Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 04/27/2000FORT COLLINS WATER BOARD MINUTES April 27, 2000 3:15 — 5:00 Fort Collins Utilities Training Room 700 Wood Street City Council Liaison Water Board Chair Water Board Vice Chair Chuck Wanner Tom Sanders — 491-5448 John Morris — 491-0185 Staff Liaison Molly Nortier — 221-6700 ROLL CALL Members Present Tom Sanders, Chairman, John Moms, George Reed, Dave Rau, Bill Fischer, Members Absent Paul Clopper and Joe Bergquist STAFF Vice Chairman, Robert Ward, David Lauer, Dave Frick, Tom Brown Mike Smith, Wendy Williams, Jim Hibbard, Dennis Bode, Bob Smith, Kevin Gertig, Marsha Hilmes, Susan Hayes, Lori Clements -Grote, Dennis Sumner, Paul Weiss, Heather Hoxeng, Molly Nortier GUESTS Gene Schleiger, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) John Bartholow, Former Water Board Member MEETING OPENED Chairman Tom Sanders opened the regular meeting of the Water Board at 3:15 p.m. The following items were discussed: MINUTES John Morris moved that the minutes of March 23, 2000 be approved as distributed. Dave Frick seconded the motion. Tom Sanders pointed out on p. 15, under history of floods on the Poudre River, the word "pictures" should be changed to "graphs" The minutes were approved unanimously with that correction. Water Board Minutes April 27, 2000 Page 2 UPDATE: NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT Gene Schleiger reported that, although things continue to move ahead on the Horsetooth reconstruction project, there is still nothing definite. Funding is an issue because the Safety of Dams does not have the $100-120 million or whatever it's going to take to do it all, so that's a potential holdup. One possibility that is currently being considered that may hold the reservoir at a little higher elevation, is constructing a new RCC dam up against the back side of the existing dam rather than having to core the Horsetooth Dam to construct a grout curtain. Eventually we may end up with two of them in place. "If we are going to begin the project in October, we are going to have to hurry on some decisions," he acknowledged. He went on to say that the Northern District Board issued a 70% quota for this year. He also related that the West Slope continues to raise serious concerns about how the District operates the East Slope. They are extremely unhappy about non -charge water running on this side. The reality is, we are allowed to bring 310,000 ac-ft to this side. Fifteen years ago we would bring about 240,000. We are down to about 220,000-225,000 right now. "The West Slope would rather not see any water come this way," he said. He then asked if there were questions. Tom Sanders asked if it would be possible to put off the construction at Horsetooth for a year or so until we have all the money to plan the whole construction in the shortest time possible. "I can't really answer that," Mr. Schleiger replied. "It's a possibility, but this whole issue involves the safety of the dams. We have been emphatic that construction would begin this fall." Mike Smith said Dr. Sanders' question was actually quite valid. Utilities staff attended a briefing meeting on this project and staff came away with the assessment that they weren't certain that the Bureau was ready to begin in October. He thinks that it may be prudent to put it off for a year until they "get their act together." Dr. Sanders pointed out that if there is money available you begin the project as soon as possible, so you "can move dirt and they can't stop it." Mr. Schleiger brought up another issue. At this time it's an 85% to 15% cost share under Safety of Dams. Their reauthorization is up this summer. When that occurs, there is some discussion that it might go to a 50-50 cost share if we wait. PARTNERSHIP FOR SAFE WATER AWARD Water Production Manager Kevin Gertig said it was a pleasure to present the Directors award for the Partnership for Safe Water to Dr. Sanders and the Board. Board members had received copies of the press release. He explained that the Partnership was created in 1994 after EPA revealed a report called, "Strengthening Safety of Our Drinking Water." Basically that report indicated that there were 30 million people or 12% of the population in the United States receiving inadequate water in terms of microbiological, chemical and physical characteristics. Shortly after that there was a cryptosporidium outbreak in various parts of the country. The "Partnership" is about going above and beyond the regulations. Their slogan is "Working Together to Protect America's Drinking Water." It's a four -step process. The Fort Collins treatment plant began this process several years ago. After a review, which is an independent Water Board Minutes April 27, 2000 Page 3 review by other experts in the country, the Utilities received the award. The award recognizes the successful completion of Phase 3 self -assessment procedures of the Partnership for Safe Water. Mr. Gertig said this plaque will be displayed at the Service Center. The other plaque is displayed at the Water Treatment Facility