Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 02/26/1998WATER UTILITIES BOARD MINUTES Thursday, February 26, 1998 3:00 - 5:55 p.m. Light and Power Training Room 700 Wood Street COUNCIL LIAISON Chuck Wanner (Present) STAFF CONTACT Molly Nortier - 221-6681 Paul Clopper, Chair, Alison Adams, Vice Chair, Robert Ward, Dave Frick, David Lauer, Joe Bergquist, Howard Goldman, Dave Rau STAFF Mike Smith, Wendy Williams, Gale McGaha Miller, Dennis Bode, Ben Alexander, Bob Smith, Dave Agee, Marsha Hilmes, Susan Hayes, Michael Ozog, Beth Molenaar GUESTS John Bigham - Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Greg McMaster - Avery Park Leadership Team Gary Vette - Woodbox Board of Directors, Avery Park neighborhood Dena Goode - Neighborhood Liaison MEMBERS ABSENT (All excused) Tom Brown, Tom Sanders, John Morris, George Reed Chairman Paul Clopper opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: MINUTES Robert Ward moved that the minutes of January 22, 1998 be approved as distributed. After a second from David Lauer, the motion was approved unanimously. Water Utilities Board Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 2 UPDATE• NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT John Bigham reported that there is a total of 98,672 ac-ft of total storage space available in the NCWCD system, and that includes the west and east slopes. "We only have 13,000 ac-ft of storage space on the east slope, but with normal runoff, we will have more than enough to fill that space." Mr. Bigham said the snowpack has gained somewhat in the last few days. At the moment we are at about 90% of average. With the usual snowfall in March and April and with the current storage, the District should be able to provide a normal supply of water. "We expect to have a 50% quota again this year," he predicted. Bob Smith began by saying that Stormwater Utility staff has a number of issues they want to update the Board on: 1) Precipitation Frequency Study; 2) Fairbrooke Channel Improvements, work plan and schedule; 3) Canal Importation Basin estimated project cost impact and new projects; Old Town project will be addressed at March meeting; 4) Community Development Block Grants Precipitation Frequency Study Susan Hayes, Staff Engineer for Stormwater, discussed the Precipitation Frequency Study and Fairbrooke. She is the project manager for the precipitation study. She said after the storm there were a number of questions about whether Stormwater design data was accurate, and it was necessary to incorporate the Flood of 1997 into the information. Stormwater set up a task force and lured WRC Engineering to do a precipitation study. WRC's current scope is based on performing an initial broad brush level of analysis to determine whether a detailed analysis is necessary. She distributed the minutes for their first meeting (they have had two). The purpose of the precipitation study is to take the current numbers for design storms and bring them up to date. The study will include 20 years of data that currently is not included in the statistical analysis, and of course, the 1997 storm data. There has also been considerable feedback from citizens about rainfall amounts, so as a part of the study, they will be taking a qualitative look at rainfall patterns in Fort Collins. She said the gauge at CSU is the only official one in Fort Collins, so feedback from the public is important. She went on to talk about the members on the task force. She pointed out there is a wide variety of people; regulatory, Colorado Water Conservation Board, FEMA, private citizens, CSU representatives, two members of the Water Utilities Board, Larimer County representatives, etc. She remarked that they have very spirited meetings with a diversity of opinions and subject matter, e.g. the effects of global warming, topography and urbanization. She stated the standard practice of statistical analysis initially indicates even incorporating our 1997 storm, there is not a significant impact on rainfall rates. She acknowledged there will be considerable debate about how to incorporate the `97 storm. There might even be a dissenting opinion coming out of the task force. She went on to say that she thinks the statistics are going to be straightforward. They are working with NOAA to conform with whatever statistical analysis they will do in the future. Water Utilities Board Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 3 Ms. Hayes included a map of the qualitative rainfall analysis. This was a plotting of the weather watchers' sites meteorologist Jim Wirshborn has established. What the task force has been discussing is how to segment areas and analyze particular storms. They have chosen about 20 storms that vary in amounts of rainfall and patterns to determine if there is a pattern of more rainfall on the west side of town. For certain types of storms, that is certainly true. "What we want to know is if there are other types of storms that seem to occur just as frequently, that would have an opposite effect." The group will then plot and analyze the data. "It should be interesting to see what we come up with," she said. Dave Rau asked if the weather watchers are uniform in the way they collect their data. "They are uniform in that Jim Wirshborn has a standard gauge and standard forms they use. However, each one has his own individual quirks as to when they write down their data, whether it's 24 hour data or what that 24 hours represented," Ms. Hayes replied. Mr. Rau also asked if the task force was going to look at the cost effectiveness of having different design criteria also. "This study is to give us the base knowledge to say what would be the impact of going from a 2.89" storm to a 5" storm, if that were the criteria, so the decision and policy - makers would have good data," Ms. Hayes responded. Is seems to Paul Clopper the City is going through the process of self-examination and assessment now "because we have a storm that hit us. Are there other cities along the front range, like Loveland, Longmont or Boulder, who are looking at their data now because of what happened to us?" "I don't know specifically what each community is doing. However, we are in contact with the Colorado Water Conservation Board, and they have a pulse on what is happening," Ms. Hayes replied. It should be noted the CWCB is doing their own study on extreme storms, and trying to incorporate data and come up with information that would reflect topographical effects. She said NOAA has also been trying to get funding to update all of their data. "It would be interesting to see what other Front Range and eastern plains cities are doing," she added. Dave Frick related that the CWCB is actually looking at funding NOAA in their study. "Since they are funding it, they are writing specifications in their contract in what they are requesting. They will provide NOAA with data that is non -official, that CWCB and communities and others have collected. It's looking more Eke a state-wide effort," he concluded. "This particular effort doesn't involve the process of transforming the rainfall into runoff, does it?" Mr. Clopper asked. "That's correct," Ms. Hayes replied. "It is base data for rainfall. The next step will be updating the master plans, and looking into run-off. Unfortunately, this storm was so big it's not particularly useful for calibration," she added. Fairbrooke Channel Improvements Ms. Hayes summarized the Fairbrooke area situation. The Fairbrooke neighborhood is in the Canal Importation Basin. It is along a natural drainageway that has been identified in Stormwater's master plan. She pointed it out on the map. The Fairbrooke system comes down through the Brown Farm Water Utilities Board Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 4 and Fairbrooke neighborhoods and drains into the Fairbrooke Pond; then heads out to the Canal Importation Channel and discharges into Spring Creek. She went on to explain how the 1997 storm impacted the neighborhood. She pointed out the Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal on the map. It goes from north to south and intercepts the drainage waters. The detention pond was built behind a relocated section of the PV&LC (a ten -foot high embankment). Because of the magnitude of the storm, the embankment overtopped and was subject to severe erosion. Luckily it did not fail completely, but there was significant damage. The neighborhood had already been upset by the process the City and the developer went through in getting this area built. They did not want the ditch relocated. They felt very strongly the relocation of the ditch was the cause of the localized drainage problems, and the reason for what happened the night of the storm. "I'm not saying I agree with that, but I want