Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 08/26/1999— 221-6700 Water Board Chair: Paul Clopper I Phone: 223-5556 Vice Chair: Tom Sanders Phone: 491-5448 MEMBERS PRESENT Tom Sanders, Vice Chair; Dave Rau, David Lauer, Bill Fischer, George Reed, John Morris, Joe Bergquist, Tom Brown MEMBERS ABSENT Paul Clopper, Chair; Robert Ward, Dave Frick, OPEN MEETING The regular meeting of the Water Board was held in the Fort Collins Utilities Training Room at 700 Wood Street. Vice Chair, Tom Sanders, opened the meeting at 3:10 in place of Chair Paul Clopper who was absent due to surgery. The following items were discussed: APPROVAL OF MINUTES David Lauer moved that the minutes of July 22, 1999 as distributed. George Reed seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. David Lauer made some observations about a section of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District report. UPDATE: NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT Gene Schleiger was unavailable to give the report. pOUDRE RIVER FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS RECOMMENDATION Bob Smith began his presentation by referring to a chart showing a matrix of proposed floodplain regulations that was handed out to the Board. He then gave a short history on the Floodplain Regulations Task Force, which began in July of 1998 when the Water Board recommended a policy review for designated floodplains. They recommended Council review and possibly revise existing policies regarding development in the floodplain. In December of 1998, the Task Force was created with 21 individuals of various backgrounds. Water Board Minutes August 26, 1999 Page 2 Since that time, the Task Force has been meeting and there have been a couple of updates to the Water Board. Staff has put together a recommendation with various options. They will be soliciting comments from the Natural Resources Board, Water Board and Planning and Zoning Board. They will also present it to the Health and Safety Committee, Finance Committee, and Growth Management Committee. At the end of November City Council will have a Study Session. Right now staff is looking for feedback and action from the Board on the options they have recommended. The staffrecommendation was highlighted in the matrix by shading and bolding of various categories. John Morris asked if these would apply to the whole river or part? Bob Smith said the idea was to take whatever option that comes up and apply it to the whole reach of the river through the City limits. Dr. Sanders asked if they were going to justify each category? Mr. Smith answered that they would. Mr. Smith gave an orientation of the matrix showing that from left to right the categories go from less restrictive to more restrictive. It was a complicated issue because when "new development" is discussed, do you mean residential, commercial, remodels, etc? The matrix was developed to help identify each area that is being considered. The first item is floodplain regulations and is currently what Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has on the books as the minimum requirements. "Option A" is our current floodplain regulations; "Option B" is a little more restrictive than A, and "Option C" is the most restrictive. The idea was, that based on feedback and health and safety issues associated with flooding, staffs position is to have fewer people in the floodplain. The floodplain is the entire width of the waterway. FEMA regulations say that you are allowed to encroach on the sides until you get to a certain surcharge in the water and then you will have to stop. That becomes the floodway. An example being, if you take a balloon and put it on the table and squeeze it, the water goes up in the middle. When the water goes up a foot that becomes the FEMA line. Fort Collins allows six inches of rise, which is more restrictive because it is a wider floodway. It becomes that line. Bill Fischer asked if this had some function with the velocity or pressure? Marsha Hilmes answered that the floodway would be the deeper and faster area. When you go through and apply the one foot, you will have higher velocities and higher depths than in a six-inch because you will have a narrower floodway. In some areas the floodway and floodplain are the same because in that area the flows are channelized. Dave Rau asked if there was a minimum depth for the water in a floodplain? Mr. Smith answered that it had to be eighteen inches, flowing two feet per second in combination. "Dry Creek is right on the edge. You can do it either of two ways, the depth or the velocity. Dry Creek has a legitimate floodway, but it is shallow so that is how they defined it." Water Board Minutes August 26, 1999 Page 3 George Reed asked "If you actually had a hundred -year flood, could I walk out to where the water stops and draw a line and it would be that line on the map? Mr. Smith replied that it would be the same. Floodway modification was the next topic. Someone asked if you could you come in and channelize the river to make it more efficient? The recommendation is against it, because when you start doing that you would be altering the dynamics of the river and looking at unstable conditions. Flood protection projects were also brought up and discussed in the Task Force meetings. They are those that are identified in the Master Drainage Plans. A good example is on the Poudre River where a levy is proposed on the actual site to protect Buckingham and those properties to the east. There is about a 400 cfs break out of the river and the Master Plan recommended a levy system. Staff thought it was appropriate to do it to protect the properties in the floodplain, and the improvements were cost effective. Tom Brown questioned Mr. Smith about a hundred -year flood. He wondered how deep the water would be going through Buckingham and how fast? He also asked what the threat to life would be? "In Buckingham, to give you an idea of the magnitude of what we have in this area, there