Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 05/27/1998WATER BOARD MINUTES May 27, 1998 3:10 - 5:15 p.m. Fort Collins Utilities Training Room 700 Wood Street COUNCIL LIAISON Chuck Wanner - not present STAFF SUPPORT PERSON Molly Nortier - 221-6681 WATER BOARD CHAIRPERSON Paul Clopper - 223-5556 MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Clopper, Chair, Alison Adams, Vice Chair, Dave Rau, Howard Goldman, Robert Ward, David Lauer, Dave Frick, Joe Bergquist, George Reed STAFF Mike Smith, Wendy Williams, Dave Agee, Gale McGaha Miller, Dennis Bode, Ellen Alward, Bob Smith, Link Mueller, Bill Switzer, Marsha Hilmes, Susan Hayes, Matt Fater, Sue Paquette, Molly Nortier GUESTS John Bigham - Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District IST HAS 1:) lxvgl*110-;11 Chairman Paul Clopper opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: MR�UTES The minutes of April 23, 1998 will be approved at the June meeting. Water Board Mmutes May 27, 1998 Page 2 I ii John Bigham began by saying that Granby is about 9 feet from being full. The flows on the east side are coming up and may peak soon. "It appears that we will have an earlier peak than normal this year," he added. He concluded that everything is going along very well. George Reed has noticed that Horsetooth reservoir seems to be going down pretty fast, and he wondered why. "Yes, purposely," Mr. Bigham said. "We are bringing it down about 20-30 feet." Consultants have been hired to do some observations relating to seepage and potential leaks. The last 34 years the water in Horsetooth has been extremely high. As a result there has been considerable pressure on the dam, and they want to bring it down so they can examine it. He is anticipating that there will be a preliminary report soon. Wendy Williams announced that June will be John Bigham's last meeting with the Water Board because he is preparing to retire. She said there will be a farewell reception for him next month. • : �►.: r ; lu1• • • � . „� .r � 1. �Iiae� "As you recall from the last meeting," Dave Agee began, "we showed you some options: pay-as-you- go and debt financing as far as keeping it on a basin only concept, or some numbers for what it could look like if the City as a whole were to pay for the improvements in the Canal Importation and Old Town Basins." The Board requested that staff run some real numbers indicating how it would look to do this on a citywide basis. "In other words, is there enough money, not only to do these improvements in the two basins, but to do the improvements in the other basins as well?" he said. Mr. Agee acknowledged Link Mueller's efforts in coming up with completion costs for all the master plan projects, and that was basically $68 million: Canal Importation = $23.6 million Old Town = $14.3 million All Others = $29.8 million Mr. Agee prepared a spread sheet that showed the scheduled master plan completion dates, master plan completion costs and revised completion costs for all the basins. Several of those were scheduled to be completed by the year 2002 and into 2039 for Dry Creek. The second column shows what those completion costs would be when the master plan was adopted, less costs that were spent. The third column shows the revised numbers, basin by basin, for what staff thinks it will take to complete all the construction. "It's not going to take too much to finish the first three, Spring Creek, Fox Meadows and Foothills, and also McClelland/Mail Creek," he said. Water Board Minutes May 27, 1998 Page 3 "One thing that is going to be absolutely critical," he said, "as we think about this, is that we are going to have to prioritize all the projects. No matter how this is done, from an engineering standpoint, they can't all be done at once," he emphasized. From an engineering standpoint, a 5-year plan is probably not doable. He clarified that the 10-year schedule doesn't contemplate that we would have everything done in 10 years, "but it does anticipate that we would borrow enough within 10 years to build everything in the Canal Importation Basin and the Old Town Basin. In addition, we would have a pay-as-you-go program of about $2 million a year, and a little over, with which we would be constructing other improvements in other basins. In a 10-year period about $20 million worth of improvements would be completed, leaving, based on figures we just saw, about another $10 million to go. If we were to do that, here is what it would look like. (Remember $3.58 per ERU is what the current rate is in all the basins.): City -Wide - Debt and Pay-as-you-go 10-year construction schedule • 1999 - $5.62/mo • 2002 - $6.21/mo • 2005 - $6.58/mo • 2007 - $7.25/mo He pointed out that the 1999 number would be an increase of $2.04/mo over the current rate of $3.58; 2002 - $2.63 more; 2005 - $3.00 over; and 2007 - $3.67. Staff decided to run a 15-year construction schedule and what they found was that we would initially have to increase the rates by about $.83/mo, but because we would plan to stretch the debt out over a lot longer time, in 2002, based on current dollars, that would be the last increase we would have to make. "What happens is the growth factor makes up for it. At $5.25/mo, with growth of 4% projected in there, that basically keeps up with the costs. Even though you are continuing to borrow more money, you don't have to raise your rates because the revenue is keeping up with it," he explained. Under that scenario: City -Wide - Debt & Pay-as-you-go 15-year construction schedule 1999 - $4.41/mo 2002 - $5.25/mo Water Board Minutes May 27, 1998 Page 4 Mr. Agee continued by saying that the Board talked about a surcharge at the last meeting. Staff compiled some figures including that scenario. "If we had the Canal Importation Basin paying for its own improvements, the fee, for example in 1999 would have to go to $10.00/mo." Canal Debt Financing-10-year construction schedule Basin •-.111ith City -Wide Surc+• 1999 - $10.00/mo $ 5.00/mo ($ .73 surcharge) 2002 - $12.50/mo $ 6.25/mo ($ .84 surcharge) 2007 - $24.17/mo $12.09/mo ($1.40 surcharge) If the basin would pay half of that and we would add a surcharge for the rest of the City, the figures are shown in the second column. For example, with the citywide surcharge, half of that would be $5.00/mo The rest of the ERUs within the other basins of the City would have to pay a $ .73 surcharge starting in 1999. Old Town Debt Financing -10-year construction schedule • 111off MmAT.. 1999 - $10.00/mo $ 5.00/mo ($ .69 surcharge) 2003 - $13.50/mo $ 6.75/mo ($ .79 surcharge) 2007 - $15.75/mo $ 7.88/mo ($ .77 surcharge) He said one of the disadvantages staff sees using this scenario, even though it helps those other basins financially, it doesn't offer the same advantages as the citywide approach which is "we would have a pool of money to use for construction. Some of that is going to come from debt and some will come from reserves and some is pay-as-you-go. It gives us a lot more