Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 04/22/1999• 0 WATER BOARD MINUTES April 22, 1999 3:10 - 5:07 Fort Collins Utilities Training Room 700 Wood Street CITY COUNCIL LIAISON Chuck Wanner (present) WATER BOARD CHAIR Paul Clopper - 223-5556 STAFF LIAISON Molly Nortier - 221-6681 MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Clopper, Chair; Tom Sanders, Vice Chair, David Lauer, George Reed, Robert Ward, John Morris, Dave Frick, Tom Brown STAFF Mike Smith, John Duval, Assistant City Attorney, Wendy Williams, Dave Agee, Bob Smith, Dennis Bode, Jim Hibbard, Marsha Hilmes, Laurie D-Audney, Clayton Kimmi, Molly Nortier GUESTS Les Kaplan and Bob Mechels - Vaught Frye Architects Gene Schleiger, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) Dan Evans - Water Board Applicant observing MEMBERS ABSENT Alison Adams, Joe Bergquist, Dave Rau Chair Paul Clopper opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Moment of Silence for Columbine High School Tragedy Paul Clopper asked the record to reflect that our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the Columbine High School victims.and all those associated with the tragedy in the Littleton, Colorado community. Water Board Minutes April 22, 1999 Page 2 MINUTES Robert Ward moved that the minutes of March 25, 1999 be approved as distributed. John Morris seconded the motion. Paul Clopper pointed out a correction on p. 6. The last name "Crane" should be changed to Craig. The minutes were unanimously approved with that correction. UPDATE: NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT Gene Schleiger was pleased to report the beneficial moisture the area has received the past two days and is expected to continue. He announced that the District Board set an 80% quota for CBT water this year. "I think this is the first time in the 30+ years I've been with the District that it wasn't a unanimous decision by the Board. There was discussion about holding out for maybe a 90%." he related. The Board was willing to have a special meeting, or whatever it would take, if it stayed dry, to issue an additional quota. However, they were concerned if they went ahead with a 90 or 100% quota, and it turned wet, it could compound the existing carryover problem. The Board was committed to continue to watch the water supply, on a daily or weekly basis, and if an additional quota was needed, to adjust it. "This moisture has changed that. With the moisture we had last week and with what we are getting now, we have no calls. We are only running a little water to municipalities. We haven't had any indications from any of the ag. people that they are even considering additional supply at this time," he explained. He concluded that for now, the District is going with the 80% quota and will continue to monitor conditions. Mr. Schleiger mentioned that the District established an Activity Enterprise Fund to work with the Pleasant Valley Pipeline Project in which the City is involved. He distributed copies of the snow/precipitation update and storage figures for the CBT project. "We have picked up 5-6% on the South Platte yesterday and up until 8:00 this morning." Most of that snow appears to be concentrated from about the Big Thompson River area south down into the Boulder area. There wasn't a lot of change in the last couple of days for Joe Wright and Deadman Hill up in the Poudre area," he said. "The snow didn't seem to have much of an effect on the west slope; those numbers stayed basically the same, as of this morning," he added. "It brought us up to about 93% on the South Platte; that's about 20% better than we've seen in the last month." He pointed out an error in the Project Storage handout. "We didn't release 308 ac-ft into the Colorado below Granby yesterday," he said. "We are still just releasing bypass flows. That scenario has changed somewhat since we talked last month. We were concerned with the timing of capturing all the runoff on the west slope. Unless something changes drastically where we get a lot of snow pack late, it looks like we will be able to hold everything. We probably will try to cycle the Windy Gap pumps and pump at least 10,000 ac-ft over there if the runoff and calls on the river down below will accommodate this," he concluded. Water Board Minutes April 22, 1999 Page 3 OLD TOWN FLOODPLAIN VARIANCE REQUEST Paul Clopper began by saying that there are two Old Town properties being considered for variances today; one at 113 South College (Nicos' Catacombs and the new Gibb's Bagels) and the other at 103 W. Mountain (City Drug). Each will be considered separately. Assistant City Attorney John Duval reminded the Board that this is a quasi judicial hearing in which the Board essentially is sitting as the judge and jury in deciding whether to grant these variances. He distributed copies of sections from the Fort Collins Code dealing with Flood Prevention and Protection; specifically on variance procedures and what the Board needs to consider in granting of variances. The proceedings will be on the record, and if for any reason this is appealed, it will be appealed to the City Council. The Council will hear that appeal on the record, so it's important to have that record as a transcript for them. They can read it and make a decision about it. He referred to Section 10-38 and 10-39 on the handout which address the variance procedure we will be following. In Section 10-38 paragraph (c) says: "In passing upon such applications, the Water Board shall consider all technical evaluations, all relevant factors and standards specified in other sections of this Article" and: It goes on to list 9 issues and factors the Board can take into consideration. Those aren't binding considerations; they are just factors that you can take into consideration in whether or not to grant the variance. He directed the Board's attention to Section 10-38, sub -paragraph (d) which states: "Upon consideration of the factors of this Section and the purposes of this Article, the Water Board may attach such conditions to the granting of variances as it deems necessary to further the purposes of this Article." He said the Board can always attach a condition, particularly as it applies to the 9 various factors that are being considered in the Board's deliberations to grant or deny a variance. He then referred to Section 10-39 - Condition for variances, in which Mr. Duval directed the Board to paragraphs: (c): "Variances shall not be issued within any designated floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result." (d) "Variances shall only be issued upon the determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief." (e) "Variances shall only be issued upon: (1) "The showing of good and sufficient cause"; Water Board Minutes April 22, 1999 Page 4 (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." He said that paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) essentially set forth the conditions that have to be met before the Board can grant a variance. "Taking those kinds of parameters into consideration, it is now your duty, sitting as a quasijudicial body, to rule upon and decide whether to grant a variance," Mr. Duval stated. Mr. Clopper related that the last time the Board conducted avariance hearing, the procedure that was followed worked well. First, staff gave a presentation, then the applicant was allowed to make their presentation, and if there was any opposition that was also presented. It was then opened up to questions from the Board. Staff Presentation Marsha Hilmes reiterated that there are variances for two different addresses: 103 West Mountain which is the City Drug and 113 South College which includes Nicos' Catacombs as well as a new bagel shop (Gibb's New York Bagels). There were photos of the two sites in the packets. Both properties are in the Old Town floodplain. The flood heights on these properties vary from approximately 1.7 ft. at Nicos' down to 1.2 ft. at City Drug. There is a range of flood heights through this area. Nicos' has a very wide opening going across the area. There