is almost 14,000 cfs going through. About four hundred cfs takes off between the 50th and hundred year storm and flows about a foot to two feet depending on where you are in Buckingham." Mr. Smith explained. "This is more of a ponding area." He said it doesn't flow very fast. "Evacuations would be going through water, but as far as people getting washed from here to here, it is not likely that would take place." John Morris asked if we use levies very often? Mr. Smith replied that there was one other one on Timberline. Marsha Hilmes added, "When we are talking levies, we are talking about four feet with about three-foot of that being free board." Dave Rau interjected that the reason for that is the river used to run through that area. It was channelized. George Reed asked if there would be any substantial improvement if we let the river go back the way it used to go? Mr. Smith explained that it would be pretty difficult. The bridges would have to be removed and the river has gone down to bedrock in this area creating very high velocities. "Assuming we relocated those two bridges, would there be any less chance ofthe four hundred cfs coming through?" David Lauer asked. The answer was that there would be more of a chance of having more water coming through that way because the ground is lower. George Reed wondered which sewer district takes care of Buckingham? Jim Hibbard answered that it was the City. Mr. Reed also stated: "When you're talking about that being pretty low, if that area was flooded with a foot of water, you would have all of the sewers back up." The next topic Mr. Smith went over was the purchase of property. "We have a purchase option for willing sellers in a floodplain. He didn't have an exact number for that one yet, but going from the urban growth area you are talking about $120 million for purchasing all of the properties in the floodplain Water Board Minutes August 26, 1999 Page 4 (structures and land), not protected by flood plain measures." He said we would also need to notify owners and renters that they are in a floodplain, which we started doing this year. "On the purchase option to buy, if we buy it, what are our rules as far as what we do with that property? Tom Sanders asked. Bob Smith said it was returned to open space which removes the risk. Next Mr. Smith spoke about fill. Fill is not allowed unless it is identified with a flood protection project. Also, a property cannot be removed from a floodplain with the placement of fill (i.e. coming in and revising the maps) -once in a floodplain, always in a floodplain. If the maps were revised because of a change in the hydrology, would that be okay? Dave Rau wondered. Mr. Smith said that it would. Marsha Hihnes interjected that the problem right now is that there is a loophole in FEMA regulations. A person can fill before putting up a structure and submit the elevations to FEMA. FEMA then redraws the map and the owner is allowed to put in a basement if he wants to. Ms. Hilmes said that the recommendation is a way of trying to close that loophole. Moving on to new development, Mr. Smith pointed out the recommendation as not allowing new development (of a walled -in structure) in a floodplain, but you could have recreation, natural resources facilities, or infrastructure (i.e. sewer mains, parking lots w/out walls, and trails). Also, mobile home parks would not be allowed in the floodplain or floodway. George Reed asked, "At Edora Park, there is a building for parks and recreation and a couple of restrooms. Would those structures be allowed in the floodplain?" Ms. Hilmes replied that insurance requires that they would have to be moved out of the floodplain. Going back to the topic of not allowing new development, David Lauer wondered if it would make sense to put some kind of square footage regulation on that if someone wanted to pave a hundred -year floodplain? Mr. Smith said that it is basically tied to land use and is probably more a water quality/ design criteria question if you're concerned with increased paved areas in the floodplain. Floodplain-wise it is not really an issue because it is not an obstruction. Dave Rau wondered if the wording on the structures prevents you from putting in a roofed structure? Ms. Hilmes answered that you could build one because it doesn't have walls. Or a gazebo could be built because it has a roof, but no walls. It has to be the combination of both walls and a roof. If you have a large bathroom facility that takes up 1% of the park area, it seems like an appropriate use a Board member said. Ms. Hilmes said, "Part of it is insurance. The way they define a structure for whether it is insurable under the flood insurance program is wall to roof. Therefore, you have more potential damage sitting there that could be insured." She went on to explain that those structures are considered insurable if they have walls, but not a "roofed" area. Water Board Minutes August 26, 1999 Page 5 Tom Sanders reiterated what Mr. Brown had said earlier that if you were going to make the areas recreational, they would have to have restrooms. Mr. Brown agreed that parks are a very appropriate use of the space and we shouldn't be discouraging them at the same time. Jim Hibbard added that Option B would allow restrooms, maintenance sheds, pump houses and sewage lift stations that might go well with the types of open lands being talked about. Mr. Smith said: "What I would like to do, when the discussion is ended, is to get a feel for where the Board is compared to where staff is." John Morris asked if the Board is supposed to ultimately say Option A is what they want. Mr. Smith explained that they could also pick options from each category until they come up with another option (or Option D). "Is there an area on this table that covers the sorts of facilities that relate to a park or the kinds of things that Jim Hibbard mentioned?" Tom Brown asked. "New development in Option B."Mr. Smith answered. Ms. Hilmes added, with that option you