you to know their side of the situation," she commented. Right after the storm the City made some immediate repairs to the embankment. "We had identified, even before the storm, there were still some problems that needed to be addressed, regardless of having the detention pond. Unfortunately the pipe location that was coming out of the embankment was directed straight for a cul-d'sac. There were some other restrictions and some known flooding problems in the area, and we had been working on trying to address those problems. After the storm we also recognized some additional problems we would like to solve. Since August, we have been working very closely with the task force from the neighborhood and the Stormwater sub- committee." The Utility hired ICON Engineering who helped put together alternatives to address the problems in the neighborhood: the embankment, the downstream flooding problems, and assess the overall design of the area.It's very complicated because of the ditches, etc. in the area. The detention pond is greatly impacted by what comes in from the PV&LC. As it turns out, the volume needed just for that volume of water is substantial, compared to total volume needed for just local development adjacent to the pond. "Through a series of meetings, sometimes contentious, with the neighborhood, we came down to a solution we could all buy into at this time until further study is done," she continued. "It basically involves making sure we feel comfortable with the volume of the pond, making sure there are safety factors in there such as a spillway, increasing the channel downstream, and addressing the localized flow into Dorset Court." Mr. Rau asked if that was improved in July, prior to the flood. "It was in place; however there were restrictions across it such as a bike path that had been built in the `70s by a developer," Ms. Hayes explained. She pointed out on the map the channel capacity in one area was not sufficient. A little farther downstream, it had the capacity, not for that storm, but a 100-year storm. What was happening was the bike path diverted the water and moved it into Dorset Court. "Our improvements include increasing the capacity of that channel," she said. Ms. Hayes went on to say the neighborhood felt the City's analyses could not be trusted, and "we had made mistakes in the past and they didn't want us to continue to make those." She said Mike Water Utilities Board Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 5 Smith came up with an elegant solution. "We were struggling with whether we should buy lots in the adjacent development of Fairbrooke Heights, and the neighborhood felt strongly that we should buy them."They continued to think the City didn't have the correct numbers in the past, so why should they believe the numbers are right now? "What we are proposing to do is purchase the southern lots along Indian Peaks Place for the potential of increasing the volume in the pond. We will continue on with our design studies to ensure exactly what volume we think we need here," she said. "If it turns out we do not need the additional volume to expand the pond, we then reserve the right to sell back the lots for development." "Over what period of time are you talking about doing that evaluation?" David Lauer asked. "Over the next few months; we will begin the study in March and we hope to complete it by next winter," Ms. Hayes answered. "The key to making all this work, is making the spillways work and getting the ditch flow out of the pond. She explained by referring to the map how that would work. "Before, those flows spilled into the pond and now you propose to spill them directly into the drainageway?" Mr. Rau asked. "That's right," Ms. Hayes replied, "but we will still have the west flows coming in." She said the bottom line is, "are we going to buy the protection for the 8 inches of rain that fell in their neighborhood, versus the 3 inches that we would typically design for? That's where the precipitation study comes in too, by giving everyone a level of comfort that we are using reliable numbers." The overall system includes a parallel ditch next to the PV&L to collect water. What ICON pointed out to us is we may have an opportunity, if we have all this detention in this area, to eliminate portions of the dual ditch system. "If we can keep the drainage patterns from west to east, rather than intercepting the water and taking it south to Spring Creek, that might be a very good use of our money," she explained. "If you are spilling from the north directly into the drainage channels, how does that affect the downstream performance in the system?" Mr. Rau asked. "That's the other key. Part of making all this work, is constructing the Hughes Stadium Pond west of Overland Trail so we can get some detention upstream. For the interim conditions, until we get all of this system in, we'll still exceed Fairbrooke Pond, but we don't exceed it anymore than we already have." Ms. Hayes repeated the schedule for the Fairbrooke Channel Improvements: 1) Begin construction, interim improvements - First or second week of March 2) Complete construction of ditch related items - By April 15, 1998 3) Complete remaining construction - By April 30, 1998 The remaining study and design work for the final improvements will begin in March. Construction of the final improvements will occur in the FalVWinter of 1998/1999. Paul Clopper had a concern about the credibility gap with the neighborhood. If it does turn out, that we sell the lots back, it seems to him we will return to square one with the credibility. "What are you doing to address that?" "Part of the credibility gap revolved around the review and approval of this particular development," Ms. Hayes began. "There were errors in the modeling and the incorrect model was used initially. Once those problems are identified, and we get those corrected, Water Utilities Board Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 6 that goes a long way towards gaining credibility," Ms. Hayes responded. She said they didn't have time to do that kind of detailed analysis and design, basically a master plan update, in time to get something in this spring. "I think they feel comfortable with ICON and with staff. It's just the history is difficult," she assured the Board. "Good decisions need to be made here on out to gain their trust," she stressed. Mr. Ciopper continued by saying it doesn't play very well that the storm was much greater than the design standards called for. "That's the last thing those people want to hear, I'm sure. How are you dealing with that?" "I think we have been very up front with them that it would be considered a policy change to provide more than 100-year protection," Ms. Hayes explained. "In addition, the precipitation study is supposed to be helping with that; it will provide the data to present to policy makers. We have told them we can't make the changes without approval from the decision makers. We have said we would provide them with the information and would welcome their feedback, and then proceed." Mr. Rau wanted to clarify if the design Ms. Hayes was talking about would provide 500-year flood protection. "Yes, it would," she replied. "Is that a policy change?" he asked. "In this case it is inadvertent because the pond is already there. We are just changing how it functions. It would be exceeding our current policy," she explained. After a question about the mistakes that were made, Ms. Hayes gave a brief description of the development review process. "We try to provide a greater level of review, but it is never the level of understanding that the designer has. It is still a cursory review; we must rely on the engineer for the details," she stressed. Mike Smith suspects that one issue may come back. "When we finish all the work, and the pond is the right size and if the lots are not needed, I think the neighborhood will still object to the lots being sold," he predicted. "Has this resulted in your assessing the ways you go about reviewing future development plans, or do you feel comfortable with your current process?" Robert Ward asked. Ms. Hayes said she can only speak for herself in master planning and being responsible for handing out the models. "We have a pretty good system for keeping track of the models, but we have dozens of models to monitor. I think it has made me more aware of making sure what we are giving out is accurate," she responded. Bob Smith mentioned that, for Community Development Review, they are talking about how we can change some things. He also mentioned Fairbrooke was a project that was not understood clearly. There was a developer who built the project for the City; it went through the development review process. "If it were a capital project, we