Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 01/27/2000Fort Collins Water Board Minutes Regular Meeting January 27, 2000 3:10 — 4:50 p.m. Fort Collins Utilities Training Room 700 Wood Street CITY COUNCIL LIAISON WATER BOARD CHAIRMAN Chuck Wanner (not present) Tom Sanders — 491-5448 WATER BOARD VICE CHAIR STAFF LIAISON John Morris — 491-0185 Molly Nortier — 221-6681 MEMBERS PRESENT Tom Sanders, Chair; John Morris, Vice Chair; Paul Clopper, George Reed, David Lauer, Tom Brown, Joe Bergquist, Bill Fischer, Dave Rau MEMBERS ABSENT Robert Ward, Dave Frick STAFF Mike Smith, John Duval, Assistant City Attorney, Wendy Williams, Jim Hibbard, Dennis Bode, Bob Smith, Kevin Gertig, Marsha Hilmes-Robinson, Dennis Sumner, Glen Schlueter, Molly Nortier GUESTS Brad March, Attorney, March & Liley Perry W. Schrader, Schrader Oil Co. Dick Rutherford, Stewart & Associates Don Posselt, North Weld County Water District Gary Simpson, North Weld County Water District Chairman Paul Clopper opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: MINUTES John Morris moved that the minutes of December 9, 1999 be approved as distributed. Bill Fischer seconded the motion. Paul Clopper pointed out on p. 8, second paragraph, third line, the word erosions should be erosion. The minutes were approved unanimously with that correction. Water Board Minutes January 27, 2000 Page 2 ELECTION OF OFFICERS Chair Paul Clopper pointed out that the election of officers is generally held in October. Noting the oversight, he wanted to proceed with the election as soon as possible. He asked for nominations. He declined the nomination to be re-elected as chairman. Tom Sanders was elected as the new chair and John Moms as the new vice -chair. Paul Clopper then turned the meeting over to Tom Sanders. UPDATE: NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT Gene Schleiger was unable to come to the meeting. FLOODPLAIN VARIANCE APPLICATION — SCHRADER PROPOANE, LLC Conflict of Interest Prior to the discussion of the variance, Board Member Dave Rau asked to be excused from the discussion because of a conflict of interest. Schrader Oil Co. is one of his firm's major clients. Assistant City Attorney John Duval advised W. Rau that he should probably leave the room for the duration of the hearing. Mr. Rau complied. Explanation of Procedures for Variance Hearing Before the staff presentation, Assistant City Attorney John Duval provided an explanation of the ground rules for a variance hearing. He began by saying that since this is a quasi-judicial hearing, the tape recorder will create the record of the hearing. He handed out copies of two of the most pertinent City Code provisions; 10-38 and 10-39. 10-38 talks about the variance procedure and that the Water Board is authorized to grant these variances to floodplain regulations, and sub paragraph "c" in 10-38 gives the Board various kinds of issues to consider in making the decision. Most importantly, in section 10-39, there is a discussion of the requirements for issuing a variance, and things that must be proven before a variance can be issued. In particular, in sub- paragraph "e" — Variances shall only be issued upon: 1. The showing of good and sufficient cause; 2. A determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant; and 3. A determination that the granting of the variance would not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public as identified in this Chapter or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances. Mr. Duval stressed that, in the process of the hearing, if Board members have questions about any of those three items, he was there to provide answers. Bill Fischer referred to paragraph "a" in 10-39, one of the conditions for variances. He asked Mr. Duval, in the course of the hearing, to convey to Board if the City Attorney's office considers those objective standards to be met. Mr. Duval said that paragraph may not actually apply. He added that from his reading of the application, probably the most important ones in section 10-39 are sub paragraphs "d" and "e". "e" was mentioned earlier and "d" states that "Variances shall only be issued upon the Water Board Minutes • • January 27, 2000 Page 3 determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief." He also referred again to 10-38 paragraph "c" where there is a list of 9 other kinds of elements and factors that the Board can consider in granting the variance. "They will be the three most important sub paragraphs for you to look at to make your decision." Staff Presentation Marsha Hilmes-Robinson, Floodplain Administrator, began by saying that the memo in the Board packets included the variance request description, the project proposal, the variance options and the staff recommendation. She pointed out on a map the site, which is in the 100-year Dry Creek floodplain. It is not in the floodway. The application requests a variance to: City Code Section 1-53, (4) Critical Facilities. No new critical facilities shall be located in the 500-year floodplain. Critical facilities are defined as "structures or facilities that produce, use or store highly volatile, flammable, explosive, toxic and/or water reactive materials..." Variance Request To place an 18,000 gallon above -ground propane storage tank (LPGas) on the property. It was noted that this request for a floodplain variance pertains only to City Code Chapter 10 requirements and not the National Flood Insurance Program. Project Proposal The applicant provided a detailed description of the request. In summary, Schrader Propane LLC, was requesting to be able to place a propane storage tank, which is considered by City Code to be a critical facility, in the 100-year floodplain of Dry Creek. Dry Creek is a FEMA designated floodplain, but the critical facilities regulation is a City regulation. Ms. Hilmes-Robinson provided an illustration of the various elevations at the site. The bottom of the propane tank is to be set at 4,977.75 ft. The ground elevation is 4,973.5. The 100-year flood level is at 4,974, so there is a very shallow 100-year floodplain going through, about '/2 ft. deep. The 500-year is at 4,974.5, another '/2 ft. "The depths are not very great in this circumstance. That leaves, at the placement of the bottom of the propane tank, 3.52 ft. of freeboard above the 500-year