would still be allowing construction in a floodplain portion. We could modify the language under Option C. The next option discussed was residential/commercial development. In this option we would not allow residential/commercial in the floodway or floodplain. Remodels would also fall in this category. Currently, we allow existing structures in a floodplain or floodway to be remodeled in a fifty percent accumulative. This means ten remodels can be done, but accumulatively they have to add up to be less than fifty percent of the value of the structure, and not have to come under the floodplain regulations. The additions also have to be vertical or interior because they are not allowed to increase the "footprint" (or square footage). Redevelopment is not allowed either. If it is torn down, it cannot be rebuilt. It was pointed out that if you allow remodels, why not allow redevelopment with the same square footage? "That is a good comment." Mr. Smith remarked. Moving on to critical facilities, Mr. Smith said they expanded this to include daycare. Right now, daycare facilities are not categorized in this area. Critical facilities are not allowed in five -hundred year flood plains. (Hospitals, nursing homes, gas stations, quick lubes, are all critical facilities.) Some want to expand this one further to include retail (Shopping centers). Riparian areas are covered by environmental laws already in place. These proposed regulations are not associated with environmental protection. Dry land access is required only if applicable to substantial improvements through remodels. One item the County has in their new regulations is, if you have a structure built in a floodplain, that structure should have a dry access to it during a flood. People should be able to get in and out during an emergency. Water Board Minutes August 26, 1999 Page 6 The next two categories were flooding materials and variances. Flooding materials is related to commercial properties. Portable propane tanks and lumber are not allowed because they can be carried downstream. Special variances are special needs for special circumstances. Dr. Sanders wondered if variances were allowed here, and Mr. Smith answered that they were. Discussed next was the level offloodproofing. We are at eighteen inches right now. The flood insurance grants are in one -foot increments so people who are floodproofing those extra six inches are not getting the credit for flood insurance purposes. We raised it to twenty-four inches, so they are getting lower rates. Dr. Sanders asked whether Mr. Smith wanted a vote today on what the Board's position was on the different topics? He replied that it would be nice to get a feel for where the Board is. He said the Planning & Zoning Board let them know where they stand, but did not vote on it at that time. Mr. Smith informed the Board that this is the first time this has been done, and it is being done for the Poudre River. Eventually, this will be done for Spring Creek and the other floodplains in the City. The items decided and agreed upon here will be the template for the entire City. Joe Bergquist asked if this would eventually go to Council and Mr. Smith assured him that it would. "Assuming the City adopts some or all of this, we will be going to more restrictive requirements, which will, of course, affect land owners and the rights they have," Bill Fischer began. "I don't know if staff has gone to the City Attorney's Office to discuss with them the constitutionality of this as far as due process and condemnation." he added. His concern was that this might be the template for the Poudre River and ultimately the template for others. The City could have some rather disgruntled people saying the City has inadvertently condemned their property by all of these restrictions. Mr. Smith told him they are following up with the City Attorney's Office to make sure that what they have written considers the "takings" issue and the effects it might have. Staff has not yet received a response from the City Attorney's Office on this issue. Joe Bergquist had another concern that we seem to be going "back -and -forth" on defining the floodplain and floodway. He suggested that the Board look at the rest of the categories as if that might not pass. Dave Rau said he could see that is why they said "floodway or floodplain." Mr. Smith stated that what they decide on dictates a lot of what would happen further down on the matrix. He said the first questions should be: how big do you want the floodway to be, and how restrictive do you want to go? Mr. Moms had questions about the critical facilities and new development. He wondered if there was some reason staff didn't consider retail facilities in the critical facilities category. As far as new development, he didn't feel Option B meets the standards they were trying for. Mr. Smith said the Task Force had a presentation by the Poudre Fire Authority and retail was not a big deal for them. Although there are hazardous materials, they are normally boxed up or in containers that are sealed. When you get Water Board Minutes August 26, 1999 Page 7 to homes where containers are partially opened, that is where the hazards are. Also, Option B allows for any construction in a floodplain not just for restrooms or small facilities. Mr. Moms wondered if there could be a better definition of what a Natural Resources facility would be. "Is ELC, a natural resources building? Is it going to be a large facility as opposed to a small bathroom or a pump house?" Mr. Smith did not think the ELC would be considered a small facility. He said some ofthe terminology the Task Force has been using is "facilities of nominal expense or value." Tom Sanders interjected that they could just put "bathrooms" specifically into the wording. Ms. Hilmes reminded the Board that there is still the option for variances. If something came through which seemed like it made sense, somebody can still come to the Board. We may even be able to adopt certain things that