single family is based on total lot size. I don't think it's practical, but if you wished to measure just the irrigated space, then the $.32 rate would not be appropriate," Mr. Gallagher said. "You would need to charge $.53 per sq. ft. for just the irrigated space. We assumed, based on the information staff had, that 60% of the lot size is irrigated space, therefore we are recommending that you charge $.32 for the whole lot size." Mr. Clopper's second question concerned p.6, the proposed commercial water PIFs. "There is a drastic change in PIFs. What reaction, if any, have you had from the commercial public that we deal with? "Not any to date, but I suspect we will get that when we give this presentation to the Chamber of Commerce," Ms. Williams replied. "The only people who attended the open house were from the Homebuilders Association representing residential, and there was very little impact there, so it wasn't a big issue." "I think the way we answered that question last time, is that these numbers are based on hard fast data now," Mr. Clopper recalled. "That's right," Ms. Williams said. Mike Smith referred to David Lauer's question earlier. "In 1991 we changed the commercial PIFs, and we also checked the residential and it came out to be close to $1600, so we had to a Water Board Minutes July 23, 1998 Page 9 change it. Back then, when we didn't have solid data, we were assuming 325 gallons per day per unit. On p.8, with current data, the single family wastewater flow is now 180 gpd per unit. The dollar amount was $4.83 instead of $5.74. That's using gross system assumptions versus actual data," he explained. George Reed wondered if these fees are waived and under what circumstances are they waived? "The Utility doesn't waive them. The City Council has an opportunity to waive these. If they do it, the General Fund pays for the refunds or rebates the PIF back to the developer," Mr. Smith responded. ACTION: Motion and Vote Mr. Clopper asked for a motion. Joe Bergquist moved that the Water Board recommend the proposed water and wastewater PIFs. Tom Brown seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Bob Smith brought handouts on Project Impact for Fort Collins, a Synopsis of Community Convening Issues and Ideas as addressed on 7/16/98 and Project Impact (PI) Messages. Some of those messages were: "Project Impact is not a grant program. It is an initiative to help communities build their own capabilities to reduce the effects of disasters. Project Impact is not the domain of emergency management. It is a community -wide initiative. Resources for this effort can be provided by anyone who has an interest in creating a safer, stronger community. Project Impact recognizes those communities that are already taking actions through local partnerships to address local natural hazard threats." Bob Smith reported that Fort Collins is the only community in Colorado that is part of Project Impact. He describes the program as being a more pro -active arena rather than reactive. PI will come into a community and encourage partnerships to perform different types of activities to reduce the impacts that disasters have on communities. The reason they chose Fort Collins is because of the successful work the City has done in the past to reduce the impact of disasters and to expand on what has already been done. Mr. Smith said there were about 80 people at the kickoff meeting that was held on July 16th. Several business, insurance companies, ATT, City Staff and state and federal government representatives were there. "We began by talking about community accomplishments. What happened after the flood last year and what were some things that happened that people felt good about?" he related. One of the things that was shared was that Everett Enterprises provided free housing for 2 employees whose homes were damaged in the flood. It wasn't just local governments Water Board Minutes July 23, 1998 Page 10 that took care of those kinds of things. That was an example of partnering where businesses can help and the community doesn't have to just rely on the local government. Next on the agenda was to write down some of the hazards in Fort Collins. "Some of the hazards we identified were flooding on the Poudre, flash floods, earthquakes, high winds, lightening, wildfires, drought, terrorism or sabotage, hazardous materials, tornados, ice storms, blizzards, etc. It's not just floods they work on; it's every kind of hazard." They then looked at different types of solutions in different categories including Education and Training; Planning and Risk Identification; Interagency Communication and Partnerships; Warning and Notification; Incentives; and Public Policy and Regulation. They broke into groups to identify what can be done to mitigate or reduce the effects of disasters. "Once we had those identified, people were asked to vote for what they thought should be given the highest priority. Mr. Smith pointed out in the first category, Education and Training, that `Create an ongoing public awareness and education campaign to alert individuals of potential hazards in the community and resources available for prevention,' was given the highest priority." Under Public Policy and Regulation, "Restrict building in flood -prone