HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 12/21/1984# 0
Members Present:
Staff Present
Minutes
Water Board
December 21, 1984
Norm Evans, Henry Caulfield, Neil Grigg, Tom Sanders, Tom
Moore, Dave Stewart, Bernie Cain, Mort Bittinger, Jim
O'Brien (alt.)
Bill Carnahan, Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Ben Alexander, Paul
Eckman, Assistant City Attorney
Guests: Mike DiTullio, Manager, Fort Collins -Loveland Water Distri"ct
and Pat Graham, a Consultant for the Rate Study
Members Absent: Mary Lou Smith, Ray Glabach, John Scott (alt.)
Chairman Norm Evans opened the meeting at 9:15 a.m. The following items were
discussed:
Minutes
The minutes of October 19, 1984 were approved.
Intergovernmental Agreement
A final draft of the revised inter -government agreement between the City, and
the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District and South Fort Collins Sanitation
District was included in the Water Board packet. Mike Smith reminded the
Board that in 1982 the City and the Districts entered into an agreement
promoting cooperation and that was extended in 1983. When that expired in
June of 1984, all parties wanted to renew it and address a few other concerns,
so the staffs and the attorneys of the respective agencies met to draft a new
agreement.
At first, there was some concern about the possible anti-trust action. That
worked out well due to some subsequent legislation and satisfactory wording by
the attorneys. Some new provisions were added that covered master planning,
standby taps, and exclusion actions. The steering committee (of which Norm
Evans is a member), has reviewed the draft and made a very minor revision.
The Districts' Boards have reviewed it and will take final action in January
1985. Council action will follow should the Board approve the agreement
today.
Norm Evans welcomed Mike DiTullio, Manager of the Fort Collins -Loveland Water
District.
Mr. Smith took the members through the agreement provision by provision.
Provision No. 3 was the establishment of the Service Areas. This is the same
except for the interim boundary line represented by the small dash on the far
east side of the map. It used to stop at I-25 and now extends north a mile
and a half which coincides with the District boundary. Mr. Smith passed out
maps which showed the boundaries. He said the three groups feel comfortable
with these boundaries which were established to show which agency could serve
which area best. Henry Caulfield asked, in terms of the Everitt property,
what is the expected situation regarding the Urban Growth area boundary? Mike
Smith said that, right now, it probably won't be changed. Generally, the City
policy is to stay within the UGA (Urban Growth Area).
Provision No. 4, Quality of Service, was added and basically acknowledges that
both the City and Districts are capable of providing quality service. At some
point in the future, if that is not the case by any of the parties, there are
provisions for changing boundaries, etc.
Tom Sanders asked if there is a physical connection between the City and the
Fort Collins -Loveland Water District. We have a connection that permits
either to take water from the other.
Provision No. 5 sets up the Steering Committee which consists of two members
of Fort Collins -Loveland Water District Board, two members from the South Side
Sanitation District Board, one member from the Fort Collins Water Board and
two members from the Fort Collins City Council.
Provision No. 6 is the charge of the Steering Committee.
Provision No. 7 talks about the Master Plan and now includes the idea of what
is expected in developing the master plan.
Provision No. 8 is the Regionalization Provision. Henry Caulfield asked a
question about section G on the concept of equal votes. Mike Smith explained
that, in previous years, there was controversy about that issue. It was
thought that if the Utilities would combine, the City would want control.
That made negotiations with the Districts difficult. Since that time, the
City Council has recognized that if the agencies did regionalize, a separate
authority would be created and they would have their own boundary. There
would be a contractual arrangement between the City, the Districts and the
Authority. The Authority would be ruled by one person - one vote; somewhat
like PRPA. In order to encourage the regionalization, that concept had to be
addressed. Mr. Caulfield asked why that had to be decided ahead of time?
Mike DiTullio explained that in order for the City and the Districts to try to
successfully negotiate with other water agencies outside the participants of
the agreement, we would have the option of saying that we would include the
concept; thus, it wouldn't be prejudged as being controlled by the larger
entities.
Tom Sanders is bothered by this section too. Both Mr. Caulfield and Dr.
Sanders did not want to prejudice what happens in the future by a possible
rigid interpretation. Following considerable discussion, Tom Sanders moved
that item G be taken back to the Steering Committee for further discussion,
with the recommendation that it read "without limitations among other
concepts...". Henry Caulfield provided a second. It was decided that all.
comments for the agreement would be included in this motion after the entire
document had been discussed and voted upon at that time.