flood level. Staff Recommendation She went on to say that the velocities in this area are 2.9 ft. per second. The weight of the structure empty is considerable at 37,500 lbs. At 90% full it's 68,202 lbs. It is sitting in concrete saddles, and the saddles are several feet below grade. Considering the above factors, staff thinks that the applicant has adequately mitigated the flood hazard and the potential for damage to the storage tank in the event of a 500-year flood. Based on the amount of freeboard that is being given on this project, the technical staff recommendation is to grant the variance. The reasoning for that recommendation is the intent of the "Critical Facilities" clause is to try to mitigate flood damages to protect structures from being damaged and releasing chemicals into the flooding. With that much freeboard and the shallowness of the floodplain, the mitigating measures of elevating the structure, met the intent of what staff was hoping to achieve. Water Board Minutes January 27, 2000 Page 4 Mr. Fischer asked for a verification: "As I understand your graph, in a 500-year flood there will be a foot of water at the base of the structure which holds the tank." "That's correct," Ms. Hilmes-Robinson verified. Applicant's Presentation Brad March from the firm of March and Liley, representing Schrader Oil Company, began by saying that this has been a long journey to this point. He said that Schrader Oil has been in the community for a number of years and has operated a propane plant at its main offices at 320 North College Ave., approximately one and a half miles south of the property. There is a gas station on the corner and their offices are there. Historically, Schrader Oil has maintained a number of propane tanks at that site. They eventually sold out their propane business to Phillips Propane, which was their supplier. When Phillips decided to discontinue their operations, Schrader went back into the propane business. They were going to put those tanks back at the original site because they had the bases, etc. there to do that. Unfortunately, the City decided to condemn that spot about four years ago and put a railroad track through the middle of it. At that point, the Company looked at other areas around that site. It's becoming a more populated area with a lot of transients. It was suggested by the City that this was not a good location for the tanks. The problem is that the tanks have to be placed in an industrial zone, and there is very little property with that designation in the area that is close to Schrader's site. Schrader Propane owns an interest in, and has an option to purchase the remainder of lots 13 and 14 replat of Evergreen Park, also known as 1300 Red Cedar Circle. The Property is located within the Dry Creek floodplain, and is zoned industrial, which the Planning Department agrees allows uses such as the one proposed by the applicant. He continued by saying, in terms of the variance, the danger of the material being swept into a flood, based on the substance of this structure, there is not a lot of danger. One thing that staff didn't mention is that there is a very low rate of flow of water based on the amount of drop-off, so the risk is almost non existent, according to Dick Rutherford with Stewart & Associates. Relative to the customer base, customers serviced in that area, particularly mountain customers (Poudre Canyon) is significant. There are few alternate locations, partially because of the zoning, and the primary location can't be used because the City has condemned the ground. He pointed out that, regarding the proposed location in the 100-year floodplain, he understands that there have been substantial improvements in the area that are contemplated, which should further reduce, if not eliminate any risk to the facility. He also related that Schrader is not going to be constructing any offices or anything of that nature at the site. Delivery trucks will come on a daily basis to the facility, and that's all that will occur there. There is a station, that they owned previously, on the other side of it, that will provide supervision of the facility. He added that the FEMA requirements are of some concern, but he pointed out that this is not a FEMA floodplain issue. It is an issue related to City code. He concluded by saying that if there are further questions, Mr. Schrader and Mr. Rutherford are also available. Water Board Minutes • • January 27, 2000 Page 5 Applicant's Request The applicant requested that the Water Board find good and sufficient cause to grant this variance, that the failure to grant the variance would result in hardship to the Applicant, and that the variance would not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense or nuisances, or cause fraud on or victimization of the public or conflict with existing laws or ordinances. Questions and Comments from the Board Joe Bergquist asked if the valves and piping are above the floodplain. "Yes, and they also have emergency automatic shut -offs," Mr. March replied. Dr. Sanders had a question relating to the saddle structure that's holding up the tank. "Has it been designed and built any differently than a normal one?" "It will be sitting on a footer that is probably 7 feet wide and 1 foot thick," Mr. Schrader answered, "and the column it's standing on is 3 '/2 - 4 ft. deep. Dr. Sanders thinks the only dangers are scouring of the soil around it, the structure losing support, and something coming downstream and puncturing it. He conceded that puncturing it is very unlikely with a 2-3 ft. per second velocity. Mr. Schrader pointed out that the tank is about'/4 in. thick and very stout. Dr. Sanders' next question was about liability. "If we grant a variance and the tank falls off it's saddles during a flood, and causes damage, where does the City stand?" "The role here is granting the variance. Under the Colorado Immunity Act, the City has immunity from most kinds of torts except for certain kinds of claims for which sovereign immunity is waived. I don't think this fits any of those exemptions from immunity," John Duval explained. "It's not our structure; it's not our facility. We are exercising our police power in approving a variance relating to the operation of our rules and regulations, and as such, I think that's an area