Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 11/15/1974WATER BOARD Regular Meeting{ November 15, 1974 - 3:00 P.M. Present: W. C. Wilkinson Bernard Cain, Jr. Norman Evans Harvey Johnson Henry Caulfield Karl E. Carson Raymond Anderson Everett Richardson Ward Fischer (arrived at 3:40) Robert Brunton Absent: James Waltz Staff members present: Liquin, Hays, Strand and Hoffman Also: City Attorney March, Jr. In the absence of Chairman Ward Fischer, the Vice -Chairman Dr. Norman Evans chaired the meeting. Minutes of Special Meeting of October 18, 1974 approved Dr. Evans inquired if there were any corrections or changes to be made to the minutes of the special meeting of October 18, 1974; hearing none, he declared the minutes approved as published. Application for an out -of -City water service by David W. Smith approved Chuck Liquin, Director of Public Works, spoke to the location of the property and the availability of water service to this particular property. The pro- perty can be served by either the 24" or 27" transmission line. Mr. Caulfield inquired into the annexation requirements and was advised that a waiver would be signed in this case. Mr. Anderson inquired if a rural water district did not serve this area. Mr. Liquin advised him that the Bellvue area was served by the Bellvue Water District, which does get its water from the City. However, Mr. Smith can best be served by the City because our transmission lines cross this property. Motion was made by Harvey Johnson that the Water Board recommend approval of Mr. David W. Smith's request for an out -of -City water tap to the Council. Motion seconded by Dugan Wilkinson. The Vice -Chairman put the motion which was adopted unanimously. -1- Request for City to take over water mains on North Taft Hill denied, alternate recommendations made Director of Public Works, Chuck Liquin, spoke to the location of the privately owned water mains and their present physical condition and their value to.the City. There are currently four small water lines serving residents in the area of Vine and forth Taft Hill.. All of these lines feed from major City of Port Collins water transmission lines, a 16" line north of Vine and a 20" line south of Vine. These lines are discussed in detail below and are illustrated on the large presentation map. Ross -Beardsley Eater Line: This line is a 1" galvanized steel line installe in the 1940's. It feeds through a master meter located on the west side of Taft Hill Road from a 16" City main. There are eleven customers on this line. The total consumption .last year was 1,411,000. This line is presently not maintained by the City. Carl Sh.ar water Line: This line is a 2" galvanized steel line installed in the 1940's. It feeds through a master meter located on the east side of Taft Hill Road from a 16" City main. There arc ten customers on this line. The total consumption last year was 1,338,000. This line is presently not maintained by the City'. Jessie water Line: This line is a 2" galvanized steel line inst Ilcd in the late 1930's. It feeds from the 20" City main through :incliv.dual meters to the customers. There arc cloven customers served by this line. The C.Ity assumed responsibility for maintenance of this line in 1968. Armstrong Water Line: This line is a 2" galvanized steel line-7ec ing tnroiigh a 1" tap from the 16" City main. It was installed in the late 1940's or early 1950's. It serves eight customers through a master meter.. This line is presently not maintained by the City. There are an estimated fifty to sixty houses that could be served in the area between the two City major transmission mains with a tie line. The entire area is presently outside the city limits with the closest house that could be served being some 1,000 feet from the present boundary. There are no fire hydrants in the area. The only other water in the area is a 14" East Larimer Count 1Pater Transmission. line which runs north on Taft Hill Road to Vine, then east on Vine. This area is out of the district normally served by East I.arimer, however. -2- 0 Conclusions: It is not likely that a great deal more develop- ment will occur along Taft Hill Road between the two major water lines. Because of the short distance involved, any new develop- ment could readily be served from new taps off the major lines. It would be possible to serve the customers presently being served by the four small lines by ruining an S" line north from the 20" line to Vine Drive, continuing north with a 6" line to tie in with the 16" line, with 6" branches to the east and west along Vine Drive and connecting to an existing City 6" line to the west of the intersection. The estimated cost of installing these mains during the 1975 construction season is approximately $50,000.00. This cost does not include connections to the main from the houses. It does include the cost of three to five fire hydrants that could be installed during construction. The Public Works Department does not believe that the acquisition of these water lines would be a benefit to the City. Dr. Carson inquired into the feasibility of a County Improvement District. Mr. Liquin replied that the County Improvement District legislation was not sufficient to implement these improvements. Board member Caulfield inquired to other alternatives - the home owners getting together, etc. Mr. Liquin informed him that this would probably be the most equitable. Mr. Caulfield