Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 05/27/1999WATER BOARD MINUTES May 27, 1999 3:15 — 5:00 Fort Collins Utilities Training Room 700 Wood Street COUNCIL LIAISON Chuck Wanner (not present) WATER BOARD CHAIR Paul Clopper — 223-5556 STAFF LIAISON Molly Nortier- 221-6700 MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Clopper, Chair; Tom Sanders, Vice Chair, David Lauer, George Reed, John Moms, Dave Rau, Joe Bergquist, Tom Brown STAFF Mike Smith, Bob Smith, Dennis Bode, Jim Hibbard, Molly Nortier, Dennis Sumner, Heather Hoxeng GUESTS Gary Vette - Woodbox Condo Association Don Fagerberg - Avery Park Neighborhood Association MEMBERS ABSENT Robert Ward, Dave Frick, Chair Paul Clopper opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: APPROVAL OF MINUTES David Lauer moved that the minutes of April 22, 1999 be approved as distributed. Tom Sanders seconded the motion. The minutes were unanimously approved. Water Board Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 2 UPDATE: NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT Gene Schleiger was to have given an update, but was unable to attend the board meeting. Dennis Bode informed the Board of the SNOTEL data for Joe Wright Reservoir and Deadman Hill in his stead. He reported that both reports where fairly close to the average and we are at 106 percent of the average basin total to date. Mr. Bode said that when you look at the SNOTEL for the South Platte Basin as a whole, it shows about 185% of average. Based on what it is normally, it is significantly higher. In the Poudre Basin, however, it is a little closer to average. INCONSISTENT BANK LEVELS AND ELEVATION ON NEW MERCER DITCH Paul Clopper began by introducing Gary Vette, with Woodbox Condominium Association. Mr. Clopper said that he had talked with Mr. Vette about a month ago and, at that time, he had agreed to come to a board meeting and present some information on elevation ofthe bank levels on the New Mercer Ditch just South of West Elizabeth Street. Mr. Clopper's impression was that this was something Mr. Vette and his association were working on with staff. In fact, there was some history of this dating back to1985. He felt that Mr. Vette was more concerned about operational design issues as opposed to policy issues and, therefore, he didn't think the Board would take any formal action on the matter. However, Mr. Clopper wanted to hear what Mr. Vette had to say. He asked that Bob Smith respond for Staff on the construction and maintenance issue. Mr. Vette introduced Don Fagerberg, with Avery Park Neighborhood Association. Mr. Vette stated that in July of 1985, the New Mercer overflowed its banks after a summer thunderstorm. At that time he contacted the City and was told that the New Mercer was a "top priority." The New Mercer overflowed in June of 1992, again, on July 28, 1997 and again, on August 5, 1997. One month ago, April 30, 1999, it was only eight inches from overflowing. On that day, there was no irrigation water in the canal. Gary Vette went on to say that the City has determined there are three definite dips and has quantified those dips. The three dips are between Elizabeth and Prospect on the east side of the bank. The New Mercer Canal's banks have been inconsistent in height from the floor to the bank level for many years. Furthermore, there has been no maintenance of the banks to make them level, and as a result, Mr. Vette believes the lack of maintenance is causing a flood hazard, is a flood safety issue and a public safety issue. He also feels it is causing the Avery f Water Board Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 3 Park Neighborhood frustration and fear every time it rains. He gave an example of neighbor who can't sleep when it rains at night. The next day, she is not productive at work. He said that since 1985, what they have been trying to do, is correct this inconsistent bank level. They have written to the New Mercer Ditch Company, the City of Fort Collins, and the problem was an item of discussion at the March 1998 Water Board meeting. The Water Board, at that time, had said "the dips would be addressed." Mr. Vette said. It was also stated at that meeting that a survey would be done on the New Mercer in April or May of 1998. (That survey was finally completed February of 1999.) On top of all of this, he said they had been frustrated with the situation regarding the New Mercer in September or October of 1997. At that time, there was a meeting with Bob Smith and the Avery Park Floodplain Committee and there were discussions about widening the New Mercer. Bob Smith presented the proposal to the Community Development Block Grant Commission. After discussions with the Community Development Block Grant Commission, it was found that widening the New Mercer, which was approximately a quarter -of -a -million dollars, was only for the design of the project. The Avery Park Association and staff came back to the Water Board and the Board helped them develop the Avery Park Pond Improvements. While that has helped them