The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWater Board - Minutes - 06/22/2000Fort Collins Water Board Minutes June 22, 2000 3:22 — 5:10 p.m. Fort Collins Utilities Training Room 700 Wood Street City Council Liaison Water Board Chairman Water Board Vice Chair Chuck Wanner (not present) Tom Sanders — 491-5448 John Morris — 491-0185 Staff Liaison Molly Nortier — 221-6700 ROLL CALL Members Present Tom Sanders, Chairman, John Morris, Vice Chairman, Dave Rau, Tom Brown, Joe Bergquist Paul Clopper Members Absent Robert Ward, Bill Fischer, David Lauer, Dave Frick, George Reed STAFF Mike Smith, Jim Hibbard, Gale McGaha Miller, Dennis Bode, Ben Alexander, Bob Smith, Dave Agee, Kevin Gertig, Molly Nortier GUESTS None MEETING OPENED Chair Tom Sanders opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Note: Business that required action was postponed until enough Board members arrived for a quorum. That was achieved at 4:00 p.m. MINUTES Joe Bergquist moved that the minutes of May 25, 2000 be approved as distributed. John Morris seconded the motion. Tom Sanders pointed out a typo on p. 6, paragraph 7, first sentence, "is" should be "if," and on p.9 first paragraph, "drought" should be "droughts." The Board voted unanimously to approve the minutes, as corrected, when a quorum was reached at 4:00 p.m. UPDATE: NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRIC (NCWCD) Gene Schleiger was unable to attend, so there was no report. Water Board Minutes June 22, 2000 Page 2 DEMONSTRATION OF BACKFLOW PREVENTION FOR SPRINKLER SYSTEMS The Board convened outside to see a demonstration of backflow prevention for sprinkler systems by staff member John Nelson, Cross Connection Control Specialist. It was an interesting and informative presentation. Sprinkler systems can contaminate drinking water because of backflow, cross -connection and back-siphonage. He explained that these terms mean basically the same thing: used water that has drained from pipes is sucked back into a home's water system by a drop in water pressure. If this water is contaminated by weed killer, fertilizer or pesticides, it can cause health problems and even death. John's demonstration shows how backflow occurs, how to prevent it, and how to comply with City code. He has taken his demonstration into the community to several businesses that sell and install sprinkler systems. The City of Fort Collins requires new and existing sprinkler or irrigation systems to be equipped with an approved backflow preventer. These include the Atmospheric Vacuum Breaker, the Pressure Vacuum Breaker and the Reduced Pressure Backflow Assembly. The Pressure Vacuum Breaker and Reduced Pressure Backflow Assembly should be tested annually by a state -certified tester. John answered a number of questions from Water Board members. WATER QUALITY CONCERNS FOR HORSETOOTH RENOVATION PROJECT This item was not on the agenda, but staff members thought it was an urgent issue that the Board needed to act on. Gale McGaha Miller, Water Quality Services Manager, introduced the topic by saying that staff put together 18 pages of comments regarding the Environmental Assessment (EA) that was produced for the Horsetooth Renovation Project. Copies of a letter addressed to Gerald Kelso, Acting Area Manager of the Bureau of Reclamation, were distributed to Board members. The letter was signed by Mike Smith, Utilities General Manger. Copies were sent to Mike DiTullio, Fort Collins -Loveland Water District, Bob Reed, Solider Canyon Filter Plant, Webb Jones, East Larimer County Water District, Gary Simpson, North Weld County Water District and Jon Monson, City of Greeley. The letter, which summarized most of staff's concerns, began by saying that Fort Collins Utilities has numerous concerns about the potential risks that the Horsetooth Dam project poses to water quality, and about the manner in which the Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses those risks. The letter continued by saying that the aggressive schedule to commence construction increases the risk of causing unnecessary problems with maintaining an adequate supply of safe drinking water to the region. Staff included detailed comments and supporting literature with the letter. Gale went on to say that extending the boat ramps would bring boating down when the water was low enough that we could risk getting petroleum products from the boats, especially two stroke engines, in the intake for our water treatment plant and the Soldier Canyon Plant. This could affect both water supplies. She explained that petroleum products aren't much of a problem when Horsetooth Reservoir is quite deep, but if it is brought down as low as the Bureau and the District are talking about, those products could become a contamination problem. In addition, the boats can cause churning and wave action which stir up sediments. The City would prefer that the boat ramp not be extended. "If it is left the way it is now, people can't get their boats in the water, so it's not a problem," she said. Water Board Minutes June 22, 2000 Page 3 John Morris asked why petroleum is an