Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 03/18/1988WATER BOARD MINUTES March 18, 1988 Members Present Norm Evans, President, Henry Caulfield, Vice President, Neil Grigg, John Scott, Mary Lou Smith, Ray Herrmann, Jim Kuiken (alt.), Chester Watson, (alt.) Staff Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Andy Pineda, Linda Burger, Ben Alexander Members Absent Dave Stewart, Tom Sanders, Tom Moore President Norm Evans opened the meeting. The following items were dis- cussed: Minutes The minutes of February 19, 1988 were approved as distributed. Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District: Update Since there was no representative present from the NCWCD, there was no report. John Scott reminded Water Board members about the spring water users meeting on March 22 in Greeley. Norm Evans referenced the NCWCD minutes where the District Board moved to file a statement of opposition to all the Thornton applications. He won- dered if anyone knows what is involved in those applications. John Scott said that on the last day of December, 1987, Thornton filed an augmentation plan for a change in use involving the Water Supply & Storage Company water. He wasn't certain what the other filings were. Ray Herrmann referred to an item in the February Water Market Update regar- ding a bill in the Colorado Legislature which "essentially reserves existing waters for in -district use unless the transferor is willing and able to pay to offset its water depletions on future users within a district. Hardest hit in the near future would be the City of Thornton which spent $52 million to purchase water rights that originated within the boundaries of the NCWCD." Linda Burger said that bill died in committee due to intense oppo- sition from the metro area. Henry Caulfield returned to the matter of statements of opposition by Thornton. He reminded the Board that being in opposition is a formal matter Water Board Minut_a March 18, 1988 Page 2 that merely means you want standing in the court. You may not actually be opposed to what another party wishes to do but you want to be there in order to see that certain conditions are stipulated in whatever the action of the court is. Mike Smith said the City of Fort Collins has also filed statements of oppo- sition. "In many cases you file because you don't understand what other parties are doing," he explained. Dr. Evans said his point in raising the issue is that we ought to know what it is that Thornton proposes. Mr. Smith said as soon as staff learns what that is, the Board will be informed. Committee Reports Water Supply Policy Committee Neil Grigg reported that the committee created by the City Council to explore water supply policy issues and comprised of three Council members and three Water Board members, met on February 14. They were also scheduled to meet on March 10 but that session was cancelled because of pressing staff commitments. The next meeting is set for March 24. Dr. Grigg said that basically, the committee is still in the information collection stage. The City Council members on the committee have questions about data. They have questions like: How much water do we have? How much do we need? How much does it cost to keep more than we need? Staff has provided some background information to answer some of these questions. It appears that the Commit- tee, particularly from the Council side, is interested in the 1-in-50 drought as a basic policy rather than a 1-in-100, but the committee has also been discussing an aspect of keeping increments of water for growth, as well as drought protection. It is possible that what we will have will exceed the 1-in-50 at any given time. This will require that the Committee discuss what impact that will have on the raw water requirements from developers and various issues related to that. Norm Evans added that the committee also asked for definitions and clarification of 1-in-50 and 1-in-100 droughts. Council members on the committee are Gerry Horak, Loren Maxey and Bob Wino- kur; Water Board members include Henry Caulfield, Neil Grigg and Marylou Smith. Strategic Planning Committee Dr. Grigg, chairman, said he didn't have a report for that committee. Their work was somewhat pre-empted by the City Council and Water Board committee which he just discussed. There was no report from the Engineering Committee, although they have met. Dave Stewart, the chairman, was unable to be at the Water Board meeting today. There was also no report from the Utilities Service'Committee. Conservation and Public Education Committee Chairperson Mary Lou Smith reported that her committee has begun by issuing a charge: The Water Board is to advise City Council in matters relating to water and wastewater. The Conservation and Public Education Committee will ensure that the Water Board is fully advising Council in matters pertaining Water Board Minutes March 18, 1988 Page 3 specifically to the conservation of water. The committee report was included in the Water Board packets. Ms. Smith said that her committee would become more active as the time approaches for placing restrictions on use of water for landscaping and the public education that goes along with that. The Water Supply Policy Committee will be looking at the whole