greatly, they are still getting all of the stormwaters into the New Mercer Canal from everything north of Elizabeth Street, except from Plum Street. Mr. Vette contends that if there had been irrigation waters in the New Mercer Ditch on April 30t°, the City of Fort Collins and Colorado State University would have had another flood. Don Fagerberg, concurred with what Mr. Vette had presented. He definitely thinks there is a problem. He pointed out that at the last meeting with Bob Smith on May 10', all of this was determined by computer modeling. It was concluded at that meeting that these three dips or inconsistencies could not be addressed unless there was approval from the people on the west bank of the New Mercer to allow the work to be done. Mr. Fagerberg had volunteered to get the names of those properties in question, which were on Brentwood Street. He provided that information to Bob Smith around May 19. Mr. Fagerberg said that Bob Smith had not acknowledged that he had received the information. Mr. Smith said that he had received the information and letters were sent out. He went on to say that the properties were those that when they fill in the three low areas of the canal on the east side, the water will back up on the west side. That backing up on the west side creates an encroachment on nine different properties. Because we are actually changing an existing condition, there is a need for an easement from those properties. That is why Mr. Water Board Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 4 Fagerberg volunteered to compile a list of addresses to contact those people and see what their thoughts were on creating an easement for that encroachment. Bob Smith stated that a letter was sent to those people today, and he would see that Mr. Fagerberg gets a copy. Mr. Fagerberg added that one of the properties in question was a church, three of them were rentals, and the other five were resident owned. Mr. Fagerberg and Mr. Smith agreed that the least accessible owner would be one whose address would be in Hawaii. Paul Clopper asked if Don Fagerberg and Gary Vette had an opportunity to present all of the information they wanted. He also asked if Bob Smith had anything to add. Mr. Smith stated that the Master Plan called for the New Mercer to be a priority. Mr. Fagerber asked what date that occurred. Mr. Smith said the Master Plan for the Canal Importation Basin, which was adopted by Fort Collins in 1982, had stated that. The fees that were collected were to do improvements from Spring Creek up through the Canal Importation Channel. After the 1997 flood, the priority changed from the New Mercer to the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal. Doing the improvements on the Pleasant Valley Canal, which is on the west side of town, will reduce the flows at Avery Park by some 600 cfs. That will bring about lower and less flows between the New Mercer and the Pleasant Valley. A Board Member asked when the improvements were to be completed. Mr. Fagerberg said they are slated to be finished in 2000 or 2001. Bob Smith agreed with that time period. Gary Vette pointed out that the New Mercer Canal is now number 17 on the list for improvements when it was declared a top priority in 1980. With the current schedule of Pleasant Valley being done first, Bob Smith answered, New Mercer would still be done in 2002 or 2003, and that is only about two years away. Tom Sanders asked what the elevation was on the dips. Gary Vette said that it depended on where you started surveying. He said that the elevation of the banks, from the floor to the bank level, is higher on the north side of Elizabeth Street than it is on the south side of Elizabeth. Dave Rau asked what the size of storm flows are over the tops of those dips? Is it less than a 100 year event? Bob Smith replied that it was. Gary Vette said, according to Susan Hayes, the New Mercer could only handle a 1.16 inch rain event. Water Board Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 5 Paul Clopper asked what the arrangements and agreements were between the City and the ditch companies. He wanted to know if the City was allowed to perform maintenance or improvements without the ditch company's consent. Mr. Smith said the City had to get their approval, "but since we are up on the embankment, there is not a problem." The ditch company has already been contacted and they don't have any problems. "In fact, we went in and actually cleaned out the ditch last year after the flood in 1997. As long as there is flow in the ditch for irrigation purposes, they don't mind." David Lauer asked if it was the City's responsibility to do that on a normal basis or the ditch company's. Mr. Smith said it was a "gray area." The ditch company is only concerned with getting their irrigation flows through the ditch. They are required to convey their water rights through that area and maintain the ditch accordingly. "We cleared the ditch to improve the capacity, to allow the stormwater flows there." Gary Vette noted that, according to the State, it