Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 01/19/1990Water Board Minutes January 19, 1990 Members Present Henry Caulfield, President, Tom Sanders, Vice President, Neil Grigg, MaryLou Smith, Terry Podmore, Tom Moore, Tim Dow, Tom Brown, Paul Clopper (alt.) Staff Rich Shannon, Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Linda Burger, Jim Hibbard, Wendy Williams, Andy Pineda, Molly Nortier, Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney Guest Dorothy Huff, Larimer County League of Women Voters Observer Members Absent Dave Stewart, Ray Herrmann, Mark Casey President Henry Caulfield opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Minutes The minutes of November 17, 1989 were approved as distributed. Update Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Due to other commitments, no representative from the District was present, but Henry Caulfield brought up two points, the first relating to the Dis- trict boundaries going below the Weld and Boulder County lines. A few months ago the Board was given a memo prepared by the District which dis- cussed the alternative possibilities with regard to this issue. Mr. Caul- field suggested that this be put on the agenda for the next meeting. Mr. Caulfield also asked about the status of the Northern District's regional study in which the City is participating. Mike Smith related that the study may be a month late. It is expected that it will be completed in June instead of May. From this point the study will include some conceptual designs. Agreement with Fort Collins -Loveland Water District Mike Smith reported that the contract with the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District to sell them treated water is nearly ready. All it needs is the attorney for the District's approval. Then it can be reviewed by the Water Board. "We had hoped to have it for today's meeting," he said. Water Board Minutes January 19, 1990 Page 2 Raw Water Irrigation Policy At its August meeting, the Water Board discussed the advantages of providing financial incentives for conversion of existing irrigation systems from treated water to raw water. The Board approved a motion 7-1 directing staff to develop a policy that would benefit both the community at large as well as the Utility in terms of water conservation and saving plant capacity. Webb Jones reported that staff prepared a proposal, which Board members received in their packets, that provides rebates for customers converting to raw water irrigation. Rebates provided by the Utility would be based on the value of water treatment plant capacity needed to supply the water requirements of an irrigated area. Mr. Jones related that the proposed policy attempts to encourage conversion to raw water for the benefit of both the customer and the Utility. The pol- icy treats all customers the same regardless of the cost or type of improve- ments necessary to convert to raw water. He added that it is also fairly easy to understand and applicable to any existing customer able to utilize raw water for irrigation. Staff outlined some procedures included in the memo. "Essentially we have come up with a rebate program," he began, "that places a value on the ser- vices that the customer would be disconnecting. The Utility would give them some amount that would reflect the value of those services. What staff is asking is the Water Board's approval of this procedure today and then it would be passed on to the City Council where it would be put in the form of an ordinance. Tom Sanders asked if the rebate would be in a lump sum. "That is our thought at this time," Mr. Jones replied. Dr. Sanders also asked, "according to the table in the memo, if I had an acre of land at 43,560 sq. ft., would I get $2500 back from the City?" "If you had a water service that was worth more than $2500, but for example if you had a water service that was worth only $1600, we would only give you $1600," Mr. Jones explained. The value of the service is based on the current PIF for that size service. "If I went back to treated water what would I pay?" You would pay the cost of the PIF for whatever service is required at that time. Neil Grigg asked, "Is this the policy or would we draft the policy after- wards?" "This is the bulk of what staff thinks the policy should consist of," Mr. Jones replied. It may need some fine tuning, he added. Henry Caulfield said that there is no credit for the value of water rights that have been supplied to the City. Furthermore, the Utility is not agreeing to supply them with raw water. However, there is a provision that if we own some stock in Arthur Ditch or whatever and we want to sell it to them as their raw water supply, we can. Mr. Jones clarified that it would be a rental agreement, not a sale. Water Board Minus • January 19, 1990 Page 3 "Let's say we went ahead with this policy," Henry Caulfield asked, "would the Board of Directors of the Arthur Ditch, for example, say we could rent that water at a higher price than the assessment cost to Parkwood? Here the City is undercutting us by agreement to rent it at the assessment cost, they might say. Is there any possibility of that scenario coming up?" Dennis Bode replied that he didn't think so. As a