flexibility." He concluded by relating what staff is looking for today. "We aren't asking you to select a set of numbers, because there is a lot more work that has to go into this before we know what the actual numbers are going to look like. In addition, there are things like inflation that have not been factored in." Staff needs to hear from the Board what approach they would like that could be recommended to City Council. "We are planning to go to a Council study session on July 28. We will walk the Council through what the Board looked at and then we would give them a recommendation from the Board. We would also like to hear from you what kind of construction schedule you are looking at. Do you want us to have the whole thing done in 10 years or do you want it done in 15 years, for example? Do you want the two basins we are talking about done in 10 years and stretch the other out?" Water Board Minutes May 27, 1998 Page 5 Discussion Robert Ward asked why there was such a large increase in Canal Im plan to the current master plan. "Is that the result of the flood poin were a couple of things," Link Mueller answered. "We noticed thei construction costs with regard to a number of the improvemei concrete lined channels, and the numbers that were used with the those types of channels and the narrow right-of-way. Also, there design tendencies. There were several large projects within the ba. plan; Plum Channel was one, which is a west/east tributary north the same type of westleast tributary south of Elizabeth. lortation from the original master ing out some problems?" "There was a significant increase in the is that are being proposed, e.g. L There is difficulty constructing are increases in the construction n that weren't part of the master :)fElizabeth, Clearview Channel, Joe Bergquist wondered, with a 10-15-year schedule, "do you real ly see the projects proceeding all at once, or do you see some at the end?" "In any case we would prioritize and do a few each year and spread it out over the 10-year period," Mr. Agee replied. "Even with the financing, we wouldn't finance it all at once, we would wait until the money was needed to borrow it," he added. "Have you factored in inflation?" Mr. Bergquist asked. "No," Mr. Agee said Mr. Frick referred to the scenario where the surcharge is added. "Y of the basins. How much does that increase as compared to the throughout the basins. Is there quite a bit of difference?" "Actual million per year in the other basins," Mr. Agee replied. "That's why you -go into the model." "So it's about the same as far as raising Frick concluded. "Yes, approximately," Mr. Agee replied. "What period of bonds in 20 years?" Mr. Frick asked. "That's a prei said. "It sounds to me like 10 years and 15 years are just nice fro: what's doable with the resources that you expect to have, staff an have to have more resources to do 10," M. Smith acknowledged aggressive, but with additional resources we could do it. We woul in 10 years." "What are you spending a year?" "About $2 million averaging between $2.3 and $3.3 million depending upon the proje explained that this isn't like a plant project where you spend the 1 one consultant and a couple of project people to do it. "With this yoe very time consuming, so it's a real project management nightmare. projects," Mr. Meuller stressed. u kept the $3.58/mo for the rest $2 million per year on citywide y, the $3.58 does raise about $2 ve plugged $2 million of pay-as- noney between those two," Mr, y tough question," George Reed i the numbers point of view, but engineering -wise?" "We would "and 15 probably. Ten is pretty be spending some $16+ million 'M. Smith said. "We have been :ts," Mr. Meuller said. M. Smith hole bundle on one project with have a number of projects, each "With Canal alone there are 12 "Is the current project prioritization process that uses matrix sheets and weighting and evaluation, sufficient?" Mr. Reed asked. B. Smith said staff will have to expand that. "Once you know what you have, you can look at how one basin compares to another. It's more complicated than what we had previously." "Does the process have values in there for problem areas?" Mr. Reed continued. "We have public complaints, development pressure, etc.," B. Smith explained. "It's going to be a bigger Water Board Minutes May 27, 1998 Page 6 job, but you basically have the structure," Mr. Reed said. "I think so; the fundamental questions are still there." B. Smith responded. "Why did these basins get dropped when they had such a large amount of work left?" Joe Bergquist asked. "We just adopted the master plan for Old Town about 2-3 years ago," B. Smith replied. "Canal has been difficult because there is such a variety of problems." "With all the meetings, are the people beginning to understand that?" Mr. Bergquist wondered. "I think so," B. Smith answered. "I think they heard that, but they would like to see it done sooner. "I'm not sure they really want to understand," M. Smith added. "Essentially they are saying, `how did you let this happen?"' Mr. Reed pointed out that Gina Janette, former council member, was concerned about keeping the costs per month low in the Old Town Basin, her election district, because there are a lot of citizens with fixed incomes there." Mr. Reed continued by saying, from the administrative and accounting point of view, is a surcharge a nightmare, or would current billing and computers help alleviate that? "Is it a difficult and expensive kind of a thing to handle?" "Yes, it's more costly to do," M. Smith replied. "We had a discussion yesterday as to whether the new system would handle surcharges, and it was determined that there would probably have to be modifications made to the system." "We are going to be doing that anyway for existing surcharges," Ms. Williams pointed out. "I'm not sure I would let the administrative charges sway you one way or another," M. Smith advised. Mr. Clopper reiterated that the two general areas the Board needs to come to resolution about today are the funding philosophy and the time frame. "We will take them one at a time." He began with the funding issue. Funding Philosophy - Citywide, basin specific or surcharge combination approaches Mr. Lauer liked the simple elegance of citywide funding without any complications. "The arguments that the Avery Neighborhood Assn. related in their memo to the Board makes sense," he said. "I think it makes sense for the City to assess fees the way other City services are assessed." "On the other hand, those costs for improvements vary depending on the real estate you buy," Dave Rau said, "but our water service costs the same no matter where you live. "That's only because we choose to do water service that way," Mr. Agee said. "In theory, somebody right next to the water plant would pay less for water service than somebody 10 miles away, but we have chosen to design our fees in such a way that everybody pays the same." "Does the philosophy on citywide