The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWater Board - Minutes - 04/23/1998• 0 CQQ)'V 3 WATER BOARD MINUTES April 23, 1998 3:00 p.m. - 6:45 p.m. Light and Power Training Room 700 Wood Street COUNCIL LIAISON Chuck Wanner (Present) STAFFSUPPORT Molly Nortier - 221-6681 MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Clopper, Chair, Alison Adams, Vice Chair, David Lauer, Dave Frick, Robert Ward, John Morris, Howard Goldman, George Reed, Tom Sanders, Tom Brown STAFF Mike Smith, Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney, Wendy Williams, Dave Agee, Bob Smith, Dennis Bode, Ben Alexander, Marsha Mimes, Susan Hayes, Ellen Alward, Bill Switzer, Molly Nortier GUESTS John Bigham, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Mary and LaVern Shunn, Petitioners for Variance John Gallagher, Black & Veatch Greg McMaster, Avery Park Neighborhood Association Gary Vette, Woodbox Board of Director and Avery Park Neighborhood Assn.. MEMBERS ABSENT Dave Rau and Joe Bergquist (both excused) Chairman Paul Clopper opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Water Board Minutes April 23, 1998 Page 2 lull►111I la��/.`Z�lIK—In John Morris moved that the minutes of March 26, 1998 be approved as distributed. Robert Ward seconded the motion. David Lauer pointed out on p. 11, third paragraph, about 2/3 of the way down, it should say, "when the rains picked up," and on p. 17 under Legislative and Finance Committee report, paragraph 4, it should read, "Alison Adams pointed out." The Board unanimously approved the minutes with corrections. John Bigham provided copies of the CBT Project reservoir storage, river flows and snow reports. Mr. Bigham began by saying that runoff has begun. He referred to the second page of the handout which showed river flows. The storage is a little over 85%, and there is still 146,000 ac-ft of carryover storage, "so, we have more than enough water." he said. The District has declared a 50% quota. Mr. Bigham had just returned from the western slope where the snow report on the upper Colorado is now at 105%, which is slightly above the average; last year it was 125% at this time. The South Platte snow pack is 105%; last year it was 136%. "We are considerably less than last year, but with the current storage, we are in good shape," he concluded. Prior to proceeding with considerations and actions of the variance requests, Chair Paul Clopper reminded the Board that there is a format the Board is required to follow during a variance hearing. Paul Eckman, from the City Attorney's Office outlined those steps and the issues on which the Board will base its findings. Mr. Eckman said there were two parts to today's variance request. The petitioners, LaVern and Mary Shunn, were requesting a waiver of the $300 docket fee required in Section 10-38 of the City Code. The fee is required by the City in order to make an appeal for a variance to the Water Board. If the Board does not authorize that, and the applicant still wants to proceed and has the $300, the Board could proceed with the second part of the request which is a "Variance to Floodplain Regulations." Mr. Eckman referred the Board to p. 715, Section 10-38, Variance procedure of the City Code under Flood Prevention and Protection. Paragraph "c" which states that "In passing upon such applications, the Water Board shall consider all technical evaluations, all relevant factors and standards specified in other sections of this Article," and then lists the following 9 criteria for the Board to consider: (1) The danger that materials may be swept onto other land to the injury of others; (2) The danger to life and property due to flooding or erosion damage; Water Board Minutes April 23, 1998 Page 3 • (3) The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner; • (4) The importance of the service provided by the proposed facility to the community; • (5) The availability of alternate locations for the proposed use which are not subject to flood or erosion damage; • (6) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development; • (7) The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and floodplain management program of that area; • (9) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise and sediment transport of the floodwaters and the effects of wave action, if applicable, expected at the site. On the next p. 716, there are additional criteria for variances that are mandatory. Paragraph (d) states that variances shall only be issued upon the determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief, and paragraph (e) say variances shall only be issued upon: (1) The showing of good and sufficient cause; (2) A determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant: and (3) A determination that the granting of the variance would not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public as identified in this Chapter or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances. He said in the case of the $300 issue, you don't have technical stormwater items to think about, "so the cause would have to be some other `good and sufficient cause."' "We will wait and see what the applicant says." Mr. Eckman went on to say, regarding procedures for the variance hearing, he thought it would be best for staff to make a factual presentation first. Next, the applicants will make their presentation, and then staff can present its recommendation and any arguments it has to support the recommendation. At that point, the Board members can ask questions of both the applicants and the staff. Next will be the staffs response to both the Board's questions as well as to the applicants'presentation, and then the applicants can respond to Board questions and the staffs presentation. After that the Board will deliberate, and after further discussion they can vote. Mr. Clopper noted that staff is recommending that the application be denied, so they are actually playing the role of factual presenter and objector in this hearing. He asked for a show of hands in the room of those who will be supporting the variance request. LaVern and Mary Shunn raised their hands. He also asked if there were any other objectors in the room besides staff member Marsha Hflmes. Mr. Clopper asked if there were questions on the process. Robert Ward asked if the City Code permits a variance to waive the fee. Attorney Eckman said he had not heard of such a variance. Section 10-38 (a) of the Code says: "the Board shall hear and decide appeals and requests for variances from the requirements of this article." The $300 fee is one of the requirements of the article. Water Board Minutes April 23, 1998 Page 4 As far as the variance language, "I think you look at whether there is good cause or whether the fee poses an exceptional hardship, and the rest of paragraph 3 isn't very applicable," he said. VARIANCE REQUEST: The petitioners are requesting a waiver of the $300 docket fee required in Section 10-38 of City Code. This fee is required by City Code in order to make an appeal for a variance to the Water Board. 1. Grant the request to waive the $300 docket fee. The Water Board will then hear the variance request for which the $300 fee was required. 2. Deny the request to waive the $300 docket fee. The Water Board will not hear the variance request for which the $300 fee was required until the petitioner pays the docket fee. If the owner pays the docket fee at the time of the hearing, then the variance hearing will be held immediately. Staff Recommendation Staff is not making a recommendation on this issue. Marsha I-Elmes emphasized that the hearing for the Dry Creek Floodplain Variance request can't be held until the fee issue is resolved. Mr. Clopper asked the applicants to make a statement as to nature of their request to waive the $300 fee. Mary Shunn said they did not use a Realtor. They bought the land from her uncle and did all the paper work, including the financing. After the closing, they were ready to begin construction on the home. When they applied for their permit, they were told that they could not build on that land because it was in the floodplain. They were told, in order to conduct a variance hearing, they would be required to pay a $300 fee. She told the people who were issuing the permit that it shouldn't be their responsibility to find out about the floodplain regulations. "It should have been the lender's responsibility. They should have made sure they had all the information from the City, and from what I understand, they are saying that it is not a floodplain, it is a flood zone," she said. "If it means that we have to pay the $300, fine, but from what I understand you (the Board) are supposed to vote no, and I don't think that's fair. We shouldn't have to pay something that we had no control over, or any idea that it was even going to be happening to us," she stressed. "If we had known, we wouldn't have purchased this land." She wants to build the home so that her mother can live there. Mrs. Shunn was raised on this land. She has a sister who lives there also. She said she can't understand why suddenly they are saying that floods could occur there. "I don't have the slightest idea where Dry Creek is," she said. She doesn't remember seeing water in the "ditch" there. "I don't know what's going on. Water Board Minutes April23, 1998 Page 5 That's one of the reasons why I don't think we should have to pay the fee. It's not the issue of the money. We should have know about all of this before, so we wouldn't have to go through all of this," she asserted. Mrs. Shunn's husband LaVem Shunn said the property had a house on it previously. He demolished it and dug the basement. They had pictures of the previous structures and what is there currently. He said there was nothing there that hadn't been there in the past. Mr. Clopper asked for questions from the Board. Robert Ward asked if this fee has ever been waived before by the Storm Drainage Board. Marsha Hilmes said not to her knowledge. "Has anybody requested that it be waived before," Ms. Adams asked. "No, not to our knowledge." George Reed pointed out that financial hardship is not the hardship that is dealt with in the FEMA guidelines for grants. Since the Storm Drainage Board never had to deal with it before, there are no criteria specifically related to it. "What services are provided for that $300 John Moms asked. "It's a fee to recoup staff time in beginning the variance process," Bob Smith replied. Mr. Clopper referred to the remark Mrs. Shunn made that she understood "everyone is supposed to vote no." She said she was told that "`they' were going to vote against us." Mr. Clopper said, "this Board is the one doing the voting." He has no idea how the Board will vote. David Lauer asked staff if there is an historical record indicating when the last time this area was actually flooded as a result of Dry Creek. "We will get into that when we deal with the second part of the hearing relating to the Dry Creek variance," Ms. Hilmes replied. "The 1950s was the last reported flood," she said, but she will get into more detail in the second stage, "if we get to it." Mr. Clopper asked about the notification process in general and "how sometimes, these things slip through the cracks. I honestly thought lenders checked into things like this, if a property is or is not in a floodplain." "It's required by every federally backed loan for them to determine if the property is in the floodplain," Ms. Hdmes replied. She added that almost every loan is federally backed in some way, "and it's the lender's responsibility to make that determination. If they don't do that, there are federal fines that the lender can be assessed if they are found to not have followed that procedure. Also, if the property is found to be in the floodplain, they are required to mandate flood insurance for the property. That's all a part of the National Flood Insurance Program that was implemented a few years ago," she explained. "At this point we are still trying to sort through the issue of what happened with the lender, and we don't have clear information coming back from the lenders or phone calls that are returned. A local company was the appraiser the lender used. We haven't been able to get in touch with the appraiser, and the lender hasn't been able to contact the appraiser either. At this point we aren't sure what happened or why it happened, but the property is clearly in the floodplain and clearly in the floodway. That would be the first step to finding out if the property is in the floodplain, and nobody should