for which we have immunity. The only other possibility is a federal civil rights claim. For that, in order to have liability, the conduct, which would have to be proven in a lawsuit against the City, is called `deliberate indifference.' It is even above gross negligence. In other words, we have done something so outrageous and out of bounds from the normal, that it would rise to the level of a federal civil rights situation." He thought that was unlikely too. "Assuming the Water Board has attached all kinds of reasonable conditions that they think, from an engineering and science standpoint, are necessary to make this a safe structure, the chances of liability are pretty remote," he concluded. Mr. Bergquist asked if by chance the F000dplain Task Force proposed regulations are implemented, would this variance still be approved by staff? Ms. Hilmes-Robinson replied that right now the Task Force is only dealing with the Poudre River. "We haven't even begun to address any other floodplains." The Critical Facilities clause right now is across the board. It's a standard that is higher than FEMA's minimum standards. The only change that has even been discussed with regard to Critical Facilities, is adding retail facilities to the list of what we call critical facilities. That portion of the Code is not being considered for change at this time. Mr. March added that Schrader has been considering this for a year and proximity to the Poudre River was one of the concerns voiced with the original proposal to put the storage tank at the Schrader Oil site. Based on the City's concerns, they didn't really want the facility that close to the River corridor downtown. Ms. Hilmes-Robinson commented that when the City gets to other Water Board Minutes January 27, 2000 Page 6 floodplains, such as Dry Creek, we would be looking at other options of no development in the floodplain."That may change things, but we're not to that point yet." George Reed said he hadn't heard anything for awhile about the status of the Dry Creek Floodplain. He was wondering if the City was out there with the County getting into a special district in order to create a diversion. What effect will that have on this location? Bob Smith replied that the County has been looking at alternatives. The feedback was that it's too expensive, so the County hired a consultant to look at doing it cheaper. "Was the cost about $5 million?" "Yes, it was about that," he said. He continued by saying that the bottom line, to cover the debt for the whole thing, was to take a full area from along College Ave. to the south and create a special improvement district. It would eventually be out of the floodplain. "Do you have a feeling about the likelihood of that whole program?" Mr. Reed asked. "It's a priority for the City and for the County," Mr. Smith responded. Mr. Fischer referred to sections 10-38 and 10-39 as outlined by Mr. Duval. Does this in essence demonstrate that the developer can meet the requirements of the various sections of these two codes? Mr. Fischer thinks it does. Action: Motion and Second Bill Fischer, saying he believes Schrader Old Co. has met the requirements of the applicable sections of the City Code, moved that the Water Board approve the variance as requested. Paul Clopper seconded the motion. Further Discussion Chairman Sanders asked if there was further discussion. George Reed said he hadn't heard anything that would justify that failure to grant the variance would result in "exceptional hardship" to the applicant. "Is this a requirement for a variance, and what is the hardship?" Mr. March said the hardship that the Schraders are finding is, as he indicated earlier, if there would have been another site they would have used it. He reiterated that when Schrader got back into the propane business about 4 years ago, the City of Fort Collins announced that they were going to re-route the railroad tracks, which previously crossed College Ave. Consequently, the railroad tracks were placed right over the foundations that the Schraders previously used for their propane tanks. Schraders were then forced to find an alternate site. The Company needs some proximity to their existing tank, and the proposed site is, basically, the only site they could find. There isn't much industrial zoned property that exists within this area. "This site serves their purpose extremely well, and, as was indicated earlier, there is a very nominal risk, if any, associated with the tank," he stressed. David Lauer was opposed to granting the variance, and asked that it be postponed until the Floodplain Regulations Task Force and the City Council have made their determination on something that between 12 and 22 people have been working on for the last year and a half. In terms of the Poudre River floodplain and all the other 5 or 6 floodplains, this should be considered for new development and re -development in their respective floodplains. "If we have any respect for the process in the community, as well as the legal frame, I think we ought to postpone this and not make a decision on it now. He commented that he buys his gas from Schrader, and really appreciates them as a local business, but the water community has been Water Board Minutes • • January 27, 2000 Page 7 trying to figure this out for more than a year and a half. The other problem he had was that the regulations talk about a hazardous use not being allowed in the 500-year flood. This property is in the 100-year floodplain, and it's only about 200 feet from the floodway. He urged the Board to use some restraint and at least wait until the City Council makes their determination of what kinds of changes will be made. Mr. Fischer responded that he didn't think it was fair for the Water Board to hold someone hostage on a potential floodplain plan that may or may not be approved in the future. "I think people come to us in good faith that the applications are based on the existing facts, and we ought to respond to them on the existing facts. While I very much respect David Lauer's thoughts and opinions on this, nonetheless, we must be fair to the applicant," he said. He also commented that the fact that it is in the 100-year floodplain doesn't bother him because it would only be 6 inches of water and, at 2-3 cfs, he couldn't imagine that an hydrologist