company they don't own very many shares. Mr. Bode believes it could be worked out so there wouldn't be a problem like that. Mr. Caulfield suggested an idea that if there were a situation where we were undercutting the market, we could meet the market. "That would allow us some flexibility to establish what the going rate is as opposed to the assessment rate," Mr. Jones said. Linda Burger added that probably the thing to do would be to revise this so that we are renting water at the same rate that is established by staff for agricultural use. "That's the idea," Mr. Caulfield agreed. Tom Brown pointed out that the memo says the rebate would be based on the value of water treatment plant capacity. He asked for an explanation. Webb Jones explained: "Our finance department maintains a depreciated book value of all our fixed assets. It's broken out into several categories, one of which is treatment facilities. They say those facilities are worth so many million dollars; and you divide that by what your capacity is and come up with the unit cost per gallon. It would reflect our investment over time in those treatment facilities. Right now, based on the most current numbers, that works out to be $.37 per gallon." "So it has to do more with the current cost of the facilities than having to expand the facilities," MaryLou Smith observed. "That's right, it's not an incremental cost," Mr. Jones said. Is it a cost to create new capacity which we no longer have to create now because somebody is no longer using it? Tom Brown asked. "No, the book value would include expansions that were completed 10 years ago that have been depreciated in that time, so it wouldn't be a reflection of what that next increment would cost," Mr. Jones explained. Mike Smith added: "We would anticipate if we had to build more capacity, it would be a higher cost than that." "In addition, you are not offering them any money for the savings in operations costs," Mr. Brown observed. That's right, was the answer. Mr. Brown thinks what we are avoiding by doing this is building new plant capac- ity and treating that water with that capacity, so we are offering them something less in both cases. "We're not giving them back their water right either," Mr. Caulfield added, "so there is a value they are giving up." Tom Sanders contends that this policy is not equitable because only areas that are contiguous to an irrigation ditch could take advantage of it, so "only a very small group of people could benefit from this," he emphasized. There are those who have access to a reservoir or small lake, Webb Jones pointed out, and "there have been people who have talked to us about wells, but I don't know how much potential is there," he added. Water Board Minutes January 19, 1990 Page 4 "This is a very complex issue," Neil Grigg believes. How far does staff want the Water Board to go with it today? "We could pass a resolution sup- porting the concept, but with the many questions that are on the table, I don't see any way we could resolve all of them today." Mr. Caulfield said that last time the Board supported the concept. "Could we say this time that this is at least the line we should be pursuing?" Dr. Grigg pointed out that this policy is based on a conservative approach and we wouldn't be taking a lot of risk by implementing it. He said he would be willing to move ahead on an experimental basis. He added that he wouldn't say it would foreclose more experiments concerning things that might be more equitable in the future. Linda Burger clarified that we do need at least a general ordinance author- izing us to implement a policy and that the details could be in the policy. "In order to be responsive to Parkwood, there is a time consideration," she added, "in that they would like to implement their raw water irrigation sys- tem in time for spring." Did Parkwood agree to this? Mr. Caulfield asked. "In general they were receptive to it," Mr. Jones responded. Neil Grigg moved that the Water Board endorse the raw water Irrigation con- cept with 2 provisions: 1) Endorse drafting of a general ordinance that would authorize it, and 2) Refer the specifics of the policy to the Legisla- tive/finance Committee for more detailed study of the equity. Terry Podmore seconded the motion. Paul Clopper had a question about item No. 4 in the policy where it talks about physical separation. "Did you envision inspections by City staff or a certified plumber to make sure it is done correctly?" Webb Jones replied that staff thought the Utility would go in and actually remove the meters and create an air gap so there wouldn't be any potential for a cross connec- tion; "and actually shut the services off, because we are the only ones with the authority to do that," he added. He explained further that it wouldn't mean actually digging up the street and disconnecting the service line, because there is always some potential that they will need it in the future. Rich Shannon commented on item No. 6 which states: "Conversion to the raw water irrigation system for which the rebate is being made must be complete within 6 months of the date of the rebate. If the motion is approved and it goes to the finance committee, he would like the Board to discuss whether