go through the whole loan process and close without that. The second place you would go to receive notification about the floodplain is when you get a building permit for the Water Board Minutes April23, 1998 Page 6 structure. You would not be going through the whole development review process because it's a single lot." Ms. Shunn said she spoke with Kay at the lender's office to see if she had found out anything more from the appraiser. "She said the appraiser had told her that the City (Marsha) had sent him a letter and that, supposedly, he had never received it." Apparently, all he sent back to the lender was a map of the property without any indication of a floodplain. Ms. Hilmes said that one of the services the Stormwater Utility offers is floodplain determination. Lenders, real estate agents and the general public can call the office and find out if a certain property is in the floodplain. "We also send out an official letter if it is in the floodplain and we let them know that they are in the floodplain and should have flood insurance for protection." She emphasized that they keep a log of all those calls. "We have gone through the log and there is not one call that has been recorded for this property or from the appraisal company, which is a local company," she related. "So when you closed, you had no notice that you needed flood insurance?" Ms. Adams asked the petitioners. "None whatsoever," Mrs. Shunn responded. Tom Brown had a hard time seeing how the Board is going to decide whether this variance is sensible if it doesn't have the information that is still being sought about whether or not the lender did or did not do what was supposed to be done. "You have not yet been able to determine that." "I think right now it goes beyond that," Ms. H fines replied. We know there was a problem with the lender. That's not our responsibility. FEMA will be investigating the dealings of the lender because that's a federal mandate, so they will go through the full investigation process. At the local level we have local ordinances which say you can not do such and such. Whether we issue a building permit for this property is the basic determination. Is this property going to be built and why or why not?" Ms. lElmes concluded. "It looks like that crack has already been slipped through," Mr. Clopper agreed. ACTION: Motion on First Variance Phase Tom Sanders moved that the Board vote to waive the variance costs and get to the issue of the Dry Creek variance. "I think because of the errors that have occurred on this, the additional $300 is not warranted." Allison Adams seconded the motion. Discussion "Does this set a precedent?" Mr. Ward asked. "It doesn't set a legally binding precedent," Paul Eckman responded. "That doesn't mean, however that it doesn't set a tradition. Others might come back and say, `you did it then, why not do it nowT You wouldn't be bound to do it but you might have pressure put upon you in more of a political than legal sense." "It makes it harder in the future once a precedence is set," Mr. Lauer remarked. "The question with me if we did decide to grant the second variance, could we impose as part of that granting, that they pay the $300 at that time?" Dave Frick asked. "I think it would be better not to (because of the implication) that you would be selling favors to someone," Mr. Eckman replied. Water Board Minutes April 23, 1998 Page 7 Mr. Clopper pointed out that it is within the Board's jurisdiction to condition it, if we so choose, on the approval of the second variance. On that topic the Code says that "you may attach such conditions to the granting of the variances as you deem necessary to further the purposes of this article," Mr. Eckman read. "Maybe I could stand corrected," he acknowledged. "Does anybody have a sense of what the applicant's remedy in the long run would be?" Mr. Reed began. "In other words, can they recover the fees, plus attorneys' fees, plus the cost of the land, or the lending of the closing costs because the lender was negligent or the person they hired was negligent? I would think they would have some remedy here to recover their well-intentioned expenses in trying to build on the floodplain. Do you suspect they might have a remedy?" he asked. "They may or may not, but I think we are mixing apples and oranges here," Howard Goldman asserted. "There are certainly some unfavorable circumstances that occurred to the applicant, but that is not what we are here to decide. The question is, is there a really good cause to waive the requirement of $300? From what I heard there is not really a financial reason, and perhaps we could be sympathetic to the situation they find themselves in, but that is not for us to fix or deal with," he contends. He added that he agrees with what Mr. Reed is saying. "I agree with you, but I don't think we should speculate on it," Mr. Clopper said. "They need to start looking for answers, but this isn't the place," Mr. Goldman concluded. ACTION: Vote Mr. Clopper called for the question. The motion as stated and seconded was to waive the $300 fee. Mr. Clopper asked for a show of hands anticipating that the vote would not be unanimous. Tom Brown, Alison Adams, Tom Sanders, Paul Clopper, Robert Ward, Dave Frick and David Lauer voted in favor of the motion. George Reed, Howard Goldman and John Morris voted against the motion. The motion to waive the $300 fee passed 7-3. Dry Creek Floodplain Variance Request (second part) Mary and LaVern Shunn submitted an application requesting a variance to the decision by the Floodplain Administrator Marsha Hilmes to deny the floodplain use permit for their property located in the Alta Vista subdivision at 745 Martinez St. Ms. Hilmes indicated on a map, included in Board packets, where the property is located in relation to the FEMA designated Dry Creek Floodplain. She pointed out the Floodway, which is the most hazardous section of the Floodplain; it has the greatest depths and highest velocities. Her denial was based on health and safety concerns cited below: City Code Section 10-37 (e). Floodplain Use Permit. When reviewing the application for a floodplain use permit, the Administrator shall determine which portions of the floodplain are affected by the particular development request and then shall apply the provisions of this Article as applicable. The Administrator also shall determine whether the application meets the intent of this Chapter after considering the following factors: Water Board Minutes April 23, 1998 Page 8 (7) The potential danger to persons upstream, downstream and in the immediate vicinity; (10) Whether any proposed facility and its contents will be susceptible to flood damage and the effect of such damage; (12) Whether safe access is available to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles; Ms. Hilmes went on to give a description of the project proposal. The lot originally had two pre - FIRM structures, both residential homes (built prior to an adopted FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map). As Mr. Shunn stated earlier, these structures were removed, one in August of 1997 and the other at some point prior to that. The County Assessor's Office shows that all structures were removed prior to 1986. "The reason the two structures that were there in the past are so important," Ms. Hilmes explained, "is, in our City Code we say that no new buildings can be in the floodway unless you can show that there is no rise to the base flood elevation which is a 100-year elevation. In this case, because there were two structures previously there, and the estimated square footage of those two structures, compared with the square footage of the proposed structure, the new structure is less in square footage, therefore it would not be causing a rise to the base flood elevation." From an engineering and technical standpoint, it meets that criteria that is cited in City Code. Ms. Hilmes said the applicants say they will meet the elevation requirements for that property, which is 18 inches above the base flood elevation. However, in the Code, there are also criteria when looking at the floodplain use permit, for evaluating that permit. On the basis of the floodplain use permit evaluation criteria, staff decided to deny the floodplain use permit Those criteria were cited earlier. Ms. Hilmes read those to the Board. Mr. Eckman stated that those criteria upon which the Floodplain use permit was denied are very similar, if not identical, to the criteria that the Board has in reviewing this variance procedure which Mr. Eckman went through earlier from p. 715, section 10-38 "c" of the City Code. "c" (2) is similar to paragraph (7) that Ms. Hilmes read, "c" (3) is identical to paragraph (10), and "c" (8) is identical to paragraph (12). That ended the staff presentation. Mr. Clopper asked the applicants to present their property and floodplain issues. Mrs. Shunn wanted to begin with a question. "Five years ago, my sister put a modular home right across the street from us. She was allowed to put her home there. The height of it was 18 inches. I don't understand why she was allowed to do this if it was in a floodplain," she said. "Right now I don't have the details of that," Ms. Hilmes responded. "I wasn't here five years ago. I can't answer that so I can't make a statement about what happened then; regulations may have changed." Bob Smith added that without having the address he doesn't know if a variance was issued. There may have been some variances in that area, but he didn't know why or when they were issued. "We will have to look it up," he said. • n .0 Water Board Minutes April 23, 1998 Page 9 Mrs. Shunn continued by saying that the City says there was no structure there since 1986. "That's not true. This is my grandmother's home and we did this in August." She had photos for verification. Mr. Clopper said there was a date on the map as to when the floodpWn regulations were enacted. "When was that?" he asked. "The most recent map was published in 1996," Ms. Hilmes replied, "and there was nobody in the floodplain out there prior to that." She added that the floodplain regulations have been in existence since 1979. "So there were two structures there when the previous floodplain had been designated." Mr. Clopper clarified. Those are both gone; one was gone in the 1980s and the other was demolished in August of 1997. Ms. Hilmes said staff isn't saying there weren't any structures there. "That's not a problem". Mr. Clopper asked the Shunns to pass around the photos of the structures. This concluded the applicants' presentation. Mr. Clopper assured them they would have another opportunity for comments after the Board ends the question phase. Mr. Clapper asked Ms. Hilmes to go into more detail as to why staff believes the Shunn's request for a floodplain use permit should be denied. "All of the reasons for denying the permit are for health and safety issues," Ms. Hilmes began. "These are very important issues but are difficult to quantify. It is not like an engineering type decision where you can determine that base flood elevation hazard has not raised or lowered. This is more of a gut feeling and a judgement call," she acknowledged. "These are definitely criteria that are stated in the City Code that should be looked at and evaluated. The flooding that occurred last year certainly has increased our awareness of what the potential for flooding is, what kinds of damages can happen, what the ramifications are after the flood occurs, opinions of people on what should be done up front to prevent flood damages to make our community safer. For those reasons the three factors she listed are very important: • (7) The potential danger to persons upstream, downstream and in the immediate vicinity; "This is a critical issue," she said. "The people who are living in that house are the ones we are looking out for in this case. They are the persons who are already there. That new property won't cause any impact to other persons in the area, but it will cause an impact to Mr. and Mrs. Shunn and their mother who will be living in that structure. If a flood were to occur, they would be at risk, where if that structure were not there, they would not be in that same situation," she explained. • (10) Whether any proposed facility and its contents will be susceptible to flood damage and the effect of such damage; "We are not just looking at the floodplain, we are looking at a home that is going to be in the floodway. This is a very hazardous section. It is what FEMA has declared the most hazardous