is also an opening to the T- shirt shop. "The reason this is coming before the Board now is the property is being renovated and it's reaching above the value of 50% improvements to the structure," Ms. Hilmes explained. "Therefore, it falls into the designation of substantial improvement. With that designation it has to meet current City Code. Current City Code, under Section 10-53, says that the property either has to be floodproofed or elevated 1 '/2 ft. above the base flood elevation. Elevating a structure is not a very good option, so floodproofing is the only viable option in this case. Under City Code this building could be flood proofed with closure shields across the entryway both in front of the building as well as the back. She pointed out the other part of the 113 South College site which was where the dress shop was. Gibb's Bagels will now be located there. The entire facades of the front will be changed. She also showed a photo of the alley behind the site. There are four doors along the alley, so those doors would also have to be floodproofed. E Water Board Minutes April 22, 1999 Page 5 For the 103 West Mountain property, she showed the front of City Drug. There is an opening across the main entrance. There are two doors along the side of the building; one into the bank building and into Bodyworks, the other shop there. She went on to say that what the applicant is requesting is a variance from the 1 '/2 ft. requirement of floodproofing above the base flood elevation, to 6 inches above the base flood elevation. "What you will be acting on today is whether that 6 inch amount of free board is enough or not." Staff Recommendation Ms. Hilmes then presented the staff recommendation. Stafrs recommendation on this issue is to go ahead and grant the variance. Their reasoning for this was twofold: first, we are getting the building floodproofed. It's not floodproofed right now. We would be able to protect a structure that right now is very vulnerable. Second, we believe site conditions in this case are the reasoning behind why they need to have a less restrictive elevation. The applicant will be able to show on their diagrams of the building how the front facades make it very difficult to have the flood proofing a full 18 inches above the base flood. In some cases the gates would have to be 3 ft.- 4 inches tall. That would make the gates unwieldy; they are very heavy when they get that high and storage would be difficult. Also, attachment to the walls would be difficult with the way the window structures, etc. are on this building. With those conditions and reasoning in mind, staff decided to recommend granting the variance. Applicants' Presentation Bob Mechels of Vaught Frye Architects, said the applicants will use some excerpted material from the documents included in the Board packets. They listed a number of reasons as to why they believe the variance should be granted for both properties: 103 W. Mountain and 113 South College. He went through each of the following reasons: The aesthetics of incorporating the T- 4" high floodgate jamb into a T -1" high window sill and kickplate detail of an historical storefront restoration. It makes the detailing unattractive at the main entry where your focal point is on the design. The gates would be very heavy. They had the manufacturer of the gates run some calculations and the weight of the gate would be anywhere from 75-85 pounds for a 4' long gate. The entry where Gibb's Bagels will be is roughly 8' across and would take two gates. The arcaded area in front of Nicos' existing location would take anywhere from 4-5 gates. The gates are approximately 4" thick. They would be looking at the potential for 6-7 gates just for that one storefront location. The bigger and the heavier they are, the less likely they are to be used. The other problem is where to store all of these where they can still be handy and readily available in an emergency. 2. The upgrade of the City stormwater system in Mountain Ave. scheduled to occur within the next two years should improve the flood conditions in the area. Water Board Minutes April 22, 1999 Page 6 There is a lower probability that tenants will use such large floodproofing system components. Storage and handling become more difficult with the increase in size. 4. The cost of engineering and production of such a tall system imposes undue hardship on the owner, considering that if the building becomes a registered historic landmark, no floodproofing is required. Once you get over the T range, it's a custom design. The floodgate system has to be re -engineered. Then you have to get into engineering the storefront itself to support gates that are so large. These buildings meet the conditions of Sec. 10-39(a) pertaining to lot size and being surrounded by existing structures also constructed below the BFE. 6. These buildings meet the conditions of Sec. 10-39(e)(3) pertaining to no resultant increase in flood heights, threats to the public safety, etc. 7. Nicos' has survived a 25-year history in the basement of the 113 S. College building with a homemade 14" tall flood barrier (including the 1997 disaster). Summary of Conditions at the Three Locations City Drue Entry Elevation (EE) 4980.10' Master BFE 4981.30' Master BFE - EE = 1.2' Min. barrier ht. to protect this entry from 100 yr. flood: 1.2' + .5' = 1.7' or 1' -8 3/8" What the applicants propose is to be 6" above that 100 yr. elevation. The bottom line on each is how high they propose to make the floodproofing gates at the different locations. City Drug is a separate building, but they are doing renovation work on both projects at this point. Part of the hardship is, at City Drug and Bodyworks tenant spaces, they aren't doing any work on the main level. They are redoing the lobby on the north side, trying to make it a more attractive entry for the remodel work happening on the second floor. They are renovating that into class 1 office space. If they had to floodproof 2-3 '/2 foot elevation, they are probably looking at tearing down some of the existing storefronts across the openings where there used to be windows on the front of the City Drug building. Those have just been infilled with some metal studs and exterior finish materials that probably are not water tight. E E Water Board Minutes April22, 1999 Page 7 Gibb's NY Bagels and Nicos' Catacombs ForNicos' and Gibb's from the corner up to Nicos' the base flood elevation rises as you come across. Gibb's NY Bagels Entry Elevation (EE) 4980.10' Master BFE 4981.60' Master BFE - EE = 1.5' Min. barrier ht. to protect this entry from 100 yr. flood: 1.5' + .5' = 2.0' or 2' -0" Nicos' Catacombs Entry Elevation (EE) 4980.10' Master BFE 4981.80' Master BFE - EE = 1.7' Min. barrier ht. to protect this entry from 100 yr flood: 1.7' + .5' = 2.2' or 2' -2 3/8" Vaught Frye has been in touch with a couple offloodgate manufacturers. One company representative will be here in May, and will personally look at the facility. "They would like to work with us to custom engineer for the openings," Mr. Mechels said. "We are committed to providing protection, but we think that the foot and a half over the hundred year flood elevation is overkill," he concluded. Discussion Before Mr. Clopper opened up the meeting for discussion, he asked if there was anyone at the meeting who had anything to say in opposition to this variance request. Hearing none, he asked for questions from the Board directed to either staff or the applicants. Tom Sanders asked what the plans are for the rear doors to the properties. "The back doors will go to the same elevations that are proposed on the front. The back doors are the least ofthe worries. The widest opening in the back is at 4 feet and the other three are actually closer to 3 feet," Mr. Mechels replied. "Those gates will not only be a lot lighter and easier to engineer, but much easier to store," he added. John Morris asked Marsha Hilmes to review the reasoning behind the 18" requirement from the City. "The 18" is based on a City regulation rather than a FEMA regulation," Ms. Hilmes