Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 08/21/1987MINUTES Water Board August 21, 1987 Members Present Norm Evans, President, Neil Grigg, Mary Lou Smith, Tom Moore, Ray Herrmann, Jo Boyd, Tom Sanders, Jim Kuiken (alt.), Chester Watson (alt.) Staff Rich Shannon, Dennis Bode, Webb Jones, Tom Gallier, Curt Miller, Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney Guests Council Member Susan Kirkpatrick Darrel Zimbleman, Assistant Manager, District Nancy Gray, Board member, NCWCD Northern Colorado Water Conservancy Members Absent Henry Caulfield, Vice President, Dave Stewart, John Scott President Norm Evans opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: President Evans welcomed Chester Watson to the Water Board as a new alter- nate. Minutes Tom Sanders was disturbed by the omission of some of the discussion on met- ering strategies at the last meeting. He wanted the segment to be re- inserted. The secretary explained that, in the interest of clarity and because the same issue was going to be discussed at today's meeting in a more organized fashion, staff made the decision to summarize that section of the minutes. Dr. Evans agreed that the metering section did not contain the detail that Water Board minutes have been praised for in the past. He suggested that perhaps, at some time, the Board should discuss what kind of minutes they prefer; those that reflect all of the thoughts and discussion and nuances present or merely a record of the actions the Board takes. He went on to say, however, that it appears that the City Council finds the more detailed minutes more useful. Councilwoman Kirkpatrick agreed that the Water Board minutes are pointed to as exemplary because they help the Council in their deliberations when a decision is being made. Water Board Minutes August 21, 1987 Page 2 Tom Sanders moved that the longer version of the metering discussion be included in the minutes. Jo Boyd seconded the motion. Ray Herrmann believes that, basically what would appear in the minutes would be six pages of disorganized thought as the issue was discussed at the last meeting. This is one reason that the agenda today includes exclusively, the metering issue with the format suggested last time. He didn't see how that accumulation of disorganized thought could help anyone. Tom Sanders disagreed strongly. He contends that the only people who delete any part of the minutes are those who participate in the meeting. Jo Boyd proposed that the disputed portion of the minutes be included with next month's packet for perusal, corrections and additions. Norm Evans agreed that this is the usual procedure. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. The minutes of July 17, 1987 were approved with the stipulation that was addressed in the motion. Dr. Evans welcomed Darrel Zimbleman and Nancy Gray from the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD). Mr. Zimbleman reported that because it has been such a dry year, the NCWCD has been approached several times about raising the quota. The District decided not to, primarily because the out- look for next year is pretty dim, and "we need to keep that water in our sys- tem for next year." There is a need for rental water in the agricultural community. If there is any way the City of Fort Collins could make some available to the rental market, it would be appreciated; realizing that municipalities are usually in better shape in a dry year than the farmers. Tom Sanders asked Dennis Bode for his response. Mr. Bode replied that the City has rented about 5,000 ac.ft. so far this year; not all CBT water. "We have rented about 2,000 ac. ft. of CBT water at $12 an acre foot. For the other water it works out to be an average of $10 to $12 an ac.ft.; mostly North Poudre water." Mr. Bode related that the City has reached the point where "we are waiting to see what the demands are." There has been signifi- cant demand on the City's system this year. "We will look at it again, how- ever." Neil Grigg asked if there has been anything happening regarding Thornton, Denver, expansion of the sub -district or service. Mr. Zimbleman replied that the District had a discussion with Thornton about collecting the taxes they owned, "and we did collect them," he added. It has been quiet, he said except that there was an article in the newspaper regarding Thornton's Util- ity Board asking for the approval of a bond issue so they could begin to make purchases on the first rights of refusal. Their City Council, in essence, told them no and said they wanted to play a larger role in that in the future. Nancy Gray related that she has heard a great deal of anxiety expressed from Water Board Members and different people in the community that the NCWCD has plans to expand its boundaries to accommodate Thornton, and in addition that Thornton might be the "ace in the hole" in terms of Glade Reservoir. The • • Water Board Minutes August 21, 1987 Page 3 answer is "absolutely not!" Ms. Gray believes that in terms of doing battle with Thornton, the NCWCD has been lined up side by side with the City of Fort Collins. Ms. Gray continued by saying that she thinks things are improving in terms of working with the Six Cities. Interestingly, the Six Cities Committee is also looking out for Fort Collins in terms of their Windy Gap water which spills over into the City's responsibility. She admits that there still is a long way to go in terms of communications, but she believes that is happening. She finds herself in a peculiar position on the District Board. She feels strongly that she represents Fort Collins. "At the same time, I represent agricultural interests and the whole county," she stressed. There are some adversarial positions that have arisen between agriculture and municipal interests; whether they are real or imagined. She asked for advice on the following issue. "I think the NCWCO wanted to work with you in terms of deal- ing with your minimum stream flow problem without going to legislation. The District has had some reaction from many of the agricultural users who are very concerned about this in the context that it may be a means of "stealing their water." We must find a way of giving reassurances to those who are affected. In terms of the agricultural request for increasing the allot- ment, you feel a negative impact, certainly within 2 years if there isn't adequate snowfall, and everyone suffers. If there is not an adequate snow- fall within the next few years, there is a real concern on the part of ag. interests that if the allotment needs to be increased, the municipalities