section, and what they consider should be cleared of obstructions. Right now there are no obstructions in that locality, and we would be going back in putting another obstruction, thereby perpetuating the problem," she said. • (12) Whether safe access is available to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles: "Safe access is also a key point," she continued. "The flood depths in this area would rise to about 2'/2 feet and the velocity would be about 4 ft. per second. A person Water Board Minutes April 23, 1998 Page 10 couldn't stand up very easily in that kind of flowing water and cars would easily be floating in that situation, so for them to evacuate on their own would be very difficult, and for rescue personnel to reach them would be very difficult. It would be placing the lives of rescue people in greater danger." "For all of those reasons, and realizing what happened during the flood of last year, those are the reasons for denying the permit," she concluded. In addition, Ms. Hilmes explained where staff is going with floodplain management in the City. "Yes variances have occurred in the past, but we keep trying to make these better. We learn from the past and try to correct those mistakes, or correct some of the decisions that were made. Just because something was done in the past, doesn't mean that it should continue to be done. We have new information and we have better experiences to base our decisions on. Right now we are trying to obtain a disaster resistant community designation from FEMA. We are dealing with that very closely in this respect. When I brought this issue to FEMA to try to get some guidance on whether we were violating FEMA regulations, the first thing they said was, `you are a disaster resistant community now. You need to be looking at what kind of floodplain management ordinances you are allowing and what kind of variances are being requested?' They said we are now one of the models for the state and the country. Putting a structure in the floodway is one of the major criteria that FEMA objects to. In this case, from an engineering and technical standpoint, you are able to do that. If that area was bare ground, and not had structures on it in the past, that would not be allowed under FEMA guidelines or under City regulations. Keep that in mind," she advised. "Were the numbers you gave for a 100-year storm?" Mr. Ward asked. "Yes," she replied. "So if it were a flood like last year, things would be a lot different." he said. "They would," she answered. Mr. Clopper called for questions of staff, the City Attorney or the applicants. "Does the Dry Creek Diversion change this profile for that particular site?" Dave Frick asked. "Yes it should remove it from the floodway," Ms. Hilmes replied. "That is probably 5 years out into construction," she added. "We could have a flood tomorrow, we could have it in four years, and it might not happen for 10-15 years. You are taking a risk until the time that diversion is completed. "With the diversion, will it still be in the residual floodplain?" Mr. Frick wondered. "It would be confined primarily to a channel. That is what the design is showing at this time," she said. "The whole purpose of the diversion is to get rid of floodplain in this area and remove the flood hazard and the floodplain regulations. This is the joint project with Larimer County, where the County is forming the LID (Local Improvement District) that we discussed in the past," B. Smith explained. "Could you show what studies show in a case like this where structures are in the floodway?" Tom Brown asked. "Is insurance available for new structures under those circumstances?" "Insurance is available to them. It should be required by their lender, and again that's between the lender and the property owners. We don't get involved in mandating flood insurance," Ms. Hilmes stressed. She also stated that insurance will be very costly for the applicants to get. She did some rough estimates. The Water Board Minutes April23, 1998 Page 11 insurance agents go by how much above the base elevation that structure is, and base their rates according to that. "Even though the Shunn's home would be elevated 18 inches above the base flood elevation, flood insurance would still be $600-700 per year for that structure; and that is just for the structural coverage. The contents coverage is in addition. For an older structure they have different rates for it being there before the floodplain was originally mapped, so it's not penalizing people that didn't know that this was a floodplain," she explained. "If you choose to build a structure in the floodplain, you are going to pay the higher rates." Ms. Ffdmes went on to say that we are not just looking at the Shunns with this structure. "In 5 years they may decide to sell that property, putting new owners at great risk, and they may or may not know whether they are in the floodplain." Mr. Clopper thought it would be helpful for Ms. Hilmes to explain the distinction between floodplain and floodway. "Do you have your definition cross section?" "I did not bring my cross section with me," she said. "You said the Shunn's property was in the floodway. I think we need to explain what that means," Mr. Clopper advised. Ms. Hilmes drew a simple version of the cross section on the board. "This is our distance across our 100-year floodplain," she pointed out. "Within the floodplain there is an area designated as floodway, and that would be the deepest and the section with the fastest velocity. According to the regulations, everything that is in the floodplain Tinge area could be developed, and the property would have to be elevated 18 inches above the base flood elevation. How the floodway is defined, is basically taking the amount of water that is flowing in the flooddplain and compressing it from both sides toward the middle. Top is the water surface elevation during the 100- year flood. This water surface elevation, by being compressed on both sides or have encroachment to assume development, can not be raised more than one foot, so the area would have up to one foot of rise. So that's allowing for the capture of all those flood flows through the main section of the channel, leaving the other sections open for development. When you begin putting structures in the middle of the floodway, it is going to continue to go up. Based on the mapping, those structures were already mapped in the floodway in the past. Technically, from an engineering standpoint, you are not causing a rise in that floodway, but what you are doing is putting a house right in the middle of the most hazardous section with high velocities and great depths." "So what you are saying is from the side you can encroach up to the floodway lines and they would be like peninsulas (sidebars, Ms. Hilmes said). In this case, with the floodway, you are talking about creating an island with water all the way around it," Mr. Clopper observed. "That's right," Ms. Hilmes said. "If you are looking at the floodway, the greatest and deepest part is going around the structure," she added. "Even if all of the floodplain Tinge area is built up, the floodway area is supposed to handle all the water that goes across it, so you have increased flows going around through the floodway section." "Is all this water supposed to go through my lot?" Mr. Shunn asked. "It goes through all your neighbors lots. That whole subdivision is basically in the floodway," Ms. Hilmes responded. "Can you tell me why they just built all those new homes right across the field from me on the same grade and everything as my place?"Mr. Shunn asked. "Where is that?"Ms. Water Board Minutes April 23, 1998 Page 12 Iiilmes asked. "Nearby there's a new Texaco station on the corner on Lemay," he replied. "It's up there," Ms. Ailmes pointed out on the map. "How come the floodplain is way down here, and all the water doesn't come across all that?" he wondered." "Based on the topography of the land; this is actually Dry Creek "right here," she answered. "We can't find a creek out there, but where there is a ditch, it goes around the County where they park their cars on that line. There's a ditch that comes around the edge of that property," he pointed out. "If we had a flood it would protect us and drown out the City," he predicted. Bob Smith referred to the map on the edge to the left, showing Lake Canal, and the old Josh Ames that go through there, and Dry Creek which is a ditch farther to the north. "The reason the Dry Creek floodplain is so high, is over time it has all been filled in." Mr. Lauer said there are three or four relatively new structures at the north end of Martinez Street that have been constructed over the last ten years. "Martinez Street goes north and dead -ends at that field. There are at least four new homes in that area. I'm wondering how that happened?" "I think they are in the flood fringe area," Dave Frick responded. "So it's not in the floodway," Mr. Clopper added. "There also may have been some who fell through the cracks, or variances have been issued in the past," Bob Smith acknowledged. Mr. Clopper asked George Reed and Dave Rau, former Storm Drainage Board members, if they recall looking at any variances in this area. "I go back about six years and the only variance we had was way up north on College near a convenience store," Mr. Reed replied. Mr. Rau had only been on the board for 2 years. "Do you remember what year the houses on the north end of Martinez Street had been built?" "They were built in the last 5-6 years," Mrs. Shunn replied. "Is that subsidized housing?" Mr. Lauer asked. "I don't know," Mrs. Shunn answered. "A block down from there, are another 4 houses, so there are about 8 new homes there," she related. "I don't understand all that." she said. Marsha Hilmes reiterated that she doesn't know the history of what happened there in the past; "I haven't been here that long," she added. "But do we want to keep making the same mistakes over and over again?" she asked. "If we want to take new directions in building the community, at some point we need to make decisions regarding that way we want the floodplain in Fort Collins to go." she asserted. "Did you say that 1955 was the last historical flows that went down there?" Tom Sanders asked. "1951 was the last notable flood that we have been able to find in newspaper articles, etc." Ms. Hilmes said. "Do you recall where it was at that time?" he asked. "It was in the College Ave. and Wilox area," Bob Smith replied. "It was quite a ways upstream. There was no quantification of the amount of water. Also in 1924, around Jax Surplus, it was belly deep on a horse." "There is no question if the storm we had last summer was about a mile or two further north, this would have been draining like crazy," Dr. Sanders stated. "It's a strong possibility, but it just depends on where the storm was centered whether this basin would have flooded; it has a very large drainage area," Ms. Hilmes explained. "You have a lot of area upstream for it to drain." "Are you talking about dozens of square miles or hundreds of square miles, or what?" Mr. Clopper asked. It's 65 sq. miles," Bob Smith answered. "That's why the diversion is such a high priority." "How does the diversion show Water Board Minutes April 23, 1998 Page 13 up on the map?" Mr. Ward asked. "It doesn't," Ms. Hilmes said. "The diversion is to be located to the west side of College Ave.," B. Smith said. "So it will shut down that 65 sq. miles at Wilox Lane," Mr. Ward said. "How much will that reduce the floodplain?" he asked. "Substantially," B. Smith replied. "The drainage area probably will be cut down to about 4 square miles."Do you have an estimate of what the floodplain would be like with the diversion in place?" Mr. Ward continued. "The master plan recommended a bypass channel be built along the north side of the Alta Vista development , so what runoff that would be generated, would go around the area," Bob Smith explained. "It is not economical to put Dry Creek back to where it was." "You've got 5 years where you can't, but, it seems to me somebody in 5 years could come back and say if you want a permit you can get it," Mr. Ward stated. "That is correct," Bob Smith replied. Mr. Clopper related that Dr. Sanders has done research on flood hazard and public safety with respect to velocities and depths of flow. "Can you give us some information on that?" he asked Dr. Sanders. "You can't walk in what Ms. Ifdmes said was 2.5 ft. depth and 4 ft. per second," he answered. "You would have to be anchored with a rope to walk