are granted variances once and then they are adopted from then on (bathrooms, pump houses, etc.). These would have automatic variances from the Board for meeting these certain circumstances or criteria. Considering that, Mr. Morris felt by leaving the last sentence of Option C in, would mean it would have to go through some sort of variance. George Reed thought that would be the best way to go also. Mr. Smith's suggestion was to restrict it to a 350 square foot structure or something to that effect and Dr. Sanders agreed that maybe that would cover the variance. David Lauer asked if they would consider washable architecture as an option and Tom Brown felt that by specifying a certain square footage they would make things too restrictive at this point. Mr. Morris suggested that it could be worded to not allow walled and roofed structures of any kind except for a variance. The Board agreed that bathroom facilities were needed and they should be without a certain square footage at this time. They also agreed that the wording should be done so there wouldn't have to be a variance for bathrooms. Dr. Sanders asked if there was any position different from staffs that would need to be discussed. Mr. Fischer asked about redevelopment. He asked if the Board would consider Option A which allows for redevelopment in an existing floodway or floodplain, but add as long as the "foot print" remains the same. Mr. Morris stressed that the desire is to eliminate that through attrition. "You would also have the circumstance of wanting to tear down a structure because it was an old shack, etc., but because it burned down, or was destroyed by a flood, or tornado, or whatever," Ms. Hilmes interjected. "Can they rebuild that under these other circumstances?" Joe Bergquist reminded the Board that for over a year now, the Task Force has discussed this. He said even though the Task Force wasn't well represented by private owners, most of the people (including those with homes in a floodplain) tended to be more restrictive than staff. Mr. Brown said he could understand someone who has a home in a floodplain and has lived there for a number of years, if there is a fire, and their home is insured, they will have the money to rebuild there, and then they would not able to. "The property is not worth as much without the residents," Dave Rau added. Water Board Minutes August 26, 1999 Page 8 Dr. Sanders then asked if there was a policy to purchase that property from them? Mr. Smith said that there is, but there is no revenue to do it with. He said it is a difficult decision. Dave Rau felt that the Board should not go with Option C. He found that option to be very restrictive. When it doesn't change basic flood elevation he didn't see how that really hurts the property owners. Mr. Rau wondered what staff thought about going from one foot to zero in the FEMA requirements. We are already more restrictive than FEMA. Mr. Smith explained how in some places there is a difference between a floodplain and floodway. In others, there is not. "My point is, if in filling in those fringes you don't change the base flood elevation, those aren't really high risk properties," Dave Rau asserted. "They are higher risk than being on the other side of that line." Ms. Hilmes stated. Mr. Reed thinks it would seem better to hold to a line or it becomes difficult to administer. However, Mr. Rau didn't feel it would be that difficult. He felt that when you have to tell someone they have an inch of water on their property by using hydrology, and now they can't do anything with it, seems too restrictive. "I guess that is probably the fundamental issue. I think that we can break that out." Dr. Sanders stated. He believes it goes against what we are trying to protect in that hundred -year area and get people out of it. "If you move the point one foot, then there is going to be development again, and there is always going to be this issue every time we have a hundred -year flood," he added. Dr. Sanders continued by asking if someone wanted to make a motion to break that statement out and talk about it. He thought that redevelopment was fairly well taken care of along with allowing restrooms to be built on land converted to open space. On the other issues, he thought that the Board agreed with staff, but ifthis area was a big issue, then he felt it should be discussed further. Otherwise, the Board could just vote for the whole matrix instead of each one. Before they went on to the vote, Mr. Brown wanted more clarification on the remodeling. He did not see why there was a difference between the accumulative and non accumulative. His question was, if you were not increasing the "footprint" why would we care how much remodeling goes on in the house? Ms. Hilmes explained that the person would be increasing the value of the structure. Therefore, they would have more property value at risk as improvements were made. On a structure that is built below grade, they keep refinishing until they have a more valuable property in a hazardous place. "Is the public concerned that a private party will somehow cajole the public entity into footing the bill?" Mr. Brown inquired. "We all pay the bill with disaster assistance and flood insurance. Flood insurance is subsidized by the Federal Government and then if the area is to be declared as a national disaster area, they could get assistance for those losses as well." Ms. Hilmes explained. Dr. Sanders pointed out that they could beat that by saying every time they do an upgrade, they only do fifty percent at a time. Ms. Hilmes explained that right now it is added up accumulatively. Once they hit Water Board Minutes August 26, 1999 Page 9 their accumulative average of fifty percent over the life of the structure, they are not allowed to build anymore (Option A) unless they bring that structure under compliance with the regulations. "But you are recommending the FEMA option which would allow incremental, every time, at fifty percent," Dr. Sanders