use a different process," he pointed out. "We are in the process of hiring a consultant to help us review and amend the modified process," Mike Smith said. Prioritization of Basin Updates Bob Smith said staff has identified Canal Importation, West Vine and Old Town basins as priorities as a result of the 1997 storm. The idea is to come to the March meeting and continue discussions about Canal Importation and initiate discussions about Old Town. The discussion will focus on the financial aspect of the basins, what kinds of improvements will be needed and the timing in each Water Utilities Board Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 7 case. The plan for water flowing from west to east, is to intercept it and take it to Spring Creek. Mr. Smith provided a list of the projects for reference and pointed them out on a map: New Mercer from Elizabeth south, Larimer No. 2 from City Park south (this area has been constructed) and Pleasant Valley & Lake from Overland Trail to Spring Creek. Clearview and Plum Street are also on the list. "Because this basin was hit hard by the storm, the questions are how long it will take to put new improvements in place, and what will need to be done to accelerate those. Under the current financial system, it could be 20 years before new improvements are constructed because the fees in that basin are only $3.58. "We currently have some revenues in that basin for some of the improvements. At the March meeting we will propose what we can do with the revenues we have and what the fees would have to be to accelerate the improvements." The projects are categorized as new and master plan projects. The new projects are ones that have been identified as a result of the storm which are the Plum Channel, Fairbrooke Heights and the Clearview Channel. The master plan improvements are Canal Channel Phase V, a channel south of Prospect, Rodeo Detention Pond on the west side of town and New Mercer, south of Elizabeth. It is presumed that we will have to do debt financing with a 20-year payback at 6% with a semi-annual payment. The ERUs are the Equivalent Residential Units, the number of properties that have been identified in that basin. There are 7745 ERUs which is the average that is used until the time the basin is built out. For example, for the Canal Basin, phase V, the yearly cost would be $7.37 and the monthly cost would be $.61. An ERU is a single family residential lot of about 8600 sq. ft. "That gives you an idea of the magnitude of some of these projects," he said. When the master plan was adopted, it did not include improvements to Clearview or Plum. That is a question that needs to be answered if we want to update the master plan. The estimated cost of the improvements will be nearly $19 million if everything is included. That is assuming we are not using any of the revenues we have right now. We currently collect roughly $300,000 in that basin from the fees, and above that is what we get from development fees. It is not realistic to do all the projects at once. You have to look at the timing of the improvements and prioritize them. We want to do the same thing with Old Town when we look at it. David Lauer asked what the $3.58 fee is buying right now. "It is buying the debt financing for the improvements already put in place," Mr. Smith replied. "A component of the $3.58 is minor capital. We spend $20,000 a year on minor capital. We need to determine if that is enough money for this basin as it gets older. "Is there any O&M in the fee," Ms. Adams asked. "It's strictly capital," Mr. Smith answered. He explained that on the utility bill there are two separate lines, one is storm O&M and the other is storm improvements. "What we are going to do next month for the Canal Importation Basin is bring a financing plan to the Board; showing, for example, 5 years ago to 10 years ahead." There will be different options, scenarios and levels of funding. If the Board has other ideas, staff will also look at those. Eventually the Council needs to have something recommended to them about changing the fees, "so we can get things built." Council Liaison Chuck Wanner said that one of the points he will be interested in seeing, since, basically, the way it's financed is being changed, is do the benefits move forward commensurate Water Utilities Board Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 8 with time? "In other words, if you do it all quickly, at the front end of the 20 years, you get some benefits from the projects that are accelerated. Does it exceed or is it equal to the costs that are accelerated by incurring the interest which goes from about 100% - 180%?' "You spend 80% 'more; are you getting that much more in benefits?'Dave Rau clarified. "How many of those benefits are you going to realize if you don't have another major flood?' David Lauer asked. "That is part of the policy question," Mr. Wanner said. "Ifyou go from the 100 to the 500-year flood, it just may be latent, a protective risk management benefit, rather than real benefits," Mr. Lauer remarked. "Are there any other sources of funding, like a grant?" Joe Bergquist asked. Mike Smith said the next part of the discussion will be on Community Development Block Grants. Community Development Block Grants Mr. Smith said that representatives from HUD met with City and County staff. They said they had money that was left over from Grand Forks for flood mitigation projects. The numbers they specified at that time were from $15 - 30 million. That money was to be distributed to different areas of the country. Fort Collins received $511,000; ten counties in the state received $146,000, so Fort Collins received a substantial amount of the package. The City had requested $43 million, but HUD said the City had only $511,000. Staff made a recommendation to the CDBG Commission that the money would be used for housing and for floodproofing tied to low-income criteria. During a Commission meeting where there was citizen representation, they revised staff recommendations to include housing, floodproofing and also for work on the New Mercer Canal from Elizabeth to Prospect. The $207,000 included in the CDBG Action Plan, was just for design and right of way and did not include construction costs. The report didn't have the correct number. Mike Smith continued by saying that the Council met Tuesday night. He was asked to explain why the number was different. (Bob Smith was unable to attend the meeting.) He said there wasn't anything resolved at the session other than they wanted to go back to the Commission. The Commission thought that the entire project could be done for $207,000, "and it can't. Council felt the Commission should have another opportunity to reconsider." Chuck Wanner said that Council's concern wasn't so much with the content of the recommendation that staff made; it was that the planning was considered the whole project for New Mercer, and that was a big error. "Who made the assumption?" Mr. Rau asked. "I think the folks that requested it from the community," Mr. Wanner replied. "The Commission is used to dealing with recommendations for housing and social service projects." Greg McMaster, from the Avery Park Neighborhood Leadership Team, asked if he could speak at this point. "I was at the CDBG Commission meeting," he said. "To me there has been a lot more going on in this whole situation," he began. "Our impression of talking with Bob Smith, in a number of meetings after the flood, (and he's been great to work with) has been that the real issue is to increase the flow capacity in the New Mercer Canal. We are well aware of the 1980 master plan that called for several million dollars to do it, but that included several things like a concrete lining, a split canal, widening street bridges, all sorts of things. Because of the way growth has been occurring, and pouring more water into the New Mercer Ditch, it's clear to me that this is an Water Utilities Board Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 9 exatnple of growth not paying its way. When we started out, we were under the impression that we were somewhere around the 100-year flood protection plan. Over time, since our houses were built, he continued, who knows what the real number is? It looks like, especially with the New Mercer Canal, that we're at a 5-10 year flood protection. The issue is, at the very least, we need to have some interim improvements to that Canal to increase the flow capacity. When we learned from Bob Smith that this was a huge amount of money to do it, we said, obviously we don't have the funding. A lot of issues were discussed about changing stormwater fees, etc., but flooding out that canal is not new; it's happening periodically and it's happening more frequently as we add the