is the ditch company's responsibility to maintain the ditches. "So we feel we have a responsibility because the City can help make the situation better," Dave Rau stated. "Is this engineered to contain stormwater?" Tom Sanders inquired. "I thought that most of the time we did not plan on that." "No, the rule of thumb years ago was to put water in irrigation ditches and now we have to correct that." Bob Smith answered. He stated that the City doesn't plan on importing stormwater through the canal. Avery Park was built back in the fifties and sixties and the only outlet was the canal that was right there, so they used it. As urbanization took place to the west after that, we are now getting more and more water. Of course, normal practice at the turn of the century and in the late sixties to early seventies, was to put stormwater in irrigation ditches. Paul Clopper asked someone to explain the "backing up" of water if we have "relief spillways," in a sense, for the water to come out on the east side of the channel. "When the plug goes in and you get `backing up,' does that involve actual structures or just lawns and backyards?" Mr. Smith explained that there were a couple scenarios stormwater runs through. Now the water does not impact any structures. "There is an area where we are within six inches of a structure and that was the best scenario we could get. All other scenarios showed a few structures could be damaged." "Six inches in elevation?" Dave Rau asked. "Six inches in elevation." Mr. Smith replied. "We went out and actually shot the openings of the structures just to make sure they are acceptable." Someone inquired about what the peak flows are now. Mr. Smith referred to a map of the area that Gary Vette had passed around. This map showed areas marked in red that represented where the ponding backs -up are on the west side. It also showed the actual sub- Water Board Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 6 basins and Avery Park as a whole. The light green area showed what is tributary to Avery Park. With current conditions, depending on where you are, there is a flow of 900 to 1200 cfs. By doing improvements to Pleasant Valley Canal, there is the potential of cutting the 900 cfs we are dealing with at this point, by 600 cfs. That brings us to the 300 cfs that was talked about earlier and which is why the priorities changed from improvements to the New Mercer to the Pleasant Valley Canal. "Also, if we cut the flow in the West Vine Basin up north, all of the people below will benefit as well," Mr. Smith explained. Mike Smith asked how much water is coming down the ditch north of Plum Street from other stormwater discharges already. Bob Smith said he could get that number. The idea is to cut off all the ditches so everything north of town gets intercepted and goes down the river. Another concept is to put all of the irrigation water from both the New Mercer and Larimer 42, in the Larimer #2. That will free up all of the rights -of -way for the New Mercer for storm purposes. Most of the land that is being irrigated by the ditches is south of town. Pleasant Valley provides a lot of City water for parks and other things, however. "Those are all options that we are looking at as part of revising the Canal Importation Master Plan." Jim Hibbard stated. "All of the numbers that Bob Smith used are taking into account the higher intensity rainfall that Council adopted earlier this year." Dave Rau requested clarification as to what was meant by the ditch only being able to hold 50-60 cfs. He was also wondering if the improvements to the dips were made, would we be able to carry hundred -year waters? Mr. Smith said that the 50-60 cfs is what the ditch company carries in the New Mercer Canal. The 300 cfs is with physical improvements to the ditch. Even with improvements, the ditch would not be able to carry a hundred -year event. What needs to be done is to look at the whole system. There are some bridges and road crossings that are undersized as well. There is an expectation that when the Master Plan Study comes out, we are going to be out talking to people about easements and replacing structures. What is nice about moving the water from New Mercer to Larimer #2 is that there is a point where the slope of the ditch can be increased by almost double it's current slope, which increases the carrying capacity. Dave Rau thinks that repairing the dips would not solve all of the problems and even if they were repaired there would still be overtopping of the ditch. Gary Vette said, "Avery Park Pond Improvement solved some of the problem, which is what Bob Smith is saying the Pleasant Valley is going to do. We still have the problem with the ditch itself. The pond is acting as a detention pond now." Water Board Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 7 It was reiterated that repairing the ditch wouldn't solve all of Avery Park's problems. The flooding may be less severe than it is now, but there would still be overtopping of the ditch. Mr. Clopper asked if there were further