with photographs of all the Water Production employees. "They are the ones who make this happen," he emphasized. He pointed out that the award has only one year on it. "Although we have done our homework, this award, by subscribing to the Partnership, means that every year we must submit data, and the data will be approved by a review team," he said. "It is a major commitment," he concluded. The Board commended the treatment facility for doing such a great job. PROPOSED CHANGE TO CASH -IN -LIEU -OF WATER RIGHTS According to the background information on the agenda item summary, developers have the option of paying cash instead of turning over water rights when satisfying the City's raw water requirements. The cash rate, in -lieu -of water rights, is periodically adjusted to reflect the market price of water rights in this area. The last adjustment in the City's in -lieu -of rate was in January 2000 when it was adjusted from $2,700 to $3,500 per acre-foot. Since that time, water prices have increased significantly causing a need to consider another increase in the City's cash in -lieu of price. Dennis Bode said the Water Supply Committee met recently and discussed this situation. He explained that since the adjustment of the in -lieu -of rate in January, staff has begun to watch the local stocks more carefully simply because that is the source of supply that we see for the future. On the other hand, staff also realizes that the price of CBT water certainly affects the price of the local water. We have seen the CBT price go from about $2,800 two years ago to around $8,000 at the beginning of this year, and in recent weeks it has been $14,000-15,000 per unit. That has caused a number of things to happen, including some pressure on the local stocks. Also, many of the other entities in the surrounding communities have increased their cash -in -lieu -of prices; many of them are in the range of $10,000, up to Loveland's at $15,000 an ac-ft. Many of those who have changed their prices have done so because they depend primarily on CBT water. "I'm not sure that's the case with Loveland," he said, "but a lot of the water districts and some of the smaller towns have depended primarily on CBT water." The City of Fort Collins has tried to focus more on the local supplies and has tried to gage the market of those supplies. In recent months, staff has seen more cash turned in instead of water stock, and heard of offers being made that are somewhat above our cash -in -lieu -of rate of $3,500. "That's a primary indicator for us that the price of the local stocks is now exceeding our cash -in -lieu -of rate," Mr. Bode said. As a result, staff decided that the rate needs to be increased again. He said that it's always interesting to look at the graphic of CBT prices and the North Poudre shares in relation to our cash -in -lieu -of rate. "It's a rather dramatic picture," he remarked. He then asked for questions and comments from the Board. Tom Sanders asked how Loveland's $15,000 cash -in -lieu -of rate is going to affect Fort Collins. Mr. Bode said there wasn't a direct link. The pressure comes primarily in people hearing that all Water Board Minutes April 27, 2000 Page 4 the prices around us are considerably higher. That tends to pull everything up too. Fort Collins has a different set of irrigation companies that we accept shares in as compared to Loveland. In some ways it is an independent supply. ACTION: Motion Chair Sanders asked for a motion at this point. Bill Fischer moved that the Board accept staffs recommendation that the cash -in -lieu -of water rights rate be raised from $3,500 per acre-foot to $4,500, and the raw water surcharge be changed from $1.65 to $2.12 per thousand gallons to be effective July 1, 2000. Robert Ward seconded the motion. Dr. Sanders asked for discussion on the motion. George Reed referred to the third paragraph of the summary that said, "Another consideration is the cost of developing independent water supply projects in the Poudre Basin. Although there is still considerable uncertainty regarding the cost and the yield of such projects, it is believed that the cost would exceed $4,000 per acre foot of firm yield." "What did you mean by development there?" he asked. "This is looking at some of the projects that are out there, such as Halligan Reservoir, the new Seamans or Northern's South Platte Water Conservation Project," Mr. Bode answered. He added that those numbers are fairly uncertain because not much work has been done on any of those projects that have been discussed. "It sounds, the way you stated it, as though the $4,000 would almost be a minimum," Mr. Reed continued. Mr. Bode said he hadn't looked at it in detail. "What would be the downside of raising rates like other cities have?" Mr. Reed asked. It seems to him that those developers who are lucky enough to develop property within the boundaries of the Fort Collins Water Utilities are getting a gift these days, as compared to developers who are developing in the Fort Collins -Loveland or ELCO, etc. area. "The basic downside is