concrete watershed to the west. Our understanding was that the $207,000 figure included the idea of just getting there and moving earth. In other words, don't do any of the other things that were mentioned earlier. At the Commission meeting, we didn't ask for any specific amount. We said, rather than going Band-Aid approach to do floodproofing, which didn't make sense, why not solve the problem and just move earth? That's where the $207,000 figure came from. At the meeting, staff agreed that it should be able to be done by the end of next winter. It doesn't require hundreds of thousands of dollars in design and study; it doesn't require large numbers of labor and materials. In our opinion this solution would result in a significant improvement in the situation. He reiterated that people along the canal verify that it is flooding frequently. What bothered him was that none of this came out at the Council work session. In addition, there was no chance for public input on this. Mr. Wanner related that public input is not taken at work sessions. "To be honest this was the trust issue that was raised by the Fairbrooke project," Mr. McMaster asserted. "Part of the deal was that the decision was not made at the work session other than the process to re-examine what was proper," Mr. Wanner responded. "The $207,000 did not come from the neighborhood; it came from the Stormwater Utility," Gary Vette from the Avery Park neighborhood and Woodbox Board of Directors, stated. "It is detailed on p. 15 of the Flood Recovery Action plan," he added. "The number that was in the action plan only included design and right of way; it didn't include the improvements," Bob Smith said. "The improvements weren't detailed in the action plan," Mr. Vette insisted. Mr. McMaster said that the question is whether, for some amount, can we get in there and move earth and significantly improve the capacity." He added, "name any other project that would give us as much bang for the buck, and as high priority as improving the flow in the New Mercer Canal. I have heard nothing that comes close to this as an option." Mr. Vette added that the New Mercer Canal, between Elizabeth and Prospect, was declared one of the priorities in the 1980 Resource Consultants report to the City. "Is that the project that was shown for $3 million for total improvements on this?" Mr. Clopper asked. "Yes," was the answer. "It was one of the early high priorities," Mike Smith acknowledged. Mr. McMaster said it makes logical sense now because the water flows into the south and the improvements where the water goes have been completed. That had to be done first," he stressed. Mr. M. Smith clarified what was done by pointing it out on the map. Bob Smith mentioned that staff will be working with the New Mercer Ditch Co. in April to clean the Ditch, not to the magnitude of $207,000, but to get rid of the sand bars, etc. "That isn't coming Water Utilities Board Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 10 out of capital improvements, is it?" Mr. Vette asked. "That will be from O&M;" Mr. B. Smith replied. "Is there willingness on the part of the neighborhood to do debt financing on the improvements and raise your Stormwater fees?" Dave Rau asked. "I can't say for sure," Mr. McMaster answered. "Certainly the people who live east of the Canal might be willing." "That's always the debate; the people who get flooded are always willing," Mr. Rau remarked. Mr. McMaster thinks there is another issue and that is breaking up Stormwater fees by drainage basin. "I understand there are advantages to that," he added. "With the current plan of raising fees, the City is asking people who have lived there for a long time to reduce their flood protection plan, and suddenly we're going to have to pay substantially more money to make up for growth not paying its way and this project benefits more than just our stormwater basin. I think City Council is going to have to address this issue." Chuck Wanner said, if the City made some kind of an agreement, and "I can't prejudge because I don't know," and the impact fell on one basin, then perhaps the City has to consider it. "The other question is do we change the whole way we structure fees and pay them?" Mike Smith said the immediate action on this situation is that it will be going back to the Commission and they will be looking for re -direct from the Council to get the Water Board's input. "The Commission will want the Board's input on the initial recommendation. You can determine if you still think that's a good idea, or you may have a different recommendation. The recommendation was to spend $207,000 for stormwater improvements on that section," Mr. M. Smith related. "That isn't a whole lot of money but we can certainly use it. The question is, do we use it for stormwater improvements or elsewhere?" "Is there more money available or do we look at a limited amount?" Joe Bergquist asked. "There is $511,000 available: The recommendation was $300,000 for floodproofing; $180,000 for rental assistance, which was modified to $150,000, with an additional $30,000 for case work; $27,000 for administration for floodproofing, and that was reduced when money was taken out for New Mercer Canal." Mr. Wanner said the part under discussion is the $300,000 that was originally put up for floodproofing. "The question is, should it all go for floodproofing or should it be split between floodproofing and work on the New Mercer Canal?" Bob Smith asked. "I think Council's question I was trying to raise, partly concerned the process involved in deciding how the money would be spent, and staffs recommendation from CPES. Perhaps, the question for this Board is, do you want to support that recommendation, or do you want to make a separate recommendation on how the $300,000 should be used?' Mr. Wanner responded. "The process would probably come around again." "Do you see the option as the money going to either floodproofing or to the project?" Mr. M. Smith asked. "I'm not saying which one I support," Mr. Wanner replied, "but those are the options." "Or is an option to go to rental assistance and transition to home ownership, etc.?" David Lauer wondered. "I think that's one possibility," Mr. Wanner said, "but one of the other comments made the other night is where does the money go if it's paid back from the floodproofing loan part of the deal, if that stands? And 2/3 of that would be loan assistance, and that would go into low income housing." Mr. McMaster said, as Marsha Hilmes mentioned, the HUD money, because it's for low income people, would have to be grants, not loans. "I don't think that's 100% true, so I disagree," Mr. Wanner replied. "I think some of it would be loans and some grants." "As I understand staff saying, Water Utilities Board Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 11 most of the FEMA money would be used for loans," Mr. McMaster continued. "At the CDBG meeting, the issue came up of how many low income people are going to be interested?" Mr. Wanner thinks this Board is going to have to consider what its recommendation is along with staff. Mr. McMaster contends that not many low income people would be interested in applying for even a no -interest loan, because the reality is they don't have the money to put it into floodproofing their homes. "The CDBG Board clearly recognized that as a problem," he stressed, "and that's partly why they were more willing to take the money out of floodproofing." "Do I understand that the floodproofing portion of the money is not just for the Canal Importation Basin?" Mr. Clopper asked. "It's City-wide; we estimate it at about $6500 per structure," Mr. B. Smith replied. "Are you looking for this recommendation today or next month?" Mr. Clopper asked. "They want to go back to the Commission in March and the Council in April, so we will need some kind of recommendation today," Mr. M. Smith advised. "I think the question for you is the $307,000 portion. "What would the $207,000 in floodproofing be used for?" Alison Adams asked. "It will be used to build flood walls around low lying windows, etc. given to homeowners based on income, flood potential, feasibility, etc. We estimate that the $6600 would be per structure; some will be more and some will be less. According to Marsha Hilmes, the homeowner would fill out an application based on their income, on their flooding threat, and what kind of flooding they have had in the past. "We will ask, is it feasible, is it reasonable, and is it really going to solve the problem? This is information they need so they can begin estimating costs ahead of time. They also need to know if they can do a grant or a loan. Staff arrived at the $6600 figure by taking an average home and looking at the potential problems and