may take that extra allotment and put it into storage. This is something you need to discuss and give us advice on," she requested. She is certain the City wouldn't do that unless it was necessary, but a procedure needs to be established during a serious water shortage for ag. interests. If we develop a policy, it would help us deal with the problem. Neil Grigg responded to some of Nancy Gray's remarks. One of the things that has emerged from the whole Thornton issue in our various discussions between staff and Board, is a need to have better inter -agency staff planning; for example, how we would deal with a water shortage and help the ag. community deal with it the best it could. Because of its technical nature, it is going to require some joint work among the staffs. That kind of joint staff plan- ning is also what we need to respond to the Thornton/Metro-Denver threat. One of the ways that the Water Board will benefit from having closer communi- cation with the District, is some procedures to get those facts and identify the things we need to do. Dr. Grigg noticed that regional cooperation is one of the major priorities listed by the Fort Collins City Council. He stressed that he hopes we can move faster in the future, "so we don't have those hard feelings develop, and so we can deal with the Thornton issue better too. The next subject Nancy Gray introduced was the Poudre Project. The questions that are coming up are sometimes informed and sometimes ill-informed, she said. Sometimes we are doing battle when it isn't necessary because there isn't an issue. This is especially true between Fort Collins and the other water users in the District. She has requested that there be a joint work session with the City Council, the Water Board, and the District so discus- sions can take place about progress of the Poudre Project and together Water Board Minutes August 21, 1987 Page 4 explore the City's concerns and the District's concerns. She has not been able to implement that idea. The District thinks the invitation should come from the Council. Larry Simpson believes that the meeting should also include questions like: What is the Conservancy District? What are its plans; its goals? What are the future water needs? The Glade issue could then be approached in that context. He hopes that could be accomplished some- time in the near future. Perhaps she and John Moore could be there from this part of the District, one or two staff people from the District, and all involved may get their questions answered. Dr. Evans said that the Water Board would be very much in agreement with that kind of an arrangement. Darrel Zimbleman responded to Neil Grigg's comments. "We couldn't agree with you more," he said. To a degree, that is what we try to accomplish with our fall and spring water users meetings. We attempt to get a broad range of people there. "It would be great if some Water Board members attended." Norm Evans agrees that everything we can do to encourage communication and cooperation is to the good. Dr. Evans added: "We do long range planning, but we can't do our planning in a vacuum without knowing what your long-range plans are." Marylou Smith asked the staff to make certain that they inform the Water Board about water user meetings. Tom Sanders asked if Fort Colins had an opportunity to consider purchasing the Windy Gap water that Estes Park recently sold. Yes, was the answer. "Why didn't we?" Dennis Bode replied that cost was the primary issue. Larry Zimbleman explained that Windy Gap water costs about $2,000 an ac.ft. for development costs. Delivery costs are from $30 to $50 an ac.ft. Tom Sanders asked if the Board knew it was for sale. Rich Shannon replied that it has been for sale for years. Jo Boyd added that the newspapers have had many articles about it this past year. Jim Kuiken said it was something he knew about personally, but it was never brought up in the context of a Board meet- ing, and he thinks that is a staff oversight. "We were not given a chance to make that decision," he asserted. Rich Shannon explained that there is a history involved here. The City had an option to be a Windy Gap member and chose not to, which is controversial in itself, so to bring it back on the table would be perceived as rehashing an old issue. Jim Kuiken disagrees. There was a real feeling that Estes Park was going to sell to someone and Fort Collins had the choice to "bale out" Estes Park or let them go to Denver or some place else to sell that water. "We stood by and watched them sell it; fortunately it didn't go out of the District, but it is only one exchange away from happening." Rich Shannon said we now know that the District Board has not had any discus- sions with Thornton; how about the staff? Mr. Zimbleman assured the Water Board that District staff has not. Mr. Shannon asked, "how about Westmin- ster?" "Again, we talked with Westminster because they were quite frankly considering buying Estes Park Windy Gap water, and that was the context in which we met with Westminster, Broomfield, and with Thornton, as well as Brighton, Fort Lupton, etc." "What is your understanding about Westmin- Water Board Minute • • August 21, 1987 Page 5 ster's interest in water in the region," Mr. Shannon continued. "As I under- stand it, Westminster is considering talking to Boulder and Longmont about some exchanges for utilization of their second use of Windy Gap Water," Mr. Zimbleman responded. Nancy Gray clarified that the Board had discussed Westminster and other places during the Estes Park crisis, to sell that water. "You haven't approached any metro city about participation in Grey Mountain?" Mr. Shannon asked. "No, and that has never been discussed at the Board meeting," Ms. Gray assured the Board. Mr. Zimbleman admitted that staff has approached Thornton in an attempt to persuade them to explore other ways of doing what they propose doing. Dr. Evans stated: "On the other hand, the Four Party Agreement might open doors for something that way that perhaps is also good for everyone." Rich Shannon asked about the proposed private highway between Pueblo and Fort Collins referred to as the "Super Slab". At the last Platte River Board meeting they asked if the District could perform some kind of research to find out whether that project is taking place. He is concerned about what Thornton has already purchased but he is equally concerned about this private highway which is really a water line. There are enough influential people involved in that to make it a concern, he stressed. Mr. Zimbleman said they were not aware of it as anything