questions. He said he wished to make some comments at the conclusion of the Board's questions.. George Reed asked if it is a reasonable target for ditch banks, annually, to be within plus or minus three inches as they go along?" "Not really." Mr. Smith answered. "How they get the ditch banks on the east side is the ditch company goes along and takes material out of the ditch and puts it on the east side and runs it over with a backhoe until they can drive across it." "So, an historical pattern of most ditches would be that the banks vary at least plus or minus three inches in elevation?" Mr. Reed continued. "Yes." Mr. Smith replied "I would say plus or minus two or three feet." David Lauer wondered if there were not as many dips on the west side of this particular stretch of the New Mercer. It was stated that the rule of thumb is that it is smoother on the west side because that is where the ditch company, doesn't usually place the material. "We are more worried about the east side because they want a right-of-way there so they can get trucks through. It is on the side where the access road is."The lower elevation, or non - elevation of the dips is on the east banks. "They shouldn't be in existence anywhere." Gary Vette interjected. Mr. Smith said there is one area on the west side where it gets closest on one lot. It is at a point where there is a natural dip in the bank."Which side of Springfield?" Don Fagerberg inquired. "It is on the south side of Springfield," Mr. Smith said while referring to the map described earlier. "It is that largest red area on the map." David Lauer asked if the width of the ditch was consistent and the reply was that it varies. It depended on the encroachment of trees and the right-of-way. In some places there is a lot of right-of-way and in others there is very little, making the ditch really narrow in spots. With old policy, the history shows that there was building done with the absence of criteria to deal with or, at one point, without having to have the ditch company's approval. This made space limited and left the ditch companies without access to the ditches. Don Fagerberg stated that the people who maintain the ditch have not been overly responsive about dealing with some ofthese issues. Bob Smith added that the ditch company is interested in getting their irrigation through the area and their focus is on that. "The irrigation ditch company has not communicated directly with us, nor have they with the homeowners association or the Avery Park Neighborhood Association. We have sent letters to Louis Swift, the president of New Mercer Ditch." Gary Vette stated. " We received communication back from Gene Fischer, their attorney, which essentially said the New Water Board Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 8 Mercer was there first and any dwellings near it were put there at their own risk." Mike Smith said that was a fairly typical response from a ditch company and Bob Smith agreed. "According to Title 37, Article 84 of the State Revised Statutes, that isn't the way the State sees it." Gary Vette asserted. Paul Clopper brought the discussion to a close. He pointed out that the discussion had started out with a stretch of ditch and a survey on a very limited reach and it expanded to a map of the whole western half of the city. He explained that there is a ripple effect with the issues of drainage. Everything seems to have an effect on all other areas. That is, what is done in one spot can affect what happens in another. It is not a simple issue and it was obvious by the discussion, that there are a lot of options and a lot of complications. After having reviewed the particular issues that Mr. Vette and Mr. Fagerberg had brought up with the Vice Chair Tom Sanders and himself earlier, Mr. Clopper thinks that what the Water Board does not do is deal with issues of design, construction, and maintenance. He also said there was not anything presented to the Board that should be formally acted upon in terms of policy guidance. The job of the Board is to provide guidance to Council. "Our job is not to direct staff to do anything in any particular way. That is a very clear distinction that I need to make as President ofthis board." he added. "But, I'd like to hear the reaction from the rest of the Board Members, given what I've just said." "Are there policy issues here that someone wants to bring up that would be within our legitimate purview? I don't see them," he said. He asked Mike Smith if he had anything to add from stabs perspective. Mr. Smith said that he couldn't add anything further. Mr. Clopper felt that this seemed to be an issue of specific staff, citizen, and City Council involvement. He didn't see where the Water Board fit into that scenario. Gary Vette stated, "According to the City Code, the City Council has nothing to do with the priorities here." (He was referring to the prioritized list of the capital projects to be completed by the City.) "I think that the two issues that I hear Mr. Vette talking about are on priorities and specific