countered. Ms. Mimes explained it as a balancing and compensation for the other items being more restrictive. Mr. Hibbard added that to keep track of the accumulative over twenty or thirty years was an administrative nightmare. Mr. Brown felt there were two ways to look at it: on the one hand, we don't want the public ending up footing some of this bill. On the other, the public dropped the ball a long time ago by allowing these structures to be built in the first place. "There has to be some sort of compromise between the two sides," he added. Dr. Sanders asked him ifhe agreed with stairs view on remodels. "Yes, the non accumulative," he replied. Joe Bergquist requested that ifthe Board was going to pull out the first one, (floodway width), he wanted to pull out redevelopment and review Option B also. Dr. Sanders suggested they take the first one, then if that changed, they would look at the second one. He also asked if there were any other diversions from what the staff recommended. David Lauer said under Option B, the third one down (flood protection projects), he felt there should be language added that, except for the levy to protect Buckingham, there should be no increases in the amount of channeling to the Poudre River through the City. "What we do is protect existing structures when identified with a Master Drainage Plan, but we don't want to increase channeling more than it already is (excluding the one for Buckingham). Mr. Smith explained that they specifically put in language that says it is based on the Master Drainage Plan. Dr. Sanders added, "We don't want to make it so we can't do anything with control of the river." Mr. Rau felt that, by default, it already says you can't channeke. Dr. Sanders asked that the discussion be drawn to a close. Ms. Hilmes added: "If you went back to Option C, we could define what the public infrastructure was. A pump house, storage shed less than 300 square feet and bathrooms." She said staff expects that there is going to have to be a long list of definitions for everything. Mr. Lauer was concerned about a private developer looking at the regulations and then becoming upset because we are allowing ourselves to build infrastructure, but not them. Dr. Sanders disagreed. He said a private developer could develop a soccer field and could build bathroom facilities within the limits of the regulation language. Mr. Lauer concurred with Dr. Sanders because the language says "public facilities, recreation and natural resources facilities." The rest of the Board agreed also that the ball field would fall under "recreation and natural resources facilities." Ms. Mimes added that public infrastructure was meant to be sewer lines, water lines and roads. Water Board Minutes August 26, 1999 Page 10 ACTION: First Motion Joe Bergquist moved that the Board vote on the floodplain width and the floodway as being the same. Dave Rau seconded the motion. Discussion was resumed when Mr. Rau stated that he felt Option B was very restrictive, but allowed a little flexiblility on the edges. Mr. Fischer asked for Option B to be explained again. Mr. Rau explained, for a new structure, you could fill out on the fringes until you raised the water level 0.1 foot if it were to flood. The structure would still have to be twenty-four inches above the structure flood elevation. Ms. Hilmes showed pictures of how going from a one foot rise to a tenth of a foot rise, for an existing house, could cause more or less damage when flooding occurs Dr. Sanders suggested that a better definition of it would be that you are moving the boundary from a hundred -year depth to a ninety-eight or ninety -nine-year flood. "What you are talking about is just a little bit of a compromise." Mr. Rau added that the City is currently working off a '/2 of a foot and FEMA works from a one foot standard. Mr. Smith interjected that we are still planning for a hundred -year flood. The question becomes, how much encroachment are you allowing to go into that hundred -year floodplain? We still have the floodplain elevations that people have to deal with, the floodplain maps, and discharges as before. Mr. Brown questioned why someone would recommend a tenth of a foot or a'/2 foot. "You can develop in those fringe areas and take advantage of land, and not really change what happens to the flood." Mr. Rau explained. Mr. Brown added that one would not be changing what happens to the flood because it is just a small amount. He said, "If it were two -foot, then there would be a more substantial effect on the flood." "Even the inch is misleading." Mr. Rau added. "You would have to encroach along the whole stretch." ACTION: Vote Tom Sanders restated the motion to vote on the floodplain width and the floodway as being the same. All the Board Members voted for breaking out the definition of the floodplain and floodway for more discussion except David Lauer. ACTION: Second Motion and Vote A motion was then made by George Reed to make the floodway equal to the floodplain as explained in Option C and David Lauer seconded it. The motion passed five to three with Joe Bergquist, Bill Fischer, and Dave Rau voting against it. ACTION: Third Motion and Vote David Lauer moved to accept the rest of Staffs recommendations, subject to revised language for the new development category, regarding restrooms, that will be brought back to the Board in September. Joe Bergquist provided a second. Dr. Sanders asked if there was further discussion. Water Board Minutes August 26, 1999 Page 11 Mr. Rau wanted to reinforce the answer given last time where, if our intention is long-term to reduce the number of structures in the floodplain, then we don't want to allow for rebuilding if the structure burns down. As a board, we want to say if it burns down, or you tear it down, you will have to go outside of the floodplain to rebuild. Mr. Fischer felt that leaving that statement in would be harsh, as did a few other members of the board. Mr. Morris once again reminded the Board that the variance