but a proposed highway. "The only way it is economically viable is if you tie water and perhaps a rail line to it," Mr. Shannon explained further. He added, "then you have a Utility Corridor." He believes it is a big issue that ought to be part of the District's reconnais- sance effort. Nancy Gray would like some further information about it. Mr. Shannon said that Ray Wells is leading the effort on the project. Neil Grigg recalled that he was city manager for Lakewood for awhile. Mr. Shannon added that he served in a role similar to the general manager of the Denver Tech Center, and now he runs a business where he manages special districts. Jim Kuiken said he noticed in the newspaper that the District was proposing to stay with the 1 mill levy with the new property tax re -assessments. "How much of an increase will that be for you in terms of budget? "First of all we are obligated by government contract to collect money; if we don't we are in violation of our contract and that is why we are exempt and if the legis- lature hadn't exempted us, we would be in violation of state law or our repayment contract. Believe me, none of us water users want to reopen that repayment contract!" Secondly, about 60% of our revenues come from ad valo- rem taxes. We don't know what that increase will be because the County Assessor can't tell us. We are estimating somewhere around 40 to 45% increase. What we will do with that is not raise water rates. What is your annual budget, Mr. Kuiken asked. It is a little over $5 million. 60% of that is $3 million, 40% of $3 million is $1 million. "So conservatively, you have a million dollars coming in next year? What are you going to do with it? Mr. Zimbleman replied, if we hadn't had an increase, it would have been necessary to raise water rates. He offered to provide a copy of the budget to get more specific. He explained that, originally, the water rates would be the significant portion of their revenues. With the increase in development in Boulder County and Larimer County to a lesser degree, ad valorem taxes are going up significantly as the development occurs. What that resulted in Water Board Minutes August 21, 1987 Page 6 was that the District did not change their water rates over a number of years. When they did increase, it was very insignificant. For example, agricultural water started out at a dollar and a half 30 years ago. It is now $4.50; most of that $3.00 increase has come in the last decade. If anyone wants a copy of the budget, you are free to have one, he repeated. Norm Evans asked about integrated operations between Windy Gap and Northern District operations. There seems to be a sign of a rough spot in integrating the operations. The conclusion he reached is that if they integrated oper- ations, they would get 48,000 acre feet and if they didn't they wouldn't. Mr. Zimbleman responded that Boulder and to a degree Longmont, had some concern about the yield of the Windy Gap project, and because they were looking at doing the exchange with Westminster, they felt it was necessary to fund their own study to look at that. They hired a firm, WBLA, to do the study. In their estimates, the only way to ensure that the 48,000 acre feet was there each year, was if the two projects were operated in an integrated manner. That is what the District had planned to do anyway, he added. Norm Evans thanked Ms. Gray and Mr. Zimbleman for coming and said that they and the Board had a very good dialogue. Discussion of Water Metering Strategies Rich Shannon distributed a sheet with two water metering proposals: one the phased metering program which was previously recommended and a proposed revision with voluntary metering and a dual fee structure. Prior to the Board members expressing their thoughts on metering, Mr. Shannon summarized some of his thoughts on what is being proposed. He pointed out that seman- tics become very important in these proposals. Previously the Board recom- mended a phased metering plan that required all new construction to be met- ered, a voluntary conversion of existing homes, and implied heavily that in 3 to 5 years, when we review the effectiveness of that plan, we may become more aggressive. He candidly stated that the Council, in his opinion, asked the Water Board to be technical advisers; "They don't ask the Water Board, as a body, to be political." Your political observations are helpful, but, basi- cally, the Council wants you to provide them with technical opinion." He went on to say that the semantics go from a phased to a voluntary metering program. Phased has an implication to it; voluntary is just that. Admittedly, there are some financially significant incentives on new con- struction to go to metering, but it's not required. The financial incentive is a two tiered system that was discussed briefly at the last meeting. The voluntary conversion still exists for current residents, but the significant difference is there are no preconceptions about the future. In 3 to 5 years, "we say we'll just stop and take a look at how things are going." It acknowledges up front that this may be such a sensitive issue in Fort Col- lins, and the fear of the unknown about conversions may be such a large hurdle that we always live with a dual system. But, for today, "it's better to get half a loaf than no loaf at all," he believes. Mr. Shannon would like to say that the Water Board discussed this and can endorse that proposal. That doesn't mean everyone on the Board thinks it is the best proposal. Neil Grigg asked Mr. Shannon to summarize the financial incentives on new construction. Mr. Shannon replied that approximately $600 on Plant Invest- • • Water Board Minutes August 21, 1987 Page 7 ment Fees (PIF's) and Raw Water Rights (RWR) would be saved if the developer installed a meter. Dr. Grigg interjected, "that would be a powerful incen- tive.!" Jo Boyd asked if there would also be a difference in rates of about 20% if you are unmetered. Dennis Bode explained that part of the proposal for existing customers would be that the rates would be adjusted so they were based more on the cost of service, and that would be approximately 20% based on today's figures. Mr. Shannon clarified that the 20% rate adjustment, based on cost of service for unmetered customers, occurred as a result of the rate study and would happen regardless of what was done with meters. Dr. Boyd added, "but it comes at the same time." Mr. Shannon clarified further that staff is not saying that we will recommend a 20% increase in rates for unmetered customers this year or next year. That is not part of