issue of restrictions. Conservation will be examined from various perspectives. These include, but are not limited to: conservation as a possible means of "shaving the peaks" to defer water treatment plant expansion, and conserva- tion as a possible means of reducing the total amount of water needed by the City; conceivably reducing the amount of money needed to acquire additional water rights. Ms. Smith complimented the staff for initiating education programs about water in the schools as well as providing information on water conservation in the library and elsewhere. She also believes it is important to do some pro -active work with the press to educate them about our local water situa- tion and "frankly get them on our side about water. If we inform them before an issue hits the fan, they will be more inclined to believe that what we are feeding them is the true line, and that we are not trying to hide anything." Legislative and Finance Committee The Legislative and Finance Committee met on March 14. Water Board members were given a summary of that meeting prepared by the Water Board secretary. Chairman Henry Caulfield reviewed the summary with the Board. Linda Burger is the staff person who follows legislative matters, particularly at the state level. She outlined for the committee how legislative matters are handled in the City. Ms. Burger also reviewed some major legislation that has affected the Water and Wastewater Utility this past year. She summa- rized each of those bills on an attachment to the Committee report. The Committee concluded that after the beginning of the legislative year, the staff will provide the Legislative and Finance Committee with a listing of legislative issues. The Committee will determine if the Water Board might have an interest in any of the issues. Staff will keep the Board informed about these matters during the legislative session. The committee will make certain that the Water Board is informed about those legislative proposals that have substantial impact to the City and at least apprise them of possible positions of the City. Thus, the Board would have the option, in a timely fashion, of possibly intervening if they want to advise the City Council on a matter. The Committee believes that this kind of arrangement with the staff is appropriate and that the Water Board shouldn't get involved any more mechanically or bureaucratically than that. Mr. Caulfield also discussed the side of the committee which deals with finance. The committee will meet with Mike Smith on April 11 at 3:00 when Mr. Smith will give an overview of the Utility's financial system. -"From time to time as we discuss policies we get ad hoc information about what the system is," he said, "but most members of the Board don't really understand the financial system very well." The committee's intention is not to get Water Board Minu, a March 18, 1988 Page 4 involved in the detailed appraisals of the annual budget. "Because we are in a position now of possibly spending a great deal of money on water treat- ment plant expansion and the buying of water rights, the Board needs to be pretty clear about what our system of finance is," he emphasized. Marylou Smith asked if other members of the Board who are not on the commit- tee, but are interested in this topic, would be invited to come. Mr. Caul- field stated, and the chairman agreed, that any member of the Board is invi- ted to come to any committee meeting. Henry Caulfield moved that the staff provide information to the committee annually and throughout the year as important matters develop about legisla- tive proposals. The committee will review that material. If the committee thinks there is a need to take initiative concerning any of those items, then it will come up for discussion in the Board. Neil Grigg seconded the motion. Ray Herrman asked Linda Burger about the process for taking a position on a given piece of legislation. "I develop a staff recommendation which is reviewed by Mike Smith and Rich Shannon," she explained. "Then I take it to the Inter -governmental Affairs Committee which includes both staff people and Council members. As soon as I have approval from that Committee, I pur- sue our position at whatever level seems appropriate, given the issue." She actually goes through the process of selecting the bills that she thinks may impact the City. Henry Caulfield thinks the critical point may be if the committee thought that this is a step that Linda Burger would be required to go through before she went to the City Council on these posi- tions. Mr. Caulfield doesn't think the Water Board should take that step. "We should let the existing system continue with the possibility of inter- ventions," he concluded. Mike Smith believes the system the committee pro- posed will work fine for staff. If the committee sees an issue that they want to get involved in, they should take the initiative. That approach won't slow the process, he added. Mr. Caulfield commented that there are some issues on which the City must take action in 24 hours or less. "I don't think we want to get in a position of putting our committee in that channel," he stressed. A vote was taken on Mr. Caulfield's motion and it passed unanimously. Regional Supply Coordination