inquired also to the reasons for wanting the City to take over the Ross -Beardsley water line and the Armstrong line; Mr. Liquin replied that there were leaks in the lines and the owner would prefer the City to make repairs. The water is originally supplied by the City and it is billed through two master meters and then divided between the users on the line. Motion was made by Karl Carson to accept the following recommendations: 1. That the City not take over the operation and maintenance of the Ross -Bo arsley and Carl Sharp water lines. These lines do not supply sufficient volume, pressure or fire Protection to the petitioners and in addition are approaching the end of their useful life. 2. That the City approach the petitioners and others in the area on their interest in participating in the installation of adequate mains to provide adequate service and fire protection at an estimated total cost of $s0,000.00. Everett Richardson seconded the motion. The Vice -Chairman put the motion which was unanimously adopted. Request of City to take over Riverside Avenue water main discussed The recommendation from the Director of Public Works is that the City meet with the property owner to recommend that he annex his property to the City of Fort -3- Collins and after annexation, create an Improvement District to install adequate water lines to this property. During the interim the City could approach the petitioners with an alternative suggestion of connecting; the existing 2" line to the water line on Riverside, which would eliminate several hundred feet of pipe and would increase pressure to the area. It is estimated this would cost under $1,000. Board member Caulfield made a motion to follow the recommendation as outlined by the Director of Public Works, seconded by Bernard Cain, Jr. The Vice -Chairman put the motion which was unanimously adopted. Consider purchase of shares of North Poudre and Horsetooth water Chairman Ward Fischer stated that the record should show that the City Manager had been advised by the Director of Public Works that there is $150,000 available for the purchase of raw water. An offer by Drew Wesner consisted of 4;1 shares of North Poudre water at a price of $2,650.00 per share and 5 shares of Horsetooth water at a price of $375.00 per share. Mr. Caulfield inquired if the price for the Horsetooth water is a fair price. Mr. Liquin advised the Water Board that Mr. Larry Simpson from the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District office advises that any water purchased for less than $400.00 is a good buy. Board member Richardson made a motion to purchase 5 shares of Horsetooth water at $375.00 per share, seconded by Norman Evans. The Chairman put the motion which was adopted by the following vote: Yeas: Wilkinson, Cain, Evans, Johnson, Caulfield, Carson, Anderson, and Richardson. Nays: Fischer. Mr. Fischer clarified his nay by stating he is still inclined to follow previous policy. Motion was made by Everett Richardson to not purchase the North Poudre water, seconded by Raymond Anderson. The Chairman put the motion which was adopted by the following vote: Yeas: Wilkinson, Cain, Evans, Johnson, Caulfield, Carson, Anderson, and Richardson. Nays: Fischer. The Chairman requested a further discussion of purchase of raw water at a subsequent meeting. Consider report on Southside Ditch yields The Chairman reviewed the situation with the Southside Ditches for the Board. City Attorney March's report is as follows: At the last meeting of the Water Board you requested that I make a recommendation to you regarding the acceptance by the City of stock in the three Southside ditches presently the subject of the moratorium in satisfaction of the City's raw water requirement. As you know, the City previously established the moratorium in the hope that this would evidence the City's good faith to the three ditches involved and we would be able to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement with these three ditches as to the conditions under which the City would be per- -4- mitted to withdraw the water represented by its stock from the ditch. This hope has not been realized, and although we have attempted to reach such an agreement, it appears we are at a stalemate, primarily because of the lack of interest in this subject by the directors of the three ditches. My recommendation at the last Water Board meeting was that the City cancel the moratorium and again accept stock in these ditches, but at a yield reflecting the anticipated problems of transferring the water from the ditches without the consent of the company involved. In making this recommendation I realize that one must anticipate substantial problems in transferring these waters out of the ditches and further, that one cannot with any degree of certainty predict the amount of water which we will ultimately be able to utilize. Nevertheless, I feel that the City should accept stock in these ditches in satisfaction of its raw water requirement. The path of the City's growth has been over lands which are partially served by these three ditches, and it seems reasonable to assume that this pattern of growth will continue. Therefore, the lands now irrigated from these ditches will be withdrawn from agricultural use and if something is not done to preserve the water rights, they will ultimately be lost to this area through abandonment proceedings. This would be adverse to the