or engineer would believe it would cause much damage. As far as the determination of exceptional hardship to the applicant, it was Mr. Fischer's feeling from what he understood today, that there is no other site for this structure, and that the sale of propane not only is good for Fort Collins residents, but also residents of the Poudre Canyon. Tom Brown said that, assuming the structure is technically sound and meets specifications, is it in fact an appropriate structure for a floodplain, unlike a lot of others which aren't? "It is going to be 3 '/< ft. above the 500-year flood level. That sounds like a long ways to me. It seems appropriate instead of inappropriate for this sort of location, so I have no problem with it." Joe Bergquist pointed out that the long-range plan will eliminate this whole area from the floodplain completely. "Not necessarily," Mr. Lauer responded. "Bob Smith said Dry Creek may be taken completely out of it, but we don't know that," he insisted. Mr. Bergquist added that we don't know what Council will do either. Chairman Sanders asked if there was anyone else present who had an objection to granting a variance. There were no others opposed. Dr. Sanders asked if this variance hearing was published in the newspaper. Ms. Hilmes-Robinson said no. "How would somebody know about it?" Dr. Sanders asked. "There is not a process established for that," she replied. "I think that's a shortcoming here. If more people knew about this situation, they would probably have more input," Dr. Sanders contends. Regarding David Lauer's position, Dr. Sanders wondered if perchance, in the future, if the floodplain zoning made this a worse situation, where the floodway would be higher because of structures or anything, is this variance grandfathered in? Mr. Smith answered that you can't take property without just compensation, so we might have to pay for it. "If David Lauer's point is valid, once we approve it, it's there forever no matter what our adjustments are for the floodplains," Dr. Sanders remarked. Paul Clapper said he was also aware of zoning issues and difficulty in siting facilities on the north side of town. He said he was going to agree with Bill Fischer, that the hardship issue has been demonstrated. He also observed that this kind of an arrangement is not backing up flood Water Board Minutes January 27, 2000 Page 8 waters that would create a backwater effect and a rise in flood level upstream of this because of the elevated design. Mr. Clopper returned to an issue mentioned earlier of floating debris. "I would assume that this site will be fenced." "It will be fenced," Mr. Schrader answered. "That should provide enough protection against floating debris puncturing the tank or knocking it over," Mr. Clopper stated. Mr. Reed thought he heard the applicants say that there was "almost" no other property zoned industrial where they could put this structure. "It sounds to me like there were other alternatives but I haven't heard what those alternatives were." His second point on the hardship issue was when the City buys a piece of property to put railroad tracks on, they pay pretty good money. It's generally the appraised evaluation. "You know that people who own the property put that money in their pocket. Schrader placed some saddles there, which they were going to be faced with moving sometime, if they hadn't gone back into this business. To me, that sounds like they received two benefits. I'm having a hard time justifying this hardship issue," he asserted. "Do you have any further comments about the issue?" Mr. Fisher asked Mr. March if that was a condemned site. "Yes, it was a condemned site," Mr. March replied. "It went on for sometime, and I think that's one of the reasons Mr. Rau excused himself from the discussion because he was involved in that process. The condemnation has been going on since 1994 because of a variety of complexities, including issues involving Public Service Co., and it still hasn't been settled. The proceeds that the Schraders have received have been less than environmental attorneys' fees, and with configuration costs, absent any costs of the land. He went on to say, "as far as other sites, there is a limited amount of industrial space, and that industrial space is narrowing. They have looked at sites in the Wellington area, which is a hardship because of distance and getting up the Poudre. "I was curious about sites in the immediate vicinity," Mr. Reed said. "There was some industrial ground behind the old Sugar Beet Factory which is now the City Facilities Complex. Part of the concern they had with that site, was that it was on the other side of the railroad tracks. That had a variety of issues, including transportation, hazardous materials in the area and the railroad tracks, about which the City is already expressing concerns with the Schraders current plant. They looked at industrial sites off the inter -state which were somewhat favorable in that you could get transports into them, but you would probably have to go through town to take the propane through the area. This was on the north side town, and seemed to be favorable. On the whole there were not available sites that were useable. In other words, it's a hardship because they were unable to find another useable site. John Morris wanted to know if staff thinks this variance takes away from the goal that the floodway is designed with public safety in mind. Ms. Hilmes-Robinson replied that the floodway portion is preserved through that area. There is a one -foot floodway on Dry Creek. It has been preserved since the measure was adopted. Currently, the flood fringe in Dry Creek is open for development. If this site were not considered a critical facility, this plan would have gone through without having to request a variance. "It's the `critical facilities' piece that's causing the problem." Mr. Morris clarified: "Then staff does not think granting the variance takes away from Water Board Minutes • • January 27, 2000 Page 9 our goal of community safety?" "That's correct, having it elevated to 3 feet outweighs the chances of the structure being damaged," she responded. Paul Clopper recalled that some years ago there was a concept design of the Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, on Dry Creek. He asked Bob Smith what