Committee Dr. Evans said the committee met prior to the Water Board meeting. He announced that Jo Boyd, the committee's chairman, has submitted her resig- nation from the Water Board. The regional meeting which the committee tentatively scheduled for April 11 has been changed to May 9 at 7:00, but that date needs to be confirmed. What the committee is trying to do is get a state water quality control commis- sion spokesman and a federal EPA representative to come to that meeting to discuss the drinking water amendments from the two perspectives. Dr. Evans volunteered to contact the speakers. Water Board Minutes March 18, 1988 Page 5 Dr. Evans read Jo Boyd's letter of resignation effective today. Dr. Boyd recently began working again for her former employer although she had taken early retirement in the fall. Thus, for various reasons, including "see sawing employment," she believes she can no longer devote the amount of time and effort required to be an effective member of the Water Board. She said that she has enjoyed her association with the Board and regrets her inabil- ity to continue that association. Marylou Smith expressed the feelings of other Board members when she said she was sorry that Jo Boyd found it necessary to resign. Dr. Evans will write Dr. Boyd a letter expressing the Board's sentiments. Staff Reports Mike Smith referred to a memo relating to water treatment plant capacity sent to Board members in their packets. Mr. Smith explained that staff wanted to outline their thoughts regarding treatment plant capacity before they got to the point of bringing an item to the Water Board asking the Board to take some action on it. Also, if the Board sees flaws in some of the strategy or additional information that they would like to interject, they would have the opportunity to make suggestions and comments at this time. Basically, the memo outlines, on a conceptual level, the options available that staff is thinking about. It concludes with staff proposing to study a particular option and returning to the Board with the results of that study and a request for action. The memo also encourages continuation of other projects such as studying regionalization and water authority con- cepts. Staff outlined six alternatives that they see as potential for the future: 1) Construct major expansion or new treatment plant; 2) Construct a regional water treatment plant facility; 3) Form a regional water treatment author- ity; 4) Optimize existing facilities; 5) Renovate Water Treatment Plant No. 1; 6) Reduce peak day water demands. Each of these alternatives was dis- cussed in the memo. Staff's conclusion, at this point, is that they would like to pursue the optimization of existing facilities to determine if there is anything worth looking at. If there is, there could be a less costly method of acquiring additional capacity. "If it doesn't prove feasible, we'll look at something else." The other option was reducing peak day water demands which has been discussed previously in the Water Supply Report and will be discussed by the Water Supply Policy Committee. Basically, that option is in the committee's hands to recommend some action. The memo also outlined the manner in which the staff sees the implementation of these options. The Water Supply Committee will be looking at the demands. Staff believes it will be necessary to hire a consultant to study the opti- mization of Water Treatment Plant No. 2. The Water Board will review and comment on the results of the study. Those results would probably be avail- able late summer or early fall. Staff's recommendation is to continue to use Black & Veatch Consulting Engineers because they are knowledgeable about the facilities and operations at Water Treatment Plant No. 2; their performance has been good; and Black & Veatch's fees are, and generally have been, Water Board Minuv s March 18, 1988 Page 6 fairly consistent with the fees charged by other major consulting firms. Mr. Smith then asked for suggestions and comments from the Board on the memo. Neil Grigg asked about the optimization of WTP No. 2. "We are just complet- ing the expansion on that now." Have you identified how we could produce more out of both the old and new parts of Plant 2? Ben Alexander said that there are ways of looking at both the old and new parts. The Water Produc- tion personnel have identified most of those, he said. There may be some possibilities of improving the settled water clarity. "We are very optimis- tic about what those new lamella plates are capable of after seeing them perform in Colorado Springs; these are the ones we are putting in the expan- sion." If our optimism is well founded, we may be able to retrofit some of the other portions of the plant with that type of technology. With that improved pretreated water quality, we would take our filters to higher load- ing rates and still achieve our high standards," he explained. We need the consultants to identify the bottlenecks, he said. Mike Smith added, "and identify features that could be improved, and in turn improve capacity." The study will determine which ones are feasible and which ones are not. Neil Grigg asked if there is any data available about how well the new filters will work on the "Giardia" problem. "That was