explained. "In most cases, when we have a FEMA or City designated floodplain, it has a floodway. When you designate a floodway, you are allowing the base flood elevation to rise if you go ahead and fill in all the fringe area. FEMA's requirement allows a foot of rise in the floodway, so automatically you fill in the fringe area; you already raise that elevation a foot. In Old Town we don't have a floodway designated in this area, so they re -administered the Old Town floodplain as a no -rise area. That 18" actually came out of the FEMA designated floodplain of wanting to have at least 6" of freeboard there when you have a one foot floodway, or a foot of freeboard if we have a''/i floodway. Right now Water Board Minutes April22, 1999 Page 8 Old Town is considered a zero rise floodplain. They have to show they are not causing a rise in the base flood elevation that might displace water on another property owner. With the 6 inches the applicants are proposing, you are still meeting some of that freeboard protection." "So following up what you just said, any other projects or improvements in the vicinity of their buildings would also have to meet the zero rise; you can't make that base flood elevation any worse than it is currently?" Mr. Clopper asked. "Right," Ms. Hilmes answered. "An example of that is the Justice Center and Parking facility currently being built, which have to go through extensive analyses and different design alternatives to be able to meet that requirement and not displace water on another property owner. We have a little more flexibility with the Old Town floodplain," she added; "one being a City designated floodplain instead ofFEMA designated. It's easier to grant variances and with it being a zero rise floodplain; you have that built-in protection already." "If we grant a variance, what liability does that place on the City?" Dr. Sanders asked. "Because of the kind of claim that would be brought against the City, we would have governmental immunity," Attorney John Duval replied. "Meaning we would be able to apply governmental immunity to that claim and essentially, we would have no liability." "Are you sure?" someone asked. "Do you think that's correct?" Dr. Sanders persisted. "What I can see happening here is if we allow this, and we get a 100-year flood and they get flooded out, because we approved it, we accept some implicit responsibility. As a result, they sue us for damages because we didn't enforce what we thought was required." "A variance is recognized as something you can always do," Mr. Duval responded. "Under the Governmental Immunity Act, we have immunity from all kinds of tort liability except for certain areas that are specifically named; there are 7 or 8 of them. You have to look at that to determine if it falls into one of those areas. What the claim would be is that somehow, by approving this variance, we were negligent in approving the variance, not negligent in the operation of our own stormwater facilities. When you look at the variance exceptions, where immunity is waived, that kind of claim would not fall under any of those exceptions. I'm pretty certain we would have immunity," he concluded. Tom Brown didn't understand the explanation as to why the requirement for Old Town District is 18" and why 6" is okay if the requirement is 18". "I'm not suggesting that the 6" isn't okay; I'm really wondering why we are requiring 18"," he said. "Right now all of the floodplains are treated the same across the board," Ms. Hilmes answered. "There's not a difference from one floodplain to another for the elevation requirements or floodproofing requirements. The history behind how the 18" came up, was that it was based on that floodway and being able to have freeboard protection if you have in -filling in the flood fringe that is actually causing base flood elevation to rise, you have this area to allow the flow to pass through. You still would have 6" of freeboard that helps take-out in case you have a bigger event, splash from cars driving by, those sorts of things. Of course the 18" would be better. It gives you extra protection in case you have a bigger event or in case something else happens to cause the water surface elevation to be higher there, e.g. some blockage upstream or Water Board Minutes April 22, 1999 Page 9 a blockage downstream that backs up the water. In this case that building is not protected at all except for a makeshift sort of thing that Nicos' puts in there at night occasionally. This way at least we are getting the building protected that won't be protected otherwise." "If there were a 100-year flood, what depth would that be? Would the 6" they are proposing be sufficient to keep it out?" Dr. Sanders asked. "The 100-year flood at Nicos' is 1.7' depth, so you have another 6 inches on top of that as freeboard," Ms. Mimes replied. "Right now the requirement is 18" above the 100-year level," Mr. Mechels said, "and that's why these gates would be so big. We are proposing to keep at least a 6" freeboard above the 100-year." "Did you do that calculation with no parking and no cars on the street?" Dr. Sanders asked. "I imagine half the parking spaces would be full when the next flood occurs and that is blockage." "The analysis was done without cars," Ms. Hilmes answered, "but Dave Frick, you can correct me, since your company did the master plan for that area." "I think in that area the primary blockage is the street (College Ave.) that was causing the flooding there," Mr. Frick responded. "Even if you had cars there, they probably would float rather than cause blockage of the flow. The blockage is kind of like a big weir across the center on College Ave." "The water levels are really part of that as well," Bob Smith pointed out. "Are the window levels sufficient along that way?" Mr. Sanders continued. "In the historic storefront, we are about 2' -2" to the top of the jamb, so the glass is about 2' - 2'/z in. above that," Mr. Mechels replied. "Is that the same on the t-shirt shop?" Ms. Mimes asked. "There we are protected all the way out," he said, "because we are putting in some brick pilasters and we have a perfect surface to put the gates across Nicos' arcade area," he explained. Paul Clopper wondered, in a couple of years, when the stormwater improvements go in there, what benefits might you expect to see at the site, "somewhat better I would imagine." "Slightly," Ms. Mimes replied. "I talked with Link Mueller who did the initial design on the Mountain Ave. project. They have not officially mapped what the residual floodplain will look like with those improvements. Based on his designs, it is only going to be about a 10-year flow at the most to carry in the storm sewers. You are going to see a reduction in the frequency of flooding in that area for the low flows; the 2-year, 5-year etc. For the 100-year you are going to see very little difference, maybe a tbnth," she explained. "So that's why we still feel it's going to be important to protect the building in some way," she concluded. Dave Frick stated, the 18" doesn't vary from basin to basin, but the amount of allowable rise in each basin changes. "That's correct, based on how the floodway is mapped in that area," Ms. Mimes said. "Do we have any other properties in that area that have had significant renovation that have been subject to the requirements; e,g, the Mountain/College intersection?" George Reed asked. "Actually, up until 6-8 months ago, most ofthe renovations have not been brought to Stormwater in the building process," Ms. Mimes began. "They have been going to the Building Dept. and they have gone Water Board Minutes April 22, 1999 Page 10 through them. Stormwater didn't get to see the renovations that were coming in unless it was adding on 350 sq. ft. of area to the building; we weren't seeing additions and remodels. It's something I caught about 6 months ago. This is the first of the commercial structures in Old Town," she related. "Was that true of the Opera Galleria development?" David Lauer asked. "That's my understanding. Right now they aren't