in water that fast." "Is that a rule of 9?" Mr. Clopper asked. "Yes." "You multiply depth times velocity, and if it's greater than nine, you can't walk in it," Mr. Clapper explained. Tom Brown had a question about the larger policy. "When you have an existing structure in the floodway, the policy doesn't allow you to build a new structure once you have taken one out given that it isn't any larger than the original structure. What people will do then if they aren't concerned about living in the floodway, is to keep remodeling, because if they are going to start over, it would be prohibited. Am I understanding that right?" "They can't do the remodel forever," Ms. Hilmes assured the Board. "We also have a substantial improvement clause in the City Code, and once they have reached the 50% value of that structure, that structure has to meet all the criteria of the Code. It's not elevated right now; it's sitting right at ground level, so it's basically 2 '/2 feet below the base elevation. If the value of the improvements, even over the whole life of the structure, reaches 50%, they have to meet the new criteria, which means they have to elevate the whole structure. It's cumulative, it's not just one improvement," she stressed. "If they elevate it, they could essentially keep that process going forever," Mr. Frick observed. "Is there a point where you say they have to get a variance?" "Right, when there are people living there now," Ms. Hihnes responded. "It's like a grandfather clause," Mr. Clopper added. "That's right," she said. Dave Frick is somewhat familiar with variances that have been granted in the past out there. "It seems to me it was replacement of houses that were habitable previous to the replacement." "I don't remember; they were all elevated. Damage -wise they would be better off in a flood," Mr. Smith answered. "As I recall in the past, from FEMA reported hydraulic analysis, there was one that FEMA audited because there wasn't adequate engineering documentation. It was more than just a letter. Is that still a requirement with FEMAT' Mr. Frick wanted to know. "They can come back later and do that, and we were audited for floodplain management at that point to say that they had a tremendous amount of explaining to do about the granting of the floodplain variances." Ms. Hilmes related. "As Water Board Minutes April 23, 1998 Page 14 a result, that put the whole floodplain program for the City in jeopardy," Mr. Frick recalled. "Yes, that was in the 80s,"Ms. Hilmes replied. At this point Mr. Clopper closed the question and answer period from Board members. He gave the objector a few minutes for wrap-up statements or comments to the Board. Ms. Hilmes re-emphasized that the health and safety issues are critical --protecting peoples' lives and property. "That's what the whole floodplain management ordinance is about. When you read the purpose of the ordinance, and why we have those criteria, the number one thing listed is the health and safety of the citizens of Fort Collins. If we continue to allow people to live in a very hazardous area, we are going to be paying the price at some point down the road with rescue efforts and realizing we are putting people in jeopardy," she contends. "The key thing is to remember why the floodplain use ordinance was initially enacted, and the Floodplain Management Program is not at the same level it was 10 years ago. We are constantly trying to improve it. Hopefully in five years we will be at another new level," she concluded. Mr. Clopper thanked Ms. Hilmes for her statement. ACTION: Motion Dave Frick moved that the Board concur with staff recommendation to deny the request for a floodplain use permit. Paul Eckman advised that, as part of the motion, some findings should be included as to whether the code conditions have been met; e.g. whether it is good cause for a variance, whether there was a hardship shown, whether there would be no increased flood heights, no additional threat to public safety, additional public expense or nuisance, those types of things. Dave Frick gave the following reasons: (1) The applicants are requesting to put a structure in where there is no habitable structure now. This would affect public safety because this would increase residents in the floodplain; (2) There was no adequate documentation shown that would satisfy FEMA for the no -rise criteria; (3) There seems to be the prospect that within 5 years this property would be out of the floodplain because the Dry Creek Master Plan requires a diversion structure be built; Note: The last four reasons were added by other Board members. (4) George Reed did not see that an exceptional hardship has been demonstrated. Mr. Frick added here that this was the point he was making in relating that this will be out of the floodplain in 5 years; Water Board Minutes April 23, 1998 Page 15 (5) Alison Adams said, at this time, there is an issue about the safety of access to the property in times of flood for emergency personnel. It would be extremely difficult to get people in and out of this property. (6) Tom Sanders said if we are going to promote a comprehensive need to plan long term for flood abatement, one of the first acts should be to get everything out of the floodplain. (7) Dr. Sanders would also promote better notification. He proposed that deeds and titles of properties in floodways should have that information printed on them. Paul Eckman asked if Dave Frick agrees with those additions to his findings. "That's fine with me," he said. ACTION: Second and Vote John Morris seconded the motion with the addition of the findings. Mr. Clopper asked if Board members wanted to make any final comments before the vote. Mr. Clopper said he is horrified that these types of things slip through the cracks in terms of notification and the lender's requirements. There should be better public education and the notification issue is part of that. "I also agree with the other issues that were raised about health and safety," he concluded. He also mentioned that there are citizens at the Board meeting today who were greatly impacted by the 1997 flood, so we can see the other side of this issue. Mr. Clopper called for the question. He asked for a show of hands. Nine members voted to deny the request for a variance. Tom Brown abstained because he did not think he had enough information to vote for or against the motion. The motion passed. Mr. Clopper thanked the applicants for their time and effort to appear before the Board. Mike Smith prefaced the presentation by saying that this is an effort to give the Board some options to accelerate the schedule for contracting the improvements in the Canal Importation and Old Town Basins. Dave Agee began by saying that staff is eager to come to some kind of a decision about these improvements. "We are planning to go to a Council work session on May 12th," he said. Project Costs • Canal Importation Basin = $23.6 million • Old Town Basin = $14.3 million Water Board Minutes April23, 1998 Page 16 Current Monthly Capital Fee $3.58 per month for an 8600 sq. ft. lot - Although that wasn't originally designed to be equal in all basins, over time it has caught up to that amount because it was capped at $3.58 per month. - It is $42.96 per year. Staff calculated how long it would take to complete the improvements in current dollars if there were no fee increase. For the Canal Basin it would take 58 years, and for Old Town, 47 years. "We presume that it's not really an option, but we thought we would run those numbers for you anyway." Canal - Pay-as-you-go Staff ran these options: • 5-yr - $57.80/mo ($693.60 annual) • 10-yr - $29.83/mo ($357.96 annual) • 15-yr - $20.46/mo ($245.52 annual) Of course these is a substantial increase from the $3.58 per month, Mr. Agee acknowledged. Someone asked how many ERUs this would be. "We are talking about 7,000 households at $57.80/mo., $29.83 over 10 and $20.46 for 15 years," David Lauer replied. "How much is flood insurance?" Mr. Clopper asked. "They would not be considered in the floodplain, so it would be $200-300 per year," Ms. Hilmes answered. She added that the insurance doesn't cover everything. "The contents in basements, for example, would not be covered; neither would major appliances like washers, dryers or freezers. Flood insurance may be a good option, but isn't the ideal." "Incidentally," Mr. Agee related, `relative to your question that the number of ERUs is calculated a little differently, we assume the current numbers grow over time, so the average is a little higher for some of the options." Old Town - Pay-as-you-go • 5-yr - $35.57/mo ($426.84 annual) • 10-yr - $18.00/mo ($216.00 annual) • 15-yr - $12.13/mo ($145.56 annual) "About how many ERUs here?" Mr. Lauer asked. "Roughly the same number right now," Mr. Agee replied. "A little less, actually," he added. Canal Basin Debt Financing - 5-yr Construction Schedule We used staggered borrowing. • 1999 - $15.33/mo • 2002 - $27.83/mo It would stay that way for roughly 20 years after 2002. Our model was assuming a 20-yr municipal borrowing. Water Board Minutes April 23, 1998 Page 17 Canal Debt Financing-10-yr Construction Schedule We would be staggering the constriction over a longer time and borrowing in increments spread out over time. In doing this you would need to go to: • 1999 - $10.00/mo • 2002 - $12.50/mo • 2007 - $24.17/mo The reason that figure is less than the previous slide, is at that time, we are assuming we would have a few more ERUs. Consequently, the monthly fees will be lower. "Is Old Town a smaller area or is it about the same?" Dave Lauer asked. "It's a little smaller ..... In Old Town you won't have much growth," Mike Smith pointed out. Bob Smith said a shopping center could be 10 ERUs. "Canal, based on 1998 figures is approximately 6950 ERUs," Mr. Agee said. "We project that to go up by about 100 per year, so by 2009, it's a little over 8,000. "For Old Town, the 1998 figures show roughly 6750, but they are projected to go up only slightly over the next few years. Old Town Debt Financing - 5-yr Construction Schedule • 1999 - $14.08/mo • 2002 - $16.17/mo Old Town Debt Financing - 10 years • 1999 - $10.00/mo • 2003 - $13.50/mo 2007 - $15.75/mo City -Wide - Pay -As -You -Go - 10 yr Const. Sched. Just to pay for these improvements we are talking about the entire City having to pay $8.27/mo for the 10 yr const. schedule. This would not include any other master plan improvements; just Canal and Old Town. There would be an additional $4.69 per month payment in addition to the current $3.58. After 10 years, with today's dollars, we would accumulate enough money from the entire system, which currently has 55,700 ERUs, to pay for the improvements for the two basins. Do you include the cost of all the other basins in that? someone asked. "That's actually in there at the $3.58 level," Mike Smith explained. "So this isn't just for the Canal improvements?" Mr. Frick wondered. "The other basins normal construction schedule would continue," Mr. Smith said. "Some of the basins will be built out in just a few years, so there will be times when all of the money will be going for just these two basins," Mr. Agee explained. George Reed asked if there was anything included based on projected annexations. "For purposes of City-wide, it was hard to get into that. All we did was project a 4% a year increase from what the model showed for this," Mr. Agee replied. Water Board Minutes April 23, 1998 Page 18 Tom Sanders recalled that, at the last meeting, the Board decided to do this citywide. "We didn't decide that," Mike Smith said. "Have you made any projections on what the maintenance fees might be because you are adding more facilities?" Mr. Frick asked. "The maintenance fees will be going up because we will be building more facilities, but we can't say how much. As more facilities come on line to maintain, our revenue base of 55,000 customers is going to go up," Bob Smith explained. "Once those facilities are built, you are going to have to make sure they function adequately over time with rehab. and repairs," he added. Citywide Pay -As -You -Go -15 yr Const. Sched. On the citywide approach, with current dollars and no inflation factored in, it works out to be $6.39/mo for 15 years. Citywide Debt - 5 yr Const. Sched. • 1999 - $5.74/mo 2001 - $6.91/mo 2003 - $7.75/mo In theory, as the system grows, and because you are locking in the price, the way you do debt financing, the fee could actually taper off a little bit. Next we looked at a 10-yr scenario: Citywide Debt -10-yr Const. Sched. • 1999 - $5.62/mo • 2002 - $6.21/mo • 2005 - $6.58/mo • 2007 - $7.25/mo Pay -As -You -Go Versus Debt Financing From an engineering standpoint, that is actually a more reasonable schedule. To actually do the improvements in 5 years, the engineers think would be a real stretch. From a financing perspective, Mr. Agee focused next on what the numbers tell us. First, pay-as-you- go versus debt. The real advantage to pay-as-you-go, within a fixed period of time, is shorter than on the debt financing scenario. You can contain your costs within a short period, and because you aren't paying interest, it costs less. However, with debt financing, you basically lock in the price at the time you do the borrowing. You borrow $10 million for $10 million worth of improvements, and you pay for those in nearly current year dollars. Even though inflation goes up, that price is locked in because your bond payments stay the same over time. With pay-as-you-go, improvements may not be able to be done as quickly. Based on our model, debt financing stretches this out over a longer period of time. The fee level will actually be there at some r Water Board Minutes April 23, 1998 Page 19 level over a much longer period of time in contrast with pay -as -you go when you lock it in over a 10 or 15 year period. Citywide Versus the Basin Concept As you can see from the numbers, the fee increases are less dramatic with the Citywide versus the basin concept. With the debt option increases are gradual. One of the interesting things, from a financial perspective, on all of our current bond issues we have for Stormwater, entire revenues of the system for the whole City are pledged to pay that debt. Even though we have particular bonds that have gone for particular basins, the entire system is pledged to pay those bonds. In the event one basin didn't have the money, you have to look to another basin to pay those bonds. George Reed asked Mr. Agee to show again the slides for citywide and pay-as-you-go and debt financing for citywide. Mr. Agree pointed out that the debt starts off lower and goes higher because of the interest costs. Chuck Wanner asked if West Vine Basin is figured in. "We are looking at that being a substantial area," Bob Smith answered. "Currently that basin doesn't have any debt service. Fortunately about a quarter of West Vine is in the City. "We have Dry Creek also," Mr. Agee related. He emphasized that this is not a complete financing plan for the Stormwater Utility. "This is just an attempt to show what would happen just focusing on these two basins. We must deal with the other issues separately." "The recollection I have is that we would start transferring fees one basin to another," Mr. Wanner said. "To be defensible logically, we would have to tie the package to the whole thing. To piecemeal it and shift the burden to the whole system is not very defensible." "That's what the attorneys have said." Mr. Agee responded. "To shift to the citywide concept from the basin concept requires a logical reason for doing it. "It seems to me," Tom Brown began, "that it's a matter of equity. The basin boundaries don't make a lot of sense either. Within each basin there are some homes that are going to benefit a lot from this work while others are going to benefit very little. The fact that they would pay for it equally and it would be unequally distributed, is not equitable within each basin. There's not a lot of logic to that basin boundary if you are trying to make the payment and the benefit match up somehow. I don't see why going to the citywide payment scheme is any less equitable than the existing system based on these somewhat arbitrary boundaries," he concluded. "I think that's only true if you assume the impact is only on the residents. What about the impact on the streets that all of us use?" Mr. Lauer wondered. Ms. Adams said that makes the point to go citywide "because we don't live in isolation in our own drainage basins." "What other City services are divided up?" someone observed. "Water and wastewater and electricity are citywide," Mike Smith said. Tom Sanders related that where you live has an impact with storm drainage. You don't have that same parallel with water and electricity. "When you live in the low flood areas, you are going to need more drainage capability to protect you, and therefore you should pay for it," he asserted. "I Water Board Minutes April 23, 1998 Page 20 agree with that in a way, but the current system of the basins does that. "Basins come closer than any other system," Dr. Sanders insisted. Dave Frick pointed out that if you are in the higher elevations, paving your area is going to generate runoff, so you ought to help foot the bill for improvements down below. Ms. Adams said you benefit by protecting other areas regardless of where you live; "you don't spend 24 hours a day in your home." Paul Clopper asked if we are attempting to accelerate Canal Importation and Old Town because they are the ones that are lagging behind the most in the overall scheme of things. "They are the most critical basins," Bob Smith verified. Mr. Clopper asked how the accelerated programs in these two basins compare with the other basins. "Because Old Town and Canal in the master plan are substantially developed, they are in the retro-phase mode which makes the improvements very expensive," Bob Smith explained. "These basins have a relatively small revenue base, whereas Spring Creek Channel has a large revenue base. Fossil Creek is ahead of development. We can plan for that development, so it has a relatively small cost. Mill Creek is the same way." Capital Projects Funding Philosophy Mr. Smith distributed a sheet that listed the capital projects funding philosophy pros and cons basin by basin and citywide: Basin by Basin - • Revenues stay within the Basin. • Correlation of revenues with improvements constructed. • Customer accepted philosophy. • Basin is defined as a project and funds can transfer within basin. S�Lzri • Complex accounting and tracking of revenues. • Delays capital project construction until funds in place. • Basins with smaller revenues have to wait longer for improvements. • Constructing improvements sooner would mean higher fees for basins. Citywide Pro • Capital projects financing more flexible. • Minor capital money not limited by basin. • Large projects can be constructed sooner. • Simplified accounting. • Consistent with O&M fee. • Addressing problems citywide, the City as a whole benefits. • Monthly capital fees are currently the same citywide. Water Board Minutes April 23, 1998 Page 21 Existing bond indebtedness encumbers citywide revenues. Basin is defined as a project and transfers can be made within the basin. Spreads costs over a larger rate base. S�sn • Built out basins pay longer. • Prioritization can be more complicated. • Basins compete against one another. • Requires city code changes and need to develop citywide master plan. • Change in philosophy from existing. • More difficult to transfer funds between projects. Bob Smith said the key is if we go from basin by basin to citywide, we have to define a rational basis that the City as a whole will benefit from the change. "In talking with attorneys, that's the bottom line," he added. "We currently have a monthly fee throughout the City, so there is some logic already in that direction, but we would have to say there is a citywide benefit if we go from one to the other." He went through the list of pros under citywide printed above. He said the biggest negative for citywide is that there are some basins that are farther along on their improvements. "If we go citywide it means they will be paying their fees a little longer." "Is there any thinking that there are some parts of the City in basins that are more costly to protect?" Tom Sanders asked. "Maybe we don't want to have continued large growth in those areas." If it's citywide, the cost is uniform, so, it seems to him, there is no decision on that part where to grow. "It seems to be inconsistent with our policy to control growth in flood prone areas, if we decide to go citywide," he emphasized. "We should make them pay more if they want to take a risk." "The Evergreen Park area was that way. It was a small basin and the fees were very high, so it sat dormant for years," Bob Smith explained. Suddenly, with the construction of Albertson's, revenues are up and that basin is doing very well. Mike Smith pointed out that the development fees wouldn't change. Mr. Clopper said there is a rationale to be made for citywide if our justification is accelerating the time frame for the Old Town and Canal basin improvements to catch up to where all the other basins are. "I can see it getting a little complicated to define what is attributable to new development and to current development, and trying to appropriate basin fees by basin," Dave Frick contends. "We will have to use methods we already have in place," Bob Smith began. "It's somewhat complicated because you can't say if it's 100% current development or new development," he stressed. "You don't want to complicate the project," Mr. Frick added. "Personally," John Morris said, "I would give $2.00 a month for 10 years to help out the community; I give more than that to United Way," he related. "It's true, they have to pay their way. If they want to live in an expensive basin, they are still going to have to pick up that extra cost, but I would help them along because we are a community," he stressed. "At some point I may need help from the rest of the community. We can say, we are willing to help you but we're not going to pay for the whole thing." "I agree," Mr. Clopper said. "I Water Board Minutes April23, 1998 Page 22 don't see any reason to make it a totally either/or situation. Mr. Moms added that those dollars would be earmarked for those two basins, so it isn't like you are going to spread it around. Mr. Lauer said, "So you are suggesting a flat fee, cutting a piece of this citywide fee off, saying everybody is going to be paying $2.00 or $3.00. People who live in those critical basins who need more help, pay a higher fee. Mr. Morris said if we pay the extra dollar a month for 10 years, that gets the Canal Basin into a less than 10-year fix, so it speeds up the improvements. Old Town is moving into a 7-year fix. "I'm willing to pay a dollar a month to help out." "That's the perfect political compromise," Tom Sanders observed. It seems to him, however, that it makes bookkeeping far more difficult. "You still have the incremental amounts to take care of," he added. "It's kind of a catch up surcharge for those two basins," Mr. Frick said. "There is some logic to it if you say that everybody in town benefits because the area is safer," Tom Brown said. "There is some citywide benefit, but there is also the localized benefit. "I don't see any problem with citywide," Howard Goldman stated. "To me it's a terribly artificial distinction to go basin to basin. I'm just as dramatically affected by what happens to those people in the Old Town Basin even though I five on the other side of the City." "The classic example is schools," Mr. Brown pointed out. Mr. Goldman likes the engineering reasons for basin to basin distinctions, "but I can't see any funding reasons," he said. "I think it's time to change,"George Reed began, "and I tend to agree with Howard Goldman. I support 110% the direction that has been, because, as individual basins developed, I think basins paid their way. They are all up to $3.58 now. With a uniform capital fee, I don't see why we don't save some money simplifying the accounting, etc. Old Town and Canal are problem areas that need to be taken care of, and they probably won't be taken care of unless we do something like this in a reasonable period of time. Of course you can hypothesize about the new basins coming on line. Right now if you keep the town from growing anymore it would be a reasonable thing, but with all the new annexations as we grow further south, there are going to be massive drainage problems." "Isn't there an IMP, a special assessment for developments?" Greg McMaster asked. "There is a basin fee," Bob Smith responded. "Didn't Jefferson Commons pay $167,000?" Mr. McMaster continued. "That was probably their basin fee," I& Smith acknowledged. "When the Utility formed in 1980, we didn't have master plans for all the basins, and also, it was such a new concept we thought it was best to implement the basin to basin philosophy," he explained. Ms. Adams pointed out that we have to deal with new growth in terms of water and