Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 01/28/19990 f WATER BOARD MINUTES Thursday, January 28, 1999 3:10 - 4:45 p.m. Fort Collins Utilities Training Room 700 Wood Street CITY COUNCIL LIAISON Chuck Wanner not present STAFF LIAISON Molly Nortier - 221-6681 MEMBER PRESENT Paul Clopper, Chair, Joe Bergquist, John Morris, David Lauer, Alison Adams, Dave Rau, Tom Brown, George Reed STAFF Mike Smith, Wendy Williams, Dave Agee, Dennis Bode, Bob Smith Susan Hayes, Dennis Sumner, Beth Molenaar and John Duval, Assistant City Attorney MEMBERS ABSENT Tom Sanders, Vice Chair, Robert Ward, Dave Frick Chair Paul Clopper opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: APPROVAL OF MINUTES John Morris moved that the minutes of October 22, 1998 be approved as distributed. After a second from Alison Adams, the Board unanimously approved the motion. George Reed moved that the minutes of November 19, 1998 be approved as distributed. The members approved the motion unanimously after a second from David Lauer. report.There was no Water Board Minutes January 28, 1999 Page 2 Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported that the total treated water use for 1998 was 28,694 ac-ft which was 97% of what had been projected. He noted that precipitation ended up almost 2 inches above normal for the year, "which is kind of surprising," he said. "At times it seemed it was a little on the dry side." Paul Clopper asked about the current activities of the master plan improvements at the water treatment plant. "There is considerable construction at this time. Things are moving along very well," Mike Smith replied. UPDATE: RAINFALL STUDY A memo summarizing the January 12, 1999 City Council study session was included in Board packets. Utilities Staff, members of the Precipitation Study Task Force and the Chairman of the Water Board presented information regarding the changing of the design rainfall for the 100-year design storm. The recommendation from staff, the Water Board and a majority opinion of the Task Force was to change the design storm to 3.67 inches, while a minority opinion of the Task Force was to change the rainfall amount to 4.37 inches with 5.5 inches for those areas on the west side of the City. Key Discussion Points at Council Session • Council members are comfortable saying the existing criteria are inappropriate. • The values presented are estimates based on the data available. There is no one true value. • Regardless of the new value chosen, there will be an impact on the cost of new development and master planned drainage facilities. • Other elements of stormwater management program help protect against more extreme events. Council would like additional information about the other activities which can mitigate the effects of an event higher than 3.67 inches. • They acknowledged a group of experts worked on this and experts can disagree. • Council would like the minority opinion presented at the Council meeting. Susan Hayes felt the discussion with City Council went well. "We were able to talk about a lot of the technical issues," she said. Don Heyse gave the presentation for the minority opinion. Dave Frick spoke to the majority opinion. Paul Clopper summarized the Water Board discussion and Water Board Minutes January 28, 1999 Page 3 recommendations. Ms. Hayes said it was not absolutely clear to her which way the Council will be heading. She reiterated that they are still very much interested in the minority opinion, and would like to hear that at the Council presentation on February 16th. "The Council was extremely interested in knowing what kinds of measures we have in place to address what happens if we get more than 3.67 inches of rainfall, and that will be the focus of our presentation on the 16th. We will also be talking about safety measures with respect to design criteria, freeboard, good education programs, new emergency response measures, Project Impact, Reverse 911, having precip. gages and being tied in with the National Weather Service for predictions." She added that it is getting Council to a comfort level that, even though it happens to be the lowest number they happen to be selecting from, it is not in any way, shape or form a low number. It is definitely an increase over what we have now and it's higher than anything used along the Front Range. Ms. Hayes went on to say that there will be an additional Task Force meeting Friday, January 29th at 3:30 p.m. "We are getting back together to let members reconfirm their opinions that were submitted in the original Task Force memo, and that information will be passed along to Council. If the Water Board would like to reconfirm its decision to the Council in the form of a memo or letter, we would be happy to accept that and put it in the Council packet," she said. She asked Paul Clopper if he had