the package, he stressed. "For the '88 budget, we have no increase in water rates," he assured. However, we do have a proposed increase for wastewater. Tom Sanders asked what amount of water developers would be required to pro- vide for new construction, if they buy a meter. Mr. Bode said it works out to be about 2/3 of an acre foot per acre for a typical single family dwel- ling. What is it if they put in the meter? "It's roughly a 20% difference," Mr. Bode replied. At this time Dr. Evans asked that each of the members present the statements they had prepared, without interruption and within the suggested time frame of 5 minutes. Before everyone began, Rich Shannon announced that previously, he had indi- cated that the Board would meet with the Council on August 25. "It will prob- ably be October before we will be on the agenda with this subject, because in September the Council will be dealing with budget hearings," he explained. Jo Boyd was the first to present her statement and her written remarks are attached. MaryLou Smith's statement follows: When I joined the Water Board, the history that was presented to me about water metering, was that in the early 60's Black & Veatch did a study and recommended that the City begin a metering plan. At that time the Water Board chose a metering strategy that emphasized acquisition over conserva- tion, with the idea that once the City began to stop growing, at that point conserving the available supply would be very important in order to make sure that we had enough water. The idea at that time, as I understand it, was that at some point in time metering would be important. As we have discussed the metering issue the past few months,. I have constantly evaluated in my mind whether now is the time to institute water metering, or if we still have plenty of time to do that because of the various constraints. Although it is difficult for me to be on the negative side of an issue because I am basi- cally a very positive person, I still think we came up short on the argument of it being time to meter. I believe that from the statistics we've been given and what I have seen in other cities' experiences with water metering, I believe that the time in which we would need to expand our water treatment Water Board Minutes August 21, 1987 Page 8 facilities being greatly diminished by metering, has been exaggerated. In other words, when it really comes down to it, I don't believe we will be able to delay expansion of water treatment facilities, as long as we have hopes for, with water metering. Therefore, I have felt that rather than spend our PIF monies that we have collected so diligently, to pay for volun- tary metering, we should continue to use those monies we are collecting to expand our water treatment facilities to make sure that we have sufficient facilities so that at the time when we aren't continuing to grow, we would still have a well expanded system. Therefore, I have been opposed to going ahead with the water metering strategy beyond putting in the yokes. The yokes are an extremely important part of the program and we'd be greatly remiss if we weren't doing that. Without the program, retrofitting homes would become very expensive. We (the Board) voted 5 to 4 to recommend to the Council that we go ahead with the phased metering approach. Subsequently, we had the meeting with Council and I feel as if Council's concerns were not answered very well. They brought up some concerns and ideas about water metering that were not accu- rate, and I don't believe we corrected those ideas very well. I have been opposed to going ahead with metering because of the timing issue, and because I felt as if we didn't need to do that right now. Yet, I feel that Council did not get a good picture of metering. They were concerned about green lawns, yet the proposal that we have for them talks about how we would pre- vent the green lawns from turning brown. The Council was concerned that the money going into acquisitions currently, would go to meters and yet they didn't seem to understand that the PIF would be used. In other words, I feel that Council got sort of an anti -metering look and that does not please me because I'm pro metering; I'm just not in favor of the timing. I'm disturbed about that meeting. I think when we are ready to go for metering, we have some misinformation already built into the minds of Council members. Next, we came up with the proposal for revising the approach to metering in order to try to get it to go through. Well, I'm not in favor of the proposed revision at all because to me it's a patchwork approach. If we feel so strongly that we are ready to go for metering, then I'm ready -to say let's go for metering. Let's not patch this thing up with this revision. I have been opposed to metering because I have felt the timing isn't right, but if we are going to have a patch work approach, then I'm ready to say let's use our energies to go ahead with metering in a good way, in a way that is well thought out, rather than patch it up. Jim Kuiken distributed what he called a "bullet sheet." That copy is attached. "I'll let you shoot me down later," he laughed. On the voluntary metering approach, he thinks if it costs the City too much, they shouldn't do it. Under his third point, "the home owner is per- mitted to reverse his decision after a trial period," he modified that some- what by adding, "although he shouldn't be allowed to go back and forth indef- initely." Under his fourth major point, he emphasized that we shouldn't be fooling ourselves that we can delay treatment plant capacity by metering. "I don't think we should take our nest egg and use it for meters," he insisted. Under his fifth point, he stressed that it is foolish to conserve and make Water Board Minutes August 21, 1987 Page 9 water available for the Denver area. Water acquisition should be the major priority, he contends. He emphasized further that metering should be pro- moted as a means of measurement and management and not for conservation. Under point six, he emphasized that it is time to make a decision. "We are wasting a lot of time that should be going to other important issues, such as water acquisition possibilities. He concluded that he supports the staff voluntary metering proposal because it is one way to resolve the differences that are on this Board. Tom Sanders provided an outline of his statement which is attached. Follow- ing are some additional remarks. He listed 15 points and commented on each. 1) Why meter when we don't have a problem with the way we are doing it now? Let's acquire more water instead. 