issue when it's lower and not when it's full. "Petroleum stays near the top of the water," Gale explained, "but when the water gets low enough, it's going to get pulled into the bottom of the reservoir. The reservoir will stratify, and when it turns over, it causes more dilution, and it will be much closer to our intake." Ben Alexander pointed out that during times of construction the reservoir levels will be much lower than 5,360'. Ben explained, with the use of graphs (charts and graphs are attached), what happens when the reservoir is lowered. He said that the 5,380' level is at the bottom of the existing boat ramps. An article in the newspaper related that the ramps may be extended down to 5,360', a level where he would be concerned that they would be encroaching on an area that staff thinks we need for a margin of safety for our intake. He went on to say that some sediments are going to be exposed that haven't been exposed since 1977, and the wave action on those sediments is going to cause some unknown impacts on water quality. He acknowledged that we may have water quality impacts or we may not. It's very hard to predict because it's dependent on inflow and outflow patterns, the weather and the timing of what is being done. Tom Brown pointed out that the reservoir was quite low in May, and also a year or two ago. "How low is that and where does that fit in here?" he asked. Ben showed a chart that Northern District employees gave him at a meeting yesterday. The upper chart showed the actual water surface with the dates of the year 2000 across the bottom. It is similar to the chart that Dennis Bode provides each month on treated water usage. The thin line was the actual surface level and the heavy dark line was the projected surface level throughout the year. It dropped down quite a lot as Tom Brown mentioned. We are now back up to 5,390', which is the District's target elevation until after the boating activity is over. The reason they are trying to maintain that level, is to accommodate the recreational needs of the boaters. In subsequent years, he pointed out that the maximum surface will deviate below that. "It's these low periods that I am really concerned about," he stressed. The 5,360' level is the maximum during construction. The bottom line was 5,320'. Our intake is at 5,270'. Ben explained that the other thing that happens is a turnover condition, and it normally happens in the fall with a deep reservoir like Horsetooth. The water temperatures on the top cool off and mix vertically to where the temperature is the same throughout. That allows the mixing of the surface water with the waters at the bottom. It's much easier for it to mix when there is less water in there and the temperature is more uniform. "We may see mixing happening earlier in the year," he said. That could be good or bad for water quality depending on what is getting mixed down there. He added that we don't know when they are going to be making changes in inflow/outflow patterns. The agricultural draw is going to be the big demand that causes the water surface to go down, but we don't know what the rate of delivery is going to be coming in. We don't have those projections at this point. He acknowledged that the District is doing some modeling. If we had the modeling, it would help us to make some of those predictions. Gale stated that there are other water quality concerns that occur when the reservoir is drawn down. You can get leaching out of newly exposed banks of heavy metals. A lot of sediment is stirred up, which creates conditions that are perfect for eutrophication. All of those can create Water Board Minutes June 22, 2000 Page 4 challenges for treating the water. The key issue we are talking about today is the inter -action with the County. "That seems to be the hot political issue right now," Ben added. He related that it is staff s recommendation to the Bureau that they delay the start of the project for two years, which would give us time to construct the shared pipeline that will bring water from the Cache La Poudre to the Tri-district plant and the City's plant. We will have more capacity from the River at that time and we will be in a much better position to assure the reliability and quality to our customers. Gale said it helps the City avoid all kinds of logistical problems when you have a couple of major capital construction projects going on using the same roads and trying to make use of the same resources. John Morris asked if there was any discussion of making the County's loss in business part of the construction costs. Gale replied that the Bureau has mitigation funds to address financial loss, environmental loss and public health loss. "This is something we have reminded everybody of," she said, "but the Bureau has not made any gestures towards the County that I am aware of to try to mitigate the lost revenue strain." "Do you have any idea what it costs the City to deal with declining water quality in Horsetooth?" Tom Brown asked. "There are so many unknowns. We do know that if we had an overwhelming amount of petroleum