or other hazardous areas," was given the highest priority. "That was the highest vote given in the strategies that were identified," he noted. Pages 7-13 show what those in attendance said they could do to help implement these strategies. Mr. Smith said the actual signing of Project Impact will take place on August 27th. The initial step of the Committee was to assign a half million dollars to go into an early warning system. That was one of the items under education. Mike Smith mentioned that Bob Smith had told the Board at an earlier meeting about the Disaster Risk Communities. "It started as being the Disaster Risk Community; now it's called Project Impact," B. Smith explained. "They designated 7 communities in the nation last year, and Fort Collins is part of this years program and is the only one in Colorado." Joe Bergquist pointed out if you look at Public Policy and Regulation, no. 2 on the list is almost the same as no. 1. "These were actual comments that were grouped together," Mr. Smith replied. He said there will be a full report. "This is just a "sneak preview"of the strategies." Treated Water Production Summary Beth Molenaar reported that June was actually up and down, but came out about 20% of average. She referred to a graph showing the fluctuations in the water use for the year so far. "July has been interesting,"she said. On June 27th there was a peak of 56.7. "I thought that was going to be it because we usually peak around the 4th of July. We did it again on Water Board Minutes July 23, 1998 Page 11 Monday at 59.3. We were really taxing the water treatment plant, but they did just great. They held production right up there for days on end. The Water District was using about 6 mgd during that period when we were taking close to 60," she explained. "Our compliments to the treatment plant," she concluded. Mike Smith related that last year they had a similar situation and they had some real struggles with the plant operation. That thing is humming right now," he stressed. "In fact that was two weeks before the flood when it was extremely hot and dry," Paul Clopper recalled. "We were running on the ragged edge!" "They put more water through the plant these past few weeks than they ever have," Mr. Smith said. "What kinds of changes did they make?" Mr. Clopper asked. "Operational; the way they handle things. They also changed the chemical doses a little bit," Mr. Smith replied. "They are looking at some other potential changes," he added. Mrs. Molenaar referred to the large drop in usage the last couple of days. "We received about '/z in. of rain a couple of days ago and about .05 yesterday. Although the southern part of town received very little, there was still a significant drop in usage," she said. Robert Ward asked what the actual capacity of the plant is. "They can treat a little over 70 mgd in the plant. The question is how long they can keep that up," Mr. Smith responded. "Last year they couldn't get that through it. They had trouble with a little over 60. This year they had it running at times over 70," he said. "The amount of water that comes into the plant and comes out are two different things," Mrs. Molenaar pointed out. Gale McGaha Miller explained that we are not recycling backwash water this year. When we were recycling backwash water through the plant, it shortened the filter run time. Now the filter run times are longer and we produce more even though we use more raw water. "I forget that was one of the changes that helped too," Mr. Smith said. Rainfall Study Susan Hayes said the final rainfall study report is in. "The Task Force should be meeting the week of August loth," she said. "That will give us some time to make some changes and hopefully get it back to the Board in August. We will at least have this information. I'm not sure if we will have all the information with respect to development impacts. We should at least have a recommendation from the Task Force. "Is it too early to give us a synopsis?" Mr. Lauer asked. "Depending on which analysis you look at, whether it's the local analysis or a regional analysis, our current 2.9" could go up by over one inch or it could go up over '/z inch. The latter would be a regional scale analysis." "How big is that region?" Mr. Lauer asked. "It's Fort Collins, Boulder and Longmont," she replied. "The NOAA region is larger, and we thought that was inappropriate. No matter what we come up with, it is going to be different from what NOAA comes up with in their numerical studies." Water Board Minutes July 23, 1998 Page 12 "Is that report a compilation of facts and technical analyses, or does it actually have recommendations?" Mr. Clopper asked. "At one time we were talking about separating the west side from the east side. Does any of that kind of thing show up in there?" "Yes, we did the qualitative study and there is a recommendation about that. There are actually two recommendations related to the rainfall, one that came from a graduate student at CSU and one from WRC, our consultant. The Task Force will have to decide which recommendation will be from them. In August or September we would like to come back with a recommendation about the impacts on new development that will result with the increase in rainfall." "Are those