happened to that. "Working with the Corps was going to cost the City more money —millions of dollars more —to go with the Corps' plans, even with cost sharing," Mr. Smith explained. Dr. Sanders asked if the proposed site has private insurance or government subsidized insurance. "It's private," Mr. Schrader replied. "The insurance company has seen the site and the plans, and has agreed to insure it?" Dr. Sanders added. "Yes," Mr. Schrader answered. Mr. Duval said that Dr. Sanders was probably thinking about mortgage -based insurance rather than liability based. "You don't need mortgage insurance," he said. Ms. Hilmes-Robinson added that FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program would not insure a propane tank; they only insure structures. Dr. Sanders asked if there were further questions or comments. Mr. Lauer had two additional comments. He said that the tank footings were going to go underground, but there wouldn't be any bedrock anchor. "If those footings are not anchored in bedrock, and we have a flood, a chain link fence is not going to make any difference with floating debris. A fence is good to keep people out, but it's not going to prevent floodwater in there." Dr. Sanders asked if someone could respond to the technical aspects of this. Dick Rutherford, from Stewart & Associates, said the actual engineering of the tanks, and the haunches they sit on, are made by the people who keep huge propane tanks. They have been designing both of them for places all over the country. The ground, being in the floodplain, has cobble, so there is going to be bedrock somewhere. The design and engineering of the saddles and tanks don't require going to bedrock. The weight of the tank and the concrete, etc. are keeping them there. Having scouring down three or four feet doesn't seem possible when we are talking about only 2.9 feet per second velocities. Dr. Sanders pointed out the drawing that was in the packets. It shows that the footing for the support is going to be sunk 24 inches. Is that correct? "I think it's 4.6 feet," Mr. Rutherford replied. Mr. March said there are different areas that the manufacturer suggests for depths. Colorado would normally require a depth of between 2.6 and 3.6 ft. Schraders have always used the 4.6 depth, which is more than what is recommended by the manufacturer. "Has staff seen the plans for construction and design of the footings?" Dr. Sanders asked. "All we have seen is what is in the packets," Ms. Hilmes-Robinson replied. Their written documentation is what we have been basing it on, and it says 4.6 ft. She read from that documentation. Bill Fischer asked for comments from those who do more work with actual floodwater calculations than he does. "If a full estimate was a 500-year flood, and it was about a foot above the ground, at 2.9 ft. per second, would that move a tree that had been uprooted, and push it into a fence?" Mr. Clopper said it depends on the tree. "They can be mobilized in a few inches of water because they bob like a cork; 8 inches will float a car." "What's the velocity of a 500-year flood?" Ms. Hilmes-Robinson didn't have the answer off hand. Water Board Minutes January 27, 2000 Page 10 Mr. Duval related that in granting a variance, the Board has the right to impose conditions on it. In his review of the application, he didn't see a mention of a fence. "If the expectation is that whatever is built should have a fence around it, you probably would want to make that a condition of granting the variance," he suggested. "If you look upstream of this in the Dry Creek Floodplain, what's the likelihood of that kind of debris. A lot of that area is built up. We're talking about Dry Creek as opposed to the Poudre River Floodplain," he clarified. "We were using trees as an example, but you can assume there will be sheds, etc.; anything that will float," Mr. Clopper responded. "In some cases, with hazardous materials, you are required to build a dyke around it. Would this fall into that category?" Mr. Bergquist asked. "No," was the reply. "The fire department would prefer not having a dyke around it because it can't contain it," Mr. March said. "How is this going to be configured relative to the direction of the flow of the water? Is the tank going to be perpendicular or parallel to the flow?" Dr. Sanders asked. "It started out that the tank was going to be parallel, then we moved it," Mr. Schrader responded. On a drawing, Ms. Hilmes- Robinson showed that it was coming at an angle toward the structure with most of the flow, so the flow wouldn't be hitting the saddle structure sideways. If you had an extreme flow, where it was up at the level of the tank, then the tank is perpendicular. For the water to be up at that level, you would probably have worse problems. ACTION: Vote Chair Sanders called for the question. The motion was to accept the variance as requested. It was again suggested that the condition of the fence be included in the motion. Mr. Duval explained that Schrader says they are going to build a fence but the Board is not requiring them to build one. Mr. March said they have no objection of that being in the motion. Mr. Fischer asked if there were any alternatives to a chain link fence. Mr. March said that his understanding is there is a preference for a chain link fence because water will flow through it, but you want something that will stop things coming around the site. The posts will be set in concrete. It will be designed with the proper spacings as well. A chain link fence will also be preferable for security reasons. Joe Bergquist asked if Schraders had thought about raising it to the 1-foot level and thus being out of the floodplain. "I think that would create a problem at the site of getting the trucks to it," Mr. March responded. There are also other issues associated with it. "Would that bring the whole site up or just where the tank is?" someone asked. "The tank and access to it," Mr. Bergquist replied. "Are you suggesting they go through the LOMR-fill process to technically and by regulation, remove it from the floodplain process?" Ms. Hilmes-Robinson asked. "Then you would be shifting these flows elsewhere," Tom Brown pointed out. Mr. March noted that it becomes expensive, and there is also an engineering problem. There were concerns that if you elevate