versus basin have anything to do with whether we finance this or pay-as-you-go?" Ms. Adams asked. "Chuck Wanner keeps asking about benefit/cost analysis over finance charges. I haven't seen where we have done that analysis yet. I wanted to make sure our Water Board Minutes May 27, 1998 Page 7 discussion about the philosophy of citywide vs. basin didn't get enmeshed with whether that's bonded or pay-as-you-go, or is that a separate question?" "It's somewhat a separate question," Mr. Agee said. "I think what we would do, given the time frame, is design a rate and a financial plan to build it within that time frame at the cheapest possible cost," he explained. "Most likely, under either of these scenarios, because of the need to get the work going, we would need to borrow some to get going. That's why we ended with a combination of debt and pay-as-you-go." "Even under the citywide or basin plan, you would just structure the money coming in so there would always be some sort of a positive benefittcost analysis result?" Ms. Adams asked. "That's right," Mr. Agee responded. "I wasn't here last month. Did the Board talk about how the surplus that is available, would be used?" Mr. Bergquist asked. "That's built into the model," Mr. Agee said. "As of the end of 1997, we had $6.1 million on hand in the basins, and that will be used as part of this plan on either the 10 or 15-year scenario." "Does it go back into the basin it came from?" Mr. Bergquist continued. "Not necessarily, if we go citywide it's money available," Mr. Agee explained. Mr. Rau had a problem going citywide because, historically, things have been done by basin; and people have paid by basin, some basins have paid for their improvements, and now they are being asked to pay for other basins' improvements as well. Properties were designed such that they could convey the stormwater flows that needed to be conveyed and those costs were paid by the developer which the homeowner paid. "To me, paying by basin is a lot fairer," he concluded. "One of the things we have done in prioritizing the projects is borrow between basins, and the basins are paid back with interest," Mr. Agee related. "That is somewhat a citywide concept." "Yes, but it's still allocated by basin," Mr. Rau insisted. "Frankly, we are not comfortable with basins borrowing from one another, because the unfortunate thing is that you have to manage your money closely when you do that. Sometimes a basin has a problem and can't get out of it, and we want to avoid that," Mr. Agee remarked. "Does staff have a preference on this?" Mr. Clopper asked. "This is a tough one," M. Smith acknowledged. "It's a policy issue for the Board. It comes down to one of timing of improvements for two basins which are not the most affluent areas of the City as far as being able to pay for those improvements. We ask, can these two basins afford to pay $10-30/mo? Probably not; so if you gave them a choice of what they can afford, it would probably be the $5-6 range, and they won't get the improvements done for quite a number of years. Is that something we want to do?" he asked. "Are we going to say we can't provide you protection from the 100-year event for 20 years while other parts of the City are covered?" "Unlike a lot of services the City provides, the City grew for most of its history without a storm drainage system," Mr. Rau pointed out. He has been watching Old Town reject paying for stormwater improvments for many years, "and now we are asking everybody in the City to pay for those improvements. To me a lot of that cost is built into the value of the real estate. If you go into a new area that was built 5 years ago, the cost of those storm drainage improvements showed up when they bought a lot, so they are paying twice," he contends. "I don't think they are actually paying twice," Mr. Reed began. "W have a new reality now because of the recent flood. We paid partially for the Water Board Minutes May 27, 1998 Page 8 piece of property that our house is on, but we don't pay anything for protection when we are someplace else in the City. Now we have a new realization that we need to protect some people when they are not at home. In addition, the City had to rally all resources to assist during the flood and with the aftermath of the flood." Mr. Rau thinks it's still unfair for a homeowner who paid for his improvements to be forced to pay again for improvments in another area. "To a certain extent, isn't that a citywide responsibility whatever the City is today," Ms. Adams contends. "Don't we make a change today based on better information and a realization that this is a City? We all move about the City and we should all have equal access to anywhere in the City. We don't just stay at home when it rains hard." Mr. Bergquist asked to return to Mr. Rau's concerns. "People in the basins have been paying the same fees perhaps longer than the people in the new developments," he said. "Those fees have been in existence for more than 20 years." B. Smith verified that the first capital fees were in effect for three basins in 1982. `But as a homeowner you are paying the developer's fee," Mr. Rau reiterated. "When you buy a lot now, there is a lump sum fee that is specifically for stormwater," he said, "but you still pay the $3.58/mo." Mr. Clopper asked Mike Smith to complete his response regarding staffs preference on this issue, then he wants a motion on the funding philosophy. David Lauer wanted to know if it would be a good idea to equalize the property evaluation by standardizing the cost. "The main objection I hear from Mr. Rau is the unequal evaluation." Mr. Rau replied: "Just to be clear, I personally don't have an objection. I'm just playing devil's advocate. To me the numbers don't make that much difference unless you are on a fixed income, but I still anticipate a huge uproar." he stressed. Mike Smith said staff falls on the side of citywide, but it's a tough call because the equity issue is very important. "I think if you look at other improvements throughout the City, the ones we vote on to tax ourselves, are generally for the good of the whole City even though it may appear to benefit only a particular area. I think we have an identified problem where it's fair for the City to say let's address this issue and get all the storm drainage up to a 100-year level within 15 years, or whatever time frame, so we are all on a level playing field. Staff personally doesn't believe that a $30/mo bill would fly anyway, but to leave those people unprotected for another 20 years is not an option. We have a social responsibility to act by finding the best way to take care of the problems that we are charged with," he concluded. Mr. Bergquist asked if the maximum they can probably afford is an increase around $5-6. "I don't really know. The numbers we are showing for citywide are going to get some comments anyway," M. Smith acknowledged. "If we raise the fee from $3.58 to $5 or 6, the homeowners may