products, contamination or eutrophication, we would have to go to granulated active carbon, or something like that; just the raw materials, even if we had the processes in place, would be expensive," she responded. However, it is difficult to come up with any numbers when you can't predict what is going to happen. Ben said that the risk assessment on the dams is based on worst case, and to be consistent, we have to look at worst case when we are evaluating water quality problems. He went on to explain the details of some of the problems that could occur. Water Production Manager Kevin Gertig said, for example, that even with the new facility, removing hydrocarbons was not a target goal for its design. Any kind of problem related to that, could be a significant challenge," he stressed. He said they do have powder activated carbon capability, but not in high doses. Ben said if we had the Poudre pipeline on line, we would have an option to alternate the load of sources. He mentioned that the Tri-district plant does not have any Poudre water available to it yet, but it will once that pipeline is in place. Gale stated that another reason the City is asking for a two-year delay, is because the environmental assessment glossed over a number of issues and simply didn't address others. "They need to be addressed," she stressed. The time frame for beginning this construction process is so rapid that there are going to be a lot of problems that will crop up that nobody has had a chance to address. "Not only would the two-year delay give us a chance to complete the Poudre pipeline project, but it would give the Bureau a chance to coordinate activities with everybody," she concluded. Paul Clopper understands that the Bureau and the District are moving quickly because this is a funding source that is going to run dry. Ben responded that he had feedback from a Northern District staffer about a month ago. Apparently the District has a group that is working with a political committee in Congress. They were reasonably certain they were going to get half the Water Board Minutes • • June 22, 2000 Page 5 money ($50 million) authorized this year. When the bill was re -authorized by Congress, he understands that the ratio of local and federal funds would not change. He thinks that appears to take the heat off, and eliminates the need for the urgency argument. "Assuming it's not delayed," Tom Brown said, "the pressing issue is whether the boat ramps will be extended, right? Is the City going to object to building the boat ramp?" Ben answered that he is reluctant to see the recreation community invest dollars into something that we might end up not using because of water quality problems. "This is something we need to get on the table between the City and County and work out solutions." "Do we have any idea of the revenue the County is going to lose if the boat ramp is not extended?" Tom continued. "It is hard to say," Mike Smith explained, " because the amount of total revenue they will lose because of no boating versus boating that can cause pollution that might happen if the ramp is extended." Obviously, we are not expecting the same level of boating if the ramp is extended, because the reservoir will not be as inviting, due to marginal conditions at best. Ben said he didn't know if anyone has done that analysis, if the maximum water surface level is 5,360' during construction. That was the level to which the article in the newspaper said they would extend the boat ramp. "As you can see, there are several times in the chart that it is expected to be below 5,360', so the ramps are going to be high and dry." He pointed out the 5,360 line on a graph. "It doesn't quite get back up to that in the year 2001, and it just barely touches it for awhile in 2002," he said. It doesn't seem that staffs suggestion not to extend the boat ramps has a whole lot to do with the revenue loss. Tom Brown also asked if the City has the power to stop boating because of diminished water quality. "The authority that the City has is related to a state law that allows a municipality or a utility to prohibit pollution for five miles upstream if a home rule city adopts an ordinance to do that," Ben replied. "We do have that ordinance in Fort Collins," he said. The City has never looked at it on Horsetooth because we have not felt our water supply was polluted. In talking with the city attorney several years ago when we had a problem on the River, he said what we needed was to dispatch a City police officer up there to issue a citation for those polluting the River, and try it in City Court. Tom Sanders asked if there is a possibility that staff could fast track and get a modeler in here for a month and a half and take a look at these scenarios and provide some facts. "One of the problems is that we've had a very difficult time getting data from the agencies involved in the project as far as their projections in their own modeling with the flow. They have not been willing to share the information," Gale responded. Ben said he specifically asked for that service as well as other water quality services