this more, you may have aesthetic problems. Many people would not find it pleasing to be looking at a propane tank. "We explored that idea to some degree, but had to discard it," he related. Water Board Minutes • • January 27, 2000 Page 11 Mr. Fischer suggested adding a few more posts to the chain link fence to increase its strength. David Lauer maintains that a fence won't do any good. "Anything that's going downstream in a flood scenario that can dislodge that tank, a fence isn't going to make a difference. The only reason a fence will be there is to keep people out." Mr. Clopper disagreed. He believes the fence would provide some shedding of debris around it. "When you build this, will there be a concrete pad around it to accommodate trucks?" Dr. Sanders asked. "There will be some road base or asphalt or something to make a driveway around it," Mr. Schrader replied. Amended Motion and Vote Bill Fischer, author of the motion, amended the motion, with the permission of the second Paul Clopper, to read: The Water Board approves the granting of a variance as requested with the condition that a chain link fence be constructed around the tank structure. The motion passed 8-1 with David Lauer opposed for reasons stated during the discussion. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND NORTH WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Jim Hibbard, Water Field Operations and Planning Manager, reminded the Board that they had approved an intergovernmental agreement about a year ago with the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District. The City established a means and basis for the beneficial exchange of water between the City and the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District on the south side of town. Subsequent to that agreement and buoyed by its success, the Regional Water Cooperation Committee commissioned a joint distribution system study to look for other opportunities for cooperation. The consultant has completed the study, and that brought forth a couple of other opportunities that City staff thought would be beneficial for both the City and adjacent water districts to explore. The proposed intergovernmental agreement between the City and North Weld County Water District, which staff is bringing to the Board today, is the first opportunity resulting from the joint study. Mr. Hibbard said that for all practical purposes, it is identical to the existing agreement with Fort Collins -Loveland Water District. The agreement calls for the City to receive treated Soldier Canyon water into its distribution system at the treatment plant on west LaPorte Ave. and NWC to take an equal amount out of the City's transmission main at Summit View Road north of Vine Drive. By cooperating with the City, NWC can delay construction of their transmission line for 10-15 years. The City gains a return on capital investment in its transmission line from the rental of transmission line capacity. Both entities gain from the increased flexibility in the event of an emergency or during capital construction. The agreement sets forth the terms and conditions of the exchange. The intent is for the amount of water exchanged to be equal, with the water metered, and any significant difference paid for at a rate outlined in the agreement. Mr. Hibbard explained that if it isn't exactly even, we can carry over a small amount, and if it exceeds that amount, there is compensation for it. There are provisions for future agreements with other water districts. In this particular case, it is mutually beneficial to the City and the District because it allows the District to take advantage of some excess that the City has in its transmission lines on the north side of town, and as Water Board Minutes January 27, 2000 Page 12 mentioned earlier, delay construction of their transmission line. It also allows the City to gain some revenue from the rental of its transmission line. In addition, operational details such as responsibility for maintenance and repairs of City and District structures are included in the agreement. Water quality monitoring frequencies, treatment standards, and procedures for dealing with emergencies are outlined in agreement exhibits so that customers are assured of equally high quality water, whatever the source. Mr. Hibbard said, "we are continuing to see that the most significant benefits are the ongoing cooperation between the City and the Districts, the open dialogue we have, and the way we are approaching the solution to problems together." He pointed out that, currently, the City is taking about 5 million gallons a day of District water while we are under construction at our water treatment plant. In a fairly short period of time, that role will reverse when the District's plant will be under construction, and we will provide water to them. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Water Board advise Council to adopt this intergovernmental agreement. Questions and Comments Mr. Hibbard asked for questions and comments. He said that representatives from the District, Don Posselt and Gary Simpson were there if Board members had questions for them. Tom Brown asked the time frame of the agreement and if it is possible to cut the agreement short if something comes up. "This agreement basically extends into perpetuity meaning that there is no set end to it," Mr. Hibbard replied. "However, either party can dissolve the agreement with a five-year notice. The reason why it's five years, which tends to be a little long, is because we're working together. We are building capital facilities and making plans that are based on both of us being there for each other. If, for whatever reason, either parry would like to end the agreement, there has to be time enough to react to it." He added that we would expect from time to time to bring amendments forward for rates and other housekeeping types of items. George Reed remarked that "sometimes five years seems awfully short." With whom was the other agreement? "The first agreement was with the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District, and they serve primarily south of town. This agreement with North Weld County Water District, serves primarily east of Fort Collins. "Is the FCLV agreement on -going?" someone asked. "It is ongoing and we