floodproofed. That was before I was here," she said. "Some of those went through before the floodplain was designated too," Mr. Frick pointed out. "We have a number of other buildings now that are not up to that 50% value, that have been coming through under this same ordinance, so some of them may have $40,000 worth of renovations towards their substantial improvement. Maybe the next time they come in with an improvement, that's when they will have the same requirements these buildings have," she responded. "Whenever another Old Town business wants to remodel and is in the same situation as these properties, will we have to deal with this same issue again?" Tom Brown asked. "Each time 18" seems unreasonable, we're going to be looking at bringing it down to something lower?" "Yes, this will have to be addressed on each site," Ms. Mimes replied. "They are going to be using this as an example, so we are setting a precedent," Dr. Sanders stated. "One thing to consider is that base flood elevations vary all through there," Mr. Mechels pointed out. "We happen to be at one of the deeper comers downtown, so it may not be as big a problem if somebody else is doing an historic restoration. They may be dealing with a lot lower base flood elevation." "Another situation I was thinking about is, with the Catacombs, a lot of people would be in the basement. If you have two feet of water coming down those stairs when people are in there, it is a dangerous situation," Dr. Sanders continued. "Especially if it's coming fast," Mr. Lauer added. "The existing protection still requires going out and putting it in, whether it's six inches or 12 inches," Dr. Sanders noted. "I imagine if somebody goes out to put the floodgate in, everybody would get out of there anyway," he added. "They are going to floodproof it to some level," Mr. Reed said. "But it is only if you put it in yourself," Dr. Sanders stressed. "That's right, it still has to be installed," Mr. Mechels acknowledged. "I can imagine people getting trapped in there," Dr. Sanders persisted. "We are assuming that we have a margin of time for somebody to go to a storage area to pick up the flood protection devices and install them," Mr. Lauer pointed out. "As Tom Sanders is suggesting, there may not be enough time to do that." Mr. Lauer wondered; "why 6 inches, why not half the 18 inches, like 9 inches or something closer to that?" "The main reason for the 6 inches was the way that Gibb's Bagels storefront meets up with the windows," Ms. Mimes said. "Otherwise it was just going to go through the glass anyway. At one point it was down to 3 inches. We said there was no way we could support having only 3 inches of freeboard. That doesn't even allow enough freeboard for a car driving by and splashing, causing flooding that way," she explained. "Our original intent was to get down to 2 or 3 inches above base Water Board Minutes April 22, 1999 Page 11 flood elevation and staff said they wouldn't back us on that recommendation. We have raised them up to as high as we can without getting into the issue on the storefront," Mr. Mechels related. "It just doesn't make any sense going higher than that or it's coming through the windows," he stressed. "Was there any consideration of actually lifting up the elevation for Nicos' and some of the other places by having a berm that you have to step over?" Dr. Sanders wondered. "Then you get into the trouble with handicap accessibility," Mr. Mechels responded. "In order to meet the flood protection, you would need 2 or 4 steps," Ms. Hilmes said. "If you take half of it this way with a step up then you have half the problem of picking the flood devices up and putting them in place which was the argument that 18 inches is too much; if you knocked off 8" of that with a step, it's only 9 inches and that argument doesn't hold," Dr. Sanders insisted. "True, but then the curb level is above the floor elevation in your building, so you are stepping back down in the buildings," Mr. Mechels responded. "There is also access to the second floor offices and the T-shirt shop from that same arcade, so we are actually protecting three entries with the floodproofing," he said. "The other thing to consider is, if Les Kaplan decides to have this building designated historically, it solves the floodproofing requirements," he added. "Actuallly, it doesn't go away. The Board would still have to address it for an historic structure," Ms. Hilmes said. Ms. I-Elmes pointed out on the photos that the closure shield is going all the way across this whole entrance way, so there are other options there to look at; building a wall around the Nicos' entrance and doing the gates in the other doorways. "One thing from that; I don't think it would impact anymore than it already would to get down to Nicos'," Dr. Sanders remarked. "We are still looking at the entry to the offices of the T-shirt shop; at least two out of the three are accessible at this point," Mr. Mechels explained. "This shows you the doorway that comes out onto the sidewalk," Mr. Mechels continued by using drawings. "We will be bringing in these brick pilasters on both sides. That gives us a nice surface to do the floodproofing gate in here. As Ms. Hilmes just said, she asked us to look at the potential of maybe floodproofing the handrail all around Nicos', but then we still have two other doorways to protect, and also the probability of getting another gate system here that still has an historic look to it and is waterproof. We couldn't come up with anything that's guaranteed. The floodproofing gates that are actually designed and certified, are not something you are going to want to have on display around your building. We have looked at some different options," he said. He showed one of those options. "We are putting storefront in and actually knocking out a portion of the brick wall to get the new entry, and we'll also remove the planter box." Mr. Clopper asked, "If we have the floodgates across the front, and the properties are protected, and an event is occurring, with the adjacent building to the south, are you still going to be okay throughout the rest of your structure?" "Are you talking about the Chinese restaurant?" "Yes." "We are hoping we will be protected because of separate foundation walls. Those were actually built as Water Board Minutes April 22, 1999 Page 12 two separate buildings," Mr. Mechels answered. "Again, we are basing a lot of this on our 25-year track record with Nicos'. He has a pretty good system. He just goes out and wedges his flood protection device in when there is a storm. So far he's gotten by with that, and he hasn't mentioned anything seeping in from other buildings. He added, the new system will be a lot better for him." ACTION: 103 West Mountain (City Drug Building) Mr. Mechels began by saying that it is actually relatively easy to do the entries on City Drug Building because of the nice granite surrounds. "There is a floodgate that will just friction fit into those. Because the granite actually stair steps in at the entries, there is a perfect ledge already built in for the floodgate. Motion At this point, Chair Clopper asked for a motion for 103 West Mountain, the City Drug Building. George Reed moved that the Board accept the staff recommendation to grant the variance. John Morris seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Reed wondered about the walls that are around right at the curb level. "Do they have any effect on breaking up waves from cars, etc.? "The last flood was probably before the heavy traffic there." "They are in front of City Drug. I think it may help at the front of the building. The sides are not protected there; this one doesn't have any kind of wall up in front for the entrance to the bank building or the Bodyworks shop," Ms. Hilmes pointed out on the photos. "We see the wall in the front here; it helps just a little along there and a little on the side." "That wall doesn't extend down to the Nicos'entrance?" Mr. Lauer asked. "No, and you have the opening at the comer, too, where you are at the intersection, so