just the cost of housing in the area," Mr. Bode responded. "Are you saying we are subsidizing housing?" Mr. Reed asked. "No," Mr. Bode replied. Bill Fischer thinks that what staff has tried to do is to strike a balance between the potential price of CBT units and the Southside Ditch rights that we can get. Per acre-foot, of course, the Southside Ditch rights go for much less than the CBT units. The CBT units have a much broader market; they can go from here to Broomfield and Fort Morgan now. "That's certainly the case," Mr. Bode responded. Mike Smith stated that if our goal is to get CBT water, we would raise the cash -in -lieu -of rate, but we don't get much CBT. "We don't want to artificially raise the price of local water by chasing CBT. Also, if our projects are in that $4,000 range, it is more appropriate to stay in that area." He said housing is an issue, because if you artificially raise the cost it impacts housing costs. "We don't want to drive the market," he stressed. Dr. Sanders asked if the rates in Loveland are $15,000 now. "As far as I know the rate is $15,000 as of March 15, 2000," Mr. Bode said. "Why do we have to wait until July 1"?" Dr. Sanders wondered. "We want to provide enough time for notification," Mr. Smith replied. Mr. Reed said if we accept $4,500 for raw water and it costs us $4,000 to develop the Southside Ditch water, does that mean we are basically selling that for $500? Mr. Smith said if it costs us Water Board Minutes April 27, 2000 Page 5 $4,000 to do the Halligan Project, and we are collecting $4,500, we make $500 on each transaction. "We are estimating the market to make sure we have the income." Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Reed wanted to raise it to $4,500. Mr. Reed said his question was what is the downside of going to $15,000? "It sounds like going to $15,000 will artificially drive the market in this area." He was not sure what that meant except that it has the potential that some development projects wouldn't occur, because they would be too expensive. Dave Rau remarked that it isn't fair to charge $15,000 for something you can buy for $4,000. Tom Brown said if you can buy it for $4,000 then people would put up water and not cash -in - lieu -of. "You tend to drive the share price up too," Mr. Rau added. "You don't know whether you are leading or following the market." He thinks, in reality, the City seems to lead the market with a lot of ditch companies. Mr. Brown's point was if we were setting it at $15,000, are we saying that nobody with Southside Ditch water would sell to a developer at under that price? "No, but you would drive the price up," Mr. Rau said. "There's still a market out there even if it's small," Mr. Brown responded. "If someone can turn over water instead of cash, they should certainly do that," he added. By turning over cash they are in fact taking the cheapest option for them. If it's overwhelmingly cash that they are giving us, it suggests that our cash rate is low, Mr. Brown concluded. Mr. Bode said that, in recent months, we have seen the price of local stock approach the cash rate. Now there is some pressure to increase. He agreed that people look at the cash -in - lieu -of rate and set their prices to match just under that. David Lauer asked what would be a fair valuation. Mr. Rau likes staff s proposal because he thinks we want to keep the cash -in -lieu -of a little higher than the price of water, because what we really want is water. "It's a delicate balance, and I think we need to continue to monitor the amount of cash we receive versus water." Mr. Reed said we almost doubled the price and the result was almost no effect on the cash. Mr. Bode explained that, if you look at the long-term, you can see some relationship between the cash rate and the amount of cash we get. Mr. Smith commented that there is a lot of greed in the market. Mr. Reed thinks what we need is better agility. We are almost in the fifth month of the year and we just haven't moved fast enough. He would support staff all the way if we could speed up the cycle a little. Mr. Bode said if you try to adjust every few months, it creates some difficulties in the development community. It also causes some problems in the City's administration of the permit system. "I would not like to see it get to the point where we change every few months because of some of those issues," he stressed. "There are advantages to having more stability," he added. "That makes sense," Mr. Brown said, "but if you look at the graph you feel a little silly charging only half of what North Poudre shares are going for. "I don't feel silly about doing it," Mr. Smith contends, "because we can build a project for that cost. Why drive the market?" Water Board Minutes April 27, 2000 Page 6 Bill Fischer wondered about a rolling cash -in -lieu -of rate which would not directly mirror the cost of CBT water but perhaps follow it so there would be a lag effect on the City's rate. He said Mr. Bode had told him in an earlier conversation that it would be more of a nightmare than it would be beneficial