2) You save water and end up losing it downstream. Down the road when new water resources are not available, then think about saving. 3) He is concerned if people don't water their lawns on the scale they are now, the ground water table will diminish and the trees will begin to die. In his opinion, Xeriscape type landscaping will have a negative impact aes- thetically, and on our sinuses because it will make it "dusty." 4) Is it worth it to spend all that money to save 20 gallons per capita per day? 5) Metering will not save on peak day use. Under restricting industry, he pointed out that if we get another water consuming industry like A-B, we will have to build another treatment plant or two. 6) He modified his estimate of $5-10 million to $3-5 million. 7) He emphasized leak detection. He didn't elaborate on points 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 15. Note: Dr. Sanders noted that points 12 and 14 were primarily related to was- tewater treatment but he felt strongly about those issues. Neil Grigg's comments follow: First, I identify with Rich Shannon about the Water Board not being politi- cal. I see our role as making a clear coherent statement to the Council in an advisory mode about metering. As far as I'm concerned, it should be some- thing we could formulate on the basis of technical and financial points. I don't think we need to worry too much about strategy and politics. With that in mind, to me there are just two basic questions: 1) Is metering good for water utilities in general? 2) If the answer to that is yes, then what are our local considerations? What should we be looking at right now? If the answer is no, metering is not good for water utilities in general, we can forget about it right away, and stop talking about metering. If the answer is yes, it seems to me there are three questions that we must deal with locally: 1. What impact will it have on our raw water resources? This is a question of whether we invest our money in meters versus raw water. 2. The green lawn question he thinks is one that the Council misunderstood and which MaryLou Smith was referring to. I would be totally against meters if I thought it would wipe out our green lawns. It is my understanding that we are going to preserve our green lawns with a rate structure that preserves green lawns. 3. If meters are a good idea, what should be the timing and the strategy for putting them in? Regarding the first question, is metering good for water utilities, I line up with the American Water Works Association (AWWA). They have a policy statement that says metering is good. Water Water Board Minutes August 21, 1987 Page 10 utilities ought to meter water and sell it as a commodity. It ought to be measured and sold according to use. Not everyone agrees with the AWWA. Some people think it's just a bunch of engineers and they don't have any sensiti- vity, but I think, basically, engineers and business people would agree with this point. More important than that, just in terms of a general policy, is how these meters can be used. What benefits do they have? I would be against them if they didn't have any benefits in the system. As I see the benefits, they essentially are in two categories: 1) the demand management category. With meters, you can set a charge rate for your water so that you can some- what influence how much water people use because they'll conserve and not waste, if they are being charged according to use. 2) Also it will affect the peak rate in the sense that a lot of that peak rate use is when people are watering and they are not being careful about how much they use. There are various ways to do that, and it isn't perfect. You can't have time -of -day charging as you can with electricity. In terms of leak detection and other uses of meters, I think that is marginal. Basically it's demand management. So, looking at these factors, and especially with the point in mind that I think the Water Board needs to be clear about, I am in favor of a long term, phased metering program, as long as it's low in cost, and we don't sacrifice green lawns. I endorse what the staff has been trying to do. I don't like these shifts we are putting in place now. If we have to do those in order to sell it, I suppose we can, but I think it "fuzzes things up" to shift like we are doing now. I prefer to be straight out and say I like the long term phased metering program, and then talk about how we get there. I believe that if the Water Board goes on record as being in favor of a long term phased metering program, it's a responsible position. It's no sudden change; no shock. We are not spending $10 million on meters and having water use go down and a lot of disasters. I think it is a responsible position. I think we would make the management of the Fort Collins Water Utility look good; it shows we are responsible. Whereas, continued discussion, as Jim Kuiken says, makes us look bad. However, I don't think we should discontinue buying raw water. I think we should do that too. In that sense, I would identify with Tom Sander's strategy. To summarize, the basic reason for going to water meters is for good water utility management, but I would like to see us get there in such a way that we don't sacrifice our other goals too. Tom Moore prefaced his statement by saying that Rich Shannon had a good idea for us to focus our discussion on metering A and metering B, but "I am still on metering isn't good for the City." Mr. Moore's statement is attached. Ray Herrmann said, "I have nothing in writing and the reason is I don't have a minority report to make." His statement follows: I basically agree with the reports that have been written for and by the City. I think there is a presumption that, in the long term, we are going to have meters. We are going to have meters because it is the best way to equitably manage water in a crisis. If you are looking out at the year 2000 and beyond, sooner or later we are going to have a crisis that we are going to have to deal with. However, I think I need to come back to what has been proposed today. We had considerable discussion last time about what we really had as a policy and about what the Board had really approved. I agree with what has been pre- sented here except that the fourth issue on review in 3 to 5 years with no preconceptions is in fact what the present policy is. I don't think that Water Board Minutes August 21, 1987 Page 11 aggressive metering is the present policy. I think the Board very clearly voted on that with the 5 to 4 recommendation when we took out the strong