the payment is before or after the work is done. "I'm personally not com- fortable handing the money out until the work is done," he said. Linda Burger said she has taken that up with the City Attorney's office and didn't have a chance to brief Mr. Shannon on it. The attorney suggested that rather than taking the approach in the proposed policy, we provide the rebate as soon as the treated water irrigation system is disconnected; so they don't have to come up with all the money up front, but they do have to make the commitment in terms of no longer having the treated water avail- able." Water Board Minus • January 19, 1990 Page 5 Tom Moore related that "he's not real crazy about this whole idea." "Let's say someone had 2 acres of lawn; what would they be charged for their tap? Mr. Jones replied that a two acre irrigated area would probably require a 1 inch tap and the current PIF is $5,000. "We are returning to them just the $5,000 and not the raw water" Mr. Moore asked. "That's correct," Mr. Jones said. "Is this going to create a situation where someone says he no longer needs his water tap and asks to be paid back for it?" Mr. Moore wondered. "This has not been City policy, and I think you are opening up some other problems, as well," he insisted. "That certainly is not our intention," Mr. Jones responded. "It may be that we need to make that clear in whatever policy we come up with," he sug- gested. He pointed out that in Parkwood's case the value of those taps at today's rates is $54,000. They have 5 or 6 taps and an irrigated area of about 10 acres. Tom Sanders wanted to know where the money would come from to pay them. "It would be PIF money, I would think," Mr. Jones answered. "It wouldn't be our raw water?" Dr. Sanders asked. "No, It would not." Linda Burger wanted a clarification of the motion. "In endorsing drafting of an ordinance, is that all the further you were intending to go or are you endorsing drafting an ordinance and taking it to City Council?" The intent of the motion was to respond to the fact that an ordinance is needed to authorize this, Neil Grigg replied. Henry Caulfield contends that the ordi- nance should come back first to the Water Board in February. "Let's keep in mind that the original request was that we provide a zero interest loan to Parkwood and other similarly situated parties, for consid- erably more money than the rebate," Ms. Burger reminded the Board. The direction staff was given was to come up with something that was less oner- ous to the City, than that approach. "We came up with a policy that elimi- nates the administration of a loan program, as well as a far smaller amount of money," she stressed. Mr. Caulfield responded that there are Board members who would vote against the policy entirely and that is why we need further debate on the issue, not just to speed the process up because Parkwood wants it. "However , I agree with what you just said," he added. Mike Smith suggested that perhaps staff could pursue an agreement between Parkwood and the City just for their special case. Dr. Grigg said it seems to him if we authorize the ordinance that is just a statement of general intent which seems to be a good idea. "If we can get people to convert landscape off of treated water, that will be good for us. I wonder if anyone on the Board objects to that general idea?" Water Board Minutes January 19, 1990 Page 6 Paul Eckman believes the ordinance ought to be specific enough to give staff guidance on how to administer it. "I think if it is going to be a matter of continuing jurisdiction until it's repealed, it's a legislative act," he stated, "and it ought to be codified." Tim Dow asked if there are any other "Parkwoods" out there now that have been identified as possible candidates for this, and what's the market for this sort of thing? "We have been contacted by three associations," Mr. Jones replied. Parkwood is further along than most. Lake Sherwood and Warren Shores have also approached the Utility. Attorney Eckman reiterated what Mike Smith suggested earlier that we could just go to Council to approve an agreement for this purpose with Parkwood. "It would however, be difficult to say no to the next group that came along who was similarly situated to Parkwood and wanted the same deal," he stressed. Tim Dow suggested the possibility of going one step further where we could have an affirmative policy as a part of the PUD that encourages new subdivi- sions to irrigate green space with raw water to get some additional points under the Land Guidance System. Ms. Burger clarified that this draft policy addresses only existing taps; not any new development. Tom Sanders brought up another aspect which he believes could become a future water quality issue. "We would be spreading untreated water all over town," he contends. "It's something we should not ignore," he insisted. However, he still considers the equity issue to be the greater of the two. Chairman Caulfield called for the question. Six members voted in favor of the motion. Tom Moore and Tom Sanders voted against it for reasons stated previously. MaryLou Smith abstained due to a conflict, because her firm has done some work for the Parkwood Homeowners's Association related