HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 08/15/19860
MINUTES
Water Board
August 15, 1986
Members Present
Henry Caulfield, Vice President, Tom Moore, Stan Ponce, Tom Sanders, Ray
Herrmann (alt.), Jo Boyd (alt.)
Staff Present
Rich Shannon, Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Webb Jones, Andy Pineda, Curt Miller,
Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney
Guest
Ari Michelsen, Natural Resources Board
Members Absent
Norm Evans, President, Jim O'Brien, Neil Grigg, Dave Stewart, Mary Lou Smith,
John Scott
In the absence of President Norm Evans, Henry Caulfield, Vice President,
opened the meeting. The following items were discussed:
Minutes
The minutes of July 18, 1986 were approved.
Sub -committee Memo - "Picnic Rock" Issue
Jo Boyd, a member of the sub -committee summarized what had occurred since the
last Board meeting. The committee drafted a memo which the Board members
received in their packets along with a memo from the Natural Resources Board
sub -committee. Essentially, the Water Board's and the Natural Resources
Board's thoughts were similar. Dr. Boyd related that the committee made some
suggestions in the memo with regard to the proposed fees and expressed their
support for the Parks and Recreation Division's efforts to provide safe,
clean parking and restroom facilities for river rafters. However, their rec-
ommendation relates specifically to the City -owned land in question. This
land was purchased to assure access and right-of-way for two subsurface water
transmission lines coming from the City's Poudre River water treatment plant.
The staff assured the committee that the Division's plan, as prepared, would
not prevent the City's ready access to the transmission lines. Therefore, the
committee recommended that Council agree to sell or trade the land in ques-
tion, with the understanding that the City retain access and dedicated
right-of-way, including the right to restrict building directly over the
pipelines. In addition the contract should specify that the City Water and
Wastewater Utility staff must approve the final project design to ascertain
that the City's access to its water lines is protected.
Water Board Minutes
August 15, 1986
Page 2
Ari Michelsen, who was present at the meeting to represent the Natural
Resources Board, reiterated that the two recommendations are very close. The
major difference is that the Water Board recommended selling or trading the
land, whereas the Natural Resources Board prefers that the Parks Division
come up with other alternatives than simply selling or trading the land.
Dr. Boyd raised the point that it might be in the best interest of the Util-
ity, from a sanitation standpoint, to have that area cleaned up, because of
the pollution to the drainage area from debris and sanitary wastes, etc.
Mike Smith explained that the area is not in the drainage for our water
treatment plant, but it is in the drainage area for the Greeley water treat-
ment plant.
Henry Caulfield suggested some changes in paragraphs two and three on page
two of the recommendation. Dr. Boyd proposed the following wording: "We
therefore recommend that whatever plan to which the Council agrees, an
understanding is necessary that the City retain either fee title to the land
or dedicated right-of-way, including the right to restrict building directly
over the pipelines. In addition, the decision should specify that the City
Water and Wastewater staff must approve the final project design to ascertain
that the City's access to its water lines is protected."
Mike Smith said that he talked with Joe Maurier of the Parks Division and
after he learned of the Natural Resources Board's recommendation, his
preference was to attempt to work out the differences before anything goes to
the Council. The Division has a lot invested in the project and they would
like to see a plan implemented. They realize it may not go if there is a
negative recommendation from a board. Henry Caulfield suggested the Board
adopt the language which they have come up with as a tentative position of
the Water Board pending further discussions with the State Parks Division.
Jo Boyd moved that the Board adopt the revisions in the recommendation as
stated previously giving the Board a tentative position on the "Picnic Rock"
issue and allowing the sub -committees from the Water Board and the Natural
Resources Board to meet with the State Parks and Recreation Division prior to
making a recommendation to the Council. Following a second by Tom Moore, the
Board passed the motion unanimously.
Addendum to City/Districts Agreement
Mike Smith introduced the proposed addendum to the City/Districts agreement
which was included in the Board members' packets. He explained that the
original agreement was entered into in February of 1985. This addendum
addresses two issues: (1) modification of the existing service boundary
between the City and the District to accommodate a new trunk sewer, and (2)
establishment of a policy to address District standby taps located in the
City's service area.
The City/District service area boundary change is directly related to a
change to the Urban Growth Area boundary which was considered and approved by
the City Council last year. The new service boundary, as described in the
... ....._.._.
f •
Water Board Minutes
August 15, 1986
Page 3
addendum and shown on the drawing that was distributed with the memo, will
allow additional land to be served by a new trunk sewer, thus lowering the
overall per unit cost for the entire development. The proposed boundary
change has been reviewed and approved by the City/District Steering Committee
and Districts' Boards. It is a fairly routine change and the staff is
comfortable with it, Mr. Smith added.