from the Bureau. They have a water quality group with some highly qualified experts in Lakewood. He asked for assistance with monitoring associated with the reservoir draw -down. He also asked for assistance in determining if there might be some association between the deteriorated water quality inside the reservoir and the erosion of the underlying geologic formations. He was told at that time that water quality didn't have anything to do with dam safety and it would be an inappropriate use of federal dam safety money to do a water quality investigation. He persisted with his request and subsequently received a call, after the environmental assessment came out, from a limnologist at their Lakewood office. He said they were interested in exploring some of these things. Ben imagines that we will get something Water Board Minutes June 22, 2000 Page 6 going soon. He added that he didn't think it was appropriate for the City to tackle this on its own because we need professional scientists involved in the study in order for it to have validity. Char Sanders thinks that the Board needs more information in order to make recommendations on this. He acknowledged that the scenario regarding this could be extremely serious. It could be perceived as dam safety versus water quality, and, of course there is the recreation aspect as well. He has always been an advocate of not having motor boats on drinking water supplies, "but we can't do much about that out here," he said. "If we do have problems with organics and algae, we are going to have to go to powdered activated carbon. Can we work up a scenario for costs on that?" he asked. "The reality is we would probably have to raise water rates for treated water if the water deteriorates to the worst case scenario," he predicted. Ben said we are likely to see some deterioration. "You can't beat powdered activated carbon, but in my experience, you also shorten your filter run and that begins to affect capacity," he explained. Tom added that it doesn't do anything to the algae; you have to have micro -filters preceding that to remove the algae. Removing algae was in the original design, but we have never had any previous problems with it. Tom Sanders wanted to be very careful about recommending anything to Council until the Board has a good handle on it. Nevertheless, he thinks postponing the project for two years sounds like a good idea because the Pleasant Valley Pipeline would be completed by then. Dave Rau thinks that "hits the nail on the head. We can model, etc. and we are still not going to know what's going to happen. In reality we need additional information." Ben added that it assures reliability. Also, during this time period, the Soldier Canyon Plant is scheduled this winter to bring another 20 mgd of filtration capacity on line. Furthermore, if you have problems with filter clogging algae from Horsetooth, there will be more filters to distribute the load across. He assured the Board that there will be additional reliability coming on line with projects we have now that will be implemented within two years. He can't see that issues related to safety are so alarming that we can't wait two years. If the funding problem is not an issue any more, then we wonder why we would take the risk of reduced reliability that could happen. Tom Sanders brought up another issue. He said we need time to plan for a possible water shortage if we have a drought; specifically regarding the kinds of restrictions and what we can do. He contends that we should have been thinking about the water quality issue six months ago. He mentioned a third issue, which is the possibility of constructing a variable inlet intake structure. "If we are going to lower the reservoir for 3-5 years, this would be an ideal time to consider doing it. Perhaps this is the time for the Bureau to incorporate this in the design. He concluded that there are three major issues connected with the Horsetooth project, and we are in a bind because everything is moving so fast. He acknowledged that, if we don't have a drought in the next 4 or 5 years, it probably isn't an issue. Tom Brown talked to an employee of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) about a week ago about climate cycles. He was saying that the southwest, which partially includes us, is likely to experience a drought period over the next ten years or so. Ben noted that, if we go into a drought cycle, the first 2 or 3 years are the easiest to cope with. For example, right now Granby is full. Water Board Minutes June 22, 2000 Page 7 ACTION: Motion Tom Brown remarked that it's not very likely that the schedule will change, but it would be good for us if it did. That would be the best case scenario. It's a good thing to ask for. Before he made a motion to that effect, he stated that the City's proposal puts the concerns and issues clearly on the table, and is a place to work from. If they refuse to comply, at least we are in a better position to argue the case for other restrictions that would protect the water quality. Therefore, he moved, and Paul Clopper seconded