not say much, but for some of the commercial properties, that will be a significant increase. No matter which way we go, we aren't going to get by without criticism," he said. Water Board Minutes May 27, 1998 Page 9 "I'm leaning towards a surcharge," Mr. Bergquist said, "but $12.00 is still kind of high." "You can put more surcharge on it," M. Smith responded. "A surcharge also works to bring the fee down a little more," he said. "My argument," Mr. Agee began, "if we are going to go higher than half, is that it would be better to go all the way and go citywide because you have more flexibility to manage the money. What you are doing is limiting yourself to tracking it by basin, but almost have a citywide fee anyway." Someone said it seems so arbitrary to pull something out of the hat like that. "I agree," Alison Adams said. "I don't know how many people would be convinced that the surcharge is going to go away after 30 years anyway," she added. She thinks that if you have to balance it out, you are going to have to increase it to where it is a citywide fee anyway to keep the numbers down. ACTION: Motion and Vote on Funding George Reed moved that the Board recommend going with the citywide funding as long as there is a way to assure that new development pays its own way. David Lauer seconded the motion. Further Discussion M. Smith commented that there is considerable merit to assessing a basin by basin development fee to make sure they pay their own way. "That helps you to direct growth out of the high cost areas," Mr. Rau added. "Is it possible to keep track of the development fee by basin and everything else by lump sum?" Mr. Frick asked. "All you have to do is show that you spent, in that basin, what you collected in basin fees," Mr. Agee responded. He explained that excess revenues can be spent on certain things as long as you show that they in fact were spent there. Mr.*Frick asked if there are legal implications about taking the money that has been collected by basin to this point and putting it all into one pot. Mr. Agee said that he and Bob Smith talked to John Duval, Assistant City Attorney, before the last meeting, and it seemed that the preference was citywide. The reasons for that are: (1) All the revenues for the whole system are currently pledged for the bonds even if those bonds are used in particular basins, so in a sense, we are already doing that; and (2) You just need to be able to argue and show a citywide benefit. The arguments Mr. Duval was using were things like, Old Town Basin is where the business center of the Community is; it's where City and County government are, and everybody needs access to that. Everybody derives fire protection and all kinds of services from that location. Mr. Clopper polled each of the members to relate their opinions on the funding issue. "I think it is immoral the way we have been funding it. We should all reap the benefits of doing it citywide," Mr. Goldman contends. He also agrees with the memo provided by the Avery Park neighborhood. Mr. Rau favors the citywide approach. He thinks it needs to be presented articulately and clearly, but he still thinks there will be an uproar. "I'm in favor of citywide; I think it's time for a change," Ms. Adams said. Mr. Clopper said the surcharge method had the flavor of compromise, but it was too arbitrary for him. He was in favor of citywide. Mr. Ward can understand the history of why we had to have the basin approach to get started with stormwater management. "I think I can also appreciate what last summer's storm has done to convince all of us that we are not in little basins, so I'm supportive of the citywide approach." Water Board Minutes May 27, 1998 Page 10 Dave Frick agreed with what has been said. "Maybe when we show the comparisons when we are trying to sell this approach, we can emphasize that the $3.58 probably wouldn't stay constant either even if we didn't do anything" Mr. Agee agreed that the fee probably wouldn't stay the same because the $3.58 was primarily an artificial cap that was established several years back and it hasn't been adjusted for inflation. "We would have to figure that into the plan as we move forward." Mr. Frick added, "If we can show that we can still keep it close to that $24/year, people would probably be willing to pay it." Joe Bergquist thinks the citywide fee is going to be a hard sell. "They have been paying the money and they want to see their improvements. That's why I like the surcharge approach. When Stormwater took this problem to Old Town, they said we'll do it ourselves overtime. He plans to vote against the citywide concept. David Lauer had nothing new to add to his previous comments. George Reed thinks the argument was a good one that the $3.58 would have to go up anyway. "It probably would have gone up by a dollar. Half of the increase would have been a normal escalation." ACTION: VOTE The motion in favor of the citywide funding approach passed 8-1 with Joe Bergquist casting the negative vote for the reasons he cited during the discussion. Time Frame Issue Mr. Clopper reminded the Board that we looked at 10-year and 15-year in the presentation. He asked for discussion. Discussion Mr. Bergquist began by saying that the 15-year is cheaper. Ms. Adams thinks it's a staffing issue. "Do we think there would be a very large increase in staff to do it in 10 years?" "I expect we would need 3-4 people," M. Smith replied. B. Smith pointed out that these projects need a lot of right-of-way negotiations. M. Smith said project costs are project costs. "We just don't have the people to do it." Mr. Mueller added, "particularly in the Old Town and Canal Importation Basins. There will be a lot of citizen negotiations." Mr. Lauer asked if there is going to be a difference if we go to the 15-year plan, in how soon the planning and implementation of those plans are done as opposed to the 10- year? Will it be a longer period of time to do the work?" "The difference between the two plans is just the number of people we have available," Mr. Mueller replied. "If we wanted the 10-year plan, we would probably have to get the people on board now and train them to the point where they could be working on storm drainage projects." "We are just taking the same amount of work and spreading it over 10 year or 15 years," M. Smith emphasized. "When you borrow money and you borrow it at a rate that is more than inflation, you want to wait as long as you can before you have to borrow it." "I don't think a particular project would take any longer, would it?" Mr. Agee asked. "Some of the projects won't be completed for 15 years." M. Smith answered. "The expectations now are Old Town and Canal, and those still would be the highest priority projects," he continued. Mr. Rau thinks that we should not get so overly emotional about last year's storm that we go from 15 to 10 years and start spending extra money. "I think 15 years is a much better pace," he concluded. Water Board Minutes May 27, 1998 Page 11 ACTION: Motion and Vote Mr. Clopper called for a motion. David Lauer moved that construction of basin improvements be on a 15-year schedule. Dave Rau seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously for the motion. Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported that for April treated water use was 1,756 ac-ft which is about 89% of what was projected. "April was a little wetter than normal," he said. "Annually we are pretty close to average although we've had several ups and downs." He referred to the water use graph. For the year we are at 95% of the projected use. He pointed out the SNOTEL information for Joe Wright Reservoir and Dead Man Hill. "We have been running a little below average. The darker line in the middle is the 1998 numbers. We are certainly seeing some melt -of; and we expect the peak, if it stays warm, in the next week or so," he concluded. NCWCD Carryover Program Staff included a memo about the NCWCD Carry-over Program in Water Board packets. Attached was a draft of the evolving modified program dated 4-7-98. Dennis Bode related in the memo sent to the Board that since 1985, the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) has had a carry-over program in which it allowed allottees to carry over CBT water left at the end of one water year into the next year. For the last several years there has been a general recognition that the program needs to be revised to address concerns that have surfaced. During the last six or seven years there have been large quantities of water carried over in individual accounts. This, in turn, has affected the CBT quota that is set each April, causing some inequities among users. The NCWCD Board and staff have been seeking input and discussing various options. They are hoping to modify the program as early as August, 1998. The District staff has prepared a draft proposal of a "Modified Carry-over Program," which is currently under review by the District Board and water users. As stated earlier, draft No. 7, dated 4-7-98 was included in the packets. John Bigham, from the District, brought copies of the latest draft, No. 8, dated 5-26-98, to today's meeting. The Fort Collins Utilities Water Resources staff has been following closely proposals and discussion regarding possible changes to the program and the effect they may have on the City's water supplies. Staff had opportunities at several meetings to review and comment on various ideas that were being discussed. In addition, staff provided District staff with a proposal that Utilities staff believes would improve the carry-over program (attached to District Draft No. 7, dated 5-8-98). Water Board 111inutes May 27, 1998 Page 12 "The NCWCD Board and staff have been receptive to considering the ideas presented by us and other water users in the District," Dennis Bode commented. "Since this item will likely be a subject of much discussion during the next months, you may be hearing more about it. We wanted you to know about some of the ideas that are being discussed." Mr. Bode summarized what drafts 7 and 8 propose: • Allows for the continuation of the carryover program with a couple of major changes: (1) There would be a limit of 20% of what your normal allocation would be based on 100% quota. It would be the limit of what you could carry over any given year. For example, it you had 20,000 units of CBT water, the limit would be 4,000 ac-ft that you could carry over. If you had less than that amount at the end of the year, you could carry over that amount if you wanted to. (2) There would be a charge on the amount of carryover that a user wants to carry over. You would have either until April 1st or May 1st each year to decide on whether you wanted to pay a fee to carry that water over or lose it. If you do not cant' it over, it would go into the big pool. "How does that fee compare to water share cost?" David Lauer asked. "The fee is probably generating the most discussion at this point," Mr. Bode replied. "Initially there were two fees proposed based on the current assessment rates put on any of those units. Originally it was proposed that municipalities would pay $16/ac-ft to carry it over, and ag. users would pay $6.76. More recently there has been discussion of a flat fee, and that is mentioned in draft # 8, and it would be more in the range of $5-10/ac-ft. The fee structure is still being discussed," he said. "I think, for the Utilities, the higher the fee the more likely it would be that we would have to consider it carefully before we would decide to carry it over for the next year." He said that part of the logic behind the fees is that it is looked at by the District as paying for additional storage. Once the water is carried over, it would be treated just like quota water whereas previously there has always been a separate carryover count and you had to use it within a certain period the following summer. The discussion now indicates that it would be treated like regular quota water. There would be no limitations on either using it within a certain period or transferring it to another user. "I think that is moving in the right direction as far as the Utility is concerned," he said. Mr. Bode referred to the proposal that Utilities staff has prepared. It's a simpler proposal which the District is looking at as an idea along with others. "As long as the fee is not too high, I think it's workable for us, and we would still have the significant benefits of participating in the carryover program," he said. He added that staff thinks the carryover program needs to be in place to provide Water Board Minutes May 27, 1998 Page 13 us flexibility at the end of the water year, and it allows different users to use their water in different ways. Fort Collins Water Utilities Carryover Program Proposal Some of the objectives of a carryover program should be: It encourages the efficient use of CBT water, particularly in dry years when supplies are short. 2. It is available, simple and equitable for all water users. 3. It allows an individual user (or entity) some flexibility in managing its water, particularly at the end of the irrigation season or water year. 4. It keeps the total amount carried over small enough so as to not appreciably affect the quota that is set each year. The quota should be set each year to primarily reflect the total supplemental water needs in the District. (However, we all know the weather can change 180 degrees right after the quota is set!) Primary Elements of Utilities' Proposal On November 1 of each year, the District credits to each water user account the lesser of (1) the amount in the account at the end of the water year, and (2) 10% of number of units designated deliverable in each account times 1.0 Ac-ft per unit. 2. The carryover water transferred into each account can be used or transferred in the same way as the quota water. 