water can still flow through there. It does help with the car wave action directly in front. If you had a hundred year flow through there, you are still going to have water up against that building. The wall doesn't serve the purpose of a levy or flood wall," she explained. "Could you point out about where you would like to have the recommended level for this one?" Dr. Sanders asked. "Is it right below the window line?" "No, it's not that high." she replied. "The door handles are at about T - 6"," Mr. Mechels pointed out, "so we are looking at a gate that is 2 inches lower than that." "I can understand at Nicos' you have so large an expanse that it would be hard to do that, but on this situation and the two doors on the side, is it that much more difficult to have the extra height (the 18" instead of the 6")?" Dr. Sanders asked. "Probably because of the width of this opening, it's probably going to be two gates," Mr. Mechels answered. "If it was one gate that was 3' -6" high, I don't know who would be hauling that around alone," he added. "Is what we are saying for the downtown, that it is going to be too heavy for one person to install?" Dr. Sanders continued. "Yes, for one person," Mr. Mechels said. "At least for the elevations at this location," Ms. Hilmes clarified. "It is on a site by site basis depending on the base flood elevations," she added. "Is this the lowest part in Old Town?" Robert Ward wondered. "I don't know," Ms. Hilmes replied. "You have Water Board Minutes April 22, 1999 Page 13 the high crown on College Ave.," Bob Smith mentioned. "I think that on the other side of College, going down Mountain, you have similar circumstances with the Stone Lion and those buildings in that area," Ms. Hilmes said. "With the addition of the storm sewer, you are diverting a large flow off ofLaPorte over on Mason," Dave Frick pointed out. Ms. Hilmes asked Bob Smith if it would help in this area. "It will pick up some water in that area," he said. "When is that supposed to be done?" Dr. Sanders asked. "That should be completed in two years," Ms. Hilmes answered. "We are doing the first phase of it this year," she added. "The problem is, we don't have any of the mapping done yet to show exactly what's going to happen." Mr. Clopper reminded the Board that the City joined Project Impact last summer, and "we have FEMA funds for flood warnings systems, etc. Would all of those properties adjacent to or within the various floodplains around the City, be the first ones who would be plugged into that system and all the properties in Old Town as well?" "That's right," Ms. Hilmes replied. "Everything in a floodplain would be a priority over other areas. We may even establish a special call list as part of the warning system of those properties that we know have flood protection that needs to go into place when an event happens like this, e.g. the flood proofing closure shields," she explained. "These properties could be on a separate call list that is even priority number one. It would say, `you need to put your closure shield in; we are expecting flooding in X amount of time.' We don't have all those details worked out, but that's an option," she stated. ACTION: Vote Paul Clopper called the question for 103 West Mountain. He asked for a show of hands. The vote to accept the motion was unanimous. ACTION: Motion for 113 South College Tom Brown moved that the Board accept staff s recommendation to grant a variance for the property at 113 North College Ave. (Nico's building). David Lauer seconded the motion. Discussion Somewhere in the packet material, David Lauer was reading about two locations that were designated as storage for these two buildings. "It was mentioned earlier that a place had not yet been selected." "If we can go with the smaller gates, we have found a place to keep them," Mr. Mechels said, "but if we need to go to the larger ones, we haven't figured that out." "Weren't there two different locations?" Mr. Lauer asked. "Yes, Gibbs' Bagels will keep their couple of gates for the front and one for the back and Nicos will have his four gates at the bottom of the stairs in a storage unit," Mr. Mechels replied. "What about City Drug?" Mr. Lauer asked. "We propose to keep all the gates for Water Board Minutes April22, 1999 Page 14 that building in a storage room at the bottom of the stairs in the basement," Mr. Mechels said. "So you would have to lug them up the stairs," Mr. Lauer continued. "You would, but those are the shortest gates by length and height. Also it's an unoccupied basement, so there are not life and safety issues," Mr. Mechels responded. "We aren't moving any tenants out ofthe first floor of that building. It's a matter of our asking do they lose any tenants by us adding a storage room? The solution we propose at this time is we do have a storage room at the bottom of the stairs from the main lobby; it seemed to be the most logical location," he explained. "Do we have a variance request for the back doors, or do we just keep all the doors and the gates the same size," Mr. Morris wondered. "Yes, if we had to, those gates would essentially become a big square; 3 '/z wide x 3 '/z high. If they are all similar dimensions, we could stack them all in the same half of the storage space," Mr. Mechels said. ACTION: Vote 113 So. College Ave. Chair Clopper called the question. He asked for a show of hands. The vote was 7-1 in favor of the motion. Tom Sanders voted against the variance. Mr. Clopper asked Mr. Sanders to state, for the record, why he opposed the motion. "I am concerned that we are setting a precedent on this. Now the new requirements will be 6 inches above the base flood line because, with the 18 inches the flood gates would be too heavy. I am also worried about Nicos' because water can get down there and people will be down there. If the other areas are flooded, there would only be property damage," Dr. Sanders explained. "The reason I don't think this is really going to set that kind of precedent is because this is one of the few situations in the downtown where you have this big arcaded area and a basement tenant. We are not trying to discard all of the guidelines for others to follow suit," Mr. Mechels contends. "There is no other place in town where you have this wide an expanse, this high of a floodplain, and a basement; this is a unique situation," Les Kaplan emphasized. "I understand that, but there are things that could be done structurally; you don't have to have the entrance so wide, it could be cut in half," Dr. Sanders argued. "I think if you remove these, it will be a much higher safety level," Mr. Kaplan countered. "This kind of protection method is based on if you have someone strong to handle it," Dr. Sanders remarked. "I share your concerns more on City Drug than on the Nicos' area," Mr. Mechels stated, "because Nicos' is so unique." "But if City Drug is flooded you don't have lives at risk," Dr. Sanders insisted. "The point is that City Drug doesn't have the wide expanse, but they still get the 6" variance," he added. "In all reality 6" is our freeboard requirement all over town," Dave Frick pointed out, "so we aren't changing our freeboard any. We really aren't changing our criteria for any place else in town. This is more consistent with the rest of the floodplain range." Water Board Minutes April 22, 1999 Page 15 PLEASANT VALLEY PIPELINE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT (NCWCD) Background The background information provided in the packets pointed out that the Water Treatment Master Plan was approved by Council in June 1997. The plan includes construction of the Pleasant Valley Pipeline (PVP) which will convey additional water from the Poudre River to the City's Water Treatment Facility on West Laporte Ave. The PVP project has been formulated as a regional project with the City of Fort Collins, City of Greeley and the three water districts that comprise the Soldier Canyon Filter Plant, as project participants. The NCWCD has formed the "PVP Enterprise" to design, construct, own and operate the pipeline. About