anything to add about the work session. He said the decision about a reconfirmation would be at the pleasure of the Board. "If it would be helpful to staff, that would be a consideration," he added. "From a staff perspective, it doesn't hurt to have the reconfirmation of the Board," Ms. Hayes responded, "particularly after hearing what the Council had to say, and what their concerns were." Mr. Clopper said his impressions of the work session were a recognition and awareness that the Council members expressed on the economic ramifications of the larger numbers and what that does to our infrastructure needs, etc. He explained to the Council that, although that information was presented to the Board, it was presented as "FYI" and didn't really enter into the Board's deliberations on making a recommendation. Mr. Clopper asked the Board to consider what they thought about sending a formal letter from the Board. He asked staff what the next step is procedurally. "Staff will bring a recommendation in the form of an ordinance to Council on February 16th for a final decision," Bob Smith stated. "The Council wants both options to be considered," Mike Smith noted. "But the staff recommendation will be 3.67 inches," Ms. Hayes emphasized. ACTION: Motion, Second and Discussion Joe Bergquist moved that the Board support sending a letter to Council confirming the Board's October decision. Tom Brown seconded the motion. David Lauer still feels the Board should reconsider the minority opinion. The vote at the October meeting was 7-1 with Mr. Lauer favoring the minority opinion of the Precipitation Task Force. "It would be smart for us to re -consider that vote, and it would be smart for the Council reconsider it," he asserted. "I would rather err on that side than on the side of not being as prepared as we possibly can." Mr. Clopper pointed out that there is Water Board Minutes January 28, 1999 Page 4 a connection to what the Board will be considering later on in the meeting. That is Dave Frick's proposal of a check flood or maximum historical event which will be the July 1997 event. Dave Rau pointed out that we use flat frequencies as a way of discussing amounts of rainfall, as hydrologists, but it really isn't all that meaningful. It's just a way of communicating, e.g. a 100-year event doesn't mean that it's going to happen once every 100 years. Statistically, based on the data we have, there is a 1% chance of it occurring in any one year. If we wanted to provide the maximum protection to the citizens of the City, we could, but we wouldn't have any money for anything else. "I think that needs to be made clear to the City Council," he stressed. "That came out very strongly in the work session that they are looking for one true number," Ms. Hayes related, "and it is very difficult to describe to them that there is no right answer. It's the best `guesstimate' that we have based on the data we have. It will surely be wrong in 20 years just as you could look at what we adopted 20 years ago as being incorrect," she explained. She added, "that's why we have all the other programs in place to increase the factors of safety in case we are wrong." "But the factors of safety are essentially related to an arbitrary number that we picked a long time ago for a 100-year event," Mr. Rau asserted. "Essentially it's a policy decision," Tom Brown stated. "But it's a policy decision that's not even quantitative," Mr. Rau argued. "But it's a policy decision," Mr. Brown insisted, "a Council decision essentially. To look for a magic number is just a way of avoiding a decision." Mr. Clopper said that Susan Hayes and Bob Smith have done a tremendous job in presenting that very issue, not only to the Board but in the exact same way to Council members at the work session. "I think it came through, warts and all, what that science really entails. It was very fairly presented." Joe Bergquist suggested a letter to the Council that includes all the data we have now showing the number we selected makes a lot of sense. "To pick a higher number would only be satisfying a small contingent on the west side," he added, "and we don't want to do that yet, even though sometime in the future we may." "When you look at the severity of the 1997 event, and look at what we had designed for, I think our system performed remarkably well," Mr. Rau observed. "I think that's one of the things to look at." He thinks if you really got down to how much money you want to spend, that would be the level of protection you could get. "Is there some way to present a graph that gives the Council a feel of the relationship between the increased rainfall and increased cost? An increase of just one inch difference could be millions of dollars," John Morris pointed out. "If it's fairly flat, you could add inches, and it would cost only $100,000." "It's