3. No replacement water will be carried over. Winter use contracts will remain the same. Mr. Bode asked for questions and comments. Mr. Frick pointed out that the Utilities' draft is proposing 10% as the limit and the District is proposing 20%. "We were looking at the existing program and determined that with a little fine tuning, it would solve a lot of problems. Basically the change that we are suggesting is putting a limit on it and we think that 10% is enough if it applies to everybody. It gives you flexibility at the end of the year, and then you let your quota vary to meet most of the needs," Mr. Bode responded. The other change was to eliminate the period of use for the carryover water. "Once you get the carryover water, you put it into your account and it becomes useable or transferrable or whatever." Water Board Nfinutes May 27, 1998 Page 14 "Would either proposal hinder anything the City has done historically?" Mr. Frick asked. "I don't think it would hinder too much," Mr. Bode replied. "The fee part would be new, and that would be linked to administration. If you had the fee you would have to determine how much you wanted to carry over from one year to the next. If the CBT system is filled, then you would probably lose the carryover water and the District would refund the money." "In terms of water, will we get as much as we did historically?" Mr. Frick asked. "I think with a program where you have some limit on it, then the quotas begin to look different. In terms of water, you should get about as much as you always have," Mr. Bode replied. David Rau asked if staff has talked to the District about the Utilities' proposal. "We have had several meetings. I think their Board will be discussing the program at least a couple more times before August." "How is the Board responding?" Mr. Rau continued. "I haven't been to a Board meeting," Mr. Bode answered, "but I understand they feel strongly that there needs to be some kind of administrative charge. I think when you do that, there are some other things that you have to do. "How about period of use?" someone asked. "I understand that Eric Wilkinson discussed that with the Board and they are willing to extend it, Mr. Bode replied. John Bigham said the 20% number is just a way to get some discussion going. "It could be 15%, 10% or 30%, or it could vary year to year according to the hydrology." "Why do you like 10% versus 20%?" Mr. Rau asked. "I think if you go too high in your limits you start affecting the quota. One of the reasons for a limit is not to affect the way the quota is set. I think if you pay for the carryover water, 20% is an appropriate limit because some people won't take advantage of it, so overall, you may still get only 10 or 12% that is carryover water," Mr. Bode explained. "If everybody carries over, then I think you can go with the lower amount and still have flexibility and keep it small enough that you don't affect the quota. "Is it possible that the ag. users would find themselves using closer to 20%?" Mr. Lauer asked. "I think it is more likely that the ag. users will use all of their quota, and some of the water districts and cities may have some left over and are more likely to buy into the carryover program," Mr. Bode responded. Mr. Bigham added that the ag. users are less likely to pay extra. "Are you betting that with 10% on average you will get more water?" George Reed asked. "If everybody is 20% then everything will be full," he added. "I think that's probably true, but it's more the idea that you don't want to carry over too much as a system; maybe about 10% is where you want to be or it starts affecting the way you set the quota," Mr. Bode replied. "If you have charges associated with it, but you have the 20% limit, you probably would get a number of people who would not take the carryover water, so the total on a system -wide basis, is something less and won't affect the quota," he explained. "Does the guaranteed quota program still exist?" someone asked. "The carryover program has cut into ways to save water by keeping it higher in the system and not in the lower system, so when the runoff comes, people will take that. Then you fill the systems in the fall preventing them from taking anything in the spring," Mr. Bigham explained. "If you have an open carryover program, people will actually sign up for more than they need and they waste it. You don't really gain a whole lot, because rI Water Board Minutes May 27, 1998 Page 15 we've had 3 years in a row of a 500/o"quota," he pointed out. "Some people can't use carryover." The District has people complaining to them on both sides. They are trying to work out a compromise that will be equitable to both sides. "If users have to pay a fee for carryover water, they might manage it a little better," he remarked. Mr. Bode thanked the Board for their comments. "I wanted you to know about some of the ideas that are being discussed," he reiterated. Regional 201 Study Gale McGaha Miller reminded the Board that two months ago she had briefed them on the outcome of the public meeting. She brought a copy of the final report. "It's quite thick" she said, but if anyone wants a copy, she will provide one. "The only thing that has been added since the information the Board was given previously, is a copy of a letter from some citizens, and minutes of the two public information sessions. At this point, the top alternative is basically the status quo. That could change based on growth patterns, etc. "What's the next step?" Robert Ward asked. "For us the next step is just to watch the capacity. The consultant tells us that we have sufficient capacity for at least 10 years. "According to this report our best option at this point still remains expansion on existing property. Meanwhile, there are some other issues being discussed by the same entities regarding service areas, boundary adjustments, and possible development in the Timnath area and the Harmony Rd.- I-25 exchange. Unfortunately, the timing of those came up after we finished this report, because they would have been good considerations. Those are the kinds of things that will come up and cause us to look at alternatives 2, 3 and 4 etc. and that's one of the reasons we did a sensitivity analysis on the assumptions included in this report. The sensitivity analysis is included in the report as well. "Is there a recommendation on Boxelder?" Mr. Frick asked. "Boxelder doesn't really want to do anything but continue to expand," Ms. McGaha Miller replied. "One consideration was to tie together Boxelder and South Fort Collins Sanitation District. They have their service areas near the 1-25- Harmony area. For some of that land, we had to make some assumptions about whether or not it was going to develop. A few things are beginning to change so it may start developing. At this point, Boxelder is still not interested in working with us." "Will they be coming back to us for more land," Mr. Frick wondered. "I don't think so," she replied. "They may be talking to other people about more land," she