lan- guage about a more aggressive approach. I think that the present recommend- ation of phased metering, and whether you call it voluntary or phased is con- notation and I like voluntary better. New construction will be metered, there will be voluntary conversions, and a review in 3 to 5 years to see if that's working. I think it has always been the position of this Board that the first and foremost activity should be to acquire new raw water. The met- ering policy, as stated, is not in any conflict with that whatsoever. It may need to be restated, however. Therefore, as I think the present policy is stated, I agree with it. There is still some discussion on that. I'm not sure we all agree on what it is. Norm Evan's statement follows: As you know, I've been with the Board for 25 years and I suppose my feeling is that I'm as responsible as anyone who is on the Board, for the policy we have been following. I have to confess because of that, that I have been strongly biased by the carry over of the basis for that present policy. I think it's been a correct policy and I think time has proved that, in that we have come to this point with an excellent water supply, low cost water, and we have a very delightful City and our green space is enviable by all our neighbors. As a matter of fact, we rank near the top, second only to Greeley, when people test in a scientific way in Northern Colorado, in terms of the quality of the green lawns of the City. Why Greeley ranks above us, I can't explain. I don't look back with regrets about the way the policy has turned out today, but we did feel from the very beginning that eventually, because of crisis circumstances or other circumstances, that we may want to go to metering. That is when we started the yoke program. In all of these years past, there were constant cries and demands that a more rational method ought to be used; namely metering. "Everybody meters," they said. People who would come here from anywhere outside the western region, would say "holy smokes, how can you not meter, everybody meters?" That seemed to be a natu- ral way. Those of us who have lived our lives in this region, found it to be not very strange. Just because others did it, didn't seem to be a compelling reason we should. These past years, many have protested that water is used excessively for irrigation. In fact it is used excessively in some individ- ual cases; there is no doubt about that, but is it wasted? We have felt, and I have felt at least, that whatever price that is represented by excessive irrigation, is a small enough price to pay for the quality of life that we have enjoyed because of the green lawns, green parks, etc. As I have said before, all of the waste, including the sewage water effluent and the exces- sive irrigation that goes in the ground, returns rather rapidly to the Poudre River and it becomes the supply for someone else. It's definitely not wasted! I disagree with the assertion that water is like electricity that ought to be paid for on the same basis. It's already been mentioned, but electricity is the commodity that is produced by the consumption of non- renewable fuels, and water is, generally speaking, renewable, year by year by the hydrologic cycle. If we own water which we do not use, it is available for storage at a later time. On the other hand, I view water like a public amenity such as streets and parks and recreation facilities. Streets, for example, are used in the public interest and I don't pay for the number of times I use the streets. They do give us a quality of life for which we are Water Board Minutes August 21, 1987 Page 12 willing to accept whatever inequity there may be. Certainly there is unequal use of these facilities such as streets. Is that inequity? Well, it is under the concept of inequity as it is being applied to water. This is where I just do not agree. The same thing applies to land use zoning where equity is foregone for the public good. I view water in very much the same light as these public goods. Let those who feel that the neighbor uses excessive amounts of water, accept the inequity in the public interest of a greener City. That's the way I feel about that. I do not disagree, however, with the technical analyses that the staff have made leading to the current recom- mendations. I think the technical analyses are very competent. Although there are assumptions in them, they have been necessary assumptions and are as good as we can expect. Unfortunately, the cost effectiveness of restric- tions has not been analyzed because it has been assumed that they would be unacceptable. Interestingly, I have a report that was done by Ann White and her associates at the University of Colorado Institute for Behavioral Sciences. She is the wife of Gilbert White, who is an eminent authority in water resources. His wife is an equal authority in the field of behavioral matters related to water. She and her associates did a study of 25 Northern Colorado cities and towns, on what are the attitudes of water consumers and water managers? She found, interestingly, that the consumers would prefer restrictions to higher prices, while the managers believe that restrictions are not acceptable to the consumers. I just point that out as a significant behavioral characteristic. That may not apply here as a specific case, but it seems to be a possibility. I'll summarize my biases on the issue of demand management by metering. I have to say that I'm ready to endorse the concept that is advanced by the staff report to the Council; namely that the time has come for Fort Collins to install water meters and pay for water by volume delivered. I do not wish to recommend how that is accomplished. That is a policy matter for the Council to decide with ample options that have been made available to them by the staff. I do wish to add that I share the views of others who have said that some of these proposals that have come forth to modify the original staff recommendation that we handed to Council, in ways that make it a little more palatable, but change the thrust, are just not good, in my opinion. This ended the statements of Water Board members who were present. A state- ment written by John Scott is attached. He sent it in when he found he would not be able to attend the meeting. Jim Kuiken responded to what he termed "the green lawn garbage" he has been hearing. Everyone says meters have an impact on a green lawn. I think you can provide a rate structure such that you have enough water coming in that you can water your lawn as much as you want. "It's garbage to tie