maintenance to the ditch," Mike Smith began. "The problem is working on the ditch maintenance issue. The priorities are a touch call," he said. "Their approach was sound and the way Staff is going about that by trying to cut off as much as they can to start with is good. Even though we will have more money now, there are a lot of improvements to be made." There are two things that this board did within the last year. They revamped the financing structure by going from basin to basin to citywide. Canal Importation and Old Town were the two most underfinanced individual basins. Council transferred funds from certain basins to Water Board Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 9 other basins that was not possible before. That was one thing that this board recommended to Council and it was adopted. The second was to recommend a higher design for rainfall. These projects are incorporating the higher rainfall criterion. There is "a good news, bad news" issue to the new higher criteria Mike Smith said. "The good news is we have a better financing mechanism. The bad news is that there is more work needed for the money that has been provided." Establishing the priorities is a difficult task because there are people in the West Vine Basin, Avery Park, Old Town, and Fairbrooke areas who want things done quickly because they are tired of getting flooded. "We can't blame them. In Old Town, they aren't going to have 100- year protection even with improvements." Dave Rau added, "A lot of what the Utilities is doing is trying to come in and retrofit mistakes, or things that were done in the past." The Stormwater Utility was formed in 1980 and, until then, there was no stormwater policy. "It is very hard to come into areas that have been developed for forty, fifty, and one hundred years and make these improvements. It is expensive, time consuming and difficult dealing with the public," he contends. David Lauer commented that as far as issues were concerned, the Utilities is trying to do certain stages of projects so that stormwater issues on a number of different areas down stream won't be impacted by things that you do further to the west and the north. It is not good to say that one is more of a priority than another because there are a lot of steps that have to be taken before you get to that point. This particular issue does remain a priority, but it is important to take care of all of the other things that have to be done first in order to make an impact on what is going on with that part of the New Mercer. "I think that the major thing City Council did to allow us to help people in Old Town and the Canal Importation and various other areas, was the change to City-wide funding. In some of our basins you could be the number one project in that particular basin. If you are looking at it from a basin by basin perspective and the amount of fees being collected in that basin, it might not have been built for twenty years," Jim Hibbard said. "When we were able to look city-wide and then re -rank all of those priorities on a city-wide basis, we could take off the blinders and look at what the best overall effect was and not just in a particular basin. I think that the Old Town and Canal Importation Basins, being the most expensive, were probably the ones that were most beneficially affected by this change in the rate structure." Garry Vette interjected, "Not the New Mercer. Now we are ranked at seventeen!" "As I recall," Paul Clopper added, "the numbers prior to the financing change for Canal Importation and Old Town, the ultimate build out was forty to fifty years. The new financing brings all of the basins forward to 15 years. That was what Dave Agee and his staff ran the Water Board Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 10 numbers for the Board for, and that was why we decided to recommend to Council to bring all of the basins to fifteen years." "With the priority being the Canal Importation and Old Town Basins," Bob Smith added. "One of the priorities was that it is a lot simpler to do the work on Pleasant Valley than it is on New Mercer and Larimer #2." Bob Smith went on to say that the problem became whether the ditches should be consolidated and then there would be right-of-way issues and it would be a lot more time consuming. There wouldn't be the ability to "jump right in and start moving dirt as there is with the Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal. When the Brown Farm area was developed, there was land set aside for improvements. A major part of that problem is already settled and ready for us to do the work." "That's why it is the first of seven projects." Gary Vette said, "In 1980, again, the New Mercer was slatted for improvement." "But there was no money to build it," Jim Hibbard noted, "absolutely none." Don Fagerberg asked for a clarification. He stated that at the meeting they had at Avery Park with their representative, Bob Smith and Link Mueller related that work on the east side couldn't be done until all of the people in these nine