02
Mr. Caulfield pointed out on page 11 line 5 that Districts should be made
plural possessive.
Mr. Caulfield also asked if the City could be sued by a customer if he has to
pay the higher rate of the District rather than the City's lower rate?
Because this is a legal question, the City Attorney may have an answer. Mr.
DiTullio also wanted to point out that some of the District rates are lower
than the City rates.
Mr. Caulfield proposed that these questions be left for the legal staff to
address.
Provision No. 9, Disposition of Standby Taps, was included because the
districts have potential customers in the City that have paid for a standby
tap. There are a number of those standby taps that are in an area that the
City can serve, but the land has not yet been developed. We must find a
mechanism to transfer those standby taps to the City so the developer who has
paid for them isn't hurt. We have to assure that those customers are provided
the service they paid for. This will require that the City and the District
compromise a bit, but these situations need to be worked out.
Provision No. 10 is Exclusion Proceedings. Here the District has agreed to
work with the City to exclude the District's territory north of the interim
boundary which the City currently serves. Residents in this area can now vote
in a District election although they are served by the City.
With Provision No. 10 discussion on the document was concluded.
Chairman Evans proceeded at this time, to consider the motion. Mike Smith
asked if the Steering Committee agrees with the Water Board's recommendation
for a new interpretation of Section G in Provision 8, would it be necessary to
return to the Board with the new version? Mr. Caulfield and Dr. Sanders
assured Mr. Smith, because the Water Board is only advisory, either way the
Committee acts will be acceptable as long as the Council knows that the Water
Board raised the questions.
The Water Board voted unanimously to direct the questions raised by the Board
to the Steering Committee.
Horsetooth Reservoir Operating Restrictions
Henry Caulfield mentioned that Chairman Evans had originally referred this
item to the Legislative and Engineering Committees. After reading the
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District's response to the acting
Commissioner of the BOR, which obviously their lawyers had prepared with great
detail and care, and looking toward a suite against the U.S. by the District,
if the U.S. does not agree with their position, it seemed that there was no
point in having the Committees meet. Mr. Caulfield thinks the Board's role
should simply be in support of the District in this position rather than
reviewing the merits, both legally and on policy. Mr. Caulfield and Mr. Neil
who is Chairman of the committee had agreed to ask the staff to prepare a
resolution, in effect, backing the District's position. Paul Eckman
distributed a draft resolution for the Board's comments.
3
•
Neil Grigg asked about the appropriation to the Bureau of $1.76 million which
was in the fiscal 1985 Budget for the BOR. By going through all the
documents, Mr. Grigg found that the estimate for the total project would be
about $4.2 million. There was a reference in Larry Simpson's letter that the
Bureau unilaterally withdrew the request for funding saying it was a sound
financial decision for the government. Is that 1.76 an actual appropriation?
What is the status of that? Mr. Caulfield responded that the Congress
actually appropriated this money for the current fiscal year, but the OMB
(Office of Management & Budget) in effect, told the Bureau to oppose this, and
therefore, the Bureau of Reclamation complied. There was a suggestion to
delete the $24,000,000 figure from the resolution.
Tom Sanders raised several issues:
1) With the change of operating restrictions, does that mean the Bureau might
change the operating restrictions across the Board with lower volume but
might make withdrawals more useful throughout the year, for example?
Dennis Bode said that he doesn't see operating policies changing much.
2) For $4,000,000 the City could raise the money and do it themselves.
3) Someone needs to address the silly notion of PMF (Probable Maximum Flood).
In the future it may be more effective to establish an early warning
system for this kind of dam; it would be much more cost effective. Norm
Evans agreed that this comment is appropriate because the Colorado Water
Congress has a committee working on exactly this point. The City has a
reason to support the CWC study about the PMF. Henry Caulfield agrees with
Dr. Sander's points but he feels that the City should not undercut the
District's assertion of their rights at this time. Jim O'Brien commented
that he had asked the NCWCD at the time when they decided they wanted the
$1.76 million to increase the crest height, if they had any questions
about the Bureau's analysis regarding the PMF. Evidently they didn't.
Mr. O'Brien thinks it is up to the District to challenge the Bureau's
figures on whether or not this money should be necessary at this point.
Neil Grigg thinks that we ought to be looking for the money to raise the
dams just because of the potential consequences of the dams failing.