brown lawns to meters! If people don't have a green lawn, it's because they are too lazy to get out there and water; or their sprinkler system is broken, not because they have a meter on their house." Neil Grigg said that this was the point that was brought up by Mayor Estrada at the work session. That's why we are discussing it because there is this conception that there is a linkage. "I don't think there is a linkage either as long as we address it through the rate structure." Water Board Minutes• • August 21, 1987 Page 13 Tom Sanders said he thinks you can handle it with a rate structure, but if you look at any City in the country --Los Angeles, St. Louis, any city that has meters, it definitely affects the watering, he insists. Chester Watson discounted the green lawn argument. He thinks the difference in cost is not that great. He lives in a townhouse and pointed out that the common area for their complex is over watered and they are metered. He added that if the economic incentives are there for metering, "you've already made the decision for the person. They are going to go for the cheaper way, espe- cially if you are talking about developers and new construction." He also believes that you shouldn't allow voluntary conversion to meters on an existing home if it does not contain a yoke. The cost can be substantial for older residences. He also thinks it is imperative to review the selected metering strategy in 3 to 5 years. Instead of remaining fixed on the reasons for and against metering, MaryLou Smith suggested that they concentrate on the process. "What do we do now?" "We have discussed the same issues many times," she said, "and I haven't heard much change." Tom Moore agreed that this was the reason for preparing the written state- ments so the Board could decide where to go from there. Ray Herrmann said what clearly has emerged from the meeting today is one fact the Board can agree on and that is the whole metering discussion should not preclude raw water acquisition. The Board believes this is the most important recommendation at this time. If he had a choice, he would put metering back on the agenda in 3 to 5 years and not until then. Norm Evans stated that the Board has wrestled with both policy and technical aspects of this question. "We have tended to vacillate on this issue," he said. However he is not critical of the process. "It doesn't make us look bad because we have debated this from different angles for a long time," he asserted. It seems to him that in the process, we have a competent technical staff who have made their analyses; they have reached their conclusions and made their views known. We have not totally, unanimously endorsed their views, but our Council has the responsibility for determining the policy. It is his feeling it is now in the Council's and City staff's province because the Water Board may not be able to resolve it themselves. He added that it may be beyond the point where the Water Board can do much more that is con- structive to help the Council. Neil Grigg was reviewing the "Sequence of Events Leading up to the Water Pol- icy Report," compiled by the staff. If there was any ambiguity in terms of the Water Board position, it was recently in terms of the Council's interpre- tation of "what our stance was and how staff felt we had actually voted." It seems to him that the only remaining action we need to take as a Board is to clarify what our position is, if there remains any ambiguity; by this he means the Board's previous votes. It looks like the last time we voted on anything was May 15. The summary said the Board took 3 separate votes on water metering strategy. On the first vote they rejected on a vote of 6 to 3 and 1 abstention, the staff recommendation with the bold language. On a second Water Board Minutes August 21, 1987 Page 14 motion to accept the staff recommendation without the bold language, it passed 5 to 4 with 1 abstention. The third vote was to accept the Water Sup- ply Policy Report which was approved 9 to 1. There is no question about that vote, he stressed. He believes that the remaining clarification needs to be concerning the 5 to 4 vote. Norm Evans asked for further clarification on that vote. Ray Herrmann who had offered the motion, explained it as follows: Basically the 5 to 4 vote was relative to the metering strategy as written in the report. "We accepted it 5 to 4 after removing the objectionable language." That language stated that we would agressively move on a metering program. Mr. Herrmann referred to the sheet that staff distributed at today's meeting on two water metering proposals. On the one labeled Prior recommendation (the one the Board approved 5 to 4) the last section says "Review of our efforts in 3 to 5 years with the expectation that additional steps will be taken." He objects to the phrase "additional steps will be taken," because it implies a more aggressive approach. He thinks it should be the same as the section in the proposed revision which reads, "Review in 3 to 5 years with no preconceptions." Rich Shannon wished to clarify what occurred from the feedback he received. In the lengthy version in the metering strategy report on p. 2 it says that we would address the following questions: 1) Should the City require a meter on the sale of a residence? 2) Should the City require meters on existing homes with yokes? 3) Should the City require all existing homes without yokes to be metered? The 1,2,3 under sub -topic C were viewed as the precon- ceptions of the "we're still going to get you" language. The feedback was "we are going to get you one way or another." Marylou Smith thinks it is very important to clarify this, because we want to be very clear about what we are recommending. Mr. Shannon said this language is misleading and it is getting us off the track. It should say, "A review of our efforts in 3 to 5 years as referenced in the original proposal." Ray Herrmann said he didn't have a problem with that. Tom Sanders praised the prepared statements that were given today because they force you to think through your arguments carefully and your viewpoint is then reflected properly in the minutes. He thinks this meeting was far more productive than most meetings in the past because of this process. He believes there is basic agreement in several areas: 1) We all want to do what is best for the City in the way we perceive it. 2) We all agree on what we have in this town in terms of landscaping is fantastic. "If we go fast with metering, there is a mix of funds. As soon as you take resources from one place, you don't use