two years ago, NCWCD and the participants in the project entered into a consulting services agreement with CH2M Hill to select a pipeline route and prepare preliminary designs and construction cost estimates. Dennis Bode said this phase of the project was completed last summer and a preliminary report was prepared. The parties are now ready to move ahead with the second phase of the project which will include environmental studies, design, permitting, right-of-way acquisition and related work. Mr. Bode went on to explain the highlights of the project. He said the flow capacities in the pipeline are presently allocated as 60 MGD for Fort Collins and 40 MGD for the Soldier Canyon Filter Plant (Tri-Districts) during the months of April through October. During the winter months of November through March, Greeley wants 30 MGD, conveying water the opposite direction from Horsetooth Reservoir to their Bellvue plant. "As Gene Schleiger mentioned, the District has formed an enterprise to handle the design and construction and also operate the pipeline. The way it is set up, NCWCD becomes contractor of the consultant for phase two of the project." He said the participants need to enter into separate agreements with NCWCD to provide funding for the project and to address how the costs will be allocated among the participants. Staff is currently working with NCWCD staff, other participants and the City Attorney's office to finalize an agreement. "It's a fairly simple agreement," he said. He explained that the costs are allocated among the parties based on capacity desired and the segments of the pipeline used by each party. The second phase of the project is estimated to cost $3.3 million with Fort Collins' share approximately $1.5 million. The total cost of the project is expected to be a little under $20 million, with Fort Collins' share about 50% of the total. He went on to say that because of the type of agreement, it will need to go to City Council for approval, and will probably include both the City and the Water Utility enterprise as parties to the agreement. Water Board Minutes April 22, 1999 Page 16 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Water Board recommend to City Council that the City enter into an agreement with NCWCD to proceed with Phase 2 of the project which includes the environmental studies, design, permitting, right-of-way acquisition and related work. Discussion David Lauer asked how much the first phase cost. "The first phase was set up somewhat differently where all the parties were directly participating," Mr. Bode said. Mike Smith said in the first phase, all four parties actually contracted with the contractor themselves. "We didn't pass money through the District to the consultant. The second phase is a big enough piece that we will be required to have an intergovernmental agreement." He added that the first phase cost a little over $200,000. "Were we the original owner of this project and then we got cooperation from the other entities?" Dr. Sanders asked. "We weren't really the original owner, we just said we needed a pipeline, and the other entities said they could probably use one too. We tried to get others to participate so it would become a regional project instead of just a Fort Collins project," Mike Smith explained. "But then we lose control," Dr. Sanders asserted. "We're a partner," Dave Frick said. "Are we a voting partner?" Mr. Sanders asked. "If we put in 50% of the money do we have 50% of the vote?" "There is really nothing to vote on," Mr. Smith replied. "I am concerned when decisions have to be made on which way the water is going, etc.," Dr. Sanders continued. "We'll have agreements on all that before we do it," Mr. Smith stated. "We have spent considerable time thinking about the operations and the things we need to have in place to make sure things operate the way they should," Mr. Bode assured Dr. Sanders. "There was some discussion that Fort Collins would probably volunteer to operate the facility," Mr. Smith related. Dave Frick noted that the agenda summary said the NCWCD owns and operates the project. "You mean we are paying $10 million and we don't even own it?" he asserted. Dr. Sanders was concerned about that too. "This PVP Enterprise was developed by Northern as a separate entity," David Lauer explained, "so all four partners work through this enterprise." "It's similar to CBT water," Mr. Smith said. "We don't own that either; we only own shares in it," he added. "Yes, but we didn't build it either," Dr. Sanders pointed out. "How does the operation of this pipeline relate to the existing pipeline?" Robert Ward asked. "We own the existing pipeline segments because we put them in; one was in the 20s and the other was in 1955," Mr. Smith replied. "We looked at various structures of how to proceed; one specified that Fort Collins would put it in and we would share it." Some of the entities weren't sure if they could trust the City to do that. Then they considered having an intergovernmental agreement among the three entities. They agreed that it was more acceptable for everyone to have the District be the entity to build the pipeline and own it. That is the structure used for the Southern Pipeline. "Is the Northern District a partner in this, and will they use any of the water?" Mr. Lauer asked. "I don't believe so," 40 Water Board Minutes April 22, 1999 Page 17 Mr. Smith answered. "Right now capacity is allocated just among the three parties," Mr. Bode added. "Will Northern have any control over the allotment?" Mr. Lauer asked. "No," Mr. Smith said. "Is there no policy issue over anything Northern has in this pipeline?" Dr. Sanders persisted. "As far as they are concerned, it's an empty pipeline," Mr. Smith responded. "We and the other entities are the ones who control it." "The costs are all based on allocation of flow. The sharing of costs, etc. is going to be spelled out in detail," Mr. Bode assured the Board. "Are there significant efficiencies of scale in terms of saving money over just doing the pipeline for us?" Tom Brown asked. "If we were to build it ourselves, initially the estimates were close to $15 or 16 million, and we are paying $10 million now," Mr. Smith responded. "I don't know what recent estimates would be." "If something happens and it breaks, are we insured?" John Morris asked. "That's right," Mr. Smith answered. "Is this just transporting raw water?" Dr. Sanders asked. "Yes," Mr. Smith said. "Is this the same line that the University wants to bring over a piece of to the campus?" Mr. Morris wondered. "That's a different line," was the answer. Mr. Smith explained that this is the raw water line that will go from the eastern portal of the Munroe Tunnel into the Munroe Canal. It will cross the River up to near Greeley's water treatment plant, and wind down toward Fort Collins' water treatment plant. In the spring and summer, water will come out of the River through the pipeline to our plant and the Tri-District's plant. In the winter months, when there is nothing much to flow through it, we can actually put water backwards from Horsetooth to Greeley. How was the design altered to make the pipeline go to the Greeley plant? Mr. Sanders asked. "It has to go close to their plant anyway," Mr. Smith replied. "Does it follow the route ofthe other pipeline?" George Reed asked. "In some places, but it varies. The existing pipeline goes through Bingham Hill and this one will go over and around Claymore Lake. We looked at the costs of putting a new tunnel through it but it was cheaper to go around," Mr. Smith replied. "What about the maintenance; will the cost be shared?" Mr. Sanders asked. "Yes," Mr. Smith said. "I can see where establishing the Northern District as essentially the unbiased executer of this serves to get the comfort level up for the three partners of this project," Paul Clopper observed. "It seems generous calling Northern unbiased," Mr. Lauer remarked. "All three parties are comfortable with it. This was a good way to get some regional cooperation going among the three entities, which