properties on the west side were approached. He added that it was approved at that meeting that if they got an affirmative response from all nine, that the authority was there for Bob Smith and his department to proceed with the restoration of the east side of the ditch. Bob Smith agreed that the approval of the nine properties was needed to be able to do the work. Jim Hibbard added, "If we do the improvements, that is certainly not the ultimate improvement. It would be something we could do on an interim basis." Dave Rau interjected that he felt that raising the ditch three inches was the wrong thing to do. "I know how ditches are maintained and what it takes. If you are going to try to spend money it is a farce to try to level this to three inches and maintain it that way for any period of time." "In one area it is twenty-four inches," Gary Vette pointed out. Tom Sanders asked, " If it is fixed, like you said, what happens downstream from this point? What is going to happen to the spillage? Would it just spill further downstream?" "No." Bob Smith said. He explained that the areas the work would be done in would just allow for more ponding before the ditch overtops the areas that are being filled. "You basically gain a little bit of depth before it overtops. It is still going to overtop. It is still going to go over and damage the properties." "Concerning policy, it is not the Board's function to direct you, or make decisions about the three inches, two feet or whatever." Joe Bergquist reiterated. "The only thing we can address is priorities. If we want to take another look at priorities, we can, but if you look at the priority list, it looks like we did a good job," he concluded. Water Board Minutes May 27, 1999 Page I Paul Clopper thanked Joe Bergquist for an excellent transition to his closing remarks. He asked that Staff keep the Board apprized as to the different options they take while working with the Woodbox Association and the Avery Park Association. He continued by saying that Council has every right to give the Board direction to look at issues like prioritizing. The avenue for addressing these priority issues is a request via Council, through the City Manager, to Mike Smith, for the Board to take action. Don Fagerberg thanked the Board for their time and courtesy and Paul Clopper thanked Gary Vette for the time he spent getting the item on the agenda with as much advanced notice as he did. He also made sure that both Mr. Fagerberg and Mr. Vette were on the mailing list when the minutes are sent out. STAFF REPORTS Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported that for April the City used 1,887 ac-ft, which is about 95 percent of what staff had projected for a normal year. He went on to say that for the month of May we are going to end up about 70 percent of average. Board Members also received a graph showing the actual water use compared to the average use. The graph showed lower use than what was projected for this time of year. Update on Stormwater Issues: Floodplains Regulations Task Force Meeting Paul Clooper explained that the task force was headed up by staff members Bob Smith, Susan Hayes and Marsha Hilmes. He also said that he and Joe Bergquist have been attending the meetings. "It is a diverse team," he said. David Lauer has been going as a representative of Friends of the Poudre, Mr. Bergquist and Mr. Clopper as representatives of Water Board. Bob Smith referred to a couple of pages of the Floodplain Regulations Task Force handout. The first sheet showed that former member Karen Weitkunat left when she was elected to the City Council. Sally Craig is filling her position. The second handout was in conjunction with the Downtown River Corridor Program that Timothy Wilder in Advance Planning is working on. There were six questions regarding floodplains, which Task Force members brainstormed. The first question related to development and redevelopment (redevelopment means to tear down and rebuild new structures) in the 100-year floodplain. Should areas like those in the Downtown River Corridor be allowed to redevelop? Water Board Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 12 Should additions be allowedfor existing structures in the 100 year floodplain? Ifso, what would the elevation, floodproofing requirements be? One "brainstorm item was to not allow new development in 100-year floodplains except "for natural area and recreational related structures of nominal expense". What items wouldyou consider recreational related structures ofnominal expense? Would you consider "washable " architecture—i. e. structures and/or landscapefeatures that are designed to "survive" a 100 year event if it was expensive to design and construct —one of these exceptions? Brainstorm item #5 says to purchase areas where floods could cause loss of life and personal danger and convert to parks or open areas. Do you feel that established residential neighborhoods like the Buchingham Neighborhood, should be protected from flooding if technically feasible and cost effective? Item 