definitely not flat. It's not necessarily even a linear relationship," Ms. Hayes responded. "It varies by basin is my standard answer," she said. "Could we estimate how much it would cost us to go that extra inch with some kind of general analysis?" Mr. Morris wondered. "We don't have those numbers," Ms. Hayes responded. Bob Smith said, "when you look at what was presented to the Council, we have a slide that shows what the numbers look like as far as the discharges going up." "A 50% increase in rain didn't translate into that same cost difference. When Water Board Minutes January 28, 1999 Page 5 we jumped up that 50%, the flows took off," Ms. Hayes related. Ms. Hayes went on to say that Mike Smith said it best at the work session when he pointed out that we would have to have a much stronger statistical base for the 4.37 inches to justify the economic impact. "If we had 300 years of data and came up with 4.37 we would be in there saying 4.37 regardless of the cost," she said. "With only 50 years of data, it is really hard to justify recommending 4.37. The 3.67 at least has 150 years of data. We have a lot more confidence in that. There is still an economic impact. If we didn't want an economic impact, we would say no change by keeping the 2.89." "Also, keep in mind that the Precipitation Task Force, as part of the recommendation, added 4 stream gages and 5 rain gages real time," Paul Clopper said. Ms. Hayes said there wasn't a specific number from the Task Force; they just recommended doing that. "Those were added through the Project Impact funding." "We will begin to collect data from different points around town in the near future, and not have to rely on the CSU gage alone," Mr. Clopper noted. FTOJI111GRq'[M Mr. Clopper pointed out there was a motion and a second on the floor. He asked if there was further discussion. Bob Smith and Susan Hayes will draft a letter. Paul Clopper will review it, sign it. and forward it to the Council. George Reed said his inclination would be to keep the letter simple. Joe Bergquist suggested that the letter confirm and stress that the Board is supportive of what staff has done. Mr. Clopper called for the question. The Board voted unanimously in favor of drafting a letter, including suggestions from the Board, and forwarding it to the Council. Report on Floodplains Regulations Task Force Meeting Mr. Clopper reminded the Board that the Water Board initiated, through the Conservation and Public Education and Engineering Committees, a proposal to recommend that the City Council adopt a policy restricting development in the floodplain. In July the Board voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council adopt the policy. A FloodpWn Regulation Task Force of 20 members was formed. Joe Bergquist and Paul Clopper are representatives from the Board. They have attended two meetings so far. "We are currently in the orientation phase," Mr. Clopper said. There are members from many different backgrounds on the task force. Learning definitions and terminology and understanding how the current code works are part of the orientation. Bob Smith agreed about the backgrounds of the members. He related that some of the members of the task force didn't even realize the City had Floodplain regulations. "At the last meeting members brain stormed ideas for possible changes. In a matter of 20 minutes, they came up with 52 ideas. The next meeting will be February 11, 1999. There will be an update on that meeting at the February board meeting. Water Board Minutes January 28, 1999 Page 6 Report on Utilities Strategic Planning Initiative Meeting Dennis Sumner reminded the Board of the Utilities Strategic Planning Initiative dinner meeting of the Water Board and Electric Board on Thursday, February 4th from 5:00 - 7:00 p.m. The consultant, R. W. Beck will be reporting back on their preliminary findings from the Competitive Assessment phase. They had met earlier with each board. They have held a number of interviews with the city manager, the deputy city manager, the mayor and a variety of top staff, the city council liaisons for the two boards, including focus groups of large customers, citizen groups and employee groups. "They have inspected some of our facilities and looked at our specifications and our rates. They have tried to gather a lot of information about who we are, how we do business, what our structure is, what our procedures are, etc.," Mr. Sumner explained. Earlier in the day on the 4th the consultants will be giving a similar presentation to some of the staff. "We will be spending some time in the afternoon with them working towards articulating some statements for the Utilities around values, vision and mission," he concluded. Water Supply and Liaison Issues Committees' Report Tom Brown reported that the Water Supply and Liaison Issues Committees met jointly at 2:00 prior to the Board meeting. The Water Resources staff gave a presentation on a new analysis of the ability of the Utility to meet treated water demands assuming the 1-in-50 drought event, and looking at it to the year 2040. They used population projections and per capita use projections that were available for planning purposes. Two major points were made: 1) Raw water is not a limiting factor in terms of meeting future demands, rather it's the ability to deliver that water; specifically, raw water storage capacity is a limiting factor. He noted that they didn't get into treatment plant capacities. 