will probably be doing some housekeeping amendments to that in the near future. We learned a few more things going through this agreement, which prompted us to pursue making some minor changes in the original agreement," Mr. Hibbard responded. ACTION: Motion Bill Fischer moved that the Water Board recommend that the City Council adopt the intergovernmental agreement with North Weld County Water District. John Morris seconded the motion. Mr. Clopper asked if this was the result of the study that Tom Ullman presented to the Board in June 1999. This is only one of many potential projects? "That's correct," Mr. Hibbard replied. Water Board Minutes • January 27, 2000 Page 13 "This is the first of the other opportunities that the study pointed out. There will be others, but this was the highest priority item," he said. Tom Sanders asked about the water quality element of this cooperative effort. "It's the same water plant as the other two districts," Mr. Hibbard explained. "Fort Collins -Loveland, East Larimer County Water District and North Weld County Water District jointly own the Soldier Canyon Treatment Plant. Their plant has the same provisions for meeting all applicable standards and working out any differences." Kevin Gertig, Water Production Manager for the City, said he is totally comfortable with the operation of their facility. "I work closely with their plant manager Bob Reed. We have established a protocol. The District plant also participates in the Partnership for Safe Water Program," Mr. Gertig explained. He said the City and the District have also established a good data sharing and treatment technology relationship. He added that it is stipulated in the agreement that the entities work closely together. ACTION: Vote Chair Tom Sanders called for the question. The Board voted unanimously to recommend to the Council that they approve the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Fort Collins and North Weld County Water District. STAFF REPORTS Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported that for 1999, the total treated water use was 27,620 ac-ft, which was about 92% of what had been projected. He also provided handouts with Snotel data for Joe Wright and Deadman Hill. "In the last few days we have seen that come up a little. Combined, we are about 78% of average as of 1/27/2000. "What is your projection for summer? Do you think we'll have enough snowpack?" Dr. Sanders wondered. "It's hard to project what will happen locally, but all the reservoirs in this area are above average. We should be in fairly good shape as far as general water supply." "Since the representative from the NCWCD wasn't able to be here today, can you comment on the article in the newspaper today about repairs to the Horsetooth dams?" George Reed asked. It seems to him that there wouldn't be any lowering of Horsetooth water for a couple of years for that kind of work. "Is that correct?" he asked. "The District is basically on a fast track because of the timing of the use of money they have available," Mr. Bode explained. "They hope to enter into a contract by September of this year, in which case, they could begin this fall." "That would probably be okay, because that's the time of year when they are lowering Horsetooth anyway," Mr. Reed commented. "The levels would be kept lower, but they haven't determined yet what level that would be," Mr. Bode said. "They are on a fast track and they may begin something in the fall, but we don't know how far they are going to draw the reservoir down, is that right? Mr. Reed asked. "As of a few days ago, they are still discussing that," Mr. Bode replied. Dr. Sanders asked if the Northern District's refurbishing would give the City an opportunity to upgrade its intake, if the District is going to be dropping the level down sufficiently, "so we can take water at a higher level?" "We asked that question, and they are going to look into it," Mike Smith responded. Dr. Sanders added that we may be able to alleviate our manganese problem by taking the water at a higher level. He asked staff to monitor this and keep the Board informed. Water Board Minutes January 27, 2000 Page 14 COMMITTEE REPORTS Conservation and Public Education The Conservation and Public Education Committee was the only committee that met. Chair David Lauer reported that Kevin McBride, Senior Stormwater Engineer, talked to the committee about the site plan for a water cycle wall which is going to be part of the Utilities' Public Education Program. This project has been linked to the City's Art in Public Places Program. Mr. Lauer showed a drawing of the wall. Cast in the wall will be the Creek and its headwaters. It also shows what happens when it gets into ponding, what it does with the riprap effect, and what it would look like out on the plains. It will be in color. Kevin McBride's group has put out a request for proposals to provide other kinds of sculptures and permanent displays on the top of the wall that would depict other types of life cycles: plant life, animal life and even chemical nitrogen cycles. There will be hydrologic cycles and annual cycles of the seasons. Eventually, there may be around 50 of them in all that might be put along this wall; they are looking for 12 at this time. The interpretive site will focus on three major elements: the stream habitat, a retention pond for stormwater treatment, (The pond will be rather small-6-7 ac-ft.), and the third element will be a depiction of what a watershed is all about. Horsetooth Rock is above there, so it will be easy to bring a group of kids there and show them Horsetooth Rock and the reservoir up above and get an idea of the definition and importance of a watershed. Kids from all over the City will be brought here for educational purposes. "It looks like a very neat thing," Mr. Lauer remarked. John Morris, who also was at the meeting, added that they are talking about putting similar kinds of displays in other parts of the City as well. Mr. Lauer mentioned that CSU is doing an interpretive display south of their Engineering building that will called a "water park." Mr. Lauer announced that Flood Awareness Week will be coming in May. He also announced that there will be two open houses, on February 2 at the Senior Center and Feb. 3 at Blevins Junior High School, for the