to the City. Mr. Rau said we shouldn't continue to support overpriced water. Mr. Lauer said his reason for opposing this is that we are driving an excessive valuation even higher. That bothers him because of the affordable housing issue. Mr. Smith related that, currently, one project is on hold because of the fees. He thinks the districts on the north and south should be dropping their rates within the next year. Dr. Sanders thought it might be interesting to consider taking all water and not cash or all cash and no water. If we only took cash, perhaps the value of the water stocks would drop a little, and if we only took water the stocks would go up. W. Bode said it is hard to predict. If you took only stock, he thinks it would depend on how many sources of stock you accepted. If you took only one stock, and there were not very many shares available, the price would go up. "If we only took water shares, we wouldn't be determining the market, would we?" Mr. Brown asked. "We wouldn't risk taking $4,500 and having the real price go up?" Mr. Fischer said there wouldn't be any risk on that point, but it might stimulate the cost of the shares of some Southside Ditches to go higher. Regarding the issue of fairness, Mr. Reed said the people who have invested in this water are the people who have owned this infrastructure and supported it. To give it away for less than the market value, and return it to customers or owners, it seems to him, is unfair. `By buying the share at a lower price, we aren't robbing them of any money," Dave Frick responded. "If you increase the income by selling it, some place along the line, that has to pay out by water rates or improved quality," Mr. Reed said. Mr. Rau contends that lower income property is greatly impacted. He added that the bottom line is that this isn't a for -profit operation. "But the rates are certainly driven by a balance sheet," Mr. Reed insisted. "Granted, if you want to subsidize affordable housing, that's fine, but if you are working for your constituency, you must consider fairness to them." "If you make it so expensive in the City, they are going to start building out more and there will be more transportation infrastructure to build," Mr. Frick pointed out. "Are you really subsidizing? There are a lot more factors you have to consider," he added. "If you drive people out of town, you are still going to need service people in town and they are driving in town, which means more air pollution, and more congestion," Mr. Rau persisted. Tom Brown maintains that the Board shouldn't be considering these issues at all in this decision. Fairness to low income housing and in other areas are relevant, but we can not be involved in that game. "We are collecting the money we need to have the water and the water supplies to provide the services that are needed, and that to me is the beginning and end of it," he asserted. In the past the Board has agreed repeatedly that we don't want to be subsidizing anybody. We need to set the price as close as possible to the real cost and leave it at that, and not be pulled into other elements that should be handled by other parts of the City. Water Board Minutes April 27, 2000 Page 7 Mr. Frick asked, "Is our price so low that people are paying all cash and we aren't getting any water? We still want to be able to get some water." Tom Sanders suggested that the Board stay with the discussion as to whether the price is too low or too high. Mike Smith said that the City probably won't be buying water because our major need is storage. "We need to collect enough cash at the right rate to build storage." "That's assuming that by the time we build the storage, our money will have earned enough interest to keep up with the rate of inflation," Mr. Brown noted. "Dennis Bode has been more than conservative on those costs," Mr. Smith assured the Board. "If they change, we will return to the Board to request a revision of the rate," he concluded. ACTION: Call for the question and Vote Dr. Sanders called for the question. The motion was to recommend to City Council that the cash in -lieu -of water rights rate be changed from $3,500 to $4,500 per acre foot and raise the raw water surcharge from $1.65 to $2.12 per thousand gallons, effective on July 1, 2000. The motion passed 7-1. David Lauer voted against the motion because he would have been more comfortable with $4,000 or $4,250. "I think we are buying into an extreme over -valuing of water," he stated. POUDRE RIVER FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS Bob Smith began by saying that initially they were scheduled to go to Council with the Floodplain Regulations on May 2, 2000, but that has been moved forward to June 6, 2000. "With the full agenda today, we can take action at the May 25a' Board meeting," he suggested. Floodplain Vegetation Randy Fischer, former Water Board Member and current Natural Resources Advisory Board Chair, sent a letter which was distributed to Board members and staff regarding floodplain vegetation. This issue was brought up at the April Water Board