interests of the City, as well as the entire surrounding community. For this reason I feel that we have an obligation to attempt to make use of these waters, but we should insure that the interests of the City will not be harmed in doing this. I feel that this assurance can be given through the amount of credit the City gives for this ditch stock. As you can imagine, it is impossible to anticipate the exact amount of water which we will ultimately realize from the stock in these ditches. This is true because the rights in question are direct flow decrees, and in all probability we would be transferring them to a storage use. In all probability, the amount or storage allowed would be based at least in part upon the average amount of water delivered through these ditches within recent times. In 1969 the City obtained from Mort Bittinger and Associates a report on various ditches, giving the average yield from those ditches over the ten-year period from 1959 to 1968. In 1971 these figures were updated to 1971 figures. I feel that this is a reasonable basis upon which to compute the present yield of these ditches. Any transfer that was made would have to contemplate that the City would be required to give up some of the water in question to the river in order to compensate for possible losses to other users. In addition, the ditch companies would probably claim that they were entitled to have some of the water in question forfeited to them in order to make up for the diminished ability of the ditch to carry water to other users if the City withdrew its water from the ditch. The decided cases in this state seem clear that no forfeiture to the individual ditches in question would be required; however, it is quite possible that a negotiated settlement might allow some forfeiture to the ditch even though this would not be required by the courts. The only basis for comparison which we now have is the transfer which was previously effected of shares in these three ditches in connection with the recently completed plan for augmentation. At that time the City did not actually forfeit any water to the ditch; however, it did agree not to transfer 15% of the shares it held and to allow these waters to be used by other stockholders of the ditch until -5- such time as the ditch might be abandoned, at which time the City could use the waters in whatever way it chose. In connection with the plan of augmentation, no actual forfeiture to the river to protect other users was required; however, this was a peculiar situation in that the overall results of the plan for augmentation represented a substantial benefit to all water users on the river. Future cases may not present such benefits or the City may not be able to convince other appropriators that such benefits will accrue. For a more detailed statement regarding the problems and concerns involved in future changes from a ditch point of diversion, see pages 36 through 54 of the report previously submitted to the Water Board by Ward Fischer and A. E. March, Jr. Any future withdrawal of waters from any of the ditches in question would require substantial study before a reasonable evaluation of the amount of waters to be forfeited to the river could be made. It is not felt that such study would be beneficial at this time, and therefore the best that can be done is to make a realistic deduction from the yield of these three ditches which will reasonably protect the City's interest. It is felt that any of the three alternates below would do this, the only difference between the alternates being the amount of the deduction. It is recommended that the Water Board select one of the three alternates and make recommendation to the City Council that the moratorium be lifted but that stock in these companies be taken only at the yield indicated by the alternative selected. Alternative A Arthur Ditch: 10 Year average yield 4.42 acre feet Less 15% to compensate for possible forfeiture to river or ditch .663 3.757 Less 25% to compensate for cost of proceedings to effect transfer .939 Net Yield 2.818 acre feet New -Mercer Ditch: 10 Year average yield 28.8 acre feet Less 15% to compensate for possible forfeiture to river or ditch 4.32 24.48 Less 25% to compensate for cost of proceedings to effect transfer 6.12 Net Yield No. 2 Canal: 10 Year average yield Less 15% to compensate for possible forfeiture to river or ditch 18.36 acre feet 44.58 acre feet 6.687 37.893 is 0 0 No. 2 Canal --Continued 37.893 Less 25% to compensate for cost of proceedings to effect transfer 9.473 Net Yield 28.42 acre feet Alternative B Arthur Ditch: - 10 Year average yield 4.42 acre feet Less 50% to cover possible shrink and expenses of transfer 2.21 Net Yield 2.21 acre feet New Mercer Ditch: 10 Year average yield 28.8 acre feet Less 50% to cover possible shrink and expenses of transfer _ 14.4 Net Yield 14.4 acre feet No. 2 Canal: 10 Year average yield 44.58 acre feet Less 50% to cover possible shrink and expenses of transfer 22.29 Net Yield 22.29 acre feet Alternative C Arthur Ditch: 10 Year average yield 4.42 acre feet Less 20% for possible forfeitures to ditch and river .884 3.536 Less 50% for possible cost of transfer 1.768 Net Yield 1.768 acre feet New Mercer: 10 Year average yield 28.8 acre feet Less 20% for possible forfeitures to ditch and river 5.76 23.04 Less 50% for possible cost of transfer 11.52 Net Yield 11.52 acre feet -7- No. 2 Canal: 10 Year average yield 