added. "The one segment we argued about a few years ago, was a piece of land that we truly were not making use of. Their case for condemnation probably had some merit to it." "Do we have plans at this point, to enlarge either of our wastewater treatment plants?' David Lauer asked. "We have an ongoing master plan that has planned improvements, and we have completed most of those improvements. We are just finishing up the Mulberry improvements and that is intended to carry us well into the next century; perhaps 2010. This consultant said we didn't need anything until 2020. That was using slightly different assumptions with newer population figures, and it's always extrapolation. One was based on 1989 population figures. The other was based on extrapolations of the 1990 census, updated to 1997. It's continually adjusted." "Even without any Water Board Minutes May 27, 1998 Page 16 upcoming improvements in our wastewater treatment plants, there is the physical area to increase both of them," Mr. Lauer reiterated. "Yes, that's true," she responded. "Our master plan a few years ago recommended that we build a plant at the Ptarmigan site, and now would have been the planning time to put that together," she related. "The need has not yet arisen." Mr. Rau asked if we get questions about that property with the development that has been occurring at that site. "I field several phone calls a month on that topic," she answered, "and I have to tell them that I can't promise that we won't ever build a treatment plant there, but it would be far off into the future. All those half million dollar homes did not exist when we bought that property," she remarked. Drinking Water Policy Annual Report Ms. McGaha Miller said the Drinking Water Policy Annual Report is put out every year as a requirement of the resolution creating the Drinking Water Quality Policy in 1993. "It follows the basic goal of that policy and provides an update on those items. As in the past, there has been continual, steady progress in all phases of water quality, treatment, delivery, protection, etc. We are always looking for ways to improve our efforts for treatment, quality, customer relations, interdepartmental and agency coordination. We are always looking at future needs, whether it applies to future regulations or future water quality issues. George Reed referred to p. 2, under drinking water complaints, the top bar says, "was the problem resolved?" He wondered if there was any typical stereotype problem that frequently is not resolved. "Yes, `my water is brown,"' Ms. McGaha Muller replied. "The question here is, on a scale of 0 or 1-5, we don't even need to start there because we didn't get any scores that low. We are looking at 3-5 with 5 being very satisfied and 3 satisfied," she explained. "I think this chart is a real tribute to the people in this department because of their focus on customers. Some things like willingness to help, time of response are just outstanding," Mr. Reed stated. Ms. McGaha Miller also gave credit to the front office staff who are first in line in that process. "They don't try to answer questions that are beyond their expertise, but they are extremely good about relating to the customers, and they know when to refer them to a more technical person, and, of course, the water quality staff is excellent with customers as well," she concluded. "Partnership for Safe Water" Kick -Off Kevin Gertig distributed information to Board Members and staff about the "Partnership for Safe Water" Program. The Water Treatment Facility will have an open house for the public as a kick-off for the Partnership Program and to celebrate the quality of Fort Collins' water. It will be held at the Water Treatment Facility on West LaPorte Ave. on June 5, 1998 from 10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. There will be tours of the treatment facilities, displays, activities for children and lunch will be provided. He invited Board Members to attend. The Chair of the Water Board plans to be there to present a plaque that proclaims that Fort Collins is a member of the Partnership. All staff members at the treatment facility signed the plaque confirming that they have a commitment to the program. Water Board Minutes May 27, 1998 Page 17 Mr. Gertig explained that the goal of this program is to maximize the effectiveness of water treatment beyond what is required by regulations. This program was created in 1994 after EPA surveyed utilities across the United States and found that approximately 12% or 30 million people across the country had water that didn't meet microbiological, chemical or other parameters at certain periods of time. In 1993, there was a serious outbreak in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, of Cryptosporidium, a parasite that causes intestinal illness. That episode continues to be a benchmark in public health protection for water supply programs. The findings from the survey and that outbreak motivated EPA and other agencies to support the idea of a partnership for safe water. EPA joined with the AW WA and the Association for State Region Water Administrators to create the partnership. Mr. Gertig said that this initiative is a voluntary partnership among government, utilities and water organizations. It incudes a four -phase, self -assessment and peer -review process to help water suppliers examine their water operations, maintenance and management practices to determine where improvements can be made. "This is a nice tie-in with our master plan," he pointed out. He continued by saying that Partnership members must meet current U.S. EPA standards, be in compliance with the Surface Water Treatment Rule for the past six months, have a third party assess their operations, implement recommended improvements, and communicate these efforts to their customers. "Are we meeting those standards? Absolutely, but it is nice to have something from EPA and others to recognize that," he emphasized. "Wastewater treatment facilities have been recognized for years, but water treatment facilities have not," he said, "so this is a unique opportunity." Mr. Gertig said that there is construction planned for the Facility for the next 10 years beginning in the fall, so now is the best time for an open house. He added that they have not done open houses at the plant in the past, so this will be a first. He mentioned that there will be an article in the newspaper, a "soapbox" from the Water Board Chair, and radio announcements about the open house. Rainfall Study Susan Hayes updated the Board on the Precipitation Study Task Force. At their last meeting, they came closer to completion. "We have agreed on the statistical type of analysis methodology we are going to use. We continue to have discussions about whether it should be a regional analysis or strictly with the CSU gauge." She wants the Board to begin thinking about the ramifications of these decisions as the Board enters into the policy making aspect