the motion, that the Water Board propose to the City Council that they request that the Bureau postpone the Horsetooth improvements for two years for the following reasons: The Pleasant Valley Pipeline is projected to be completed in 2002. This pipeline project is a joint project that will increase the capability to convey water from the Poudre River to both the City's Water Treatment Facility and the Tri-District's Soldier Canyon Filter Plant. If there are serious difficulties in treating water from Horsetooth Reservoir during the construction period, additional water can be brought to the treatment plants from the Poudre River. • The City of Fort Collins, NCWCD and the USBR will have more time to better understand and evaluate the possible water quality impacts that may result from renovations to the Horsetooth dams. In turn, this will help the parties implement operating criteria and develop other mitigation measures to minimize any adverse water quality impacts. • The additional time will allow the City to develop contingency plans for water shortages that could develop if construction on the dams causes unexpected restrictions on the supply of water available from Horsetooth Reservoir. Fort Collins will have time to consider the feasibility of constructing a variable -level intake structure in conjunction with the renovations at Horsetooth Reservoir. Such a structure would allow Fort Collins, in the future, to utilize the highest quality of water that is available in the reservoir. ACTION: Vote Background information and this motion will be put into the form of a letter, signed by Tom Sanders, and sent to the City Council. A vote was taken and the Board voted unanimously (6-0) for the motion. LETTER REGARDING EXEPTIONAL HARDSHIP — FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS Tom Sanders sent the following letter to Chuck Wanner, Water Board Council Liaison: I would like to request that you pull Section 10-39 (c) and (d) of the new Floodplain Regulations from the Council Consent Agenda scheduled for their next meeting on June 20, 2000. Sec 10-39 (c) and (d) eliminate the need for Sec 10-39 h(2) which states: "A determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant; and..." Since the Water Board makes decisions about granting variances, I believe that we, as a board, should have an Water Board Minutes June 22, 2000 Page 8 opportunity to discuss the issue of eliminating, "exceptional hardship" as a justification for a variance at our next meeting, June 22, 2000, before it is incorporated into the new regulations. I would imagine that the issue can be settled in a timely fashion, particularly if a representative from the City Attorney's Office can be present at the next Water Board meeting to explain the reason for the change... All Board members received a copy of Tom Sanders' letter. Tom said he wanted to bring this up to the Board to see if they would like to consider removing ""exceptional hardship" from the Floodplain Regulations as a justification for a variance. He asked that someone from the City Attorney's Office be present at today's meeting. At 3:30 we didn't have a quorum, so we requested that John Duval, from the City Attorney's Office, not come today because we thought we would not have a quorum to act on items that require a vote. Some members of the Board recalled having only 5 variance requests come before the Board in a 2-3 year period. Dave Rau said he doesn't think it's that big an issue. He thinks the Board should come back to this, and that the Board should remove "exceptional hardship" from the regulations. Bob Smith and Jim Hibbard related that it has been removed. It is out of the City floodplains, but it's still included in the FEMA floodplains minimum requirement; i.e. Dry Creek, Poudre etc., Bob said. Tom said what he proposes to do is bring this up at the July meeting with a City Attorney present to present the legal elements. The Board can then vote on it. Dave Rau commented that, from his experience on the Board, this generally comes down to more technical issues. Bob said it makes sense to postpone it until July because there is some information that staff received from FEMA that talks about the "hardship" variance. Board members would be able to read that before the next meeting, and John Duval could be here to discuss the major issues and provide interpretations of the legal issues. The Board agreed to that. Staff will include it on the agenda. Paul Clopper asked that, when discussing this in July, he would find it helpful to have some specific guidance that defines what a hardship is or isn't. He recalls in discussing this at past variance hearings, that the arguments relating to this were vague and confusing. Other Board members remembered that in some variances that were granted, the hardship element was not that evident. Tom Sanders stated that, if you don't have that information in the regulations, the Water Board wouldn't be expected to consider variances, because the regulations would be straight forward enough that they would either be denied or granted on what appears in the