process allows citizens to come back to the Board for reconsideration. He said our preference is elimination through attrition. We don't want rebuilding, but there is a process allowing variances. There is a "loop" through hardships where the resident can come back and talk with the Board. Upon hearing this information, Mr. Fischer withdrew his reservations about the motion. The motion to accept the recommendation of staff, subject to revised language for the new development category, passed unanimously. UTILITIES SERVICES 2000-2001 BUDGET APPROVAL AND REVIEW OF CUSTOMER COMPARISON DATA Dave Agee reviewed some ofthe items presented on the Utilities budget from the last meeting. Approval of the budget was postponed until this meeting because five Water Board members were absent. There was also a suggestion that staff meet with the Legislative and Finance Committee Chair Robert Ward to determine if there was a need to have the Committee look at the Budget in more detail. Mike Smith, Dave Agee and Robert Ward met after the August meeting and decided it wasn't necessary. In addition, the Board had requested that Mr. Agee prepare customer cost comparison data for review at the September meeting. Mr. Agee distributed the customer cost comparison data. The first page showed the comparisons for Longmont, Loveland, Colorado Springs, Denver, Greeley and Fort Collins. The second page showed a monthly Utilities bill for a typical Fort Collins single family customer, and the third page listed the pro forma statement of the budget for all of the Utilities funds, allowing the Board to see the magnitude of the dollars. Mr. Agee said he was looking for discussion on the rate comparisons and a recommendation to Council to approve the budget. ACTION: Motion John Morris moved that the Board approve the Utilities budget as proposed. Bill Fischer seconded the motion. Dr. Sanders called for discussion. Referring to the water columns under the comparisons, Mr. Rau asked why there is such a significant difference between Denver's $258 to Fort Collins' $345 and Loveland's $459 to Fort Collins' $345. Mr. Agee didn't feel prepared to provide all the details for each of the cities, but he said he spoke with a Denver water representative and that person said Denver would really have to fight to get even a 2% Water Board Minutes August 26, 1999 Page 12 increase. As for what comprises those figures, he wasn't sure other than that Fort Collins has more debt than those two cities. Mr. Agee said staff didn't compare water budgets. ACTION: Vote Vice Chairman Sanders called the question to approve the Utilities 2000-2001 Budget. The motion passed unanimously. ADJUSTMENT OF RAW WATER REQUIREMENT CONVERSION FACTOR FOR NORTH POUDRE IRRIGATION COMPANY SHARES Dennis Bode explained that the Water Supply Committee met and talked about recommending that the Water Board revise the conversion factor for the satisfaction ofrawwater requirements forNorth Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC) shares. Currently, the shares of NPIC have a conversion factor of 5.57 acre feet per share. This means that when a developer turns over one share of NPIC, he receives a credit of 5.57 acre feet toward the satisfaction of his Raw Water Requirement (RWR). The first item relating to NPIC shares concerns the list of water rights the City accepts when developers want water service from the City. During the last several years North Poudre has tried to more clearly define the agricultural and municipal yields they get from those shares, and they are a little clearer than they have been in the past. Mr. Bode went on to say that the committee felt that 5.57 is a little on the high side because of the makeup of those shares. With a 60% CBT quota, a share could satisfy 5.0 acre feet of the RWR (2.6 x 1.92). Staff believes the conversion factor should be set at that value. A conversion factor of 5.0 would provide an amount of water that more closely matches the demand for development than does the 5.57 factor. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Water Board revise the conversion factor for the satisfaction of raw water requirements for NPIC shares from 5.57 to 5.0 acre feet per share, to be effective January 1, 2000. Dr. Sanders clarified that we are just recognizing that we are getting a little less water so it will take a few more shares to make up for that. It benefits the City. Mr. Bode stated that if you looked at the water use, it works out that if there is a sixty -percent quota on CBT units, the yield for the municipal share of the North Poudre shares would be about 2.6 acre feet. Multiplying that by the 1.92 factor (water supply factor or the factor that takes care of the variation of supply from year-to-year) it works out to be about five acre feet. Bill Fischer asked if Mr. Bode had discussed this with North Poudre. Mr. Bode said it has been discussed. Several of the water districts have adopted a conversion factor of four acre feet per share. They require one unit of CBT water for each single family residence. So with North Poudre they use thefour units of CBT water per share and require those that turn over North Poudre shares to turn over u Water Board Minutes August 26, 1999 Page 13 1 share per four residences. That results in the districts having a more restrictive number than the City does. Mr. Bode continued by saying that he wasn't sure we would want to go down to four because it would discourage developers from turning in North Poudre shares. Since we get CBT water in each North Poudre share, we still want to encourage developers to turn them over to the City. Dr. Sanders was concerned about the CBT rules of ownership. He wondered ifthey came into play when we received North Poudre shares. Mr. Bode said the transfer of North Poudre shares does not go through the Northern District. Tom Brown felt that five was a compromise between the strict CBT shares and what we are doing now. Mr. Rau agreed that it was a fairly conservative compromise. Mr. Fischer