6 states "implement a no fill' policy for the Poudre. Do you feel exceptions could be allowed in certain circumstances for instance to protect established neighborhoods —to a "no fill " policy? This question relates to dealing with remodels of existing structures that exceed 50% of the value of the structure and therefore must meet elevation requirements. Would this be allowed? Could this be an exception to the no -fill policy? Specific examples of the Redevelopment issues being discussed are: If a building burns down in a floodplain, are they able to rebuild? If so, what criteria do they need to rebuild? If a building is in a floodplain, are they allowed to go in and remodel (meaning adding on)? The packet contained a summary ofthe Task Force discussion. The Task Force was not asked to give a recommendation; only their comments. There is an Open House on June 14, at Lee Martinez Farm. It will provide an opportunity for organizations and the public to come and comment. The last page of the handout was the Task Force Work Plan schedule for the Poudre River. The Task Force is looking at going to the Boards and Commissions in July with Staffs recommendation. Water Board Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 13 There is no formal recommendation at this time. They are waiting until after the Open House in July before coming up with one. Once it is developed, the various boards can make their recommendation to the council. Paul Clopper added that this information is specific to the Poudre River (the stretch between Taft Hill and I-25). It is not talking about Spring Creek, Fossil Creek, or any other stream or creek. Passed Prospect it becomes a different issue. The Task Force is putting together a map of all the city properties that are in the floodplain there. "We don't have to worry about overrides of the floodplain or development in the floodplain. The City already owns that part of Prospect so that would be a non -issue," Mr. Smith explained. One of the items that Bob Smith thought was interesting was that there are some members ofthe Task Force who feel if someone is in a floodplain, there shouldn't be any improvements allowed to the property. "That is a pretty strong approach," he stressed John Carver Workshop Paul Clopper reported that he, Molly Nortier, Mike Smith, Wendy Williams, George Reed, David Lauer and John Morris attended the John Carver Workshop on Boards and Commissions. He offered his handouts and notes to those who didn't get to attend. Mr. Clopper summarized some of the highlights of the meeting. Governing boards and nonprofit boards have issues that are quite different from business boards, he said. A business board has a market to define what the worth is of the goods that group is responsible for producing. That is not the case for governing boards and nonprofit boards. These Boards have set values in determining what the worth is of the service they are providing. How much should that service cost? It is not a very well defined, market driven enterprise in that regard. For example: The Water Board has set a value on what it is worth to be protected from a drought or flood. They also set the Water Quality Policy in 1989 or 1990 and decided that it is not just good enough, as a community, to meet State and Federal Standards for drinking water. We wanted to do better than that. There are a lot of intangibles. The Board represents the owners of the enterprise. (For the City, it is the citizens.) The Staff does not represent the owners. The Staff represents the analogy of a company who is providing the service. Staff represents the company; the citizens are the stockholders. The stockholders don't tell the citizens that run the company, how to run it." Mike Smith added. Water Board Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 14 Mr. Clopper continued by saying that the board should set the values for the organization in terms of policies, which are the end objectives that they want to get to. It is up to the staff to determine the means to get there. There are certain means which are unacceptable, such as breaking the law to achieve an end. What the board, in terms of policy, ought to be spending their time doing is defining for staff "how not to do it. In other words, going into debt, breaking the law, violating water quality standards; those are unacceptable means of achieving certain ends." Anything else would be acceptable. "Boards are not an upward extension of management. Boards are the downward extension of ownership." Mr. Clopper quoted. "The board is not the final authority on anything. The board is the initial authority. The board sets the boundaries. The board is not here to bless the bits and pieces." Two more quotes that Mr. Clopper had picked up at the meeting were: "If the board hasn't said how it should be, don't ask how it is," and "Monitoring should not be wandering around in the presence of data." The purpose of the advisory boards is to make Council wiser and more effective; An insular effect is that advisory boards involve more people