determining what it would cost to fix that house. There are about 1,000 structures in Fort Collins that would have the potential for applying for this money. This plan also gives people the opportunity to help themselves," she explained. "From a purely pragmatic standpoint," Dave Frick began, "our recommendations have to be based on a positive benefit/cost ratio. If you look at the cost of spending $207,000 on New Mercer, and the level of protection you're getting, that should be compared with the level of protection you get using that money for floodproofing." Ms. Hilmes said they looked at all the different basins for floodproofing, and the ratio is about 6.4 : 1, so you have a high benefit/cost ratio. "If you put $200,000 into New Mercer and you raised the flooding over the top frequency say from a 3-year to a 5 to7-year, your reduction in average annual damages is going to be pretty small," Mr. Frick would guess, "and you might not have a very good benefit/cost ratio," he added. "I'm not sure an analysis would prove that, but we would have to look at it in order to make a decision. "We don't have the numbers for New Mercer, but we do for floodproofing." "Would the New Mercer improvements affect more people?" Mr. Rau asked. "If you put that $200,000 at $6500, roughly 30 houses would be floodproofed to a 100-year level of protection," Mr. Frick pointed out. "I don't know how many houses are being affected by New Mercer," he said. "About 40 or 50 he was told. "You would be raising their flood level protection level from about 3 years to 5 years. I don't know what the cost/benefit ratio for that would be. "I don't think we have any of those facts," Mr. Rau acknowledged. "I think the New Mercer improvements would probably affect a lot more people, but you're right it probably wouldn't raise their level of protection as much." "The question is, in a 5-year flood, how many people are really being flooded as compared to what happened last summer?" Mr. Frick pointed out. "But when you think of how it flows out," Mr. McMaster Water Utilities Board Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 12 contends, "it went down Elizabeth, Prospect, Springfield, CSU, Campus West, etc. The impact on the City is unquestioned. Granted, with a 5-year flood, it's not going to go as far, but what about a 10-year flood?" "From a cost/benefit standpoint, you have to evaluate all frequencies and what level of protection that $207,000 is giving you," Mr. Frick insisted. He concluded that he is not sure we have enough information to make a decision or best recommendation at this point. "We have to decide what we can reasonably expect to do for $314,000," Mr. Clopper said. "What is staffs feeling on this?" he asked. "The big question that we don't have the answer for is a road crossing at Springfield Dr. and whether we have adequate capacity with just two structures," Bob Smith responded. "Instead of just improving capacity, would you be better off spending some of that money controlling where your spills occur?" Mr. Frick suggested, "in other words, creating some spill points on that canal. You could spill it where it does less damage than into people's houses." Mr. Clopper was looking at the region wondering if there were specific bottleneck points, or local trouble spots, or if it was the whole reach. "If I'm trying to decide where to put another $107,000 and vote one way or another, I would have the potential for making a better decision if I had more information." Mr. Vette asked if that would be for a concrete lined ditch. "That was what the $3 million was recommended for in the master plan," Mr. B. Smith replied. "That's not for widening the Ditch," Mr. Vette said. "If you widen the ditch and you still have free flow restrictions, you haven't done anything except spend a bunch of money and you haven't improved the flow at all," Mr. Rau asserted. "We had a 30" `river' running through Woodbox multi -family housing," Mr. Vette pointed out, "and this is based on eye witness statements. We had 22 in. running over the top of Avery Park Pond and another 20 in. of `river' running down Springfield. I submitted a report to Stormwater and also to Jackie Davis of HUD along with photos of the `river' situation, the flows and the impacts. The reason that the 'river' existed was because Avery Park Pond was full of silt, and it acts as a detention pond for the Clearview Basin. You have the Clearview Ditch Basin overflowing into the New Mercer, and then overflowed east down Leasdale Dr., Bryan and Elizabeth. There was a 34 in. wall of water. All those flows contributed to Larimer County 2. That flow went further east to C.B.& Potts and all the businesses down Elizabeth had water going 90 degrees into the New Mercer. Everything north of that had nowhere to go," he concluded. "When CDBG split these, did they have input from staff and the neighborhood?" Mr. Clopper asked. "Yes," Bob Smith replied. Mr. Bergquist wondered if you leave it as it is, or do you put it into the pot for future use? "You could almost have 34 options: Keep the $207,000 for permanent, keep it to use temporarily or move it to floodproofing," Mike Smith suggested. "We need to spend the CDBG money, one way or the other, fairly soon or we may lose it," Alison Adams said. "I don't hear a comfort level from staff of taking the $207,000 and moving dirt with it. I get the feeling that they don't think it is going to solve the problem with the New Mercer Ditch," she stated. "But, there is not a problem with using the money and either doing the planning or answering the technical question about the Ditch, or beginning to move the project along. Whatever the improvements cost, does that $207,000 really help us, or is it better spent for floodproofing, for example? I don't think we're going to move dirt with the $207,000," she concluded. Water Utilities Board Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 13 Mr. Rau wondered about what Mr. Vette brought up; has there been some deterioration in the system, and could we do some maintenance that would improve the performance of the system? "As mentioned earlier, there are some things that should be cleaned up in the New Mercer system, and we will be pursuing that," Mr. B. Smith said, "and Avery Park Pond," Mr. Lauer added. "There's sediment in the pond, but the storage you get is above the water surface, so you have to expand the storage area," Mr. Smith explained. Mr. Smith responded to the comment that Dave Frick made about the spills. "When you put in a bonafide spill, you have to have a place to put it." He pointed out on the map where there isn't a place to spill. He referred to another system on the map that hadn't been completed either. "There are two things that need to be done: get the water out of the Ditch and prevent it from going into the Ditch. The Bull Farm was designed in such a way that it took water out of New Mercer. It's a question of what we do with the $207,000. "Can we make our lives a little easier and approach it this way?" Joe Bergquist suggested. "Grab the money that's there and make a decision about how we are going to use it later." "There has to be a plan," Mr. McMaster said. The $4,500 listed is to draft an action plan. It has to go to HUD and they must approve it. "How much detail do they need?" Mike Smith asked. "I think in light of everything that has been going on lately, they want to know exactly what it's going for and what benefits there are," Ms. Hilmes explained. "Do you have to show a cost/benefit ratio?" Mr. Frick asked. "We have not heard that stipulation," Ms. Hilmes replied. "I don't think they are used to dealing with engineering projects, they mainly do housing projects" she added. "Is there any possibility that the improvements for the New Mercer can rise to the forefront as a project that we recommend?" Ms. Adams asked. "That's what I was thinking too," Mr. Clopper said. "There are a couple of things that go with that," Mr. Rau began. "We historically have the $3.58 stormwater fee limit that the Board has always tried to stand by. We are talking about increasing that by approximately $3.00 just for that project within the basin. I'm concerned about throwing the $207,000 in the pot and having it go away." "Would we be comfortable with a recommendation that we put those two pots of money together, with at least a substantial portion of the $107,000 added to the $207,000 and say not only are we going to increase the capacity of New Mercer Ditch, but also do something to take care of spillways, and something about the road crossing at Springfield that Mr. Smith mentioned," David Lauer suggested. "Would that be enough money and could we legitimately recommend that to City Council?" `Basically use it as far as it goes," Mr. Bergquist