meeting and was included in a memo sent to City Council. Mr. Fischer said, as chairman of the Natural Resources Advisory Board and having served for a year and a half on the City's Floodplain Task Force, that he is concerned about the Water Board raising the issues of floodplain vegetation at this time in the public floodplain debate. He emphasized that he was here as a private citizen and not as a member of the Natural Resources Board. He listed four specific concerns in his letter: • He believes the issue is moot because long-term maintenance of City -owned floodplain areas, including vegetation, is already being undertaken by both the Natural Resources Dept. and the Stormwater Utility. • The issue of floodplain vegetation is separate from the issue of floodplain regulations and confuses the real purpose of the proposed regulations, which is to keep people out of harm's way. Water Board Minutes April 27, 2000 Page 8 • Raising this issue may fuel opposition to the proposed regulations by focusing public attention on a minor issue and unnecessarily risks weakening the proposed regulations. • The Board's focus on vegetation is out of proportion with other factors such as encroaching development, filling of floodplain lands, channelization, gravel quarrying, construction of placement of rip -rap or revetment, sediment loading, erosion potential, etc. Mr. Fischer said the Water Board carries a lot of weight in recommendations to Council. The Board's technical expertise and the combined years of working with water issues among the Board members is impressive. "That's why I'm bringing this up," he said. As he stated in his major points, he doesn't want to see attention diverted away from the issue at hand, which is human health and safety, and the economic welfare of the community. F000dplain vegetation seems to him to be a superfluous issue. He continued by going over each of his four major points. When all the natural areas taxes are collected and sales taxes end, we will have set aside a sufficient amount in the stewardship fund to maintain all City -owned natural areas in perpetuity. "I think your recommendation for a long-term maintenance program for City -owned property, whether it be natural areas or not, is already happening," he emphasized. He sees the issue of floodplain vegetation as separate from health and safety, although he recognizes that the Board is right in that the wrong kind of vegetation in the floodplain can be a serious problem. Basically what is being discussed here is a difference between roughness coefficients. We restore some of our floodplain lands under City ownership. I can't imagine the roughness coefficient getting much larger in the future. "I think the real issues are encroaching development, filling in the floodplain lands, channelization, gravel quarrying, etc.," he stressed. He claims that those are the real issues the community ought to be focusing on. He also is concerned that bringing up an issue like floodplain vegetation will cause some people to oppose what we are doing. Tom Sanders asked if there were questions or comments. John Morris asked what is meant by floodplain vegetation. One example Mr. Fischer was going to use is that the Natural Resources Dept., through the use of volunteers and their own staff people, is in the process of removing thousands of Russian Olive trees in some areas along the River. Also, he thinks the riparian corridor along the River is pretty heavily forested with big cottonwood trees. "We are really talking about upland vegetation which might actually be short grass prairie in the restorative state. Mike Smith said Utilities works with Natural Resources to try to clear out areas where trees have fallen or where there are snags. Jim Hibbard related that every spring employees from his division go the entire length of the River looking for the larger pieces of trees that have been damaged or fallen into the River. "We try to remove all of those. Some of the NR staff takes care of some of the smaller vegetation. We basically try to remove the `bridge blockers. "' Dave Rau thinks the Board's memo was not particularly clear. "I'm not sure it really characterized our discussion," he said. His interpretation of the discussion was that we should Water Board Minutes • • April 27, 2000 Page 9 keep an eye on it, and that it's something we have to be aware of. The way it came out in the memo was that we wanted to restrict any kind of vegetation, and that didn't reflect the discussion. Dave Frick said it's primarily that we don't want to lose any more conveyance. "It's a matter of maintaining existing conveyance," he stressed. "If you allow that conveyance to be blocked with vegetation, you cause a rise in the floodplain, which increases the hazard," he explained. He added that this means areas not owned by the City as well. David Lauer pointed out that this is seen with dense willows and Russian Olives, and not so much the larger cottonwoods. The dense undergrowth and bush is more what we are talking about. If there is an effect, perhaps the Water Board should