in government, but that is not the underlying purpose of having them. One of the Board Members who had gone to the workshop also found it interesting that the speaker mentioned that most of the advisory boards and some executive boards spend 90 percent of their time on means and less than five percent on ends. That is why they are so ineffective most of the time. They are trying to micro -manage their staff. John Moms felt that a large part of what John Carver had said was directed at boards that are like corporate boards (i.e. homeowner association boards, ditch company boards, etc). The board is elected by the owners of the business to represent them and to direct the business. John Carver, also pointed out how much of a conflict of interest it was when the chief executive officer and the chief financial officer both sit on the board of directors. It is a very common thing in American corporations to see that. Mr. Clopper felt that, according to the model John Carver presented on ends and means, the Water Board was fairly well in line. In agenda -setting alone he is able to discuss things with Molly Nortier, Mike Smith, and even set an agenda without any staff involvement at all. John Carver said most boards show up and staff gives them what they are going to talk about that day. Water Board Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 15 Staff often provides updates to the board. Carver's theory is to not bother with that. That is an area where the Water Board did not align with his theory. Another thing that the Water Board does is a little "rubber stamping." Mr. Clopper pointed out an example from a year ago when the finance committee looked at the budget. He said that that was another area the board did not line up with Carver's theory. He made it clear, however, that he didn't think the Board should have to "line up" with everything John Carver says. The examples above where just some of the ones that he noticed while comparing and contrasting what the Water Board did and with how it was modeled at the Workshop. Mr. Clopper thought it was nice that the City Manager's Office, that arranged for the Workshop, allowed a whole day to be set aside for boards to come and learn from Carver's teaching when his main purpose was to talk to City Council. There were school boards, hospital boards, church boards, and others that showed up for the workshop. Update on Strategic Plan Mike Smith said he sent an update of the Strategic Plan to Board Members for them to read at their leisure. Career path development for employees and advancement opportunities (whether in management or on a technical track) was something that Paul Clopper did not see in the update. Mr. Smith said, "The assessment of our capabilities is yet to come as far as what kind of skills we have and what kinds of skills we need." He also said that the assessment shows that we don't have a lot of new people coming from the outside and that was a benefit. John Morris agreed because at the CSU, where he works, they are always struggling with the diversity issue. All positions have to be opened promotionally unless they can prove there is a sufficiently diverse pool to select from. It is very seldom that way, except for some custodial positions. At the University they are turning more to an apprenticeship type verses meeting diversity requirements. The apprenticeship program may work when you are sufficiently diverse, but without it you never get diverse, because you are always going to see the white males in greater numbers. Staff at the University wants an apprenticeship program, but half of the ones that want the program wouldn't have been there if there were not a diversity requirement. "It is a catch twenty-two if you are not careful," Mr. Morris stated. Joint Regional Meeting on June 9th Molly Nortier said there was a very good response from the Water Board to attend the meeting. There are only two members who aren't planning to attend. There has also been good response from Greeley, Loveland, and the Water Districts. Water Board Minutes May 27, 1999 Page 16 OTHER BUSINESS Alison Adams' Resignation Alison Adams has accepted a job in Florida and is in the process of moving there. Unfortunately, she will not be able to attend a Board meeting before she leaves. Paul Clopper and Molly Nortier will prepare a letter of recognition for her and Ms. Nortier will purchase a gift. Gravel Pit Ponds Dennis Bode gave a quick update on the gravel pit ponds situation. He said that they are in the thirty -day waiting period right now where LaFarge is considering the offer. "It should be about three or four weeks before we know what their decision is," he said. New Mercer Ditch Company Tom Sanders asked if the New Mercer Ditch Company turns off their ditches when there are storms. Jim Hibbard said that they do, "but it takes about eight hours for it to make any difference here in town where most of the water is coming in." ADJOURNMENT Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. /I C#ea f-h e r foe X r n Water Board Secretary