added. Mr. Rau agreed with Mr. Bergquist about grabbing the $207,000. Mr. Lauer thinks we ought to grab the whole $315,000. Mr. Rau would like to have staff look at that system and determine where we can best spend the money. Mike Smith suggested that the Board recommend going for the money, and that a few Board members meet with staff prior to March 12th, before meeting with CDBG, define the actual project and decide more specifically what to do with the $207,000. Marsha Hilmes noted that the project must be able to meet the income requirements. "They can use a certain portion for moderate income, but the money is supposed to be for low income." "Part of the argument we made in Avery Park is that we have HUD homes in our neighborhood. Also in our City we are one of the main areas for providing affordable homes," Mr. McMaster related. "You are right, there is a big emphasis on low income, but they state in both proposals that a huge amount of money that went Water Utilities Board Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 14 into it was not oriented just for low income, and they also have stated that because this is a different situation, it's not quite as low income oriented," he explained. "That's one of the arguments for floodproofing, so there is some real value to doing floodproofing. As CDBG looked at the plan, they felt it was a good start the City staff came up with, but the New Mercer seemed to be a better bang for the buck. The idea is what can we do with the $207,000 that would help this problem that has already been identified and is already on schedule. It was scheduled to be go into place in 2003. We are just saying that there are too many problems to wait that long." Mr. Clopper called for a motion from the Board for a recommendation to the CDBG. Mr. Lauer suggested that the motion ought to include the creation of a sub -committee that will flesh this out before March 12th. Mr. Rau suggested also that staff continue to work with the residents of the basin. The question is not just what you do with the $207,000, but considering other options for debt financing and looking at changing fees in the basin. Looking at the Canal Importation Basin Project Cost chart, Robert Ward asked if there was a time of implementation for each of the items under the $3.58 that we know. "We can't do these all at once financially or in terms of resources," Bob Smith replied. "This is another item that will be brought up in March." "On the original plan there was a schedule for all of these to be completed with the $3.58; it was 2003 just for the New Mercer part," Mike Smith explained. David Lauer moved that the Board create an Ad -hoc subcommittee to be called the HUD Mitigation Committee to work with staff to look at the suggested re -allocation of funds, and also recommend how those funds will be spent. Dave Rau seconded the motion. The Committee, headed by Dave Frick, with Joe Bergquist and David Lauer as members, will meet prior to the March 12th CDBG Commission. The motion passed unanimously. Each year after the irrigation companies have established their annual assessment rates for water shares, the Water Board recommends to the City Council the rental rates for the City's surplus water. The attached table shows the assessment rates as set by the irrigation companies and the rental rates set by the City for 1996, 1997, and 1998. The per acre foot price for the proposed rental rates are also shown for 1998. The proposed rental rates for 1998 are based on several factors including past rental rates in the area, current assessments, and anticipated supply and demand conditions. With the exception of Colorado Big Thompson Project (CBT) and Joe Wright Reservoir water, water cannot be rented from one ditch system into another. Therefore, for these systems the rental market is limited to individuals under each ditch and the rental price is dependent upon the supply and demand within each irrigation system. This causes considerable variation in prices per acre foot among the various supply sources. The rental prices for CBT, North Poudre, and Water Supply and Storage Company shares are based primarily on market rental rates since there is an active rental market for these shares. With the limited rental markets for the southside ditches, the rental prices are based primarily on assessment rates. Water Utilities Board Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 15 CBT water has the most established rental market in this area as it can be transferred anywhere within the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) boundaries. The proposed rate in 1998 for agricultural users is $17.00 per acre foot, the same as last year. Starting this year, it is proposed that a different rate, $32.00 per acre foot, be set for M&I renters (cities, towns, water districts, industries, etc.). The primary reason for this higher price is that the City is subject to an additional assessment from NCWCD if the amount of agricultural rentals are not enough to offset CBT water that is delivered to the City's CBT account through the ownership of North Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC) shares. Since the CBT water delivered to NPIC is assessed at the lower agricultural rate, a differential rate is charged by NCWCD under the situation described above. This higher price will also encourage M&I users to acquire the water they need to meet their needs and not become dependent on rental from the City of Fort Collins or other entities that normally have surplus water. In the past, NPIC water has been rented by the share and the renter received whatever amount of water that NPIC might appropriate. Beginning in 1998, NPIC will require that all transfers among owners and renters be done by the acre foot. This is being done to recognize that part of a share can be used only for agricultural purposes while the rest of it (primarily the CBT portion) can be used for "multiple" purposes, including municipal purposes. In order to properly account for and transfer rental water, three types of water have been identified: (1) Early Ag Use, (2) Ag Use, and (3) Multiple Use. It is proposed that the rental rates be set at $10, $22, and $27 per acre foot, respectively. As these rentals will be done under a new system, rental rates may need some adjustment during the season to reflect market conditions. The rental rate for the Water Supply and Storage Company (WSSC) shares is proposed to be set at $2,400 per share. There is a strong demand to rent WSSC shares and the City normally receives requests to rent more than twice the number of shares available. The rental price for these shares continue to rise and $2,400 per share reflects the typical market price. There continues to be relatively little demand for shares of "Southside Ditches" stock. This includes Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal, New Mercer, Latimer County No. 2, Warren Lake, Arthur, Sherwood Reservoir, and Sherwood Irrigation. Rental prices for these shares are based primarily on the assessment rates that have been set by the companies to recover operational and maintenance expenses. For several years there has been increased demand by gravel companies and others to rent augmentation water for gravel pits or other uses requiring a source of reusable water. These requests are usually for small quantities of water and are rented year by year while permanent sources can be found. Typically, Joe Wright Reservoir water is rented as a source of augmentation water. It is proposed that the price be increased to $37 in 1998 to more closely reflect the value of this water. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the following rental rates be adopted: Water Utilities Board Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 16 NCWCD Water (CBT) - Ag NCWCD Water (CBT) — M&I North Poudre Irrigation Co. — Early Ag Use North Poudre Irrigation Co. - Ag Use North Poudre Irrigation Co. — Multiple Use Water Supply and Storage Co. Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal Co. New Mercer Ditch Co. Larimer County Canal No. 2 Arthur Irrigation Co. Warren Lake Reservoir Co. Joe Wright Reservoir Water Sherwood Res. Co. Sherwood Irrigation Co. $ 17.00 /ao-ft $ 32.00 /ao-ft $ 10.00 /ao-ft $ 22.00 /ao-ft $ 27.00 /ao-ft $ 2,400.00 /share $ 180.00 /share $ 180.00 /share $ 300.00 /share $ 12.00 /share $ 120.00 /share $ 37.00 /ao-ft $ 5.00 /share $ 700.00 /share * For late season rentals, rates may be adjusted to reflect the remaining yield or the prevalent market price of the water stock being rented. DISCUSSION Beth Molenaar pointed out that there were a few changes this year. These were discussed at the Water Supply Committee meeting on February 17th. There are two major changes: CBT water will now have a split rate because cities pay a different assessment on CBT water than agricultural users do and there are some consequences to the City because of that. "We decided to charge a separate municipal rate for people whose water gets transferred from the City to another use." The second change is North Poudre. The North Poudre Board made a change in the way that water is rented through their system. It recognizes now that each North Poudre share has three distinct types of water with it. "We will now be charging a separate rate for those three types of water by the acre foot rather than by shares," she said. She referred to the sheet that listed the rates that staff recommends. Alison Adams asked what the Water Supply Committee recommended. Dave Frick explained that the Committee spent close to two hours discussing all the implications of these changes, and basically agreed with the conclusions that Mrs. Molenaar just pointed out. Robert Ward said that this is a further refinement of the way water is being moved around in Northern Colorado. "I think it reflects that competition for the water. We are now being required to be more specific in how the water is tracked in the system," he explained. "I have no problems with it," he added. Water Utilities Board Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 17 ACTION: Motion and Vote Robert Ward moved that the Water Utilities Board approve the recommendation. Dave Frick seconded the motion. The vote for the motion was unanimous. Plumbing Legislation David Lauer said that staff has asked the Board to make a recommendation in support of current federal plumbing legislation and against legislation that is now before the House that would repeal the low -flow plumbing standards that were part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The legislation set standards for toilets, urinals, showerheads and faucets. ACTION: Motion David Lauer moved that the Board oppose the bill, HR859: the Plumbing Standards Improvement Act of 1997. Joe Bergquist seconded the motion. Discussion "Basically staff is asking that the Board support taking the proposal to the Legislative Review Committee with a letter from the Mayor in support of the existing legislation and opposing the new bill," Wendy Williams explained. "What is the rationale for wanting to do this?" Mr. Ward asked. It's discontent with low flow toilets, Laurie D'Audney replied. "Is that a problem in Fort Collins?" Mr. Ward continued. Ms. Williams asked Laurie D'Audney to give some background on the item. Ms. D'Audney said there have been a number of studies on this. "New York City and California have been doing toilet retro-fit programs for some time. New York has installed over a million toilets and all of the satisfaction ratings have been 85-90%. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 set these plumbing standards. At that time the manufacturers hadn't refined the technology to the 1.6 standard. As a result, there were significant numbers of toilets, that people were required to have installed, that did not work well. All the manufacturers have to make them, so the technology is getting better all the time. The people who have been getting the toilets for the last few years have, for the most part, been satisfied. Dave Frick has heard there have been studies that have tried to determine if the low flow toilets actually save water. "From what I've read, they save a lot of water," Ms. D'Audney responded. Mr. Frick wondered about reports indicating that people often have to flush twice, so they actually don't save water. "I have heard, even if you do have to flush twice once -in -a while, the American Water Works Assoc. estimates a nationwide savings of 6.5 billion gallons of water per day will be realized by 2025 under the existing standards." Ms. D'Audney concluded. ACTION: Vote Paul Clopper called for the question. The Board voted unanimously to support the motion. Water Utilities Board Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 18 Mr. Clopper reminded that Board that the Council asked the Board to draft a regional cooperation statement that would express the City's stated position on regional cooperation in general. He, Alison Adams, Mike Smith, Wendy Williams and Molly Nortier drafted a two -sentence statement that was included in the packets. "The conclusion we came to was that we didn't want to identify what specific entity we were talking about because then it is a dynamic situation," Mr. Clopper related. "The sense being that we will evaluate and seriously consider working with whoever comes to some sort of mutual agreement with us, whether it's water, wastewater or stormwater, as long as it benefits customers of the City," he stated. "That is why we deliberately made the statement broad." Following is the statement: "The City of Fort Collins recognizes that cooperating with other agencies and entities can result in improved service delivery. Cooperative efforts which benefit the customers of the Water Utilities should be supported and encouraged." Joe Bergquist wondered about preserving the existing policies. Mike Smith asked if that could be satisfied by adding, "consistent with City policies" in the second sentence. Robert Ward said that this Board doesn't deal with all the citizens, "or all the policies," Alison Adams added. "I don't know how many citizens in the City of Fort Collins aren't customers of the Utilities," Dave Frick commented. "There are more and more all the time," Mr. Smith said. Mr. Frick pointed out that if you are not a water and sewer customer, you probably are a stormwater customer, "so maybe it's a moot point." David Lauer said, if we just add "consistent with existing City policies," it would be covered. Ms. Adams said the City is likely to change its policies, "so just leave it City policies." The second sentence will now read: "Cooperative efforts, consistent with City policies, which benefit the customers of the Water Utilities, should be supported and encouraged." Mike Smith said that no formal action was needed. He will pass the statement on to the City Manager and he can share it with the Council. If they want it formalized they can let us know. "At our meeting we mentioned that eventually the statement might be put in the form of a resolution," Mr. Clopper added. Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode said that there wasn't a written report this month because staff is in the middle of making projections. "For January we used 1,458 ao-ft which is about average for this time of year," he said. Regional 201 Study Gale McGaha Miller reminded the Board that a public hearing is being held tonight (February 26th) at the CSU Student Center Senate Chambers from 7:00 - 9:00. "Please come," she said. She mentioned that if anyone was interested in getting copies of the overheads from the presentation, she could provide them later on. "For those of us who can't make it to the presentation, I presume you will update us at the next meeting," Mr. Ward said. "Yes, I will," Ms. McGaha Miller answered. 0 Water Utilities Board Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 19 Water PIFs Update Multi -family Rate and Outstanding Bonds Explanation Michael Ozog recalled at the last meeting, there was a question about how much of the outstanding principle on the bonds is related to growth. "It turns out it's a very small amount." The other more significant issue concerns the multi -family water P1Fs. "There was some suggestion that perhaps we should tie it to lot size like single family. I worked with the people who implement the PIFs, and we looked at some other alternatives, and it would really be impossible to implement such a policy. As suggested, I reviewed the assumptions I had made regarding the load factor relationship between average and peak day. I revised the high load factor after reviewing specific samples of customers. The revised load factor reduces the PIF to a 19% increase for multi -family, originally projected to increase by 30%. This is more in line with the increase proposed for the other residential accounts." Dave Frick asked what the PIF is for a duplex as compared to multi -family. "We are looking at a third less," Mr. Ozog replied. Mr. Ozog reported that staff has already taken this to two sub -committees of the City Council, and essentially, they accepted it without a presentation. "We will be taking it to public outreach next month," he said. It will be brought back to the Board and then to a Council study session," Mr. Smith added. Mr. Ozog said, surprisingly, there hasn't been any response from the article in the Coloradoan. Water Utilities Board 1997 Annual Report The Water Utilities Board 1997 Annual Report looked good, was the consensus. "It really highlighted some