to this policy. She stated, however, that she has some strong feelings on the sub- ject as chairman of the Conservation and Public Education Committee. The motion passed 6-2 with 1 abstention. Mountain View Sanitation District - Rates Because a few problems arose with the rates issue, staff decided to postpone this item and ask the Legislative/Finance Committee to look at it. Mike Smith explained that the attorney for the Mountain View Sanitation District asked that when the District is dissolved, former customers of the District be granted inside city rates. The issue is more complicated than that, Mr. Smith stressed. For example, will we then treat all customers within the Urban Growth Area boundaries the same way, and how will that impact the planning issues? This may even be referred to the newly created Council Water Board Committee considering the Wastewater Master Plan, he said. Eventually the Water Board will review any revisions or recommendations. Water Board Minus • January 19, 1990 Page 7 Wilderness Water Rights Update At their November meeting the Water Board endorsed, in concept, a resolution addressing the issue of Wilderness Water Rights that was to be reviewed also by the Legislative Sub -committee of the City Council. Because a revised version of the resolution was not available at the time of the meeting, Linda Burger drafted a resolution and sent it out to all the Water Board members who had been present at the November meeting in order that the vote could be affirmed by phone, which it was. It was subsequently scheduled to be heard in front of City Council at the first meeting of December. During the interim between those two meetings, Council members received a request from Sen. Wirth stating that he had some concerns about the Wilderness Water Rights resolution and wanted the oppor- tunity to talk with Council about those concerns before the resolution was considered at their council session. As a result, it was pulled off the agenda. There were letters and conversations exchanged among various people of the City and Sen. Wirth's staff. The legislative review committee decided that they had some discomfort with the resolution because they felt it was still too broad and did not specifi- cally enough address the potential impacts on the City's water rights. As a result of that, the staff was asked to revise the resolution again so that it more specifically addressed Fort Collins' concerns, and very carefully avoided any partisan concerns or issues that were outside of Fort Collins. "That was done," Ms. Burger concluded. Board members received a copy of the new draft resolution as well as the agenda summary in their packets. Mr. Caulfield asked where this new draft stands with the sub -committee. "They met a few days ago and reviewed the resolution and thought it still fit with the direction that was given by the Water Board," Ms. Burger replied. Based on the recommendation of the Water Board Legislative Commit- tee, Ms. Burger went on to the Council legislative group and let them know that the Water Board was still in favor of the resolution. That group decided to go forward with the resolution with a couple of minor changes and scheduled it to be heard at the February 6 Council meeting. Ms. Burger added that since that time there has been some further discussion and she was not certain whether it would go forward on the 6th or exactly where the issue is at this time. "You referred to discussions with Sen. Wirth's staff; is there real resis- tance to giving us this protection?" Mr. Caulfield asked. "I think that Sen. Wirth was concerned that Fort Collins might be passing a resolution that was specifically written to oppose his bill, similar to what was done in Colorado Springs," Ms. Burger began. "Since he has seen the resolution and we have had some discussion, I think he and his staff are recognizing now that the City has some specialized concerns and that they would like to work with us on resolving those concerns," she explained. Water Board Minutes — January 19, 1990 Page 8 "In his bill he has some specific areas that he mentions by name as having special treatment," Mr. Caulfield related, "so the idea of certain rivers having special provisions is not something he should resist." "There is language in the bill that addresses the North Platte Wilderness Area and his staff has indicated a willingness to consider re -drafting on that section. Whether or not they are willing to consider a re -drafting of other trouble- some sections, I don't know," Ms. Burger responded. Mike Smith said staff will be meeting with one of Sen. Wirth's staff people next week. "We'll know then how they feel about the new resolution." Chairman Caulfield asked for comments and questions on the new resolution. Linda Burger pointed out that there was concern that there might be some confusion between the water rights cases currently going on in Greeley and the Wilderness Water Rights issue, so in addition to the resolution and agenda summary, there is a memo explaining the difference between the two. Neil Grigg asked for a clarification of the changes in the resolution. Henry Caulfield explained that it is technically different but in spirit it's the same resolution