The standby tap issue is more complicated, and although it is not
controversial, it is difficult to understand, Mr. Smith related. The third
paragraph from the memo reads: "Paragraph 9 of the Intergovernmental
Agreement provides for the establishment of policies regarding the activation
of standby taps owned by the district and located in the City's service area.
Standby taps are pre -purchased taps which have not been activated or
connected. The owners of the standby taps have paid all the necessary water
fees (tap fees, PIFs, and water rights) in addition to a small monthly charge
(usually one half the minimum monthly charge). Some of the existing standby
taps are over 20 years old. There are currently about 25 District standby
taps located in the City's service area. About 15 of these taps can be
served by the City and the other 10 taps would have to be served by the
District."
The final paragraph of the memo reads: "The Steering Committee has studied
the standby tap situation and has recommended a policy whereby the City would
be compensated for assuming the responsibility of serving standby taps.
Basically, the District would issue the City a `tap certificate' for each
standby tap the City agrees to serve and then the City would have the right
to sell the `tap certificate' to anyone wanting to acquire a new tap on the
District's system. The District has also agreed to help facilitate the sale
of any 'tap certificates' the City acquires. The Districts' Boards have
reviewed and approved the proposed standby tap policy as presented in the
agreement addendum."
Henry Caulfield asked Mr. Smith to explain, in more detail, the standby tap
issue. As he understands it, what we are trying to do is compensate the City
for the new service we are going to provide and not take away from the
District what has already been paid to them. He added, "Why must we go
through this process?" Mr. Smith responded that Mr. Caulfield grasps the
concept very well. The reason we are going through this process rather than
charging money is the District doesn't want to "take money out of their
pocket," and pay us. What basically happens is when the City takes over the
tap, the City receives a certificate. The City gives the District the
certificate. Subsequently, the next, customer that requests a tap from the
District, the City sells their tap to them, so there is no money coming
directly from the District. Mr. Smith admitted that it is a rather unusual
arrangement, but that is how the District prefers to handle it. Since there
was still some confusion, Mr. Smith went through the procedure step by step.
The District has issued a standby tap for someone who wants to purchase a tap
but does not wish to connect it yet. The customer pays all the connection
fees, listed earlier from the memo. They now have a standby tap. Part of the
Water Board Minutes
August 15, 1986
Page 4
ownership of that tap involves a small monthly fee to keep it active. There
are a number of these in the District that are also in the City service area,
and will obviously be served by the City when the customer develops the
property. Those are the ones we are trying to resolve, Mr. Smith emphasized.
Fifteen can be served by the City; the other ten cannot. When the customers
want to activate the 15 taps, they will be served by the City. The problem
we are trying to overcome, is if they are going to be served by the City,
they would have to pay all the fees again to Fort Collins. The obvious
answer is that since they have already paid the District, the District should
turn the payment over to the City. The District, however, does not feel
comfortable doing that. Instead they issue a certificate stating that they
owe the City a tap. The City doesn't charge anything to connect the customer,
but the customer begins paying the normal monthly charges to the City once
the service is connected.
There was a lengthy discussion regarding the City's providing raw water for
Southridge Golf Course which is now a public course.
Tom Moore asked why, according to the map, there is an urban growth area
without a service boundary. Mr. Smith explained that the District serves
everything south of the heavy dashed line. The dot -dash boundary is the
urban growth line. The City can't serve the area Mr. Moore referred to but
it is inside the Urban Growth Boundary. There are also other areas inside the
UGB that the City does not serve.
Tom Sanders asked, "Where is the City going to get hurt on this?" Mike Smith
responded that he doesn't think the City will be hurt. He thinks it is a
positive move in that the City is taking care of customers that find
themselves in a complicated situation. This agreement helps to treat the
customer fairly, he added. Neither the City nor the District really loses
anything. Dr. Sanders asked if the District's and the City's fees are fairly
close. Dennis Bode replied that they are.
Tom Sanders moved that the Water Board recommend approval of the Addendum to
the City/Districts Agreement. Jo Boyd provided a second, and the motion
passed by a unanimous vote.
Water Issues Committee Update
Henry Caulfield pointed out that a packet of information containing two items
prepared by staff was distributed at today's meeting. One item related to
the price of local water stock, information that was requested at an earlier
Board meeting. The other item was an outline titled "Water Supply for the
City of Fort Collins." This outline was the outgrowth of the sub -committee
and their desire to re-evaluate water supply policies for the City of Fort
Collins.