have some authority to look into it, he suggested. Update on Floodplain Regulations Bob Smith said he didn't have a presentation other than letting the Board know the status. He reported that staff went to Council on April 111h. At that time, Council directed staff to prepare a code for the B-1 option and they are in the process of doing that. Originally, the regulations had been scheduled to go to Council on May 2nd, and, as he said before, they are now scheduled to go on June 6`h. Staff has given about 30 presentations for outreach. "We have a couple more presentations." He said the presentation he gave to the Board last month was what they use for outreach. Dr. Sanders asked if staff has had any response to the memo that was sent to Council. "No, we haven't," Mr. Smith replied. Bill Fischer asked if the Council understood the difference between the 100-year and the 500- year? "That was part of the presentation," Mr. Smith replied. "When I did the presentations I went through all the comments I received." Was there any discussion about looking at option B and sliding some of option B-1 into option BT' Mr. Fischer continued. At the study session, there was a long discussion about which criteria to use. They actually polled the Council to see where each one stood. The majority preferred B-1. There are some Council members who feel that B-1 is too restrictive. Council Liaison Chuck Wanner said there are some changes to come out, so he suggested that action by the Board be put off until the May meeting. UPDATE: CANAL IMPORTATION MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN Susan Hayes, Project Manager of the Canal Importation Master Drainage Plan, began by saying that she met with the Engineering Committee recently to provide them with an update. She was not requesting a recommendation at this point. She would like general feedback on the direction in which we're going and questions the Board might want answered when staff returns with a recommendation. In the meantime, she will continue to work with the Water Board Engineering Committee. They will probably see this again with detailed recommendations, costs. etc. The first master plan was completed in 1980. Canal Importation Basin is on the west side of the City. Some of the improvements in this plan have already been constructed. The July 1997 flood caused severe damage in this basin. After the flood we updated the design rainfall, and we also Water Board Minutes April 27, 2000 Page 10 revised the fee structure to be collected City-wide. The two top priorities in the City were the Old Town Basin and the Canal Importation Basin. "We had to update, particularly this master plan, before we charged ahead and started building more." The system was re -designed for higher rainfall. We are also looking at enhancing riparian habitat for our water quality, watershed approach, including local drainageways that were not in the original master plan, and revising project cost estimates. So far staff has completed the natural resources assessment, calculated the revised hydrology, mapped the floodplains and calculated flood damages, and they have been working closely with CSU. Staff has identified initial projects and has begun to refine the list, but they still need to get more feedback. Next she displayed a map which showed both the 100-year floodplain and the natural habitat. It shows wetlands and running water. The only running water in this basin is along the Clearview channel, which is in the middle of the basin. It's a highly urbanized basin with five main flow paths and with few natural channels. The Clearview channel, Avery Park and Overland Trail Park are in this area. The areas have been rated anywhere from a grade C to an E. There are no A's and B's in this area, but there is potential for upgrading them and considerable potential for enhancement of the natural habitat. Some of the ditches have considerable natural habitat also. New Mercer Canal, Latimer #2, Sheldon Lake, and areas along the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal have been identified so far. The biggest area impacted for habitat enhancement would be along the New Mercer Canal. Many of the flow paths on the West Side of town are areas where the canals have large spills. There are approximately 850 structures in the 100-year floodplain. One of the most surprising areas of damages is the Mulberry Corridor. All of the water comes down into the Larimer #2 and pushes the water up and out of the canal and down Mountain Avenue and Oak Street. The master plan is including these damages because they are going to be reduced by the improvements being recommended. With the price of housing in Fort Collins having risen considerably, the value of damages to this area and others has risen also. So far, the present value of the damages caused by all of the different types of storms that might occur over fifty years, is over $120 million. Stormwater is not proposing that amount in improvements so there will be no difficulty showing cost effective improvements. Colorado State University's (CSU) damages were not taken into account because CSU is completing its own floodproofing measures. General flooding problems are: channels are too small, there is development in the floodplain, streets and intersections flood, and detention ponds overflow because of higher rainfall criteria. Water Board Minutes April 27, 2000 Page 11 The original Master Drainage Plan concentrated on importing water via the canals, either by improving the canals or constructing parallel ditches. On the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal, improvements are a key component. Stormwater only expects to impact the New Mercer Canal south of Elizabeth down to the Importation Channel by piping the irrigation flows and by making the channel larger. The ditch companies are in favor of these improvements and Stormwater is in the process of negotiating with them on the amount of water they need within the pipe. Current projects being looked at take each flow path into consideration. They are looking at increasing conveyance of water by enlarging the stormsewers and channels and at slowing the water down by creating detention ponds. Along the Mulberry Corridor, they are looking at increasing detention on the City Park Nine Golf Course and Sheldon Lake. Stormwater is looking at detention ponds on the west side of the City. Rodeo Detention pond is the only area being expanded on CSU's property. Also Glenmore Pond, West Orchard Pond and along the Pleasant Valley and Lake Corridor are being looked at for detention. These are critical facilities and property owners are already being contacted. Local storm drainage facilities for structures that can not be protected (mainly along Elizabeth), revision of Storm Drainage Policies, and Water Quality issues are all being looked at also. The drainage improvement plan will reduce the majority of 100-year floodplains, reduce flows down Elizabeth by 50 percent, and flows to CSU by 57 percent. Stormwater will require on -site detention for all new development, will have spills from irrigation canals at controlled locations and will be able to dump ditches in emergency situations. Project selection takes into consideration property damage, health and safety, controlled ditch overflows, maintaining riparian habitat and other City goals and policies. The next steps are to continue with project evaluation and detailed cost estimates. Stormwater will continue their outreach to Boards and Commissions (Water Board, Natural Resources, Golf Board, Parks and Recreation, Planning and Zoning, CSU, etc.) One more open house will occur after a selected plan of improvements is accomplished. Tom Sanders asked if there is going to be cost sharing with ditch companies. Ms. Hayes stated that the ditch companies do not feel the improvements would benefit them, however, they are being supportive of controlled structures on the ditches. They have not indicated that they would be willing to share the cost. Dr. Sanders also asked if there are still concerns about the cost. Ms. Hayes answered that the cost could range from $36 Million to $46 Million, depending on what and where the money is spent for total 100-year protection. The improvements are justified from a benefit -cost standpoint, but there still needs to be discussion on whether there is a concern about fees overall. Ms. Hayes explained that this is the first master plan among many. There will be one for West Vine, Boxelder, Spring Creek, and others. There is about $22 Million proposed over the next five Water Board Minutes April 27, 2000 Page 12 years to finish the 1980 Canal Importation master plan. At this time, an additional $17 Million will be needed to do the improvements being suggested. "A couple of choices are, do we raise rates even further," Jim Hibbard added, "or do we spread the construction out over a longer period of time again?" He said the costs are going up because of the increased rainfall criteria and more money being spent on the more detailed master plans right now. "We are spending a lot more money and time doing them, so we are identifying more flow paths than the1980 Master Plan." Ms. Hayes said when taking a rough look at the original cost estimates for the Basin, 75 percent of the increase is due to new projects like the Mulberry Project, which was never in the original Master Plan. About 25 percent is due to redesigning or making facilities bigger because of the new rainfall criteria. In conclusion, Ms. Hayes said that more detailed information will be brought back to the Water Board at the July meeting. She also said a work session will be scheduled with Council. PREFERRED STATUS FOR CITY WATER RENTAL TO PERMANENT AGRICULTURAL LANDS John Bartholow, a former Water Board Member, came to speak to the Board concerning preserving agricultural lands. He stated that the Larimer County Agricultural Advisory Board was looking at options to preserve agricultural land and they have proposed adding security to water rental for people who want to preserve land and put their land in a permanent agricultural conservation area. Mr. Bartholow