44.58 acre feet Less 20% for possible forfeitures to ditch and river 8.916 35.664 Less 50% for possible cost of transfer 17.832 Net Yield - 17.832 acre feet Mr. Fischer explained that the water from the Southside Ditches is not readily usable by the City and to make them usable, they will need to be taken from the ditches at some future time. This would incur a couple of considerations: (1) there probably is no legal requirement to leave water in the ditch,in future settlements we might be required to do so; (2) once we transfer these on any change point of diversion, me may well have to leave some water in the river as abandoned to compensate other appropriations for possible loss. Mr. Caulfield asked about the previous negotiations, and the prior agreement with the ditch companies. Mr. March explained the previous actions, the plan of augmentation, etc., and that we are now trying to initiate new discussions regarding future use of the waters. Mr. Wilkinson was concerned with the 50% figure used for shrinkage used in alternative B as not being equitable and that the average water available should be figured from 1913 to present rather than using a 10 year period. Board member Caulfield made a motion to recommend to the Council that the water stock of the Arthur Ditch, New Mercer Ditch and the No. 2 Canal be accepted on the basis of an allowance of 50% of the average yields of each share of stock of those ditches using the period 1913 to date as the dates. Motion seconded by Everett Richardson. The Chairman took a roll call vote with the following outcome: Yeas: Anderson, Cain, Evans, Fischer, Johnson, Carson, Caulfield, and Richardson. Nays: Wilkinson. Motion passed. Scheduling of a Public Hearing on House Bill 1041 relating to certain water and sewage treatment systems and water projects to be designated as having state interest,hearing set for December 20, 1974 at 3:00 P.M. City Attorney March advised the Board the specific areas the City would be con- cerned with are inside the City limits. Those areas outside the City are another matter just now. The Chairman ruled that the hearing be scheduled as requested by the Council. Board member Evans made a motion that the hearing be Friday, December 20, 1974 at 3:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers in City Hall, seconded by Karl Carson. The Chairman put the motion which was unanimously adopted. Chairman Ward Fischer requested that the Secretary please take care of getting the proper notices to the proper places. (Notice of hearing attached.) go u E NOTICE OF HEARING Public notice is hereby given that the Fort Collins Water Board will hold a public hearing on December 20, 1974, at 3:00 P.M. in the Council Chamber of the City Hall. Such hearing will be for the purpose of considering designations of certain activities in the City, to -wit: a. Site selection and construction of major new domestic water and sewage treatment systems and major extension of existing domestic water and sewage treatment systems; b. Efficient utilization of municipal and industrial water projects; as activities of state interest subject to regulation -under the pro- visions of House Bill 1041 (The Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act of 1974) of the 1974 General Assembly of the State of Colorado. At such hearing the Board will hear all testimony and evidence presented and will then make a report to the City Council who will determine the actual designations to be made. November 18, 1974. City Clerk Considering filing a decree to take additional water from Poudre River. tabled Director of Public Works, Chuck Liquin, spoke to the memo from Ben Alexander, supervisor at the Filter Plant, stating that this was needed to cover water taken during the summer months of high flow. Board member Dugan Wilkinson stated to the Board that he has been searching the records and has found an early decree in 1953 that provides ample water for the City. However, he has not finished his research and would request that this matter be tabled until such time that he can complete his search of the records on this matter. Discussion on purpose of Water Board and reply to be forwarded to the City Manager Chairman Fischer discussed at length Mr. Brunton's letter of October 24, 1974, with the members of the Board. The Chairman will forward the reply to the City Manager's office. Q:R The Chairman announced the next regular meeting of the Water Board will be December 13, 1974 at 3:00 P.M. He also requested that the Administration present their report on suggested priorities and the suggested purchase prices for various waters. Other Business Board member Evans introduced George Palos from M. W. Bittinger and Associates, Inc., who spoke to a computerized model prepared by his firm for use in the analysis of water distribution systems of the City. He stated that this model was not sophisticated enough to handle the analysis of a spot impact on the system as desired by the Director of Public Works. Director of Public Works, Chuck Liquin, informed the Water Board that Harold Ellingson, on the Impact Statement, is progressing with the preliminary drafts being turned in to him by each of the team members and there will be a meeting on Monday, November 18, 1974 in the Council Chambers of City Ball for the purpose of getting citizen input on this. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned. ATTEST: City Clerk Chairman -10-