Henry Caulfield said the District is protesting the restriction, not the
PMF as such. They probably would not have wanted to raise the level of
the dams had it not been for the PMF. Henry Caulfield offered the
following reading of the final paragraph: Now, therefore, be it resolved
by the Water Board that a recommendation be given to the Council of the
City of Fort Collins that efforts be made by the City to urge the United
States to resolve the storage which is lost as a result of the usage of
the hypothetical "probable maximum flood" for Horsetooth Reservoir and
further, that the operating restrictions presently imposed upon the
Reservoir be immediately lifted.
Henry Caulfield proposed the following wording for the final "whereas"
paragraph: Whereas, in consideration of such devastating loss, and in
consideration of the importance of dam safety and flood protection, the Water
Board finds that storage should be recovered which has been lost because of
questionable usage of the highly conservative hypothetical "probably maximum
flood" for the Horsetooth Reservoir area. He also said that the 10,000 units
owned by the City of Fort Collins should be mentioned somewhere in the
document.
Henry Caulfield moved the acceptance of the resolution with the suggested
changes. After a second the motion carried unanimously.
After a 10 minute break Vice Chairman Henry Caulfield took over the chair
because Norm Evans had to leave.
Statement to Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authori
Mr. Caulfield explained that a copy of the statement that he and Norm Evans
wrote to deliver to the CWR and PDA regarding a Poudre Basin Study was
included in the Water Board packets. Since there wasn't time to call a
meeting of the Board to compose a statement, Mr. Caulfield stressed that the
statement included positions that the Water Board has historically expressed
with regard to a comprehensive study of the Poudre Basin. Thus, he and Dr.
Evans thought the statement would be acceptable to the members. Moreover,
Mayor Horak read a statement at the hearing which reflected some of these same
thoughts, so the Water Board and City Council basically agree.
Water Rate Stu
Henry Caulfield announced that the chair was open to questions about the
study. Mr. Caulfield thought it would be best to discuss questions and
concerns about the study rather than focusing on decisions at this time.
Neil Grigg began by stating his appreciation for the documents included in the
packet which related to the metering and water use expenses of nearby
communities. He considers the study to be a beginning step. What seems to be
missing from the scope of work for the study is what would happen if we went
to a metering program. Perhaps the staff and Water Board could develop a
rather sophisticated study of the alternative things that can happen as a
result of different metering scenarios to include the effect on Fort Collins
water supplies, on revenue, in terms of the fairness issue, and in terms of
cost per household. The computer capability of the staff would be valuable
for these kinds of questions.
Tom Sanders agrees with Neil Grigg that the study was just a beginning step as
far as if we should begin a metering program. Dr. Sanders suggested we look
at a policy on incremental water use. For example, would there be an
incremental amount that a resident would use normally and then an amount he
uses to water his lawn. Past the watering of the lawn there would be a higher
cost per gallon to encourage conservation. To be consistant this would have
to be done with industry too.
Dave Stewart commented that nobody should be supplementing someone else's
cost. All classes should pay what it costs to serve them. Tom Sanders
questions the reduction of peak day use with meters. Dave Stewart responded
that there are cases where it has been large and cases where it hasn't but
there is always a reduction in peak day, whether it is 5 or 30% we won't be
able to know, especially in a phased program.
Henry Caulfield referred the Board to the Denver study that was included in
their packets. Many questions were answered in this study of comparing
metered and non -metered and that 20% is a somewhat reasonable distinction
between these two situations. Then the question is what have you saved when
you save 20%?
5
1) Some operating costs
2) Some capital expenses
3) What the annual savings due to postponement is vs. annual costs of
having meters.
Neil Grigg added that there are so many questions that could be asked like the
rate of inflation, or the rate of growth in Fort Collins. The study that
needs to be done to assess the impact of metering could be bigger than the
water rate study. It seems to Dr. Grigg that some of the cities we refer to
have rushed into metering with resulting problems. The staff does need to
answer many questions. There needs to be a financial planning model and
beyond this, a water account. It needs to be tied to our drought study
looking at peak days, water rights, water use, etc., and we determine what we
need in the way of reserves. We develop our total policies from that. It's a
complex study and that is why the answers are not readily available for all
the questions "on the table."
Tom Sanders suggested that the best way to reduce the peak day is through the
diamond, circle and square method. He thinks that people would prefer that to
the cost of metering. He thinks that, as a Board, we should push for a
comprehensive study, set the priorities of what we are trying to accomplish
with metering, put it in a proposal and have someone look at it in a very cost
effective manner; will it meet the objectives? Is it the best way to solve a
problem? This would be preferable to the hypothetical "absolute" good of
metering. As a Water Board, we have not been asked directly if we think we
should meter. If one talks about real costs and savings etc., it probably is
not cost effective. Nevertheless, we are pressured by federal agencies to
meter in order to save water, or lose federal money for future projects.