the basis of our pilot work," Mr. Alexander responded, "but we don't have any actual operating experience with it yet." We have six units that will filter 20 mg, he added. "Do we mostly rely on the filters to guard against Giardia?" Mike Smith replied that it is really a combination, but filters are the bottom line. You must have the pretreatment working well to make sure those filters are efficient. If you just "throw it all on the filters, you run some risk," he said. Henry Caulfield suggested that later this spring would be an appropriate time for staff to arrange visits to both WTP No. 2 and WWTP No. 2. Both have undergone major expansions. The timing would be very good this spring, Mike Smith agreed. Construction has been in progress for nearly two years at both plants. In addition, the composting facility will be completed and operational. "There will be a lot to see." The Water Board was enthusias- tic about this idea. It was the consensus of the group that a Saturday would be the most convenient day of the week to take a tour of the facilities. MaryLou Smith asked to discuss the aspects of the memo relating to restric- tions. She first complimented staff on the excellent report. She is par- ticularly concerned about the prospect of restrictions and the article which recently appeared in the Coloradoan about Anheuser-Busch. "One of the big- gest challenges in the next couple of years," she began, "no matter what we do to deal with the peak day, is going to be public perception." The fact that we are going to have to expand water treatment capacity at the time Anheuser-Busch is coming on, is going to be a difficult thing to deal with. Ms. Smith thinks, because of the difficulty of the problem, the staff and Board need to contemplate the possibility of hiring professional help to deal with this as much as the professional help that will be required to study the physical expansion of the treatment facility. "We are inclined to think in terms of hiring engineers for the technology, but seldom do we Water Board Minutes March 18, 1988 Page 7 think about public perception and attitudes." She is far more favorable to the idea of restrictions than spending the money to expand capacity more than is economically justified. Did the Coloradoan portray the situation accurately, she asked. The article states that the City didn't build new treatment capacity to accommodate A-B and that our planning of the recent expansion began before A-B's plans were known, and that our recent expansion took us from 44 mgd to 64 mgd. "This rings true," she said. "However, the article continues by saying: "The next water plant expansion is definitely influenced by the Brewery, Smith said. The City anticipated that more capacity would be needed by 1996, but because of the amount of water the Brewery uses, the City will need to add more capacity by 1992." MaryLou Smith said it was her understanding that a large part of the need for that earlier expansion is that we are using more water than we expected, partly because it has been dry. It seems that staff had some subjective ideas as to why that was true, but only partly because of A-B. "I'm assuming that the rates charged everyone goes into our fees for future expansion." She is unclear about how the financial system works. Does a new industry pay a pre- mium for pushing capacity over the hill? Mike Smith responded that gener- ally everyone pays for just what they use. There is no premium for "pushing it over the hill." The new users will pick up that premium when they join the system. The article has some errors in it. The question the newspaper reporter asked was: "With existing capacity when do you anticipate the need to expand?" The answer was 1992--that was fine. Second question: "By the way if A-B hadn't come, when would you have had to expand?" Answer: "Maybe 1996." This made it read that because A-B came in they caused us to expand earlier. A-B is paying dearly for the treatment plant capacity. The finan- cing part of Ms. Smith's question is very complex, Mike Smith said. Those questions will be answered at the meeting of the Legislative/Finance Commit- tee on April 11, so Mr. Smith will defer comment until then. He encouraged Board members to attend, but he said there will be information distributed to the Board on the subject of finance. MaryLou Smith re-emphasized her suggestion about the possibility of hiring a public relations firm to deal with the public perception of some of the dif- ficult issues facing the Utility. "It is difficult," Mike Smith admitted, "but we can't depend on the newspaper to print information voluntarily." He explained that the Utility is required by the EPA to print announcements about the lead issue for three consecutive months. "We have prepared an announcement that has the notice about lead in it, but it also includes some other items about water quality issues. We are going to have to pay for space to do it the way we want to do it," he concluded. "There are ways to get a newspaper very interested in what you have to say," MaryLou Smith asserted, "if you have the expertise and training." Public relation firms usually can get very good stories. Generally in public agencies we don't have people trained to know how to get that kind of