2) If you look only at the Water Utility service area, not at the areas serviced by the surrounding water districts, the Utility can meet this demand without deficits during a 1-in-50 drought with relatively minor changes in the ability to deliver water; specifically completion of the pipeline from the Poudre River which expands the pipelines' capacity from about 20mg to 80mg. Adding another 2000 ac-ft of close -in storage, using perhaps gravel pits or other types of storage, would also be important. For the present service area alone, Halligan doesn't appear to be necessary for the 1-in-50 drought. As far as looking outside the present service area, which is expecting a lot of growth, obviously major additional storage becomes necessary for the 1-in-50 or more severe drought. Water Board Minutes January 28, 1999 Page 7 This points to a need for regional cooperation when we begin to look at a need for major storage; specifically Halligan. He noted that all of this analysis is tentative. Staff will be fine tuning it in the future. Alison Adams added that the other boundary was within the Urban Growth Area (UGA). The other districts are within the UGA; that was the other service area. The districts are growing more in the UGA It certainly points toward our on -going regional efforts as the pipeline was to begin with. Just from that point of view, we need to decide what is the best thing to do with Halligan in the long run. Looking at that from a regional perspective is going to be the way to go. "Does that mean it's possible in the future that the larger percentage of the citizens of Fort Collins will be served by the districts?" Mr. Clopper asked. "It depends on how far out you go," Mike Smith replied. "Do you mean in the existing UGA?" "Yes, Mr. Clopper said. "From looking at the numbers, I don't think so," Ms. Adams responded. "It would be a slightly smaller percentage," David Lauer observed, "because of the growth differential between those areas that are inside the district and those that are outside." "I think the increase in population that we are expecting in the year 2040 was within the service area," Mr. Brown pointed out. "It's about equal to the actual population numbers expected to the other water district service areas. That's roughly up to 40,000 people. In percentage terms, I'd say what you said is correct." "The growth percentage is higher; the overall percentage isn't," Ms. Adams explained. "The districts' service areas are growing faster than the Water Utility's service area," Mr. Brown said. "Are you looking at the whole district or just the part that's in the UGA?" Joe Bergquist asked. "We just looked at the area within the UGA," Mr. Bode said. "Do we ever tie up with Greeley?" Mr. Bergquist asked. The Water Resources staff has been working on the hydrology part of it," Mr. Bode replied. "There is ajoint modeling effort with Greeley, Fort Collins and the Northern District. There is still some work left." "What was the last study that looked at the whole area?" Mr. Bergquist asked. "I think the Cache La Poudre Basin Study?' Mr. Smith said. "Are we hosting the tri-cities meeting this year?" Mr. Clopper wondered. "I think we are," Mr. Smith replied. "This might be a topic for that meeting," Mr. Clopper suggested. Ms. Adams said that Water Resources staff still has some technical work to do on this. Mr. Brown also mentioned that we will continue to look at the 1-in-50 drought to see how sensitive all this is to it versus some other drought; e.g. a 1-in-100. "That will make a big difference in the storage," Ms. Adams concluded. Water Board Minutes January 28, 1999. Page 8 Conservation and Public Education David Lauer reported that all three members were present for the meeting. Conservation and Public Education will have a series of 5 monthly meetings at 2:00 prior to the Board meeting. "Today we had an update on the mandatory metering program. Next time we will discuss the Utilities' public education projects. At the third meeting we will talk about stormwater quality and flood hazards, and at the fourth meeting integration of stormwater management. The topic for the last meeting will be the review of procedures to inform citizens