wastewater on a citywide basis. Mr. Ward said people in the old part of the City are always concerned about subsidizing new growth. "In this case, it sounds like new growth is going to subsidize helping to take care of some old drainage problems. To me there is an opportunity to say within the Water Utility, that we are looking at everybody equalizing out here." "That happens in the water side of the business," Mike Smith explained. "When you take an old water treatment plant that needs renovation, new customers who just paid their Plant Investment fees will say, `I just bought into this system,'and in paying their rates, they are going to help pay for the replacement of the old plant as well." Dr. Sanders contends that stormwater is site specific; where you are affects everything. With wastewater L Water Board Minutes April 23, 1998 Page 23 and water distribution that is not so. "I disagree with that," Ms. Adams asserted. "When we had the flood this summer, I couldn't go to the area of town that was flooded." "There are many other ways that people are affected even though their basements don't get wet,"Mr. Goldman stressed. "I understand that, but there are some areas that need a lot of expensive protection and maybe it's not worthwhile to develop those areas," Dr. Sanders contends. "With water and wastewater, it may cost too much to nin a line down there," Ms. Adams said. "If you don't want people to develop in a certain area, make their development fees cost prohibitive," she suggested. "Cost -wise, with water and wastewater, if we said, do you want pure equity, you would charge the people who live closer to the water treatment plant less than people at the end of the line," Mike Smith pointed out. Mr. Clopper asked what action the Board is supposed to be taking today. Mike Smith said if the Board needs more time to make a decision, staff can delay a meeting with the Council. "We can delay another month if we have to." It seems to Dave Frick that there are two schools of thought here: a basin to basin basis with maybe a surcharge, or maybe throwing everything in one big pot, figure out what the costs are, divide it equally for both new development and fee -wise. "The numbers we have here don't do that; all they do is add the cost for Old Town and Canal to the $3.58. If we took the uniform approach that we were going to install all improvements in all the master plans in 10-15 years, or whatever, what would the city-wide fees be at that point? Then we would be treating everything uniformly throughout the City. All the improvements would be completed in the same amount of time, and everybody would be paying equally. That seems to me to be the more equitable way, short of maintaining the basin concept with a surcharge to help," he concluded. "That actually isn't the only factor," Mr. Goldman said. "Clearly there are certain parts of the plan or certain parts of the City that have a far greater risk of damage. I'm saying that damage isn't only to the basin, it's to everyone in the City," Mr. Frick responded. "If you go equity -wise, then why would we accelerate improvements in Old Town and Canal Importation and add that to the fee and still have a 25-year build -out of improvements on Spring Creek or some other basin? Why shouldn't we say all the necessary improvements in 15 years citywide and plan accordingly?" he continued. "The problem we have is that we can't do a complete cost of services study and show it to you and say, how do you want to do this?" Dave Agee responded. "What we are really looking for is not to approve these numbers. They are just so you get an idea of what we are looking for. Tell us philosophically where you want to go, and then we will do a complete financial cost of services study for the Utility based on your direction and Council's direction. We can't promise that these numbers are going to be the way it comes out," he stressed. Bob Smith said there are two questions for which staff would like to have answers: Basin by basin vs. citywide and what is a reasonable time in your expectations for accomplishing these improvements. "Five years is too soon, so 10 or 15 years is more realistic," he said. Some Board members responded that 10 years seems reasonable. Tom Brown didn't agree. "What's the rush?' he asked. "Trying to get all of that done in 10 years is probably pushing it from the engineering standpoint. We are talking about avoiding risk here; avoiding a potential problem." Mr. Frick pointed out that these improvements would be done on a priority basis, so the highest risk areas would be Water Board Minutes April 23, 1998 Page 24 taken care of the soonest. From that standpoint, extending to 15 years is not unreasonable, but he would like to know those numbers. "There is a critical need to get the two basins we are focusing on, done as soon as possible, which is why I was thinking in terms of 10 years," Mr. Lauer stated. "It's better than a 15 or 20-year option because of that critical need." "We could have a 15-year pay- out and still go into those right off and get them done," Mr. Ward suggested. "You could do some combination of debt financing, but if you go pay-as-you-go, no," Ms. Adams said. "If you put everything that's being paid toward those immediately, and later on go to others, you could maybe," Mr. Ward said. "It's possible that if you do the 15-year plan pay-as-you-go for everything, you could probably have Old Town and Canal done in the 10 years, because they are the highest priority." Chuck Wanner provided some final comments before he had to leave. He said the question of subsidizing new development is not going to be avoided with Council, so the Board needs to have the rationale in terms of cost/benefit for going citywide carefully articulated. "If there is another way to separate the impact of new development out of the picture, that's fine. Once you're here as a resident, you are part of the community, but you are going to have to develop some way to figure new development. If we decide to finance, I know I will ask the question about cost/benefit." he concluded. Mr. Agee said the comment was made earlier that, in essence, this almost looks like new development subsidizing existing development. "If you would make that argument effectively and have the numbers to satisfy one particular Council member," it could be relevant. "Some of these folks on the Council know how to operate a calculator" and they will ask some tough questions. "You are going to have to find a way to break that out. Maybe construction has to pay such and such a fee. You must have a hard-nosed, solid rationale," he stressed, and it will have to be succinctly stated. The cost/benefit element on financing is very important." "Do you look at 100-year drainage for new development?" Dr. Sanders began. "Yes," was the reply. "Does the developer pay an initial fee to take care of the 100-year flood problem?" "When the master plan is developed, we look at what area is developed. We look at what areas are new development and ones that are existing. What drives the basin and capital fees is how fast you want to do the improvements," Bob Smith responded. "You don't do the basin improvements until long after the development is completed?" Dr. Sanders continued. "It can go both ways. Sometimes developments are phased and sometimes they are done later. It depends on what's going on in that area," Mr. Smith replied. "If you put the real cost of drainage to the location in the development fees, then it makes sense for uniform improvement fees," Dr. Sanders acknowledged. Robert Ward said he feels comfortable with the citywide approach of trying to lump all of the projects into a cost accounting and then looking at different time lines. "I wouldn't restrict it to 15-years; I would look at 20-25-years with the idea that you might have some idea of how long it would take, within those parameters, to do the critical projects at the front end." Mike Smith and Bob Smith reiterated the direction staff wants from the Board. "We would like to know how much it will cost to do it in x years, and in that time frame, when would we get the Old Water Board Minutes April23, 1998 Page 25 Town and Canal basins projects completed," Mike. Smith said. Dr. Sanders wanted the Board to take a vote and settle it that way. Paul Clopper suggested a straw vote. He stressed that the vote would have no clout to it; just a sense of the what the Board wants staff to pursue. Mr. Clopper asked for a straw vote on basin vs. citywide. Mr. Frick wanted to see total basinwide numbers before any formal action. "I think it grants enough merit that I would like to see the numbers," he added. "I would hate to see a motion made here," Mr. McMaster said. "You have heard some of the basic things, but speaking for the Canal Importation Basin and Avery Park, there are a lot of things that haven't come out yet," he stressed. Mr. Clopper agreed that formal action at this point would be premature. Mike Smith said staff needs direction because, "if you don't want to do citywide, we aren't going to spend the time working with those numbers, but if you have some interest, we will do it." Mr. Clopper asked Board members who think that citywide in some way, shape or form seems to make more sense, to raise their hands. He acknowledged that it is a fundamental change in philosophy from where we have been historically. Everyone but Tom Sanders raised their hands. Mr. Clopper asked staff if they expected a decision at the next meeting. "Yes," Mike Smith replied. Wendy Williams said about three months ago staff brought the Board the Water and Wastewater Plant Investment Fees. Since that time Michael Ozog has gone back to doing consulting work. "We hired John Gallagher, who had initially reviewed the water plant investment fees, to help us with a final review of the plant investment fees before we took them to the public. We had an open house yesterday. We sent out approximately 100 letters; 5 people showed up. Mr. Gallagher was there and explained what we were doing. He is here to bring the Board up to date because the numbers are a little different from what you saw earlier. He will distribute handouts that were used at the open house. He will explain why the numbers are different and relate some of the comments from the open house. Mr. Gallagher began by saying he realizes the Board has been through much of the philosophy and most of the numbers during the development of the Plant Investment Fees (PIFs). He plans to concentrate mainly on the changes. Equity Buy -In Method Used to Develop Plant Investment Fees Connector pays proportionate share of system equity based on capacity requirements Commonly used along Front Range Calculation Procedure Water Board Minutes April23, 1998 Page 26 - Determine backbone system equity - Estimate system capacity - Compute PIF unit equity cost - Determine connector's capacity requirements - Calculate connector's PIF He said the equity buy -in method continues to be supported, because it is a very sound methodology. It is used along the front range and just about everywhere in this country except for very high growth areas. Development of Water Plant Investment Fees Mr. Gallagher began with the Unit Charge of $3.39 per gallon per day (GPD) of peak day demand. "A unit of capacity which is a gallon per day, costs $3.39. Previously, that number was $3.11. Some things have changed, so obviously that's going to increase the proposed fees," he explained. "How does that $3.39 translate into your PIFs? The top two lines address the single family: Single Family Domestic = 180 gpd "This was what was presented before and we are comfortable with it," he said. That translates to $610 of PIF or $3.39 x 180. Single Family Irrigation Demand This varies by lot size - The irrigation demand of 770 gpd per unit is for an average size lot in Fort Collins. Currently that is considered to be 8,300 sq. ft. $3.39 x 770 divided by 8,300 sq. ft. = $0.31 per sq. ft. PIF Comparing $610 and $0.31, both of those numbers are going to increase. The domestic fee goes up by $210 and the irrigation fee increases by $0.07 per sq. ft. Getting back to the 8,300 sq. ft. lot, that customer's fee is currently $2,390. Under the new fees that would go up to $3,180. "What I heard yesterday at the open house from the three developers that were there is that the 8,300 sq. ft. lot size is larger than what they are used to building on," he said. They say their lot size average is less than that. For example, if they were developing a 6,000 ft. lot, their fee under these rates would be $2,470, under existing it is $1,840, so that's an increase of $630. The 8,300 lot size increase is $790. Commercial - varies by water meter size He prefaced the effect on commercial by saying that Black & Veatch spent considerable time looking at the Utility's billing records to get a feel for what customers are using in terms of their water Water Board Minutes April23, 1998 Page 27 demands in the system "You have excellent Utility billing records," he remarked. "We were able to determine the water demand numbers for commercial accounts, which are shown below:" • 3/4-inch 1,370 gpd • 1-inch 4,660 gpd • 1 1/2-inch 9,750 gpd • 2-inch 17,550 gpd • Larger Meters Individual demand requirements Using the 3/4-inch demand of 1,370 gpd x $3.39 = $4,600 Currently the Utility is charging $2,215, making it an increase of $2,385. Mr. Gallagher said there was very little comment at the open house yesterday on commercial accounts. "One woman suggested that raising the commercial fees like this is going to give an advantage to new large commercial accounts coming into the City which might tend to drive out the `mom and pop' operations who are trying to compete against them. That was the only comment I heard," he said. Development of Wastewater Plant Investment Fees The PIF unit charge of wastewater flow is $5.74 per gpd. It's the same methodology. "Previously, this charge was calculated to be $6.11 per gpd, so this is actually a reduction."Translating that into the fees, for domestic use it is $5.74 per gpd x 180 gpd of average wastewater flow coming out of a single family residence = $1,030. Comparing that with the existing $1,600 PIF, which was established in 1984, it is a considerable reduction. "There was great relief in the minds of those who were there yesterday (water was presented first and then wastewater) when they could see that it was not going to impact them very much." Next he presented the Commercial wastewater PIFs. "Commercial is still showing an increase. It is driven by the flows," he explained. They examined the flows by looking at the lowest three months of the winter for each of these meter sizes. That translated to their wastewater flow on a per day basis. That is how they arrived at these commercial wastewater flow numbers: • 3/4-inch meter 450 gpd • 1-inch meter 1,100 gpd • 1 '/z-inch meter 2,250 gpd • 2-inch meter 3,200 gpd • Larger meters Individual flow requirements For example, for a 3/4 meter, their PIF would go up by $600. Water Board Minutes April 23, 1998 Page 28 Comparison of PIFs Along the Front Range for Selected Communities Domestic The water fee is based on that average lot size of 8,300 sq. ft., so currently a new connector is paying $3,992 for a single family PIE With a 8,300 sq. ft. yard, that would go to $4,210 which puts us in the neighborhood of Greeley. The relative position among the selected Front Range communities does not change. Commercial A commercial 1-inch PIF is currently $11,000. It would double to approximately $22,000. That would put the City close to the top of the list of cities. However, he said he could find other communities along the front range where we would probably be more towards the middle. He then asked for questions and comments. Discussion Mr. Clopper asked Mr. Gallagher to summarize what is different from what was presented last time, and the reasons for the difference. Mr. Gallagher began by saying the methodology is the same. Basically, on average, these numbers have gone up about 11%. The reasons for that are: (1) We put in the same facilities as were included before. These are what we call backbone facilities. They do not include any assets that have a service life of under 20 years, so a considerable number of items have been eliminated, but not many dollars. (2) They do not include any distribution mains that are less than 12-inches. The reason for that is, generally developers have to put in those mains themselves and they contribute those mains to the City as part of your assets. (3) The consultant went to the effort of reconciling their list to audited figures, and Dave Agee helped them with that. "We found some discrepancies there but not too many. Before the City's assets were not trended to 1998; they were 1997 values. A significant change is that the consultant inflated the value of the City's assets every year with respect to inflation. "I don't believe that was done before," he said. Neither the capital improvement program, nor the existing backbone facilities programs were added to the assets. "I think those were left at current dollars." The outstanding principal was a significant change. What was deducted before to get to the equity position, was just the principal that was due in the year that the calculation was made. "For example, the outstanding principal might be $4 million a year for the principal payment, but the total outstanding principal was in the $40-45 million range. As you know, in order to get to an equity position on anything, you have to use the total outstanding principal, not just what is due that year. That had a tendency to hold back on some these evaluations. The system capacities that were used here are exactly the same as what was used before." Mr. Clopper asked if staff expects the Board to vote on the changes in the PIFs today. Ms. Williams answered yes. Mr. Lauer asked about the last page on commercial. "What is the feasibility of creating Water Board Minutes April 23, 1998 Page 29 some sort of sliding scale based on the size of the commercial entity so that a "mom and pop" operation would not be assessed an outrageous amount?" "Given a certain tap size?" Mr. Clopper asked. "That's right,"Mr. Lauer said. Ms. Williams said "mom and pops" are not the 1-inch, 1-1/2- inch or 2-inch taps; they are the 3/4-inch. "They are not the groups that would see a large increase," she stressed. "Is there a large enough difference to warrant considering some kind of sliding scale for 1-inch users?" Mr. Lauer continued. "I don't think so," Ms. Williams replied. Dave Frick was somewhat confused about the multi -family water demands. "Do I recall your saying that you would be requiring separate irrigation taps?" "This is an option, not a requirement. It does not result in paying two sets of PIN," Ms. Williams responded. "So they would still pay the $1,360 per unit even if their demands are less than 400 gallons per day?" Mr. Frick wondered. "Yes," Ms. Williams answered. Tom Brown asked about areas of the City like Old Town where people put a second structure on the back of a lot, and pay a PIF for that. "Is this a new set of fees designed to take account of the fact that you are not adding any irrigable area, in fact reducing it?" "They have already paid for that in the first PIF. The second PIF would not include lot size," Mr. Williams replied. ACTION: Motion Tom Brown moved that the Board vote to accept the new PIF structure. Alison Adams seconded the motion. Further Discussion Dave Frick said he continues to be uncomfortable with single family total PIFs being increased about $290, and multi -family units about $415. "I think that's an inequity that is inconsistent with developing more affordable house. Is there a way to break out PIFs for multi -family the same way you are doing for single family and duplex; by irrigated area versus persons per unit?" he asked. "I assume with duplex, you divide it by two," Mr. Ward said. "This is per unit," Mr. Frick related. Mr. Gallagher said he listed $600 as being the existing PIF. "Your current fee, as stated is $1,000, plus $600 per unit. I'm wondering if that is $1,000 for the first unit and $600 for each additional unit. The same thing is true under wastewater. That is $1600 for the first unit and $1,165 for each additional unit. I decided to simplify that and assume that the per unit cost is the first unit. I think the difference is not as wide as what is shown on that page." "I was accounting for the wastewater decrease, so there was that difference too," Mr. Frick said. "I was looking at the overall package of both water and wastewater," he added. Mr. Gallagher referred to page 5. "Looking at the 400 gallons per day for water demand, of that amount about 145 gallons per day is domestic use and the rest is irrigation. I suppose you could create an irrigation demand, but it would be more difficult because you can put 10 units on the same lot." "I still think it makes multi -family units more expensive which tend to be the more affordable housing," Mr. Frick stated. "I'm concerned philosophically with that," he asserted. "In wastewater it is more uniform per unit," he added. "What's the reason why you are not Water Board Minutes April 23, 1998 Page 30 breaking out the irrigation for multi -family?" someone asked. "You don't currently do that, and that was my main driving force, but certainly something could be done," Mr. Gallagher responded. Mr. Bode recalled that several years back there was a unit charge per building. "Is it because we don't have the data for multi -family why we don't crank it in?" Mr. Clopper asked. "It might take a fair amount of effort just to analyze that component," Mr. Frick acknowledged. "However, in the long run we are going to need better equity. This is my only concern with this. Everything else, I have no problem with," he concluded. "It seems to me the last time we had this discussion, the idea was to go back and do research on this," Mr. Lauer recalled. Ms. Williams said staff looked at the demand assumption and adjusted them because the demands were too high. Mike Smith asked Mr. Gallagher if he has a good assumption for inside use. "For multi -family, I do," he replied. "It may not be that much work to change it," Mr. Smith remarked. "I think we can strike a correlation with lot size and the summer time usage," Mr. Gallagher stated. ACTION: New Motion and Vote Mr. Clopper asked if it would be helpful to amend the motion to include Mr. Frick's concern? "We want you to be comfortable with what we are doing and we want to be comfortable too," Mr. Smith stated. Mr. Gallagher wondered if staff had lot size data for multi -family customers. Mr. Gallagher commented that, based on his experience, the City's single family/duplex PIFs are the most equitable he has ever seen, because the City recognizes lot size. Mr. Smith said staff would look at this and return to the Board with the data. With the agreement of Tom Brown, who made the motion,. Alison Adams moved to table the motion until staff comes up with the data on multi -family units. David Lauer seconded the motion, and the Board approved the motion unanimously. �Iwlvwanwlite Treated Water Production Summary For March the treated water use was 1,499 ac.