that the Board approved previously. Mike Smith further clarified that it is a revision to accommodate the Council Legisla- tive Committee to adjust the water rights issue that impacts the City of Fort Collins. Linda Burger added that one of the things Council wanted was a little more detail in the resolution. Mr. Caulfield reiterated that the concept of what the Board endorsed previously, remains. Neil Grigg moved that the Water Board endorse the resolution. After Tom Sanders' second, the motion carried unanimously. Update on Wastewater Master Plan Copies of the Wastewater Master Plan are now available. Mike Smith distrib- uted copies of the full report to the Engineering Committee while the rest of the Board requested executive summaries only. Update on National Recreation Area Henry Caulfield reminded the Board that the City Council appointed a citi- zens task force to look further into the NRA question. Mr. Caulfield is a member of that task force along with Howard Alden, A CSU professor in rec- reation and Kenneth Ashley, a 40-year veteran of the National Park Service. The committee has met with the regional director of the National Park Ser- vice and his staff, and the regional director of the National Forest Service and his staff. The group has also talked with Timnath residents who own property east of I-25 to the Weld County line; at this time they are opposed to designation in terms of their property rights. In addition, they have discussed the issue with Fish and Wildlife, the SCS, and the man in Greeley who is doing Greeley's NRA planning. Greeley doesn't have much water in the City so they are primarily planning in the Weld County area with the view that some of that area will eventually be in the city. They are in the very preliminary stages. Mr. Caulfield mentioned that Water Board Minus • January 19, 1990 Page 9 apparently in Weld County many of the landowners along the River who have been approached about a possible trail, are generally more supportive than those in the Timnath area at this point. He pointed out, however, that the property owners in the Timnath area have relatively small acreages whereas in Weld County there are far larger individual acreages involved. Mr. Caulfield indicated that water management of the Poudre River in its broadest terms historically, is the only possible national significant item to be considered in terms of an NRA. There are possibly 5 or 6 places in the west which might be viewed as nationally important water management areas with historic significance. Two CSU historians, Dan Tyler and Jim Hansen, have laid some historical groundwork which could be very helpful if this is pursued. The task force plans to set forth 3 or 4 alternatives in their report. He emphasized that the committee is very sensitive to the concept of local autonomy in general. Their alternatives will spell out what the local oppor- tunities are. "There are possibilities, even if there were a national designation by national legislation, of having a situation where there is local control," he stressed. He suspects that the committee will emerge with some kind of a phased program. Mr. Caulfield will keep the Board informed of any new developments. Mr. Caulfield announced that a regional meeting of Greeley, Loveland, Long- mont and Fort Collins water directors and water board presidents has been scheduled to discuss the Water Bank idea put forth by the Chamber of Com- merce water committee. Neil Grigg confirmed that the meeting will be at 2:00 on Feb. 7 at the NCWCD office in Loveland. Staff Reports Dennis Bode announced that staff is preparing a final treated water production summary report for 1989 which will be distributed to the Board in their packets. Committee Reports Legislative/Finance Committee Tim Dow reported that his committee will be meeting on a regular basis through the state legislative session through March. The City Council needs Water Board recommendations on positions. That creates a timing problem for the committee. What they plan to do is meet two times a month on the first and third Thursdays at 8:00 in the morning in the small Utility conference room. At that time they will review current legislative proposals, and the committee will take positions and communicate those to Wendy Williams or Linda Burger. Those positions will the be communicated to the Council Leg- islative Committee as positions of the committee representing the Water Board. The Committee will then report their actions to the Board for the next 2 months. Mr. Dow invited any interested Board members to attend their meetings. Mr. Caulfield took this opportunity to say that any Board member is welcome to attend any committee meeting. He suggested that whatever material is distributed to committees should also be sent to other Board Water Board Minutes January 19, 1990 Page 10 members. Approval of the Committee's procedure was put into the form of a motion and was approved unanimously. Each Board member received a copy of a memo with proposed state and federal legislation. Tim Dow asked for questions or comments on any of the items. Linda Burger asked the Board to take note of a resolution on the impact fee bill which would restrict the ability of the