Canal Importation Master Plan. They plan to get feedback on the alternatives that City Utilities is suggesting. On February loth the Floodplain Regulations Task Force will meet in the Utilities Training Room in the evening. Liaison Issues Committee Chair George Reed announced an upcoming meeting of the Big Thompson Watershed Forum. For information about date and time and other details, call Ben Alexander. OTHER BUSINESS Long -Range Planning and City -County Jurisdictional Boundaries Paul Clopper explained that these were informational items that he asked to be put on the agenda. Long-range planning and City -County jurisdictional boundaries were items that Joe Bergquist asked about after the last meeting in December. Mr. Bergquist said that he talked with Bob Smith with Stormwater, about what the plans are to coordinate between the City and the County, particularly in questions about the floodplain. Mr. Clopper mentioned questions that arose about jurisdictional boundaries when the Board discussed the agenda item that dealt with the Boxelder Sanitation District. Mr. Bergquist and Mr. Clopper had discussed their concerns Water Board Minutes • • January 27, 2000 Page 15 after that meeting. Chair Sanders suggested that, sometime in the near future, the Board spend time discussing some of the long-range planning issues. Cooperation between the City and County regarding floodplain zoning is also an important item that needs to be explored and monitored as an ongoing endeavor. He asked Mr. Bergquist if he wants to do anything formally with it. "We can bring it up in the Engineering Committee," Mr. Bergquist replied. Regarding long-range planning, Dr. Sanders thinks the number of stormwater and floodplain issues and floodplain variances that the Board has been concentrating on the last couple of years, has left little time for other issues, such as water supply. "The population is now 105,000 people; when was the last time we bought water?" he stressed. Water Board 1999 Attendance Record Paul Clopper, the former chairman, requested that the Board secretary prepare a matrix showing the number of absences of each Board member for 1999. Dr. Sanders acknowledged that board members have a lot of other things going on in their lives, but he emphasized the need for members to come as often as they can. Members who can't come to a meeting should contact Molly Nortier. It's important to know how many members will be attending. If there isn't a quorum, the Board can't conduct formal business. Ms. Nortier related that, under board and commission rules, three consecutive unexcused absences can lead to dismissal from the Board. New Chair for Engineering Committee Dr. Sanders has served as chair of the Engineering Committee for several years. Because he was elected as chair of the Board, a new engineering committee chair needs to be selected. David Lauer suggested Dave Rau, who agreed to be the chair. Paul Clopper volunteered to be a new member of the Engineering Committee. Long -Range Planning — Additional Comments Mike Smith explained that with each facility, there is a department plan. Long range planning is based on stormwater, water and wastewater treatment master plans and the Water Supply Policy. A Halligan Reservoir update will be included in the Water Supply Policy update. "If you want to focus on something, you may want to focus on the master plans and policies," Mr. Smith suggested. Notification Process for Variance Hearings Paul Clopper brought up a comment that was made during the Variance hearing. Tom Sanders asked if there was public notification of the hearing. Stab said there is currently no process to notify the public about the hearings. Mr. Clopper acknowledges that all Water Board regular meetings and committee meetings are included in public notices by the City. The public is informed that all of these meetings are open. He pointed out that it's up to a citizen to look at a Water Board agenda to know that a hearing is scheduled. "You don't see signs in the hall here that say `floodplain variance taking place,' as there is for Planning & Zoning meetings." As he recalls, there haven't been any opponents in variance hearings the last two years. The only time that has occurred was when the City itself was an opponent. George Reed asked if there were checks and balances in the system where the neighbors in the vicinity of the variance have an opportunity to provide input. "It's a good point, but I think they do have an opportunity," he said. Mr. Rau disagreed that nobody knows about a variance hearing because it would be brought up Water Board Minutes January 27, 2000 Page 16 at Planning & Zoning. "In this case, it would not be a zoning issue, because a propane tank is allowed in that particular zone," Jim Hibbard explained. "However, there would be a development review process, all of which involve some kind of public review process. The review process involves mostly the current planning and long range planning staff. "Are we on the tail end of that process?" Mr. Rau asked. "Yes, we are," staff replied. "It's kind of a technical review variance," Mike Smith pointed out. "Do we want to get citizens involved in technical issues?" Mr. Hibbard said what staff finds difficult occasionally, is the mixing of floodplain and land use issues. Utilities and Planning staff have observed that floodplain issues are being used to argue land use. They are related, but it depends on your point of view as to which one you want to use. "It's a challenge," he concluded. Possible City Council Reaction to Floodplain Regulations Joe Bergquist asked how staff thinks the City Council may react to the floodplain regulations if they are brought to a vote. "When we went to the work session, the Council asked for considerably more information, and staff is developing that right now," Mr. Hibbard responded. Mr. Hibbard and Mr. M. Smith had no idea how the Council will react or vote. "Is it being supported by a number of people in the organization, or are we barking up the wrong tree?" Mr. Bergquist wondered. "I think it comes down to a degree of how far it goes," Mr. Smith said. "I can't tell you at this point where it's going to end up," he concluded. /_�i @ 8jawmainY The Board voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 4:50 p.m. Water Board Secretary