of it in the next month or two. "We will be generating reports the beginning of June. We will review that within the task force, meet again and, hopefully, have something more concrete for the June meeting," she said. "Right now, if you look strictly at the CSU rain gauge versus using regional information, we could see an increase going from 2.89 for a two-hour 100-year storm up to over four inches, depending on the methodology we use, the data we use and how we use it. That is going to be a significant increase. We are also seeing increases in the 6-hour and 24-hour." Ms. Hayes emphasized that they aren't set yet. "We haven't picked a number by any means." As the Board is entering into their policy decisions, she asked the Board what kind of additional information Water Board Minutes May 27, 1998 Page 18 they would like other than just the task force report. "We have already done some initial runs in our models using the higher flows so we know what kind of impact that will have on runoff. It is significant at this point; more than just a percentage increase in precip. creates more of a percentage increase in runoff. Would you like to see cost estimates?" she asked. "Would you like to see how this might widen the floodplain? We definitely want to run these through some of our hydraulic models to see how that increases water surface elevations. Before we do a whole lot of staff work, I want some feedback from you. If you want to think about it, that's fine," she said, "so you don't have to spend a lot oftime today." She said that Water Board members, Tom Sanders, Dave Frick and John Morris are on the task force. Mr. Rau said he would like to see what it will cost. Mr. Frick related that suddenly all the facilities that were okay, now jump back into the need for improvements. Mr. Bergquist asked if it would change FEMA numbers in the floodplain. "Don't they have their own criteria?" "They usually adopt the local hydrology. We probably wouldn't volunteer it," Ms. Hayes replied. "This will have far reaching impacts on everything we do," she stressed. "This is the foundation." She mentioned that the task force had to incorporate some of the extra years of data, so the work was needed anyway. "It's been phenomenally difficult because NOAA lost the first 50 years of data from their original study, so we can't even match original results." She asked the Board to think about the questions she presented so she will know what other information the task force needs to consider. Floodproofing Program Marsha Hilmes reported that staff is kicking off the Floodproofing program. This is one of the mitigation projects that was covered by FEMA after the flood. "Right now we are in the application phase," she said. "We are accepting applications from homeowners and small businesses to do floodproofing on their homes and businesses. The applications are being accepted through June 10th and then we will begin going into the evaluation phase of trying to divide the money as best we can. That will be the difficult part," she added. She said they might be looking for a volunteer from the Board when they begin putting together a committee to evaluate those grants. "As part of this program, staff thought it was important to provide more information to local contractors about different floodproofing techniques. It's not something that is standard and that people do a lot of." There will be a workshop on May 28th in the L&P Training Room from 2:00 - 5:00 p.m. "Our consultants will give most of the presentation. Anyone who is interested is welcome to come and learn more about the program as well as different floodproofing techniques that people can use. We've had a good response from the public in picking up applications. Part of the problem with that is we think the demand is going to exceed the resources we have,"she said. Dave Frick asked how much money is available. "It is $150,000," she replied. "Have you decided on the criteria you will use to select participants from the applicants?" Mr. Ward asked, and will those Water Board Minutes May 27, 1998 Page 19 who don't get funded, perceive the criteria as fair?" "We hope so," Ms. Hilmes responded. "The two biggest criteria are evidence of being flooded in the past; what kind of flood damage they have had, both from this storm and other flooding events. All of that documentation is required. Income is another major criteria The whole purpose of this is to help people who can't really help themselves. People on fixed incomes, etc. are going to be the majority of those who benefit. We tried to use a lot of the criteria from the City's ZILCH Program, and other loans and grant programs used by the City,"she concluded. Conservation and Public Education and Engineering Committees David Lauer reported that the one agenda item the committees discussed today was development in the floodplain. The Conservation and Education Committee had an initial discussion with the Engineering Committee. "This item came up as a result of a joint meeting of the P&Z Board, and representatives from the Water Board. After that meeting, Bob Smith suggested that we needed to address the issue of development in the 100-year floodplain to determine whether the Water Board should consider making a policy change. Currently, such things as development of a parking lot, for example, that doesn't involve any elevation, is permissible in the 100-year floodplain. Mr. Smith asked, "Do we want to continue with this policy or should we look at various options, given the fact the Planning and Zoning is concerned about this?" Dave Frick said emergency response people in the City will have some input. "What the Committees are going to do between now and next month, when we have another joint meeting, is prepare a draft of a position paper that we will then bring to the full Water Board. There will be a series of options around how we define development and what we want to do in terms of adjusting our policy so it is in compliance with P&Z Board, Natural Resources Board and possibly Parks & Recreation Board policies. These boards may feel the need to back our policy. The City currently has a policy that states that we don't want to see any new development in the 100- year floodplain, but we need to determine how this is applied to re -development of structures that are already there; and how it applies to Old Town which is all in the 100-year floodplain? There is considerable re -development going on there. These are the kinds of things the Committees need to address in this position paper. "We want to model our paper around other kinds of position papers that have been presented to the Board in the last few months with regard to water development." He asked for input from other Board members who weren't at the meeting. There were no reports from other standing committees. ADJOURNMENT Since there was no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m. 727t:e=74 2`?d1ZEe4.) , Water Board Secretary