about the quality of their drinking water." Mr. Lauer continued by saying that Lee McMahon, with Metering Services, met with the Committee today and gave an overview of the water metering program. That progress report showed that in 1998, 886 meters were installed which was substantially less than the 1400 they were shooting for. Out of the 886, 181 were volunteers which is a mixed bag in terms of what staff wants to happen. If you get too many volunteers, you lose your efficiency because installers must travel all over town instead of concentrating on one area. Staff is trying to keep volunteers at a minimum. Meter crews will zigzag from north to south as they work towards the east. In January, the Utilities kicked off the "Gotta Meter?" campaign. A bill stuffer in the January bills shows Mayor Ann Azari holding a meter saying, "Like water? Got a meter?" The same theme is being used to send brochures to customers when it's their turn to get a meter installed. Two weeks after the brochures, a post card will be sent out if people haven't responded. Then if there is still no response, a door hanger is left that says, "on such and such a date, your water will be turned off." Of the 886 people there were only 6 water turnoffs "which to me is pretty amazing," he said. All 6 people who had their water turned off responded within 24 hours. Next year another celebrity will be chosen for new campaign materials. The Coloradoan will soon begin publishing a map indicating the areas where the meter crews are working. I& Lauer related that there has been a problem with duplexes. They usually have only one water tap, and only one bill is sent. This makes it difficult to decide how to divide the monthly bill. There doesn't seem to be a good way of solving the problem. Staff provides information to duplex customers to help them fairly divide the bill. Mr. Lauer passed around a sample of the incentive packet which the crews bring to customers if they respond in a timely manner and keep their appointments. The water conservation kits contain a shower head, faucet aerators for the bathroom and kitchen and a toilet tank bag to displace water in the toilet. At the end of the meeting the Committee was told that the Office of Water Conservation at the state level is in the process of getting itself continued through some legislation that would strike out its sunset date this coming July. It has already gone through the House. If it passes the Senate, the Office of Water Conservation would be continued at the state level, but there doesn't appear to be any 0 Water Board Minutes January 28, 1999 Page 9 funding yet. In the past, the City of Fort Collins and Loveland have used money from there for various projects, so "we are hoping that it will not only be continued, but would receive funding as well," Mr. Lauer concluded. There were no other committee reports. Metro Water Supply Investigation Report George Reed would like a summary of the Metro Water Supply Investigation Report after the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District has completed it. The entire report was distributed to Board members earlier. City's Civil Liability Concerning Maximum Historical Flood Studies At the November meeting, Dave Frick introduced a proposal regarding possible drainage criteria for the City of Fort Collins. Since the City is considering changes to design criteria, he proposed that the Water Board and staff consider a "Check Flood" or "Maximum Historical Flood" as part of the drainage criteria that would be used to identify potential flood hazards in the design of new developments. A check storm would be developed based on data from the 1997 flood. This storm would be standard and used throughout the City on new development. Board members were given a confidential memo from John Duval, Deputy City Attorney. If the City was to require that maximum historical flood studies be submitted by developers in the development review process and if the City conducted its own such studies in connection with its Basin Master Drainage Plans, what effect would this have on the City's civil liability? The memo discussed the risk and consequences and provided conclusions and recommendations. ACTION: Vote to go into Executive Session Dave Rau moved that the Board go into executive session to discuss the Maximum Historical Flood for the Development Review Process. Alison Adams seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. ACTION: Motion and Vote After discussion in executive session, the Board meeting was reconvened to take action on the issue. David Rau moved that the Board recommend that the Maximum Historical Flood be included as part of the Stormwater Design Standards and Master Plans. John Moms seconded the motion. Tom Brown was not clear about what specifically is being suggested to add to the design