Mike Smith discussed the outline further. He explained that items 9 and 10
on the outline are the committee's ultimate goal --- to be able to recommend
a water supply policy and subsequently, to recommend a water supply
acquisition plan. In order to achieve those goals, "we need to re -pave some
1
Water Board Minutes
August 15, 1986
Page 5
ground and we plan to provide as much information as we can on the history of
our water supply, our current supply and demands, the potential issues that
may impact those supplies, future water demands, and supply requirements," he
continued. In addition, staff will explain our current water policy and new
factors which may affect that policy, such as the Drought Study and Metro
Denver water acquisitions. Next, staff will examine which alternate water
supply policies the Board may want to look at. There may be a need to analyze
the reliability of supply, timing, and an active or passive acquisition mode.
Raw water requirements and regional participation/cooperation are also areas
where we may want to pursue something different. Finally, an evaluation of
alternate policies would occur. This will require a substantial time
commitment to finally lead to a recommended water supply policy. It could
turn out to be what we are doing now, but nevertheless, it is necessary to go
through the process. At the end we would presumably recommend a water supply
acquisition plan.
Mike Smith went on to explain another item in the handouts, a sheet listing
Major Water/Wastewater Utility Projects Involving Water Board Participation
and Action. Staff listed some major projects in which the Board will be
involved. Each project was listed along with its status. The projects named
were: the Water Supply Report, Response to the May Meeting at the Marriott,
the Metering Report, the Wastewater Rate Study, Regional Water Facilities
Committee, Anheuser-Busch Water and Wastewater Rates, the Poudre Basin Study,
and an Enhanced Education Program. Mr. Smith indicated the status of each
project. Board members were pleased to receive this information which will
give them an idea of what to expect in the coming months.
Rich Shannon said that the Board needs to give the Poudre Study a little more
thought with regard to how they want to use their time in the next few
months. He suggested that perhaps Larry Simpson of the Northern Colorado
Water Conservancy District could give a presentation to the Water Board and
the Natural Resources Board. This is a project about which the two Boards
need to hear the nature of the concerns and questions that are being raised
by each of the Boards. As a result, the Council will have a more consistent
and coordinated briefing paper from the Boards.
The question was asked, "Is there enough staff to pursue the proposed study
which Mike Smith outlined briefly earlier?" Mr. Smith answered, "let's wait
until after the committee meeting on the 27th. If the Board is comfortable
with the way staff is progressing, we will be fine; if not, staff will
re-evaluate the possibility of additional help." He added that we need to
make certain that we don't develop too many high priorities for this study.
Mike Smith distributed a new color water supply map which Board members will
find useful as a reference.
Water Board Minutes
August 15, 1986
Page 6
Staff Reports
A. Treated Water Production Summary
Dennis Bode reported that water use continued to be high in July,
primarily because there was little rain. Precipitation has been below
average for three months and the water use has reflected that. A peak
day of 50.9 mgd was reached in July. That is getting close to capacity.
Mike Smith assured the Board that by the summer of 1988 Plant No. 2
should be operating at 64 mgd. Tom Sanders asked if we could have a
problem during the summer of 1987. It could be tight, but staff will be
"watching it very closely."
Tom Sanders asked if Anheuser-Busch would be on line in 1988. Mr. Smith
said they would. "Will that compound the problem?" Dr. Sanders continued.
Perhaps the City could work out a peaking capacity plan with Greeley he
suggested. Mr. Smith explained that alternatives will be explored in the
future.
Tom Moore suggested that staff create some publicity through the media to
inform the public of the high use and try to get them to cut down on
their use during the peak times. Dennis Bode thinks this is a good idea
to work on for next summer. This summer we are reaching the point where
the demands are going down.
Committee Reports
B. Bylaws
Tom Moore announced that Henry Caulfield had submitted a new Article VII
called "Relations with Staff" which is attached to the proposed revised
Bylaws. It was suggested that reference to the ordinance removing the
limit of terms for Water Board members be in the Bylaws. Regarding the
discussion last meeting about removing the City Manager as a voting
member of the Board, it was learned that this is included in the City
Charter, and must be voted on to be removed. The Board decided to allow
the City Manager to decide if he wishes to remain as a voting member of
the Board. If he decides he doesn't, the Board can recommend to the
Charter Review Committee to drop that phrase from the Charter.
In Article III, Board Composition, Section A, the following wording was
proposed with regard to the unlimited terms: "The Water Board consists
of ten regular members appointed by City Council serving "an
indeterminate number of four-year terms (cite ordinance) etc."