asked how we arrived at the 5.57? Mr Bode wasn't sure of all the history, but he thought they looked at the total appropriation that North Poudre made per share and that probably worked out to about 5.57 at that time. He said there was no real consideration of what was ag. water and what was municipal. "Will this decrease the amount of North Poudre we are going to get?" Dr. Sanders inquired. Mr. Bode answered that it could by a little. He thought it was driven by the four units of CBT. Mr. Fischer didn't feel prepared to vote because he didn't think he had enough knowledge on the subject. He suggested that he could discuss this with Mr. Bode and others as to how they came up with the old figures. He could then be comfortable with answering any questions that may arise because of the Board's action on this matter. ACTION: Motion and Vote Mr. Brown suggested that Mr. Fischer be a part of the Water Supply Committee because they go over the procedures in detail. Tom Sanders appointed Mr. Fischer to the Committee. Mr. Fischer then moved to table the motion until the September meeting. David Lauer seconded the motion. George Reed voted against the motion and Tom Sanders and Tom Brown abstained. The motion passed 5-1 with two abstentions. ADJUSTMENT OF RAW WATER REQUIREMENT - CASH IN -LIEU -OF RATE The second agenda item Mr. Bode brought to the Board was an adjustment to the Raw Water Requirement - Cash in -lieu of rate. Mr. Bode explained that when satisfying the City's raw water requirements, developers have the option of paying cash instead of turning over water rights. The cash rate, in -lieu -of water rights, is periodically adjusted to reflect the market price of water rights in this area. Water Board Minutes August 26, 1999 Page 14 "The idea of cash is to come up with a rate that provides enough funds to either purchase water rights or improve the rights we have," Mr. Bode said. The last adjustment in the City's cash in -lieu -of rate was in January, 1998 when it was adjusted from $1,800 to $2,700 per acre foot. "In the past we have used the price of CBT water to set that cash rate." Most communities have done the same because it is a major component of their supply. Since that time, the price of CBT water has risen quite dramatically with current prices about $5,000 per unit. It has almost tripled in the last 3-4 years. Referring to a graph, Mr. Bode pointed out that the North Poudre shares have also begun to rise quite rapidly. Most of our supply is coming from either North Poudre shares or Southside Ditch Companies. We get very little CBT water turned in, for a variety of reasons. Based on the numbers in the graph, it represents about 2% of the water we have received in satisfaction of raw water requirements during the last 5 years. North Poudre shares have been about 30% of it, Southside Ditches about 36%, and cash in -lieu -of has been about 32%. He went on to say that there are some other things going on in terms of City water certificates. "Mainly, I put the information together to illustrate where our supply is coming from," he said. We are at a point where we have quite a lot of CBT water through the units that we own and also through North Poudre shares. We are getting to a point where most of our supply is going to be Southside Ditch water. That raises the question about what the cash in -lieu -of rate should be tied to when we have CBT water that is very high, North Poudre shares a little lower and Southside Ditch shares that, at least currently, are significantly lower, but will gradually increase as the price of CBT and North Poudre water goes up. The Water Supply Committee struggled with this dilemma when they met recently. Tom Sanders asked what the Water Supply Committee's view is on this. Chair of the Committee Tom Brown responded that they ended up agreeing with staffs recommendation which is to change the cash in-Geu-of water rights rate from $2,700 to $3,500 per acre foot which brings it more in line with the North Poudre share price than with the CBT price. The basic notion was that the purpose of cash in -lieu -of is to be able to buy water when it isn't provided. With the NCWCD's restraints, we are not buying CBT shares. Also, since shares aren't being turned in, the more viable option is to buy North Poudre or Southside Ditch shares. "I understand that, but did the Committee come up with a different dollar value than the $3,500?" Dr. Sanders asked. "No, we didn't," Mr. Brown replied. We ended up agreeing with staff. North Poudre would be about $3,200 today and probably $3,500 by the end of the year when this would take effect on January 1, 2000. ACTION: Motion "That discrepancy doesn't bother me because the City would have to spend its time to go out and buy shares," Bill Fischer remarked. He then moved that the Water Board adopt staffs recommendation to recommend to the Council that the cash in -lieu -of water rights rate be changed from $2,700 to $3,500 per acre foot and the surcharge be changed to $1.65 per thousand gallons, effective on January 1, 2000. John Morris seconded the motion. E Water Board Minutes August 26, 1999 Page 15 "What discrepancy doesn't bother you?" Mr. Brown asked. "The discrepancy that might be a little above what a North Poudre share costs. If I understand you correctly, this might be somewhat above what a North Poudre share would cost on the free market today. If somebody turns in North Poudre shares to us, they went to the trouble to find it and transfer it to us," Mr. Fischer responded. Dave Rau asked, as we raise the cash in -lieu -of, are we setting the price of North Poudre shares; are we following or leading? "It depends on how big a part of the market we are," Mr. Brown answered. "Every time we vote on this, you know we affect the market," Dr. Sanders remarked. He added that we are following as far as the value of CBT now. Mr. Bode said that the City does not have any effect on the CBT units. It can be explained by the conversion factor. At 5.57, the