Henry Caulfield raised another issue. What is the plan for peaking factors?
Could we optimize the system by having more treated water storage to shave the
peaks. He hopes that under Mike Smith's direction the Engineering Committee
can review that question at the appropriate time in the Black & Veatch design
for the new treatment plant.
Neil Grigg responded to the charge since he is Chairman of the Engineering
Committee. He would like the staff to prepare a presentation on operational
procedures, design criteria, etc., then, the Committee and the staff could
identify jointly where the points are that require further study.
Bill Carnahan said that we need to start with what is our goal and where can
we get the most for our "buck" and that is probably peak load reduction. We
then ask how can we do that most economically? It may be a combination of
things. The Staff's task at this point is to develop some of those
alternatives.
Tom Moore suggested establishing some goals. Perhaps we should decide what
our charge is from the Council.
Jim O'Brien agreed with Mr. Caulfield regarding using the 20% savings as a
stepping stone. He also asked how did Greeley get away with the customers
paying only $30 per meter according to the article in the packets? Mr. Bode
explained that the remainder of the cost is "plugged" into the rates. He
asked if there has been any direction that we should also tie this to
estimating what we could charge people on a metered structure for wastewater
treatment. Dave Stewart explained that if you have water meters, there is
usually a formula that the Utility will use to figure out the sewer charges.
You can't do that if you don't have a meter. Mr. Stewart added that this was
not a part of the scope of the study.
Bernie Cain had a general question regarding education. He asked if there had
been any noticeable drop in consumption with just the level of education we've
had? Dennis Bode replied that we've had a drop in the water use but it is a
little hard to pinpoint the reasons. He suspects education has helped
somewhat although he doesn't think it has been that great. One of the major
factors has been the ordinance enacted in 1978 requiring low flow plumbing
fixtures. The other factor is the percentage of multi -family housing has
risen, and that use is affecting overall per capita use. However, through
education, the awareness of the public has increased about water conservation.
Mr. Cain contends that educating people on how to water their yards would be a
real benefit and thus, is an area that needs to be addressed extensively.
Henry Caulfield asked why those caring for green belt areas, who should be
knowledgeable about ET, overwater in most instances. Dave Stewart explained
that they set their systems in May and don't bother to return and readjust
them. Usually, they set it high and when it begins to dry out in July it is
set even higher. Thus, there is a tremendous amount of overwatering.
Mr. Caulfield commented that these areas are on meters and they still
overwater. Mr. Stewart said in these PUD's the cost is divided among the
homeowners so the cost doesn't come out of just one pocket.
Henry Caulfield had some questions about the report itself. There is a
wording problem on page 4-37 (a. at top of page). Mr. Caulfield thinks we
need to be more refined in determing green lawn areas; perhaps a variance
board, etc., in both alternatives 1 and 3. How much is green lawn, how much
is rock garden, etc., needs to be determined. We know the square footage of
each lot but not what is on that space.
Dennis Bode said that exemptions decrease the reason for the green lawn block.
If there was an easy way to get an exemption, there may not be a reason for
the green lawn block. You may want to go back to the volume based structure.
Neil Grigg and Mort Bittinger contend that it is too far ahead to worry about
that problem at this point. It is valid but we are not able to read meters
yet. Bill Carnahan asked about the green lawn criteria in alternative #3. He
thinks that nearly everyone would be in the high block area most of the summer
unless it is wet. He wonders, politically, how you would sell that.
Henry Caulfield would like to see an increasing block rate so the person is
penalized when he goes above the 22-24 inches of water assuming that is the
proper ET rate.
Tom Sanders wanted to discuss the "tree" aspect of this problem. If you lower
the amount of water put on the grass, and cut down the ground water, you
eventually will lose a lot of trees. Dave Stewart agreed that by ignoring the
hydrologic cycle, it is always a possibility. He doesn't know how realistic
it is.
Henry Caulfield proposed that as the report is finalized something about the
tree and shrubery questions should be given some consideration. Some
discussion of this is given in Chapter 3 p. 3-6, second paragraph. However,
this just talks about "tree shading".
VA
Tom Sanders asked that the final recommendation on p. 7-2 regarding phased
metering be deleted because the report did not address this issue.