Regarding Mr. Caulfield's proposed new article the following changes were
suggested: B would read, "Staff should feel free to be an active
participant in Board meetings and will give the Board its best
professional advice. Section D would read, "The staff shall communicate
to the Board any recommendations or opinions it has with regard to issues
before the Board and shall register its dissent, if any, to decisions of
the Board."
... _.___....._ ...
Water Board Minutes
August 15, 1986
Page 7
These items will be brought up for further discussion at the next
meeting.
Other Business
Tom Sanders asked how the staff prepares the agenda. Are Board members given
the option of contributing items to be on the agenda? Mike Smith explained
that a draft agenda is prepared by the staff and the secretary communicates
by phone with the Water Board President to obtain his approval and ask if he
wants other items on the agenda. If individual members want to submit items
for consideration, they may communicate with the President who will inform
the secretary at the time of agenda revision and approval.
Tom Sanders related that he read an article regarding water treatment where
THM's in the future will have to meet a requirement of less than 100
micrograms per liter. Granulated activated carbon will probably be necessary
if this occurs. Dr. Sanders asked if staff has taken this into consideration
for the expanded treatment facility currently under construction. Mike Smith
responded that the City does not want to go to that expense at this point. He
added "our THM levels are such that the requirements could be cut in half and
we could still meet them." Dr. Boyd related that the cost of using g.a.c. is
outrageous. Dr. Sanders admitted that, but he said it appears the
regulations are moving in that direction and we should be prepared.
Henry Caulfield asked if there is any way to alter what we are doing so that
it could be added on a least cost basis. Mr. Smith replied that the staff
thinks it can be done if it must be done, but they don't see THM regulations
getting down to those levels for quite awhile." Staff feels comfortable that
they can adapt the existing system to that if the need comes about. Dr. Boyd
added that, furthermore, there may be more advanced technology in ten years
and what you had put in would be totally outdated and useless.
Mike Smith said that staff will give the Water Board a summary of the
Amendments to the New Drinking Water Regulations within the next couple of
months.
Dr. Sanders asked with A-B coming on line, are we going to be changing any of
our processes; are water treatment, fluoridation, etc. going to remain the
same? Mike Smith replied that "any process we are changing is not because of
A-B, but because we have found some better, more economical ways to treat the
water."
Molly Nortier announced that a trip to the Michigan Ditch and Joe Wright
Reservoir is scheduled for Thursday, August 28. Those who plan to go should
meet at the Service Center at 8:30 a.m. Transportation and lunch will be
provided.
Rich Shannon related that Ward Fischer has learned from what he thinks is a
reliable source, that another "phantom buyer" has purchased 100 shares of
WSSC. Thornton has assured Mr. Fischer that they did not purchase it.
Water Board Minutes
August 15, 1986
Page 8
Mike Smith reported that prior to the meeting he received a call from Manuel
Pineda who is on the Board of Directors of North Poudre. He has heard that
someone is trying to put together 500 shares of North Poudre.
Jo Boyd said she had read that an insurance company was considering
purchasing water in this area for investment purposes. Mike Smith explained
that a man named Parker has an investment group organized for that purpose.
Tom Sanders asked who directs Dennis Bode regarding his vote at WSSC
meetings, for example. Mr. Bode said the City generally has taken a neutral
position. Mr. Bode is a member of the Boards of Larimer County Canal No. 2
and Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Co. There have been votes on PV&L during
critical times which the City has voted on.
Dr. Sanders. thinks we should address that in the Bylaws. Perhaps Water
Board should direct the City's representative when a controversial issue
emerges, he added.
Mike Smith stressed that the stockholders of the two Boards voted Dennis Bode
onto the two boards of directors. The City didn't have anything to do with
it. Mr. Bode said the Boards want the City to have some involvement in their
decisions and be of help to them at times in coordination, etc.
Henry Caulfield contends that the Water Board ought to examine this question.
It could be important in the future -- particularly, who is going to
represent the City at WSSC meetings?
Paul Eckman said there are many issues involved. You have to look at the
jurisdiction of the Water Board to direct someone to vote in some way. You
must look at the liability of the member of the Board of Directors of a ditch
company and how will the representative feel if he has to vote in some way
that might expose him to personal liability? You need to look at how the
Council thinks about this issue.
Mr. Caulfield suggested that in cases where members of Boards are appointed
by the Council, the member should seek advice from the Water Board in the
exercise of this position. In any case, he said, this is a matter which
needs some careful consideration.
Since there was no —further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
Water Board Secretary