price for North Poudre would be just under $2,900, so at $3,500 we would be ahead of the North Poudre price right now. In other words, we would be leading. The gap between the value of North Poudre versus CBT value bothered David Lauer. "Shouldn't we try to get a little closer to the CBT prices even though people aren't turning it in?" "We can't buy CBT water," Joe Bergquist pointed out. The dilemma that staff has, is that the Southside Ditch shares have a very limited market. Since we accept all those shares, once we raise the cash in -lieu -of rate we pull that value up and increase our own costs, or the cost per customer. The $3,500 is an attempt to try to get in the middle of all of it somehow. "Are we in the middle?" Mr. Lauer asked. "We are in the middle when we consider Southside Ditch water, and we are also somewhat above North Poudre currently," Mr. Bode explained. If anything, it suggests that we should be lower than $3,500. Joe Bergquist asked if we should have two rates. Mr. Bode said that we don't want to forget that the developer has the option of going out and finding water at whatever price the market dictates. Mr. Fischer commented that the City's rate may be a little higher because we have to go out and find it. Mr. Rau mentioned that the City has historically tried to encourage people to turn in water rights rather than cash. "The price of water this year has nothing to do with us," Dr. Sanders asserted. There is something else that is influencing it. ACTION: Vote Vice Chair Sanders called the question. The vote was unanimous to recommend to the Council that the cash in -lieu -of water rights rate be raised from $2,700 to $3,500 per acre foot, and that the previous $1.27 surcharge be changed to $1.65 per thousand gallons, to be effective on January 1, 2000. STAFF REPORTS Treated Water Production Summary The Treated Water Production Summary was provided in the packets and a Projected and Actual Treated Water Demand graph was distributed at the meeting. There was no verbal report due to the length of the agenda. Water Board Minutes August 26, 1999 Page 16 Report on Water Quality Policy Annual Report and Consumer Confidence Report Before she asked for questions about the Water Quality Policy Annual Report, Gale McGaha Miller gave the status of the Consumer Confidence Report required by the EPA. Water utilities are required to provide published information on what is in their drinking water, where the water comes from, how it has been treated, vulnerable populations, some information about cryptosporidium, giardia and for us, where Spanish speaking people can get help. There are certain guidelines and language that are mandated by the EPA. She provided copies of what will be going out as a bill stuffer starting Tuesday, September 7'. "Not knowing where Board members are in the billing cycle, and knowing other people might hear about this before you had an opportunity to see it, I brought a draft for you to preview," she said. The bottom line is we meet or surpass all state and federal water quality standards. In the "What's in our water?" section, we are required to include anything that we detect. "Because we were a large municipality, over 100,000, we were subject to the `Information Collection Rule' a few years ago. We were required to analyze for all kinds of exotic compounds for which there are no standards," she explained. "If we detected those, we had to report those also." What staff debated on was whether or not to also talk about everything we tested for and did not detect. They decided for the first year, they wanted to keep this "short and sweet." It has a layman friendly side and you turn it over and it has the meat of it. Hopefully people can take a brief glance at the headlines and graphics and get the rest of the story if they don't want to read all of that detail. Tom Brown asked about MTBE. Ms. McGaha Miller said it isn't detected in our water. At this point there is no reasonable expectation of its showing up. There are lots of studies on the problem of two- stroke engines releasing gasoline with MTBE into reservoirs. There is a large movement afoot, which will likely be a success, that will result in a ban on MTBE. "It's never been in our raw or finished drinking water," she stressed. Mr. Brown also asked if there will be a way for the public to call up additional information on the Web. "This will be on the Web," she responded, "but that's an interesting suggestion to put other information on the Web." "We'll contemplate that," she added. Ms. McGaha Miller commented on the procedures for total coliform bacteria testing, and the reported level is misleading. Board members suggested, for the next time, to provide a footnote with an explanation. She said if Board members have further questions or comments, they can call her. She asked if there were any questions on the Water Quality Policy Annual Report. She explained the origin of and reason for the report for the benefit of a new Board member. "One aspect of the report was to show what we are doing in eight strategies," she concluded. There were no questions. Water Board Minutes August 26, 1999 Page 17 COMMITTEE REPORTS Engineering Committee Report The Engineering Committee was the only one to give a report. The other meetings had already been covered within the agenda items. Tom Sanders, Engineering Committee Chair, reported that he and his Committee met with Jim Hibbard to go over some of the details contained in the Joint Water Distribution Study. He said it was a very good meeting. "Staff convinced me that the agreement for a joint water distribution study was a good one," he said. Changing Dates for November and December Board Meetings The Board is going to decide on what to do about changing these meetings at the October board meeting. iyar•IntiuLi:444rr Joe Bergquist moved to adjourn. After a second from Dave Rau and unanimous consent, the meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m. Water Board Secretary Oap Water :.. -