of the new items that the Water Supply Committee has been discussing this year," Alison Adams and Robert Ward commented. "Molly Nortier did a good job of putting the report together," Mike Smith concluded. Water Supply There was no need for a report because this item was covered under the Surplus Water Rental Rates. The changes in the rental rates was the topic of discussion at the Committee's meeting on February 17th. The Legislative and Finance, Engineering and Liaison Issues Committees did not meet. Conservation and Public Education Chair David Lauer reported that the Committee talked about floodplain developments. He asked Marsha Ililmes to show the Board the map of the four locations that have significant developments in the floodplain. A development that has already been built at the corner of Welch and Prospect, is a FEMA loophole. The elevation was increased before two medical offices were built. One included a basement which was flooded. The construction was completed within six montluof last July's flood. This project is an example of how builders can get around City regulations by satisfying Water Utilities Board Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 20 FEMA regulations. "We would like to find a way of preventing this in the future by re -structuring the City's policies so this doesn't happen again," Mr. Lauer asserted. He referred to the three proposed developments on the map. Marsha Hilmes said that the Dry Creek Mobile Home Park has been approved even though it is in the floodplain. The mobile homes will be elevated and tied down, so they meet all the City criteria. "Can they satisfy the criteria with anything other than fill, e.g. stilts?" Mr. Clopper asked. "They could, but fill is going to be their primary method, Ms. Hilmes replied. Mr. Lauer added that they have to be anchored as well. Mr. Clopper asked for a clarification. "As long we are at least as stringent as federal regulations, can we choose to be more stringent if we wish?" he asked. "Sure, and we are already," Ms. Hilmes answered. "Once you have the recommended fill and go through the FEMA process, for example, it is no longer considered in the floodplain," she explained. "What we would like to do eventually is tighten up the floodplain regulations, i.e. even if you do a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) based on fill, you still would have to meet the floodplain regulations," Mr. Lauer wondered. "Yes, it gets you out of the flood insurance requirements, but you still must meet the floodplain criteria because you are more at risk than anyone else would be," she continued. "How do you plan to fix that?" Mr. Frick asked. "Right now, it's a recommendation; it's not a written mandate. When FEMA phrases it in their letters, they say `we strongly recommend that you still conform to floodplain regulations."' "The whole purpose of the mobile home park was to help provide affordable housing for the displaced people from the Pioneer Park," Mr. Frick pointed out. "The problem is the cheap property is in the floodplain," he added. "If you start getting more restrictive on floodplain regulations, the cost of housing goes up. There's a trade-off there; perhaps beyond what the Water Utilities Board needs to consider, but it's still a big issue for the City." "That's one of the reasons that I think the mobile home park was approved," Mr. Lauer said. Mr. Lauer pointed out the next proposal which is a new parking structure in the middle of Old Town where Poudre Valley Creamery is located. "It is directly in the middle of the floodplain. It is still in the proposal stages, so theoretically, we as a Board could make a recommendation that it not be built or that certain mitigating factors be built into the plan." He thinks that also applies to the new Civic Center. Ms. Mlmes said it would. "Isn't that where major new storage drainage improvements are required?" Mr. Frick asked, "so the option is to put those improvements in." "That's right," Ms. Mimes said. "That's part of the policy Stormwater is going to bring before the Board in March. It's part of the Old Town Master Plan." The fourth proposal is part of a sports complex center on I-25 and Vine. It has included in the preliminary plans, not just fields, but various buildings scattered throughout the complex. The message from staff to those developers was to go back and look at this, because they, too are in the floodplain. Mr. Lauer concluded that the Committee accomplished what they had intended and that was to be made aware of proposed developments in the floodplain, and, in turn, make the Board aware of it. Water Utilities Board Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 21 "Is there any difference between the way the City designates floodplains, like Spring Creek, versus the federally designated areas?" Paul Clopper asked. "The only difference is on Fossil Creek, and that is even more restrictive as a City designated floodplain," Ms. Hilmes replied. "There, besides having the floodplain, we also have Erosion Buffer Zones because of the lateral instability of the channel. No development is allowed in either the buffer zone or the floodplain. We are regulating that floodplain basically as a floodway." "Do you find that developers are actively looking for these loopholes?" Robert Ward asked. "I think everyone knows that they are out there. It depends on what developer and engineer you have. Some say they will never use that loophole," Ms. Hilmes responded. "In general, the more density in the City, the more attempts that are going to be made to use the loophole that exists," Mr. Lauer stated. "Generally they don't use the loophole because it costs them a considerable amount of money and time to do that process," Mr. Hilmes explained. "That's one of the reasons it's not used more," she added. "And you have a perfect example of what happens when you do, to the next person that comes along," Mr. Ward remarked. Mr. Lauer said there was a question that came up at the meeting as to whether in the future we should designate City floodplains in the west part of Fort Collins, Clearview, for example, that are not designated now. Ms. Hilmes said they have applied for $150,000 from FEMA to install precipitation gauges and streamflow gauges in the west part of the City because we have no benchmark now of determining what our precipitation levels are. "Is that just for data collection or is it an early warning system?" Mr. Clopper asked. "It's an early warning system, as well as for notification and education," Ms. Hilmes answered. Joe Bergquist asked, in terms of the watershed, if it is designated that there is a cost involved. "Yes," Mike Smith replied. "Are you trying to get them federally designated?" Mr. Frick asked. "No," Ms. Hilmes said. Water -related Proposed Legislation Mr. Clopper said that, historically, this is the time of year when the Legislative and Finance Committee meets with staff to look at what legislative bills, relating to water, are being proposed. "We voted on the low flow toilet issue earlier. Allison Adams said there was another bill that would interest the Board, HB1006, state funding for the South Platte and Colorado Rivers recovery programs. "According to Gale McGaha Miller, the City has already sent a letter of support of the bill," Ms. Adams said. Wendy Williams said staff would compile, for the Legislative & Finance Committee, a list of bills that might impact the Utilities. Mr. Clopper asked Howard Goldman, the chair of the L&F Committee to set up a meeting with staff. Northern Regional Water Coalition Alison Adams reported that she attended a Northern Regional Water Coalition meeting last week. The Water Demand Study that the NCWCD started in the fall is going to be finished in August of this year, "which is significantly faster than I thought it was going to be. Hopefully we'll put all the water demand information in the Northern area and put it on the GIS system. Maybe by late summer or fall, there will be something there that we can share. I'm not sure that there is going to be an Water Utilities Board Minutes February 26, 1998 Page 22 actual report; ' she concluded. "They talked about being able to run difference scenarios," Dennis Bode related. "I think that night be the main emphasis." Robert Ward said Hydrosphere Engineering Consultants, as a result of SB 74, has a model on the Internet. That was focused on trying to get water to southern metro area. "If we could link what he's done with what the Northern District is doing, it would be fascinating," he remarked. He mentioned that there is an executive summary of their report on the Internet and the actual model. ADJOURNMENT Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:55 p.m. m M 7'J al� Water UtilitiesBoard Secretary