regulations. Mike Smith responded, "not really, because that's a controlling criteria. If a hardship is not there, that is the controlling factor." He thinks the attorneys are worried about the Board's interpretation of hardship. "It might be better not to have it than to misinterpret it." Paul said he likes Bob Smith's idea of providing information to the Board that gives FEMA's definition of a hardship. Chair Sanders said this would be discussed thoroughly at the July meeting, so he asked that the Board to go on to the next agenda item. PLANT INVESTMENT FEE TIME PAYMENTS The information on this subject was included in Board packets. As stated in the memo, it was discovered recently that a customer significantly underpaid water and wastewater Plant Water Board Minutes 1 June 22, 2000 Page 9 Investment Fees (PIFs) associated with a facility expansion. Staff has concluded that this situation, where utility impacts associated with a facility expansion were under estimated, was the result of good faith efforts on the customer's part. This customer has been responsive to addressing this issue. They have agreed to pay what is due and are making pre-treatment modifications to reduce the impact and associated PIF costs of their wastewater treatment. Due to the substantial magnitude of these costs, and the timing in uncovering this oversight after the facility expansion was completed, utility staff would like to permit payment of these PIFs over a limited time period. This is a significant issue for this customer. Although these situations are not anticipated to be common, without modification to the City Code, staff is not authorized to accept delayed payments. A resolution was attached to the memo that empowers the Utilities General Manager to accept delayed payment in these rare situations. Utilities staff was asking the Water Board to consider and support a change in the City Code that concerns time payment of Plant Investment Fees (PIFs). Specifically, staff was asking that the Water Board support a resolution going to City Council asking them to empower the Utilities General Manager to negotiate delayed payment of Plant Investment Fees given defined, abnorthal circumstances. Mike Smith explained that at times a business will estimate their potential wastewater discharge flows and are given a PIF for a certain size, and later on discover that the discharge is greater than the estimate. We have a specific issue with a local brewery where they found that their estimate was too low. Staff feels that, in order to be fair about helping the customer deal with the increase, is to give them an opportunity to pay that additional amount over time, instead of saying "you owe us $100,000 in one payment now." What the proposed code provision allows is for the City to negotiate to have the amount paid over a few years, giving a business, which is now in operation, time to pay it off. It's different when you are starting a business, because you plan for those start-up fees, Mike pointed out. "How did this happen," someone asked. "Their flows were a lot higher than they had projected," Mike replied. "Will this set any kind of precedent?" Tom Sanders asked. Mike said that staff monitors this situation closely, and has some comparisons, but breweries' flows are quite variable. "We don't have that many industries that have that much variation," he said. "Usually the water use is straight forward." Paul Clopper thought the Utilities General Manager already had the authority to do that. "We found out we don't," Mike answered. "Do you need to put a specific time on it, like a year?" Tom asked. "No, you want to give them more than a year," Mike replied. He added that usually staff thinks it is best not to extend it more than 5 years, but it depends on how much it is. "Would there be any interest on it?" Tom asked. "Oh, yes," Mike stressed. Dave Agee explained that there was a provision in the draft ordinances that says: "No person shall knowingly provide false or inaccurate information." That is intended to discourage the low balling situation. "Knowingly" is probably harder to define than "extreme hardship," Tom Sanders remarked. Water Board Minutes June 22, 2000 Page 10 Tom Brown said if the City is charging interest on their payment, then the City is acting as the bank; is that correct? "Why is this better than borrowing the money and repaying the bank?" he wondered. "That's a good question," Mike admitted. Dave Rau explained that, as a business, you have only so much credit available. The City doesn't ask them what their debt equity ratio is. "This increase on the fee is not because of some negligence on the City's part, is it?" Tom Brown asked. "Hopefully not," Mike answered. It was miscalculated originally by the applicant. "How long have they been discharging more than they should have?" Tom Sanders asked. "We monitor them. It's just a matter of now we're saying that their flows exceed what they've been paying for," Mike responded. He added that it might not have come to the City's attention, but the brewery is making plans to expand, which will likely