coverage.. She mentioned an AWWA conference she attended that offered an excellent workshop on this subject. It emphasized how water utilities "can get information across before a crisis or a controversy occurs. Many times it is a matter of expertise, where you hire people trained in this area to handle the PR." she contends. Water Board Minu,4 s March 18, 1988 Page 8 Mike Smith responded that staff has thought about doing that. However, the public has been extremely critical of City expenses and it may be difficult to justify hiring a public relations firm to tell us how to tell the public what we are going to do. Ms. Smith admitted that it is a dilemma. There are local people that know how to promote things in Fort Collins who could be used in a way that their costs would be in an operating budget range, she suggested. Neil Grigg asked what kinds of stories Ms. Smith is thinking about. She replied that she favors a pro -active approach where people are made aware of the fascinating water story in Fort Collins; for example, the City's planning for the future and the pro -active nature of the Water Board. The AWWA workshop recommended calling press conferences to let the media know about issues ahead of time. "We know that water is a complicated sub- ject in this part of the country." She thinks involving the media ahead of time is a way of getting them on your side. "We know that these are compli- cated issues and we want to take the time to help you learn about them," she suggested telling the media. "If we don't do it right, it can do us more harm than good," she stressed. She added, "If we don't put what we want to tell them in a lay person's language, they will do it themselves, and some- times inaccurately." Chester Watson suggested that if an article contains inaccuracies, why can't we prepare a letter to the editor. Ms. Smith believes that is just what we shouldn't do. "Instead of telling them what they did wrong, let's show them how to do it right," she maintains. Mike Smith informed the Board that, within the last year or two, the City hired a public relations person whose name is Johnie Pearson. She has been concentrating on the problem of working effectively with the media, he said. Mr. Smith assured Marylou Smith that staff would give a great deal of thought to her concerns and suggestions on this matter. John Scott directed the board's attention to the graph attached to the staff memo. He pointed out the big jump in historic use from 1985-87. Is that anything more than hot summers that caused that? It appears to be signifi- cantly different from the historical trend, he said. "Frankly, the histo- rical trend a couple of years before that wasn't doing anything," Mr. Smith replied. Then things began to change and the trend returned to where we thought it should be, he added. Actually, the 1986-87 numbers were more in line with where they probably should be historically. Probably in those previous years, the right combination of precipitation, cooler weather, etc. made it level out. Obviously the weather is a big factor. Henry Caulfield pointed out that Dennis Bode has kept a chart for several years showing daily peaks. He would encourage those interested to look at that data. Mr. Bode assumed that the growth of the City would occur at about 2%. "Did you look at any different rates just to get an idea of what a bad.situation might do to you in plant expansion," Mr. Scott asked. "As far as growth?" "Yes," he replied. If the economy turned around and you had 4 or 5% growth, things could "squeeze tight" very quickly, Mike Smith responded. Water Board autes • March 18, 1988 Page 9 Mike Smith asked the Board if the type of information in the memo is some- thing they like. There was a resounding yes. Are there any comments or direction the Board would propose? Mr. Caulfield said he thinks the staff's priorities are good. The Board concurred. Chairman Evans said he had some additional comments, and he supposed others did as well, but he would defer them until the appropriate time. Marylou Smith thinks that staff's recom- mendation to use the same consulting engineers is well-founded, and that there is substantiation for that recommendation. John Scott recalled that Carl Houck from Black & Veatch had made a presen- tation on the water treatment plant expansion, and at that time he talked about a low head hydro plant in there. Have they dropped that? Mr. Smith replied that cost -wise it wouldn't pay at this time. He related that they had also looked at a methane reuse plan for Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 2 and found that it wasn't economically feasible at this time either. Energy costs are still too low to justify either proposal. Mr. Smith stated that staff will proceed with the implementation as shown. It is hoped that the study on optimization will be completed by late summer. "We will return to the Board with those results," he said. Other Business Mike Smith announced that staff has been presented with an offer to buy some water. "It is possible that we may want to get the Board together before the next meeting to discuss the offer." It involves water that we already know about and we already use. Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m. Water Board Secretary.