impacts going to be dollar amounts or just size?" Mr. Bergquist asked. "Where we can put dollars to it we will," Ms. Hayes responded. "I think we will be able to do that with new development. When it comes to our own facilities, we can use estimates of costs." "Is there a chance a completed project is going to come back with the need to upsize it?" Mr. Morris asked. "Yes," Ms. Hayes replied. "And all the rate numbers we showed you earlier will change," Mike Smith added. Possible Research Station for Black Footed Ferret at Meadow Springs Ranch Board members were given a brochure on the Black Footed Ferret. Mike Smith reported that the Fish and Wildlife Service is interested in re -locating their national Black Footed Ferret Conservation Center to Northern Colorado and possibly to the City's Meadow Springs Ranch. Council member Bill Bertchy has become involved in this project and has asked the Council to endorse it, and they did that at their last council meeting. "The Board will be seeing this," he said, "because, if Fish & Wildlife finds a parcel of land on the Ranch that works for them, we will recommend to the Council to sell property to them. It would be no more than 20-30 acres," Mr. Smith explained. "Will this include the construction of buildings including some range for Ferrets?" Mr. Lauer asked. "Yes," Mr. Smith replied, "but the Ferrets will all be inside their facility." Research has revealed that Ferrets survive better if they are raised in outdoor pens rather than inside. "Will they introduce them elsewhere in the Rocky Mountain region?" Mr. Lauer continued. "Yes, they have sites in Montana and are looking at sites in South Dakota, Wyoming and Arizona. They are currently looking at a site in western Colorado," Mr. Smith responded. Mr. Smith said the Fish & Wildlife Service currently leases a site in Wyoming, but they would like to re -locate to a permanent facility where they can expand because they are limited there. Their leaders have convinced Congress that they need a new site, and they have received the funding. "Who is actually doing the on -site survey of the different habitat areas on the Ranch?" Mr. Clopper asked. "The Fish & Wildlife and and Resource Recovery staff," Mr. Smith replied. 0 Water Board Minutes July 23, 1998 Page 13 "Is there any down side to this?" Mr. Reed asked. "Not really," Mr. Smith answered. "They don't see any conflict with our operation at the 23 acres they might take up." They would like to have their research center close to a university and a major population center where there is housing and other amenities for their employees. "It seems like a good use for a few acres at the Ranch. It's also a good thing for the community. People won't be allowed to see the ferrets, but they will have an education and demonstration center." Robert Ward asked if there would be a restriction of our operations if they owned that land. "They don't want a lot of activity; farm and agricultural activity is no problem, but they wouldn't want to be near a busy highway, particularly during breeding season," Mr. Smith explained. "Have the acres for the potential site been used for sludge distribution?" Mr. Lauer asked. "Not yet, but we could apply right next to them and it wouldn't bother them," Mr. Smith said. "They will probably look at sites on the east side of the Ranch and south of the headquarters building," he added. Proposal to Change Policy Related to Development in Designated Floodplains The Conservation and Public Education and Engineering Committees met jointly to fmalize a position paper on development in the 100-year floodplain. None of the other committees met. The Conservation and Public Education and Engineering Committees met at 2:00 prior to the Board meeting to work on the draft position paper. That revised copy was distributed at the Water Board meeting for their review and approval. David Lauer reported that the Committees have been working on this paper for the last three meetings. "What we are asking the Board to do today is recommend to the Council that the City tighten up the policy on development in the floodplain, not only as a result of what happened on July 28, 1997, but also because of the increasing pressure that other City advisory Boards have been experiencing as far as people wanting to develop on floodplain areas in the City." The Committees came up with the draft statement that Board members received today. "We would ask the Council to make a policy statement that would change City Code and three other policies the City has: Floodplain Management Policy, Master Plans that are basin by basin, and the Design Criteria that the Committees summarized on the back sheet of the statement. Water Board Minutes July 23, 1998 Page 14 Note: There was a great deal of discussion about the draft statement, but the tape failed to record at this point. Following is the entire text of the revised draft which was sent to the Mayor and City Council Members and the City Manager. Copies were also included in the Water Board packets: Fort Collins Water Board Conservation & Public Education Committee Engineering Committee Utilities Staff The goal of floodplain management is to reduce the adverse effects of flooding by modijying human activity in the floodplain. In