Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 04/15/1988Members Present Norm Evans, President, Neil Grigg, Tom Moore, WATER BOARD MINUTES April 15, 1988 Henry Caulfield, Vice President, John Scott, Tom Sanders, Ray Herrmann, Jim Kuiken (alt.) Staff Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Molly Nortier, Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney Guest John Bigham, Agency Coordinator, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Members Absent Mary Lou Smith, Dave Stewart, Chester Watson (alt.) President Norm Evans opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Minutes The minutes of March 18, 1988 were approved as distributed. While reading the minutes, Norm Evans noted use of the term optimization in the context of a memorandum staff distributed at the last meeting. It appeared in a list of options available to increase water treatment plant capacity. The word optimization was used to describe further modifications and enhancements of the facilities at Water Treatment Plant No. 2 to make it more efficient. Dr. Evans prefers something like "updating with new technology." Mike Smith took note of the suggestion. John Bigham reported that the District Board met on April 1 and looked at snowpack and stream flow information, and set the quota at 70%. Snowpack and stream flows are at slightly above or right at normal, so the District anticipates a fairly normal year; of course that is based on average preci- pitation from now until the first part of the irrigation season. Henry Caulfield asked if there are any issues coming before the Board that would be of interest to the Water Board. "None that are new," Mr. Bigham replied. "Is the Estes Park Windy Gap sale completed?" "To the point that we are waiting for the papers to be finalized," he said. Dr. Evans asked what was meant by the Windy Gap Supplement Case which was addressed in the District Board minutes. Mr. Bigham wasn't certain about it, but said he would find out and report back. Water Board Minutes April 15, 1988 Page 2 Mike Smith asked if they think Granby is going to spill this year. "No," he said. At this point the numbers look like it will break even. "It's so close, however, that we could get a storm that could cause it to go over the top." Dr. Evans asked about the pumping problems with Windy Gap. Mr. Bigham responded: "The primary problem is if you start one or more of the pumps, that shifts demand load on the line, and causes voltage problems. Some of the lines have been upgraded to correct the voltage problem," he said. There has been some conjecture as to whether the original design specifica- tions actually meet the needs of the facility, he concluded. Committee Reports Neil Grigg reported on the meeting the previous day of the Council/Water Board Water Supply Policy Committee. The major decision at the meeting was the Committee's conclusion that they were comfortable with recommending the 1 in 50 level of drought protection (unmetered). They emphasized that this should be a minimum. Dr. Grigg explained that this conclusion was reached as a result of staff's clear explanation of the often difficult and confus- ing concept of safe yield. Tom Sanders recalled that the Water Board had recommended the 1 in 100 drought protection metered. Mike Smith said that the 1 in 100 metered and the 1 in 50 unmetered are fairly close when you look at the total picture. Dr. Sanders asked if the committee had discussed the 1 in 50 in terms of risk. "That's the way it should be approached," he contends. Henry Caul- field, who is a member of the committee, answered no. Dr. Sanders believes that in the future "we should talk in terms of risk, because it helps to put across the point." Henry Caulfield said the committee made the distinction between the peak demand problem and the need for restrictions versus the annual deficiency which was what the charts staff provided to the committee indicated. Dr. Grigg also reported that the Council members on the committee had asked staff to do some research on previous droughts in the City in which various kinds of restrictions were imposed. Staff provided copies of newspaper articles and information from drought years of 1939, 1954, 1963, 1966 and 1977. A table from the Denver Water Department summarizing the effects of outdoor water use restrictions on water demands for 1977-1980, was also in- cluded with the material. Mr. Caulfield related that in recent years, the per capita use has increased and there doesn't seem to be a clear explanation for that. Therefore, the estimates for the 1 in 50 and the 1 in 100 are low by some degree. Tom Sanders returned to the idea of drought risk. He said that Dr. Grigg had calculated in the last few minutes, that there