might not have occurred otherwise," Mr. Smith noted. "Plus, we save $6 million." Mr. Lauer suggested that, even though we are saving considerable money, "do we not think our share of the cost ought to correspond to our share of the water? If we are going to pay 50% of the cost of the construction and maintenance operation of it shouldn't we receive 50% of the water?" "The cost allocation formula basically works it out that way," Mr. Smith responded. Mr. Bode pointed out that in the summertime we actually receive 60% of the capacity and the water districts have 40%, "so actually we are coming out a little ahead there. The reason it comes out differently is because of Greeley's piece in the wintertime. Because of the winter operation, both Fort Collins and the water Water Board Minutes April 22, 1999 Page 18 districts get a little bit of a break compared to their percentage of summer participation." "So the 30 million gpd are the ones that are going the other direction to Greeley in the winter," Mr. Lauer clarified. "That's right," Mr. Smith said. "We get 601/o in the summer when we need it and only have to pay half," he added. "Do we have enough water rights to utilize that capacity If we don't, how much excess capacity do we have for the future?" Dr. Sanders wondered. "There are times when all our decrees are in priority and we could use all of that capacity," Mr. Bode explained. "That's a relatively short time. It depends on the year you have and what kinds of demands there are," he added. "It provides the flexibility for us to manage the water supply better," Mr. Smith stated. ACTION: Motion John Morris moved that the Board recommend to the Council that the City enter into an agreement with NCWCD to proceed with Phase 2 of the project. Tom Brown seconded the motion. "Suppose, down the line, Greeley sold out, for example, is there any way long term that this mantle of tiered up bureaucracy could go back to two partners?" George Reed asked, "or are you always going to have Northern as a participant?" "If push came to shove, I think there is a way it could be done," Mr. Smith replied. He added that once the pipeline is built and operating, "we probably won't even see the Northern District, so it won't be a big issue." Mr. Lauer asked if staff foresees any other entities coming forward asking to be part of it after we get into the second phase; like Loveland, for example. "Probably not," Mr. Smith replied. Staff has pursued this extensively; there doesn't seem to be anyone else who wants to participate. "We are actually pleased to get Greeley involved. Initially they didn't think they needed it," he related. "Can Greeley sell their access to Thornton?" Dr. Sanders asked. "Not really, because Greeley's use is from south to north, not north to south," Mr. Smith said. Dave Frick continued to be concerned about the fact that the NCWCD owns the pipeline. "I have a problem when we pay $10 million and we don't even own it, or even a part of it," he asserted. "I guess it's a matter of how you structure the agreement," he acknowledged. Mike Smith emphasized that this is the design piece and the Board will have an opportunity to revisit the issue when we get to the next stage of financing the pipeline. He acknowledged that there are some pros and cons related to the way it is structured. Chair Clopper pointed out that the minutes will reflect the Board's concerns. Mr. Brown wondered if the 60%-40% split in the summertime can be re -negotiated sometime in the future, "or is it fixed for all time? There are many similar details that we are going to have to settle before the agreement is actually finalized." "I think it's a matter of the parties agreeing to any future Water Board Minutes April 22, 1999 Page 19 changes," Mr. Bode responded. "I don't know that it's set in stone for all time, and I'm not sure that we would want it that way." "I'm not suggesting you would, but the agreement is going to have to address the issue of flexibility, etc." Mr. Brown contends. "If conditions change with the District and they have ownership of that pipe, it could be a concern," Dr. Sanders pointed out. "That's something we have to look at," Mr. Smith replied. "Do you think the federal government could get access to it?" Dr. Sanders asked. "I think it's fairly similar to the ownership of our CBT water," Mr. Bode said. "The District maintains ownership ofthe water rights that go with that." "We own 18,000 units," Mr. Smith said. "If they are $3,000 a unit that's $54 million." "If we decided we didn't want to get into the agreement and we wanted to buy the water line ourselves, we still have to do environmental studies and Phase 2, so we haven't lost anything at this point," Mr. Moms noted. "I agree with the concerns, but those are future concerns," he added. "We want the pipeline anyway so we might as well get the process going." "It says in the memo that the City Attorney's office has been working with them to finalize the agreement, so I assume a lot of the questions we are asking will be dealt with in the context of those negotiations," Robert Ward pointed out. Mr. Smith pointed out that, essentially, there is no difference in this project and the outlet at Horsethooth that we pay for and don't own. "Yes, but that's not good either," Dr. Sanders remarked. Gene Schleiger clarified that this would be structured and operated just like the Windy Gap project and the southern water supply pipeline. The District was in Phase lbecause we felt there was an advantage to the District. "About two years ago we had to do some repairs on the canal. Fort Collins was very tight on water supply before we completed the repairs. This provides a redundancy for us to help that situation. Beyond that, we will not be anything more than what we are on Windy Gap or the southern pipeline" he assured the Board. "As for the water, that is for the other entities to decide on. We will just operate it," he concluded. ACTION: Vote Paul Clopper called the question. The Board approved the motion unanimously. STAFF REPORTS Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported that for March the City used 1,777 ac-ft which is about 12% above what staff had projected for a normal year. He noted that the temperature was over 6 degrees above average. The precipitation for the first three months of the year was only about 50% of the normal for those three months. "We may be catching up if the rain continues," he said. "It would be a nice change," he remarked. Water Board Minutes April 22, 1999 Page 20 Board members also received a graph ofthe SNOTEL at the Joe Wright Reservoir and Deadman Hill sites. "So far, for the month of April, our water use is very close to normal." Review of Stormwater Improvement Projects Dave Agee distributed a report that showed the Fort Collins Utilities' $20 million storm drainage revenue bonds anticipated use: Old Town Basin $12.0 million Canal Importation Basin $ 3.9 million Spring Creek Basin $ 2.0 million Foothills Basin $ 1.7 million Mr. Agee said it had been awhile since staff reported to the Board about the progress in getting the Stormwater projects implemented. During the last few months a staff team of Jim Hibbard, Owen Randall, Bob Smith and he have worked through the process. "We are anxious to get going on this. Owen Randall has hired another contract project manager. As you can see we are going to be `turning over a lot of dirt' fairly soon. On the May 4' Council agenda, if everything goes according to schedule, we will be taking a $20 million bond issue to the Stormwater Enterprise Board for first reading. Second reading will be the second Council session in May. As soon as the bonds are issued, we will have the money to go ahead with these projects," he explained. "As you can see from the handout, we are heavily focused on Old Town. This, and the Canal Importation Basin are what we talked about when we prepared the financing plan last year. The feeling is if we can make significant progress soon in those areas, we are going to cut out a lot of heat. Much of the worry and concern about getting