Utility to assess plant invest- ment fees and cash in -lieu -of water rights. In addition it has a capital projects plan that the City must develop and a city can only collect the things that are in that plan. Paul Eckman prepared the resolution that will be going to both the Water Board and the P&Z Board. It coincides with the position on the bill that is outlined in the legislative summary, but gives a more specific direction to Council as to what the concerns are. Council will be considering a resolution on Feb. 13 on the impact fee bill that will then be sent on to the legislators in our area. Tim Dow stated that the Legislative/Finance Committee resolved to strongly oppose the bill. Henry Caulfield commented on HB 1014, the Basin of Origin bill. "If the water rights decrees prior to some date in 1990 are exempt from legislation, why do we need to be so concerned about the other provisions in this Bill?" he asked. He went on to say that our main concern is in connection with the Michigan River situation. If our rights are all fully protected, why do we need to get into the other provisions? "The reason the bill as drafted is a concern for us is because it is so wide open," Linda Burger replied. The bill provides protection when diverting water from the basin of origin. You have to develop a plan that protects present and future appropriators from injury. "I think it's the 'and future appropriators' that causes a great deal of concern," she explained. Depending on how this bill works through the legislature, if it does, we may or may not find ourselves in a position where this applies to, for example, changes in use or point of diversion. It might be in some situations the City could get into difficulty. She stated that the concept is fine, but the bill is poorly drafted. Neil Grigg moved that the Water Board endorse the impact fees resolution. After Tom Brown's second, the motion passed unanimously. Tim Dow commented that there are a number of bills being proposed that are in the area of water conservation. Some of these may or may not be very desirable depending on how you look at it. It is also interesting to note that one of those conservation bills was proposed by Rep. Irwin from Love- land to require meters state-wide. That issue may have raised its head again, he remarked. There is also a proposal for election of members to the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Board. Water Board Minus • January 19, 1990 Page 11 Tom Sanders pointed out a bill which would provide irrigation limits for parks and medians. He remarked that "that is encroaching on the autonomy of the cities." Wendy Williams explained that the bill only applies to pro- jects that are funded in part by the state. For us that would apply pri- marily to lottery money which we use almost exclusively for open space. It would not have that large an impact on us the way it is written, she said. Henry Caulfield commented on the bill to elect members to the Northern Dis- trict Board. He believes that elections are the wrong direction to go because of the general lack of interest in any elections of that kind. He believes that appointment by the County Commissioners would be preferable. With regard to consolidation of the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority, it seems to Mr. Caulfield that it is important for the Board to take a position of keeping the authority separate. It is, technically speaking, under supreme court decision of the state a non -state agency; therefore it can have bond- ing authority, whereas the state can not have general purpose bonds. Mike Smith agrees that it should be kept separate. The bonding capability of the authority is very important, especially with regard to the revolving loan program for wastewater. Colorado is one of only two states in the nation to have worked out a scheme to actually meet EPA's match money by borrowing money and not using state funds. "We couldn't have done that had the authority not had the power to issue revenue bonds, he emphasized. Mr. Caulfield added, and the separation of this so it is not decreed as a state agency is a technically important point to keep it the way it is now. He would suggest that the committee bear this in mind in its further consider- ations of the matter. With regard to the bill requiring metering Mr. Caulfield reminded the Board that they took a position on metering by a slim margin a few years ago. At this point the initiative to bring up this issue is in the hands of the City Council, he stated. "What are we doing on federal legislation in lobbying terms?" Mr. Caulfield asked. "I'm not sure how much we are going to have time to do," Ms. Burger replied. The main thing we've been active in has been the issue of MCLs for lead in the tap. "We have been working through the Colorado Water Utilities Council on that. We have not drafted any letters for the mayor's signature on federal legislation yet. If we get some time, we will try to pick out the priority bills and do some letter writing on those," she explained. The lead at the tap issue is critical, Ms. Burger began. If we have an MCL approach as opposed to a best available technology approach, the proposed EPA regulation requires that you