would be a 45% chance of a serious drought in a 30 year period. in" 0 • Water Board Minutes April 15, 1988 Page 3 Jim Kuiken thinks we need to ask ourselves whether when this big drought hits, are there going to be "real problems and shortages or are people just going to have brown lawns?" These are the kinds of questions we need to be answering before we make any recommendations on a drought level, he asserted. He added that Mr. Caulfield's comment about the per capita demand going up just emphasizes that. "If we are just going to cut our demand back from 250 gpcpd to 150, we can get by" he stressed. Dr. Sanders reiterated that at some time, perhaps in a year or so, the City should think about a drought study for the future that designs policy based on risk; also, the costs of having this protection and the costs of not having it, and coming up with a minimum cost. Dr. Evans agreed that this is a good suggesstion. Mr. Caulfield reported that the Water Supply Policy Committee also discussed the purchase of water in advance for the future in the context of who is going to pay for it. The idea that we may need to go for a cash contribu- tion from developers as distinct from water rights was suggested. The com- mittee didn't arrive at a conclusion but the Council members on the Commit- tee see the reasons for it, from a political perspective, because of the need to account for who is going to pay for purchasing water in advance for future use. Legislative/Finance Committee Henry Caulfield, committee chairman, reported that on April 11 Mike Smith gave the Legislative/Finance Committee and other interested Water Board mem- bers, an excellent report on Utility financing. Mr. Caulfield complimented Mr. Smith for the straight forward, attractively prepared document he dis- tributed to those present. Mike Smith said he would make copies available to Water Board members who weren't able to be there. The report describes the whole financial system of the Water & Wastewater Utility, and makes a distinction between the expansion accounts and 0 & M accounts; and the inter -connection. All the assets or earning capacity of the Utility are pledged for the payment of bonds. Even though we might assign costs to the expansion cycle of moneys; the PIF and what we get in terms of water rights, the 0&M accounts are ultimately tapable to make certain that our bonds are paid. Mr. Caulfield pointed out that the Poudre Fire Authority doesn't pay any- thing for the water; whatever oversizing there is, hydrants, etc. is all at the Utility's expense, as well as the water itself and whatever reserves we keep in our system for fire protection. Tom Moore asked if the oversizing of the lines isn't paid for by new development. Mr. Smith replied that the initial oversizing is; the continual operation and maintenance of the fire hydrants and the water that is used, is not. He explained that some communities have a rental fee that is charged to their fire departments for testing and maintenance. Is the 0&M a sizeable amount? Sometimes it is $12-20 per hydrant per year, Mr. Smith replied. "If you have 5,000 hydrants, that could add up to about $100,000," Tom Sanders calculated. Attorney Paul Eckman related, as an example, that Water Board Minutes April 15, 1988 Page 4 Light and Power provides all the electricity for street lights at utility expense. Mr. Caulfield said that the Board discussed this question about 5 years ago. He was the one who suggested that perhaps we should charge the Fire Depart- ment. The answer was: "It has to be paid for anyway, and the water bill is just as equitable a place to collect it as any other." Regional Supply Coordination Committee Because the chairman of this committee, Jo Boyd, has resigned from the Wat- er Board, Norm Evans volunteered to chair the committee on an interim basis. He reported that the committee and staff are preparing letters of invitation to water supply organizations for the water quality event scheduled for May 9 at 7:00 at the University Park Holiday Inn. Two speakers, one from the State Water Quality Control Commission, and the other from the EPA have agreed to discuss the Drinking Water Act Amendments, and where they see that taking us as suppliers and treaters of water. There was no discussion under staff reports. Under Other Business, the Board went into executive session to discuss water supply opportunities. Following a lengthy discussion, Henry Caulfield made a motion, seconded by Tom Sanders, that the Water Board recommend that staff pursue the purchase of both water offers presented to the Board pending negotiation of the prices. The Board voted unanimously to approve the motion. Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m. Water Board Secretary