standards and master plans. "It is being suggested that the Water Board recommend to the City Council that Water Board Minutes January 28, 1999 Page 10 this Maximum Historical Flood (MHF) analysis be included in development reviews and master plan updates," Mr. Clopper explained. "So it's an additional requirement of a developer to provide an analysis of the effect on the property of a certain event of what it is designed for; in other words, a what if analysis?" Mr. Brown asked. "That's correct," Mr. Clopper replied. John Morris referred to the third paragraph on p. 2 of the memo which stated: "Under Mr. Frick's suggestion, a developer of a future project would be required, during the development review process, to provide the City with an MHF study relating to the project. The results of the MHF study would then be available to the developer to use as he or she desired in the planning of the project. It would also be available to the City and to prospective owners of property in the project. The City could use the MHF study for emergency planning, while prospective owners could use the information to make decisions about their use of the property. The MHF study would not be used to impose any additional stormwater requirements upon the developer as a prerequisite to the City's approval of the project. The sole purpose of requiring the developer to provide the MHF study would be informational." "Is it unusual to require a developer to do a `what if analysis?" Mr. Brown asked. "It is commonly done with the Corps of Engineers. With state DOT bridges, for example, you design typically for the 500 and 100-year floods and see what happens with a 500-year event. In the case of the Corps of Engineers, they call it Maximum Probable Adjustment Standards Design for a Standard Project Flood, which is much larger than a 100-year event, as a check to see how much backwater is created during the course of an event that is larger than what the structure was designed for," Mr. Clopper explained. "Dams typically take the design of this Probable Maximum Flood." "Is it just a matter of plugging that number in?" Mr. Morris asked. "Yes, you plug the rainfall distribution from the rainfall curve into the model that is already in the development design criteria," Mr. Clopper clarified. "Also, FEMA requires an analysis of the 500-year event. We now model the 100-year and the 500-year floodplains," Bob Smith related. Where does that water go when is drains? People can decide whether they want to ignore it or floodproof their property to the 500-year storm," Mr. Smith explained. "It's an informational piece." "Are we worried about the cost to the developers?" Mr. Bergquist asked. "It would be an additional analysis they would have to plug in. You have the model that would be set up for the 100-year event with their facilities. You would take that model and put the higher rainfall intensities and plot that line on a map," Mr. Smith explained. "If an individual has some property that he wants to build a house on, is that considered a developer too?" Mr. Brown asked. "It would be required of the subdivision (PUD), essentially," Mr. Smith said. "If you want to subdivide it and sell it off, you have to get it approved." "I think it would apply to any development or re -development and master plan that requires a stormwater drainage plan; it would have this additional requirement," Mr. Clopper added. "The key is the City has to publicize that this information is available, where you get the information and what it means to a developer," Mr. Smith stressed. Water Board Minutes January 28, 1999 Page 11 "Is this a relatively minor addition to what already has to be done in terms of analysis?" Mr. Brown continued. "The analysis is not a major step," Mr. Smith responded. "It's a small increment to what is already being done, so the cost isn't that great." "The cost of a drainage report is in the neighborhood of $1500-2000, in addition to the $20-30,000 that is being spent to do it, so we are talking less than 10%," Mr. Clopper said. "For a typical development, it's well under a 10% increment," he emphasized. Mr. Smith pointed out that the City can't just go out and do this tomorrow. "We have to generate the rainfall intensities that the developer has to plug in, and there has to be public outreach as well on the revised design criteria." ACTION: Vote Paul Clopper called for the question. He asked for a show of hands on the vote. The vote was 7-1 in favor of the motion. David Lauer was opposed because he didn't feel comfortable with the City demanding that something be done and then holding itself immune if something doesn't go their way. "It doesn't seem equitable. I need to think about it some more," he concluded. • •18111:4031MOR Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. Water Board 9ecretary