-ft. Year to date, it was 4,316. Treasury Shares in Three Southside Ditch Companies Dennis Bode distributed background information on this item which did not appear on the agenda because a question arose about this after the packets had been sent. He said there is a question as to whether the City will accept treasury shares in the three southside ditch companies (Arthur, Larimer No. 2 and New Mercer). Treasury shares are inactive shares held by the companies because of non- payment of assessments, for example, and most have not had any water deliveries associated with them for many years. In the Southside Ditches Transfer Case, the pro rata share of water owned by 0 Water Board Minutes April 23, 1998 Page 31 the City and transferred for municipal use was based on only the active shares in the companies, and did not include the Treasury Shares. Because of this, the decree in this case prohibits the City from acquiring these treasury shares and using them for municipal purposes. "We want to take some formal action to recognize that those shares are not acceptable by the City," Mr. Bode said. The Water Board has that responsibility, as indicated in the City Code, to make the determination of what water rights we accept and the conversion factors that go along with that. Relative to the decree, the City wants to make its policies consistent with what the decree says. "To do that, we need an action by the Board approving the fact that we will not accept the treasury shares," he said. On the back side of the handout is a revised table of conversion factors to reflect the fact that those shares would not be acceptable. "We will continue to accept the active shares of the three companies." Robert Ward questioned why this is being brought to the Board. "I'm not sure that we need to," Mr. Bode replied, "but I think we're more comfortable with the Board ratifying that action, and making it consistent with the Southside Ditches Decree." ACTION: Motion and Vote Alison Adams moved that the Board concur with the staffs recommendation to conform with the decrees in the Southside Ditches Transfer Case. The suggested wording was: "The City will continue to accept Arthur, Larimer No. 2, and New Mercer shares with the current conversion factors to satisfy raw water requirements; however, it will not accept those shares which were held by these companies as treasury shares as of December 18, 1992, as specified in the decrees in Water Court Case No. 92CW 129." Robert Ward seconded the motion. Discussion "Does someone want to take the shares?" Mr. Ward asked. "Yes," Mike Smith replied. "In spite of what the court case says?" Mr. Ward added. "Yes," Mr. Smith replied, "but nobody has bought anything yet." Staff thought it was prudent to get the table changed and have the Board ratify it as soon as possible. Mr. Lauer asked for a short explanation of the difference between a treasury share and a real share. "Originally in the New Mercer Ditch Co. there were 160 shares issued. Over the years some of those became inactive because of non-payment of assessments, and the Company just maintained them in the Company's name. These were shares that had no water deliveries associated with them," Mr. Bode explained. "At the time we did the transfer, we looked at the active shares in determining the pro rata deliveries per share. Essentially about 18 shares had been inactive for so long that it didn't make sense to include them," he added. Water Board Minutes April23, 1998 Page 32 "So there is some question about what you get when you buy treasury shares?" Mr. Ward asked. "I think so," Mr. Bode replied. Mr. Clopper called for the question. The motion passed unanimously. Regional 201 Study There was nothing new to report. P&Z Work Session Mr. Clopper reported that he, David Lauer, Howard Goldman and John Moms represented the Water Board at a recent P&Z Board meeting. There was an exchange of ideas on floodplain zoning issues. Stormwater staff made excellent presentations on floodplain administration, capital projects, master planning and development review. "It was a good exchange of information. I think the Water Board members learned that P&Z Board members look at issues from a different perspective. Reminder of Joint Regional Water Board Meeting Molly Norder reminded the Board that the tri-cities meeting is on Wednesday, May 27, 1998 at the Sylvan Dale Guest Ranch beginning at 6:00. The Water Board's regular meeting will be held prior to that meeting instead of Thursday, the 28th. Conservation and Public Education David Lauer reported that the Committee discussed the Water Conservation Annual Report of which each Board member received a copy. "It includes a whole lot more than it did last year," he observed. The Committee was impressed with the report. The Committee also talked about horizontal -access washing machines and their cost, which is much higher than top loading machines. However, they use about half the water, and are more energy efficient, so they are more environmentally friendly. The Committee took the position to join the Consortium for Energy Efficiency's high efficiency clothes washer initiative by disseminating information. They briefly discussed the issue of anti- xeriscape covenants for subdivisions. They received reprints of a Deriver Post article about this issue in Denver. The Committee will be looking at covenants in Fort Collins to see if there are any associations that deter homeowners from using Xeriscape. The Committee is also considering taking a leadership position to reorient City policy regarding development in the floodplain, and taking a stronger position on granting variances. Next month they will meet at the same time, possibly with the Engineering Committee, to discuss taking that position and bringing it to the Board at the following meeting. The Engineering Committee will be asked to look at the technical aspects. Water conservation plan guidelines from the EPA were distributed at the meeting. "We will be looking at those in the near future. Apparently this is the first time that the EPA has come up with conservation guidelines." 11 Water Board Minutes April23, 1998 Page 33 None of the rest of the standing committees met. Water Utilities 1997 Annual Report John Moms commended staff on the excellent annual report. Other members were appreciative of the report too. They asked if it is available in the City's Manager's office or at the Public Library --if it isn't, it should be. Mike Smith related that Diana Royval was responsible for the report and, as always, did an outstanding job. Stormwaters ]Impact on West Elizabeth and Avery Park Neighborhoods Gary Vette of the Avery Park Neighborhood Assn. & Woodbox Board of Directors, prepared a report on the impact of the July 28, 1997 flood on the West Elizabeth and Avery Park Neighborhoods. He submitted this report to the Fort Collins City Council on April 21, 1998. The report included the financial impact on 281 homes/living units within the Avery Park neighborhood, plus businesses and the CSU campus as a result of the New Mercer Ditch and Avery Park Pond stormwater overflows on July 28th, and August 5,1997. The report was a result of Avery Park Neighborhood and Woodbox Condo Board meetings, discussions with neighbors, interviews; plus discussion with City staff, Colorado Water Conservation Board, Colorado Office of Emergency Management, FEMA inspectors, Colorado State University, Campus West Shopping Center, CB & Potts and Kinko's management. Mr. Vette said the Avery Park Pond is a vital first step. "We are looking at a second step which is the improvement of the New Mercer Ditch itself not just the Avery Park Pond. Based on historical data, the Water Board, City Council and City staff generates the budget for the following calendar year in May, so that's why we are approaching this time line." "That's not true this year," Mr. Agee said, "because we did a two-year budget. City staff Susan Hayes and Sue Paguette established that the New Mercer can handle, basically a 1-inch rain event, which is a 2-year rain event. Looking at historical data, on August 5, 1997 we had a 2-year rain event which was one week after the major flood. The New Mercer overflowed and that was without irrigation waters because the gates at the Poudre were shut off. Specifically the Woodbox Board wants to emphasize the need for the New Mercer improvement because it is right at their property line. He went on to say that the cost/benefit situation always seems to pop up and the Board has a problem in how you identify public safety and security levels of a community, and quantify that in a dollar figure. He asked what the actual City Code number is that requires the basin by basin implementation or separation for the financing of the basins. "Wasn't that created when the Stormwater Utility was actually established?" Mr. Clopper asked. Mike Smith read: "The Stormwater Fee shall be established in the amount to provide sufficient funds proportionately calculated for facilities that need to be installed to address drainage problems." Dave Frick said all of these factors have been put into the Standard Procedures, and they have been pretty consistently applied. M. Smith read Section 2-438, Water Board Minutes April 23, 1998 Page 34 sub paragraph (b): `Before making a recommendation for a any stormwater projects, the Board shall analyze the project and compare the full objectives to be achieved for the anticipated cost of the project. The project shall be recommended if the analysis indicates that the total benefits are greater than the total for the cost of the project." Mr. Vette summarized the historical record of what happened in the Avery Park neighborhood from July 28th and August 5th 1997. His report shows the stormwater flow maps of the Avery Park area neighborhood and how that stormwater flow, the overspill from the Avery Park Pond, the overspill from the New Mercer south of Elizabeth, the overflow from Springfield which normally goes into New Mercer but didn't that night, and went down South Bryan. He said he has photos of the water flows of 30 inches which were mmrring through the Woodbox condos. "The reason I know it was 30 inches was because the FEMA inspector measured the water marks." There are also photos of the Avery Park Pond overspill which the FEMA inspector identified as 22 inches. There are also photos of the situation down South Bryan where there was basically a combination of Springfield, Avery Park and Elizabeth St. drainage hitting that area. A videotape of a 34" wall of water hitting Larimer No. 2 is also available. The tape also shows the watermark on a duplex that is at South Bryan and Elizabeth. The flow maps show the blocking, essentially, of Larimer No. 2 of anything north of Elizabeth which went into the International House complex and continued on down into the Campus West Shopping Center, along with the New Mercer waters that went through CB&Potts and did considerable damage to that restaurant. Campus West businesses were water damaged, e.g. Kinkos had $60,000 damage to printers, copies, etc. He had eye witness accounts of the stormwater sitting at the CSU Campus at Elizabeth and Shields and the depth of that was the door handle of a Dodge Ram pickup which was measured at 45". As the water progressed unto the CSU Campus, it was joined by Moby Arena parking lot drainage. Then it split itself into two rivers and hit the Student Health Center and the Library, and the other half went to the Student Center and north of the Campus. "Unfortunately, in talking with the Atmospheric Science and Civil Engineering representatives from CSU, Fort Collins has had three 100-year floods in this century, plus a 250-year hailstorm with grapefruit sue hail, and the recent 500-year situation, and one week after that, we had a two-year event. Based on historical data from the weather station at CSU, that is an accurate event, because it is happening about every other year." Mr. Clopper stated that he appreciated the amount of work Mr. Vette and others have done to gather evidence, anecdotal or otherwise. "We hope you will provide this, and any other information you have, to the Stormwater staff." Robert Ward asked Mr. Vette's take on the discussion earlier on trying to figure out a way to pay for this. "Did you feel that the general thrust of trying to put priority on the Canal and Old Town areas will help?' "The pay-as-you-go concept hasn't been working," Mr. Vette replied. "In 1980 the New Mercer was identified as inadequate by a Resource Consultants report. At that time it was • Water Board Minutes April23, 1998 Page 35 identified as a 10.15-year flood protection model; now it's down to two." Mr. Ward said there were some priorities. "I was thinking of doing everything in five years even if you got the money. "I'm not asking for all projects to be done in five years," Mr. Vette replied. "I'm asking that the New Mercer get the priority." "What exactly are you talking about in terms of New Mercer; what are you asking us to do?" Mr. Lauer asked. "There is a project outlined to enlarge the ditch," Mike Smith answered. "Is that what you are endorsing?" Mr. Lauer asked Mr. Vette. "That is one of the options," he said. "There is also the option of elevating the banks." "Did you hear the discussion from the Stormwater staff about elevating the banks and the backup that would result?" Mr. Lauer continued. "You have the channel restriction pond just north of Elizabeth and west of Ram's Village," Mr. Vette responded. "You can generate an overspill situation as it comes into that restriction pond. "It's already being filled with other water," Mr. Frick pointed out. "It did not come out on the 28th or the 5th," Mr. Vette said. "It's designed to handle what's coming from upstream; trying to put more water into it would make it overtop," Mr. Frick said. "As soon as it overtops it will get back into New Mercer, so you don't gain anything," he concluded. "The whole idea is we need some more money to get the project done, and New Mercer is already a top priority project," Mike Smith stated. "There are a whole host of options," Mr. Frick said. "There are some things that are being recognized and I know CSU is cooperating with the City to look at options west of Campus,"John Morris pointed out. Mr. Clopper thanked everyone for staying through the marathon meeting today. Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. 2n L::2�. Water Board Se retary