short, keep people away from the water, instead of keeping the water away from the people. Water Management Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources Although the frequency of rain or snowfall may increase slightly, the most probable effect is that the average amount ofprecipitation in any given event will be greater, says Thomas Karl, a climate analyst at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In areas already prone to flooding, erosion or both, that may be a dire prognosis. It is also likely that increased precipitation would be extremely uneven ... Curt Suplee, science writer National Geographic, May 1998 Filling wetlands and pavingparking lots eliminate the floodplain's natural ability to absorb river overflow during the flood season. The intensive use offloodplains for agriculture, transportation and industrial and residential development exposes more property to flood damage, increasing the cost of flood losses. American Rivers newsletter, Spring 1998 This statement is the result of joint meetings in May, June and July of the Conservation and Public Education and Engineering Committees of the Fort Collins Water Board and members of the Utilities staff. These meetings were in response to concern voiced by the Planning and Zoning Board, Utilities staff and members of the Water Board regarding current City policy governing development in designated floodplains. Water Board Minutes July 23, 1998 Page 15 Severe flooding on July 28, 1997, a joint meeting of the Planning and Zoning and Water Boards a few months ago and subsequent discussion have culminated in the feeling that the City should change its policy regarding new development and redevelopment in these danger -prone areas. Under current policy, development of various kinds is permitted in the 100-year floodplain. To bring the policy in line with current thinking, the Water Board recommends that the City of Fort Collins adopt measures to further restrict development or redevelopment of lands within a designated floodplain or drainageway such that: • The health, safety and welfare of the City's inhabitants and their property are safeguarded and protected. • Emergency response demands are reduced. • Flood damage is reduced by ensuring surface waters are properly drained. • Natural resources, wetlands, riparian areas and the aesthetics of open lands are created, enhanced or preserved. These restrictions will be implemented through changes to the City Code, floodplain management policy, basin master plans and design criteria based on the particular type of floodplain. General categories are described below. This may result in more restrictive criteria in some basins than are currently in effect. Fort Collins Floodplain Types by Basin Any future alteration, enhancement or impact under any of these categories should be executed in a way that improves the riparian state of the existing stream corridor. The exact means of implementation, such as financial implications, changes to the City Code, design criteria, and basin master plans, of this recommendation will be determined through various community outreach activities. Urbanized Floodplain Floodplains in this category have seen large impacts from urbanization. Stream corridors are virtually non-existent in many areas because they exist within storm sewers or are encroached severely by development. Basins fitting this description are Old Town, Canal Importation, Fox Meadows and Evergreen Park/Greenbriar. Water Board Minutes July 23, 1998 Page 16 Modified Floodplain Floodplains in this category have pockets of both riparian stream sections and urbanized sections In some locations the stream is still in its natural state with riparian areas that have native edges and other sections that are highly urbanized and have been significantly altered by man-made structures. Basins fitting this description are Spring Creel, West Vine, Foothills, McClelland/Mail Creek and Dry Creek Riparian Floodplain Floodplains in this category are predominantly natural, open lands with diverse aquatic and riparian habitats with meandering stream corridors and native vegetation. Basins fitting this description are Poudre River, Fossil Creek and Boxelder/Cooper Slough. ACTION: Motion and Vote After considerable discussion, Joe Bergquist moved that the Board recommend to the City Council that the City of Fort Collins adopt a policy restricting development or redevelopment of land within a designated floodplain or drainageway in accordance with the five measures listed earlier. Note: Two measures were suggested by Board members and added to the three that staff and the Committees had originally listed. The draft document above includes the revisions. Tom Brown seconded the motion. The Board directed staff and members of the committees to write a draft policy and determine what changes need to be made. The Board voted unanimously for the motion. OTHER BUSINESS Molly Nortier reported that the Council re -appointed Dave Frick to the Board. Howard Goldman was not reappointed. The Board is now down to the required 11 members. There will be a farewell reception for Howard Goldman at the September meeting. ADJOURNMENT Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:58 p.m. Water Board Secretary