some of these things done will be taken care of as a result. Mr. Agee asked for questions and comments. "Is there sequencing on these?" Tom Sanders asked. "They are all being treated as separate projects," Mr. Agee replied. "There is a sequence to them but there is a real concern to get the Howes Outfall done, for example." "So that's number one, what's number two?" Dr. Sanders asked. "Old Town and the Locust Outfall," Mike Smith replied. "We are actually starting the design ofthe Rodeo Detention Pond and Fairbrooke Heights pond," Jim Hibbard said. "A lot of these will be running concurrently," "There is an order but we have three or four different project managers which allows us to begin projects in several different locations," he explained. "Do you go by critical need?" Dr. Sanders continued. "Critical need and based on direction from City Council," Mr. Hibbard answered. "Isn't the Avery Park Project almost completed?" Mike Smith asked. "Actually there is just a small piece of that left, but it is nearly completed," Mr. Agee said. "The idea for this update was to let the Board know that progress is being made," Mr. Smith concluded. Water Board Minutes April 22, 1999 Page 21 "The County is working on West Vine Dr. Are there cooperative things we need to be doing there?" John Morris wondered. "We actually have an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the County," Mr. Agee pointed out. "For example, we are collecting their fees and they are doing their own project, but they don't have a lot of money at this point. The fees aren't generating large dollar amounts. As part ofthe agreement, we help them with those projects," he explained. "We are getting money from the Storm Drainage Fund for all the master plans because of the Rainfall Study that was just completed," he added. "Wasn't West Vine a case where the County agreed to partner with us and use the higher rainfall values for the design?" Mr. Clopper asked. "The County basically has agreed to follow our criteria so that when West Vine is annexed to the City, it will all be up to City standards," Mr. Agee stated. "They are collecting fees on that basis." Mr. Hibbard said the list handed out today doesn't necessarily represent the total amount of work we are doing. "This is what is coming mostly out of the bond issue, but we do have project work from already appropriated funds and from `pay as you go' funds." "Could we have a brief description of exactly what you are doing with the Howes and Locust Outfalls?" Mr. Lauer asked. "The Howes Outfall is taking improvements from LaPorte Ave. by the Justice Center going north to the Poudre River," Bob Smith said, "and from Howes to Cherry it's an underground system, and from Cherry north it's through an open channel and overland flow to the River." "So you're going underground with a pipe system for the drainage system?" Mr. Lauer asked. "Is that an enlargement of something?" "It's brand new and big," was the answer. "What you have is LaPorte and the railroad tracks as a collection point. We are picking up that water and taking it north before it gets to the Old Town area," Bob Smith explained. "The Locust Outfall is actually taking flows from roughly Locust and Remington, east of the University, and getting through the developed area and to the River by Riverside and Lemay. "That's going to be predominately a surface system in the streets until you get to Riverside," he said. "We will basically be converting the streets with the high crowns and etc. until we get a more positive conveyance system," he concluded. "So you don't think the joint study with the University will impact the Locust Outfall?" Mr. Morris asked. Information used from the joint study with CSU will provide information for the Locust system. "That will help this system, but also will allow us to define the amount of flow that enters the lowest area from the northwest which comes from a common problem area at College and Mulberry, Mr. Smith responded. "So you are designing it for additional flows out of the campus? Mr. Lauer asked. No, not additional flows. There are flows coming out of the campus right now. We are doing ajoint study with the University determining the potential of reducing those flows from what we are seeing now, Mr. Smith explained. "Have we bought some property near Albertson's?" George Reed asked. "Right, we bought a parcel just to the east of Houska's Garage about three years ago," Mr. Smith replied. Mr. Clopper thanked staff for providing the update. "That's an ambitious program," he remarked. Water Board Minutes April 22, 1999 Page 22 Update: Regional Water Board Meeting Molly Nortier reminded the Board about the joint regional meeting on June 9' with the Greeley and Loveland Water Boards and staff. There also may be some representatives of the Districts attending. The dinner meeting will be held at the Ptarmigan Country Club from 6:30 - 9:30 p.m. Phil Walker, local author and KCOL Radio personality will be the speaker. She asked that members please inform her of their choices of entrees. She also reminded the Board of the boards and commissions workshop on April 30m at Fort Collins High School. COMMITTEE REPORTS The only committee that met was the Conservation and Public Education Committee. David Lauer reported that staff briefed the Committee on integration efforts they are making with community issues and needs around Stormwater. Staff provided a list of things they are doing in neighborhoods, natural areas, trails, wildlife, aquatic ecosystems and parks, and how they have been finding ways to integrate stormwater facilities and issues with other City -owned facilities."It was quite an eyeopener," he said. In addition to that, the Committee reviewed the Water Conservation Annual Report. Staff went through the 12 demand management measures, all of which have been implemented. They discussed some issues around those. A graph on p. 7 highlights the difference between the annual water demand for metered and flat rate customers. "There was a significant difference," he noted. Flat rate customers consistently used more than 160,000 gallons per account and in two years used close to 190,000 gallons. In contrast, metered customers used less than 140,000 gallons per account every year. At this time, 60% of the single-family residences are metered, it's slightly higher than that for duplexes. "The second table on p. 11 again shows that flat rate customers use a lot more water than metered. Although only 40 percent of our single-family customers are unmetered, thy use 50 percent of the water. "These comparisons show that metering is an extremely valuable water conservation tool." Paul Clopper commented on the per capita usage to our targets that the Demand Management Committee set years ago. Comparing to 2010, we have essentially met them as of last year. "That's huge," he stressed. Tom Sanders acknowledged that the numbers are very impressive. "The only thing I question is, it's costing us $400,000 or more to achieve those numbers," he asserted. "I hope it pays off," he concluded. Robert Ward asked if this information gets distributed beyond the Water Board. "The City Council gets these reports," was the answer. Mr. Lauer thanked Laurie D'Audney and Bob Smith for preparing this information. LJ Water Board Minutes April 22, 1999 Page 23 Announcement Paul Clopper announced that our City staff and their counterparts at the County will be helping the International Erosion Control Association (Mountain States Chapter)to put on the 1999 workshop with CSU and others. It involves erosion and sediment control and stormwater quality. "If anyone is interested, please contact Mr. Clopper. Alison Adams Leaves Water Board Mr. Clopper informed the Board that Alison Adams has resigned from the Board, effective immediately, to take a job in Florida. She won't be at our May meeting, but she may be able to come to the June meeting. At that time there would be a farewell reception for her. ADJOURNMENT Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:07 p.m. r: ce yl /-�) Water Board ecretary