felt this was something that could be done if the Water Board, Staff, and Council agreed with a policy that would allow individuals who permanently withdraw their lands from development, would get first right of refusal for rental of the City's surplus water. Mr. Bartholow requested the Board come up with a policy that could be recommended to Council for implementation on this policy. Tom Brown asked what Mr. Bartholow thought would be the most realistic wording of such a policy recommendation in terms of the difference between an agricultural user and a nonagricultural user. Mr. Bartholow said the goal of the City, as far as preserving agricultural lands, needs to be established first. Does the land need to be in a conservation easement? If so, does it need to be a permanent easement or just a forty -year easement? These are some questions he said the Agricultural Advisory Board has discussed and are considering solutions for. Mr. Brown asked if the City Council has any policies concerning the protection of agricultural land? 0 Water Board Minutes April 27, 2000 Page 13 Chuck Warner said that Council is looking at community separators, and there have already been some policies made indirectly. He did not say there were direct policies concerning the issue, however. He said deals have been made in which open space parcels would remain as agricultural lands. These deals were not made because the land was high-grade agricultural land, but because it seemed sensible. Tom Sanders suggested that John Bartholow meet with Tom Brown and Dennis Bode to discuss, in more detail, the City's rental water and how it might be used to promote the preservation of agricultural lands. The Water Supply Committee can then determine if there is reason to pursue the idea as a suggestion to City Council. John Bartholow agreed to Dr. Sanders' suggestion. STAFF REPORTS Treated Water Production Dennis Bode stated that since the beginning of the year, the City has been above average for water use because of the warmer and dryer weather. We have used 1,705 acre feet of water for March, which is 5 percent above the projected use. In April, we are running about 15 percent above what was projected because it has been so warm and dry. The snow pack is about average. Bill Fischer asked if it true that the snow pack is about average and the storage is a little above average right now. Mr. Bode agreed, but he thinks the runoff will be below average if the warm temperature trend continues. Tom Sanders asked if the City is going to rent any more surplus water in the lottery? Mr. Bode said if it turns out wetter then expected they will rent some more shares. "We usually hold back enough to get through a fairly severe year," he concluded. Joint Meeting with Greeley and Loveland Molly Nortier announced that following the May meeting, the Water Board members will be going to Greeley for the Tri-City Dinner Meeting with Loveland and Greeley. There is a map with directions to where the dinner will be held. She asked Board members to please let her know before May 2 if they plan to attend. She also stated that W.D. Farr, a long-time member of the Greeley Water Board and a leader in the regional water community, will be celebrating his 901h birthday. There will be special recognition for his birthday at the dinner. Anyone who would like to pay tribute to Mr. Farr will be able to share comments at that time. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Water Supply Meeting Bill Fischer said the Committee discussed the cash -in -lieu of rate. He said that plans for Halligan will begin soon. Dr. Sanders added that Halligan will be used as a basis for decisions relating to Water Board Minutes April 27, 2000 Page 14 water supply and storage plans for the future. Mr. Fischer said Mr. Bode had suggested the Water Supply Committee meet once a month for a while because of the critical planning decisions that have to be made in the next year or two. Mr. Bode said he had talked with Tom Brown about scheduling a meeting in the next couple of weeks. With many of the Board Members absent by the end of the meeting, it was decided that Mr. Bode and the remaining members would suggest some tentative dates. Conservation and Public Education Meeting John Morris said that those attending the meeting talked about the water conservation report. One of the points highlighted was that some of the goals on gallons per capita, per day, are being met much faster than original projections. The mandatory water meter program is also progressing faster than originally anticipated, with completion of the project expected for mid 2004 instead of the end of 2005. There was some discussion about water quality meter points. The discussion mainly centered on why there were not more urban meter points. Most tend to be in the rural areas. It was concluded that it was because we have a good process of identifying where pollutants come from within the City and we do not have jurisdiction in the rural areas. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. Water BoarSecretary -