Dave Stewart answered that they tried to address some of that problem in
Chapter 5. The recommendation is merely saying that the staff, the Water
Board and the City Council should look at a scenario - the water simulator
computer model - and integrate that with water resources and the drought study
and look at this as a future study. A phased metering program was not part of
the scope of the study but the study is saying that it should be looked at.
Henry Caulfield said the Water Board needs to respond to this issue
regardless.
The cost of service issue was raised. Bill Carnahan said the cost of service
basically shows that the revenues that are needed are there. The customers;
in total, are paying what it takes, but individual rate classes may be paying
more or less than what it takes.
Tom Moore commented that he has gathered from past reports etc. that the staff
is pro metering. Mike Smith said that there are pros and cons with each.
Metering does solve the equity issue for customers. On the other hand, with
flat rates, a steady income is an advantage.
Dennis Bode stated that metering is an issue that arises frequently. AWWA and
other cities have overlying suggestions on how you should be selling your
water and how it should be paid for. Therefore, as utilities go, there is a
trend toward metering.
Henry Caulfield raised the issue of the Fire Authority from the report.
Industry and commercial interests are getting more benefit from the water for
fire, oversizing, etc., than the homeowner. According to equity, there should
be a charge for the water to the Fire Authority and it can be handled through
the tax structure.
Bill Carnahan said he and staff had discussed that. Take Hewlett Packard for
example. There have to be certain size fire protection facilities, lines,
etc., and they pay for that in the PIF. In effect, they are paying for that
capacity. Bernie Cain said you pay for it by the size of the tap.
The group broke for lunch.
Following lunch, Henry Caulfield said that prior to the break the group was
raising questions about the study itself. Now, we need to focus on
objectives; plans on how to deal with the study.
Mort Bittinger wanted the $3.75 million figure for meters to be given further
consideration. He thinks that figure doesn't have much behind it and yet it
is a figure the media has already picked up on. It is probably too
conservative looking at the figures from Loveland, Greeley, etc. Could the
figure be raised somewhat, saying perhapsa best estimate cost with plus or
minus accuracy.
Dave Stewart explained that the number was obtained from previous studies and
does not include the cost of repairing service lines.
M
Mr. Bittinger contends that he would rather see us going on with a more
realistic figure. Dave Stewart explained that the higher number was from the
Loveland experience. He said that the consultants would look into more data.
However, he said, $300 an installation is not cheap.
Chairman Evans suggested that perhaps others may have questions about the
study.
Henry Caulfield had a question on page 2-3 about how the survey understates
how people feel about green lawns.
Bill Carnahan asked, from the staff's perspective, if the Water Board has a
sense for the timing. It sounds like we are talking about some fairly
extensive kinds of studies. The staff has recieved some feel from the
Council, not necessarily as a mandate, that they would like to at least have
the issues out around the first of February. This does not mean, of course,
that all would be concluded and completed. There is no way that can happen.
Norm Evans suggested that the Board arrive at some kind of recommendation;
what the Board's preferences are, and prepare a proposal for the Council.
Neil Grigg said it isn't clear to him whose responsibility it is to study
what. We have a need for a decisive work plan; a clear statement of the
delegation of responsibilities for staff and the Water Board Committee.
Bill Carnahan agreed that the consultant's work is coming to an end with the
final report. The staff would proceed from there to working with the Water
Board to develop a game plan, which would include: The policies and
engineering philosophies, how do we do business and make decisions as a
utility; looking at the sensitivities to annual and peak load reduction; what
are they sensitive to and where are the dollars; and moving into the
development of alternatives; and doing some modeling or whatever it takes to
analyze those. Our primary assignment from the Council is how to implement a
phased metering approach. He would hope that we could get to a point of
having conceptually decided what alternatives we are going to look at and how
we are going to look at them to respond to the Council. We won't have the
answers for awhile. We just need to give the Council some information to work
with.
Chairman Evans asked the staff to identify the issues, some of the issues
being -
- Practicality of implementing the green lawn criteria
- Saving of money
- Issue of wasting water (conservation ethic)
It should be noted that two members of the Board were strongly opposed to the
assumption that we will begin a phased metering program as a given. They
think that one of the choices should be the decision not to meter if the data
should support that.
PJ
Norm Evans suggested the Board meet early in January when it is appropriate
for the staff to assemble the Board.
Henry Caulfield proposed that:
1) We assume there will be meters
2) Then list the issues
Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m.
ater Board ecretary
10