go in at first flush and get a water sample from the kitchen sink and that's the basis for determining compliance of the lead MCL, she continued. As a staff we have a real concern about trying to collect those samples. Attorneys have advised us that we do not have the authority to enter people's homes unless they are willing to let us in. It's a rather difficult situation, she added. She explained that the Util- ity has a corrosion control program, and we have already taken steps to con- Water Board Minutes January 19, 1990 Page 12 tain lead. We also have a monitoring program that we carry out without going to people's homes at 5:00 in the morning. We feel that a regulatory program that supports a rational handling of the situation makes sense. Politically what the EPA is trying to do is a public education program, if you have lead service lines, rather than a replacement program. That is why legislation is going towards MCLs at the taps as opposed to best available technology, she concluded. Henry Caulfield asked a question about the conservation efforts on low flow toilets. "Are not our wastewater systems engineered for the amount of water that we have traditionally used in toilets? Therefore, could bringing the quantity of water down cause problems with the engineering of the wastewater collection system?" Neil Grigg said the Colorado Water Resources Research Institute published an article in their last newsletter and one of the points was if you implement 1.6 gal. ultra low volume toilets, the sewers won't work. The Institute subsequently received a letter from the Denver Water Dept. informing them that there is a lot of research and that it was a bogus issue. Their side of the issue will be published in the next CWRRI newsletter, Dr. Grigg said. Mr. Caulfield asked, "but who's right?" Dr. Grigg is convinced that there will be plenty of water in the sewer system in spite of the low flow toilets. Tom Sanders contends that the issue has not been resolved. Distribution and Collection System Sub -committee Neil Grigg, chairman of the committee, reported that after the City's water line break in the fall, Jim Hibbard, Distribution and Collection Manager, gave a report to the Board about the incident. That led to the establishment of a special committee to determine if anything needs to be done about this that isn't being done. Paul Clopper and Tom Moore were appointed to the committee. The committee met recently and Paul Clopper prepared a report which Board members received at today's meeting. Dr. Grigg noted that there are three areas that warrant some discussion and the committee has recommendations in those areas which are on p. 4 of the report. He said that the question for the Water Board is, do you want the committee to work with staff any further on this issue or will this settle the issue and not require any further work? 1) Dr. Grigg began by saying that street operations has accelerated their activities because of a new tax passed recently by the voters. This is apparently placing some new stresses on Distribution and Collection because the procedure for coordinating between street operations and replacing pipelines is generally an informal one of consultation. If streets doesn't give D&C much lead time, then the system of informal consultation may break down. Water Board Minus January 19, 1990 Page 13 Recommendation: Initiate discussions between D&C and Street Operations to determine if planning, scheduling and communication can be more closely coordinated, with the objective of increasing lead times for notification of programmed street work. This may allow more effective "dovetailing" of acti- vities between departments where the condition of both infrastructure compo- nents warrants. Staff may want to consider contacting other municipalities where pro -active coordination and scheduling systems between departments has been instituted. (San Diego, California was offered as an example). 2) This area may have more serious consequences in the long term. As the City grows and we move into more overlapping between the City Utility and the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District, the problem of isolated customers has emerged. These are customers who were formerly served by the District and have been somewhat bypassed. Examples would be Palmer Florist and Wendy's on South College which are served by the District. We have a situa- tion where there are two systems side by side. Mr. Caulfield recalled that the City had a trade out with the District a few years ago. Were some of the areas not traded out? Mike Smith replied that the Utility didn't address those existing customers that the District wanted to keep. "Now that we have had the agreement for about 5 years, the District is discover- ing that some of the fringe areas are becoming a problem for them because they are in the middle of our service area. They would like to get rid of them, but there is no clean mechanism to do that," Mr. Smith explained. If they are outside of the City, for example, our outside city rate is a lot higher than the District's rate. Mr. Caulfield commented: "As far as inside City customers, like Wendy's and Palmer House, can't this be translated into some