double the flows. "Why does the City want to be the bank in this case?" Tom Brown persisted. When a mistake is made, staff thinks there is some ease in administration, to allow the company to pay the City over time. "In this case, it is a major, key customer whom we are trying to accommodate." Mike Smith emphasized that the way the code is written, the accommodation is only for a mistake. "With the expansion, there will probably be real data, so we can presumably get the correct estimate," Dave Rau stated. Dave Agee said that Dennis Sumner has spent considerable time with the customer trying to understand all the details involved, and he feels comfortable that the company will meet the City's expectations and terms with expediency. ACTION: Motion Paul Clopper moved that the Water Board recommend to the City Council that they amend Section 26-120 and 26-283 of the City Code as recommended by staff. Joe Bergquist seconded the motion. Further Discussion Tom Brown stated that since the City doesn't lend money to developers when they pay their initial Plant Investment Fees, or when they expand as this company is planning to do, he can't see a good reason to get into the business of being the bank. Furthermore, he thinks it sets a precedent for businesses to ask the City to carry them for the initial fees. He acknowledged that this doesn't happen very often, but he doesn't want to set the precedent for something much larger by handling this particular situation. "I don't think it's a role the City should play, and I will be voting against it," he concluded. To clarify, Mike Smith said this has happened before. The City did financing for Anheuser-Busch on their capacity charges. Paul said his understanding of the change in the Code gives the Utilities General Manager the discretion to allow someone to, pay over time when, in his opinion, it is justified. It doesn't say you have to do it every time it comes up, he pointed out. "When we think there is a legitimate error made by the customer, we can consider doing this," Mike noted. Paul pointed out that the memo states that this would be considered only in "defined abnormal circumstances." Dave Rau suggested that Mike Smith inform the Board when one of these situations comes up, so the Board can monitor them to make sure he's not getting too many requests. Mike assured that Board that this is something that we would not want to do very often. "We are doing this because this is a very important key customer," he emphasized. Water Board Minutes • • June 22, 2000 Page 11 ACTION: Vote Tom Sanders called for the question. The Board voted 5-1 to support the motion. Tom Brown voted against it for reasons he stated during the discussion. STAFF REPORTS Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported that for the month of May, treated water use was 3,710 acre feet, which was 22% above what was projected for a normal May. Water use continues to be quite high. It is running about 35% above what was projected for the month of June. Once again the high use is reflective of the low precipitation and very warm temperatures. Tom Sanders didn't recall having this much over the projection in several years. Dennis said this is very unusual. "It's been a long time since we've had a spring and early summer that have been this warm and dry," he added. He pointed out the graph that was distributed today showing the latest daily water use. "Have we stretched our limit yet on treatment capacity?" Tom Sanders asked. "Thank goodness we brought the new treatment trains on line," Kevin Gertig responded. He said Water Treatment Plant personnel have been very busy but are keeping things going. Update: Poudre River Floodplain Regulations Bob Smith reported that City Council adopted, on second reading, the revisions to the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations. On first reading they adopted a resolution that basically claims the Poudre River is unique and the other floodplain regulations will be unique to that basin. On the second resolution they authorized the City Manager to acquire property from willing sellers, and it's not just structures, but vacant property as well. At the first meeting there was also a change in the land use code. There was a conflict between the floodplain code and the land use code. The land use code said there can't be any adverse effects because of flood heights. Since we have a 0.1 rise floodway, the land use code is being revised to reflect that, in order to be consistent. Drinking Water Consumer Confidence Report and Drinking Water Quality Policy Annual Report Board members received both the Drinking Water Consumer Confidence Report and the Drinking Water Quality Policy Annual Report in their packets. Gale McGaha Miller asked if there were any questions or comments about either report. Tom Sanders said he liked the report that customers received in their bills. He thought it was very impressive. Gale said staff spent the last year looking at other examples and finding out from consumer groups what works and what doesn't, and tried to incorporate all those ideas in