them for something else." The structure of the meeting has allowed the various viewpoints to be clearly presented and it is in a form that the City Council can take it. "They must make the decision, not us. This is a political decision," he asserted. He would go one step further and put it up to a vote. "I would go with the way the people vote on it," he concluded. Water Board Minutes August 21, 1987 Page 15 Jo Boyd agrees that this was one of the best meetings we have had in a long time. She suggested that when there is a controversial issue that we don't wait until the last minute to do what we did today. She learned a lot today because people were not allowed to shout their opinions and interrupt others. The secretary pointed out that this was the major reason that the "confusion of the last meeting was not recorded in the minutes." The Council would have been just as confused by the dialogue as they were the previous time. "Today's process was excellent!" Rich Shannon asked for a point of order. "Can we reconsider the vote on the minutes?" MaryLou Smith asked for a compromise in which the long version would be available for anyone who would request it. Tom Sanders disagreed. "I still think it is an historic record," he challenged. It was decided that the secretary would distribute the longer version to Board members and they will make the decision to accept or reject them. Jim Kuiken reminded the Board that in Rich Shannon's opening remarks he asked them to comment on the water metering proposals that staff presented. "We haven't given any clear reading on that yet --specifically the dual rate structure." Jo Boyd commented, "that's what caused people to do some shout- ing last time." MaryLou Smith believes that the Board has a choice of whether they like the proposed revision or follow Dr. Evan's suggestion that the Board allow Coun- cil to make their conclusion "based on everything we have said today for the minutes." Susan Kirkpatrick thinks what would be most helpful would be to make a stand on the two positions that staff has presented. "In other words, you don't want to bite the bullet of making the decision," Jo Boyd remarked. Ray Herrmann moved that the Board stay with the prior recommendation with the additional wording suggested earlier. Jim Kuiken proposed that instead of referring to this document, that we refer to the two originals. We are either voting on the policy as stated in the report or we are voting perhaps the second time on the dual rate structure. Rich Shannon agreed that "this is the essence." Let's have two votes," Mr. Kuiken suggested. At this point, Ray Herrmann withdrew his motion. It it past 5:00, Tom Sanders reminded the Board, and Council is not planning to discuss this until October. Can we postpone this until next meeting? It was the consensus that the Board did not want to talk about it again next month! Jim Kuiken moved that the Board approve the previous recommendation as writ- ten in the policy report and was approved previously on a 5 to 4 vote. He also suggested they have a separate vote on the dual rate structure. Neil Grigg seconded the motion. Water Board Minutes August 21, 1987 Page 16 Rich Shannon said you can vote twice so you can vote no on both if you wish. MaryLou Smith asked to have Jim Kuiken's motion removed from the table and proposed another motion. She would like the motion to say that if we choose to go with metering at this time, that we prefer the original proposal over the staff's proposed revision. She thinks this is a much clearer answer, "because many of us are opposed to some degree with metering per se, but many of us would prefer the previous recommendation to the proposed revision. "If we have two votes, it will continue to fragment us," she contends. Tom Moore suggested that in the first motion , you vote if you are in favor of metering. "The second motion is which form of metering are you in favor of?" Jim Kuiken did not wish to withdraw his motion. Chairman Evans, after some further discussion, stated that Mr. Kuiken's motion was still before the Board. The motion is that we recommend the water metering policy as stated in the Water Policy Report. What we will be voting on is metering required in new construction, voluntary conversion of existing homes, paid for by the City with PIFs from new residents, and review of the efforts in 3 to 5 years. The Board was polled with the following results: Tom Sanders, no; Neil Grigg, yes; Tom Moore, no; Ray Herrmann, yes; Norm Evans, yes; Chester Watson, no; MaryLou Smith, yes; Jo Boyd, yes; Jim Kuiken, yes. The motion passed 6 to 3. Jim Kuiken submitted a second motion to approve the staff's compromise plan of a dual rate structure. Jo Boyd seconded the motion. MaryLou Smith believes that the proposed revision is an attempt to come up with something more palatable politically, but it is a "patchwork" approach. It would be far better to go to Council and say "let's do this thing right if we are going to do it." Tom Sanders commented on the 3 to 5 year review. His objection is that there has been no scope of work spelling out how it would be done. "We need to set up beforehand, an intense control group," and what- ever else should be involved in a competent research project. Norm Evans said he agrees that the research is something the Water Board should "have a voice in." Neil Grigg would rather not vote on this. He would prefer to say that the Board has made its statement with the previous vote. Phased, voluntary and rate structuring, and decisions like that are beyond the Water Board's range of authority, he contends. If a vote is taken, he will abstain. Norm Evans asked Jim Kuiken to clarify the meaning of a dual rate structure. Mr. Kuiken explained that in the memo that was passed out to the Board at the last meeting, it stated that a developer would have the choice when he comes into the City of either metering new homes with the incentive of lower development fees or allowing the customer to remain on a flat rate and the developer would be required to pay higher development fees. The Board was polled with the following results: Jim Kuiken, yes; Jo Boyd, no; MaryLou Smith, no; Chester Watson, no; Norm Y Water Board Minutes August 21, 1987 Page 17 Evans, no; Ray Herrmann, no; Tom Moore, no; Tom Sanders, no; Neil Grigg, abstained. The motion failed 7 to 1 with 1 abstention. Other Business Rich Shannon informed the Board that staff is meeting with the Boxelder Sani- tation District to look at areas of mutual cooperation. Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. Water Board/Secretary ary