formal action?" One thing we may want to do, Mr. Smith replied, is put this issue into the agreement: it's not in the old or new agreement at this time. Recommendation: Introduce the topic of overlapping service areas between the City and the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District at the next convenient opportunity, and pursue jointly a resolution to the problem of the "isolated customers" and how best to service them. 3) Mr. Caulfield asked if this report says there is a need to immediately get involved in replacing old services. Are we able to detect the old lines and schedule them for replacement? Jim Hibbard replied, "what we do is replace a line when it's ready to be replaced." "Are you always able to detect readiness?" Henry Caulfield asked. Neil Grigg stated that the com- mittee investigated it and it's a very complex issue. "I was satisfied that the answer to the concern that Mr. Caulfield has is that we are in pretty good shape. While our policy isn't very formal, (like, for example, let's replace them at 30 years) we do have a policy. The policy is: When we go into the street operations, if there is a pipe that, on the basis of leaks or frequency of maintenance, looks like it's ready for repair or replace- ment, it is done at that time. On the other hand, if there is a pipe that may be old but there is no indication, according to maintenance history or leaks, that it needs to be replaced, it is not replaced at that time because there are other priorities. "It doesn't appear that we have an antiquated infrastructure that is going to give us problems," Dr. Grigg concluded. Water Board Minutes January 19, 1990 Page 14 Jim Hibbard explained there isn't enough staff time available to him to go into as much economic analysis and statistic compilation and evaluation as we might like. He said that more could be done. Dr. Grigg said that one possibility would be that the committee could recommend that more of that analysis be provided. Paul Clopper visited with Jim Hibbard and some of his staff prior to the meeting to look at their data base. Mr. Clopper is convinced that it can be carried further. "The way that Mr. Hibbard has the maintenance history and infrastructure tracked with the data base, allows that capability." He also complimented Mr. Hibbard on a very impressive system, and he thinks that the statistics could be derived from that for the economic analysis; that capability is already in place, he said. Recommendation: As staff time allows, investigate the potential for incor- porating economic analysis into programmed repair and maintenance planning. This may be facilitated by the capability of the existing information data base and the statistics which can be derived therefrom. Additional meet- ings between Water Board subcommittee members and staff will likely be required to determine the need, cost and feasibility of this approach. Mr. Hibbard said he enjoyed working with the committee. He and Paul Clop - per have an interest in looking at some of the data base staff uses to track their information. In thinking about the Water Board and their role, he sees the issue about overlapping service areas as being related more to pol- icy and probably one in which the Board will be involved in the future. Dr. Grigg doesn't see a need for more committee work with Jim Hibbard. How- ever, Paul Clopper may see some opportunities there. In that case, he believes it would be more of a technical assistance type of committee. Paul Clopper said he would like to get further input from staff and bring that back to the next meeting in February and assess where we want to go at that time. Dr. Grigg said there are a lot of statistics available and those are pub- lished in the operations annual report of the Utility and distributed to the Water Board each year. In the event that more budget type analysis is needed to justify capital improvements, that might be an area to look into, he concluded. Other Business Henry Caulfield, as a representative of the Water Board, and Water Utility staff, met recently with members of the Storm Drainage Board and the Natural Resources Board and staff from both divisions Mr. Caulfield reported that the meeting was useful in that it sorted out the roles of the three differ- ent boards. The position of the Storm Drainage Board is that they are waiting for the EPA requirements for storm drainage. They are planning to do only what EPA requires and no more. The Natural Resources Board has an obligation placed on them by the City Council to have an environmental man- agement plan for the whole City. It appears that the Storm Drainage Board and the Water Board will provide input to that plan. Water Board Minua January 19, 1990 Page 15 Molly Nortier announced that packets from the Natural Resources Division were distributed to Water Board members to review before the February meet- ing. Bob Wilkinson from the Division will be present at the February meeting to give a presentation on the proposed management plan, and to answer ques- tions and take comments from the Water Board. At this point the Board went into executive session to discuss a future water acquisition. The meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m.