this product. Tom was also impressed with the Drinking Water Quality Policy Annual Report as was the rest of the Board. Report on Meeting in Greeley Tom Sanders was surprised at how large the cash in -lieu -of rate is in both Greeley and Loveland. Dennis Bode commented that the price of CBT water has been coming down lately. The range he has heard recently is $11,500 to $13,000. Tom said the presentation by Beth Boaz of the Bureau was informative and interesting. Mike Smith mentioned that there was birthday cake to celebrate C.W. Farr's 91" birthday. Water Board Minutes June 22, 2000 Page 12 COMMITTEE REPORTS Water Supply Chair Tom Brown said the Committee will be meeting on Friday, June 30`h at the Service Center. Tom Sanders asked him to include a discussion about water restrictions on the agenda for the meeting. It was concluded that that discussion might be more appropriate for the Conservation and Public Education Committee. There were no reports from any of the other committee chairs. None of committees met. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. 1:'I 13L1181t7z1i•I2I64,YY Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m. Water Boar Secretary 0 0 OHO a� 0 00 t �010 �t 0 C z - W rn 0 O I 00� Z ! - �i0 cn N ! � mjjl pOO 4-0 C m O W 0050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00� M f` CO ,:I- CO N 9 S�� mw no °o oao Op�Q( Op O< 62 00-1 Opp°Op00Opp.001d G S 1 %1 0000 pO60- OpB% O4 p � '6�trgp I OQ`y O3p0p<'sBhOp w op� 0 00- Op d OD `A ° �d O` 'o Op Gin 9 OQ<� B-z' 00 1. Op oorw o� Op �t d s s�<?i sec?i C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 o e o o c o `< 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (IV) lueluoo "'. o 0 LD y ..... .mo.M . ..ter. VAN ..... .�...m..�. ..... .<MEMOME .. MOM W, ... ... m1... ... ... .... ... v �.... ..... . .. ..... WE MOM ..... .�...EM.. .....�� .�...� .. . ...■ ... . . .. ....�_� .�.. .. .i.. ... .��. . ..1... a... ..,... .■... �... ... .,,... .■,... .... .�1... .�;... .... .tl . MWI ME .. ... MIN �:..�.... ..1�. ■. ... . 0 .... . .W .. ME ..��M ... .. ..� ...NMMI .... (14) u011BA813 w N 0CD �y 0 e .00 > o > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i o > oo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c 0 0 o 0 o c c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o S e 0 0 > o 0 0 0 0 0 0$ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (;y) ;ue;uo0 2Q 9Z 209 O! 20 `s c 9 20`c 9 20 s ro `9 s� So a O 20 1 2 9 0 `? s el ` oz '00 r' z '0'e '. 'o� 0' '0 �s 'o �0 f 'o oc 'of09 .d. '0. 0 '0 �a s '0 I.-le. '0 a e, 00 r' s ob 9� Oo OZ 19? 0o s c 00 9- 00 C 9 00 �9 6 S co p0 a 6� 00 00 e s 00 'c 0f 0S 0, f'c 6`i so � y 0 0 LO M N 0 i a' n N c m N m N 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C N J O O T m m m h I� N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 6 m N 0 0 0 0 V] G N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 �t'i 6 N O C O Q th M N N N N N (U) uoIIBA813 2O'S e� �- a'.c s Co(P m ors c 's 201. S 2p `-d 'o 2p �£ �o 01, ,e`e e °'O 'OE ez Zo%e 2 !o" °? `oe�m t °'e `O �S 'd� �0 S d r-d °-s !0 E�-E+ zo Od v' 00-5 t O r-C� °-s °O-i (` 00�, p;e Op �s 8 s 008 c 00 -S %oe,9 's 00 �d 00 Fin s O0 2? b oen. e &6' /.e! m m IT m a J O LO u 0.0 I > o 0 > o 0 i o c > o o > o a 0 0 0 0 o c 0 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c o 0 o c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 c (IV) 3ue;uo0 00 °oB °< O0 °, ol °° a Q9� 0o s es 00 0os y e s 00 `B °f 00? C a� °0 ON, sr o� o° ry o0' . � o° 1� O0 S s O0 <:C 0f 0 °'01 Ohs 00 6 t OQ O `a ° 4a `6 00 6 00 r� s 00 `f of o° sr o° p o° °Q `2 rr 00 0 a 6 �r sss?< < sQ<?i < ss ?< s�< 2 4 ss�`< << m IL :o 0 Ln (o o $ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O N C �(I O Yl O to O IN O t� O O O N O O m T m OJ I� A 10 1D 1n N Q Q (u) U011en913 w R 7 LO CD e N 0 O o 0 o 0 o 0 > o 0 > Y1 O 0 0 0 0 N o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Yl o 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 YI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 ttJ 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O� 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 g 0 0 0 n 0 o 0 o 0 a 0 voi 0 o 0 g 0 0 0 g 0 0 0 0 0 0 o h 0 0 0 (;V) 3UGIU03 t mV 2o" z ` 20 '@ 20`e e s zo `s 6` 20 S 6� 20 s O C�0 �f e �o L� s Lo [l o� eo_ 2 [0[ [[ e LOB 0! [0 6` 2 e [o c [ fie d 0-� Q od [O 8 s LO �f e [0 d 00 �[ .D0 00's �L 00 �[[ .92 00 oZ 00 i t� 00 0 0 00 00 �s s 00 �s Se 00 d 0 00 'e s 00 0 ss 0i IZ� 06, r[ ss ?[ i co CD 0 LO to w F. to re U C lC m m N m c 20l9 L� e0"9 l 0L L 20c 6 L oL ono L� 2p�s a 2Q`%q s L� i 2p�o d eol, sz ao. L L� oe � o L v o�L `e OZ .e0('s 2 L Ae o.F� `o L e, .� O/ .edaa m o OId r L0 �d Lp�h e `O 'd 00,5 L 00"IQ `L i 00.9 pL �i _ 00% 00 die pp/S 9 O0 2'S 'sue 00 d - 'o 00ff 6 %n 00 %z s,-e `e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 see 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 O of O �tf O � C itI O N O H O tri O elf O � O � O Li (U) UOIJUAGI3 v N O0 O �O! � O W ��i0 o 0� c z LU 0 rn 0 0 1 00 Z o �! u� 0 c�4 0 Q Oi 4-1 O - d W 00�0 N _ 0, 00000000� 00�� CO I�- CO Ln Ict CO N i 9 i i