Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 03/22/2001FORCOLLINS WATER BOARD MINUTES March 22, 2001 3:10 - 5:00 p.m. Fort Collins Utilities Training Room 700 Wood Street City Council Liaison Water Board Chairman Water Board Vice Chair Chuck Wanner (present) Tom Sanders - 491-5448 John Morris - 491-0185 Staff Liaison (Outgoing) Staff Liaison (Incoming) Minutes Molly Nortier DeEtta Carr - 221-6702 Kim Vondy - 282-6900 ROLL CALL Members Present Tom Sanders, Chairman; John Morris, Vice Chairman; Ted Borstad, David Lauer, Joe Bergquist, Paul Clopper, Rami Naddy, Bill Fischer Staff Kevin Gertig, Dennis Bode, Bob Smith, DeEtta Carr, Molly Nortier, Kim Vondy, Lori Clements - Grote, Dennis Sumner, Marsha Hilmes-Robinson, Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney Guests Mr. & Mrs. Fred Baca MEETING OPENED Chairman Tom Sanders opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: MINUTES APPROVED With the exception of a few spelling changes brought up by Chair Tom Sanders, John Morris moved that the minutes from the February 22, 2001, be approved as distributed. Joe Bergquist seconded the motion, COMMITTEE REPORTS Paul Clopper, chair of the Engineering Committee reported that the committee met twice to talk about the issues related to the fluoridation of Fort Collins' treated water. Summary of the Committee meetings was included in the boards' packet. Paul thanked everyone for responding to the first draft so promptly and thanked Molly. Paul has kept a running compilation of all kinds of information the committee received from staff regarding the issue of fluoridation. There's just a lot of information out there regarding fluoridating public drinking water, there are pros and cons, substantiated and unsubstantiated. There are case histories from other towns who have looked at this issue in great detail. The Engineering Committee felt that the issue was not something they need to further study and discuss. They would like to bring some ideas to the board and give the board a sense of where the committee stands on this issue. FORT COLLINS WATER B,-_.RD MINUTES PAGE 2 MARCH 22, 2001 Two reasons why they were asked to look at the issue: 1. Kevin Gertig and his staff are on the cusp of integrating and building some capital improvements to the existing plant. With the fluoridation facilities, they are looking at about $500K in upgrades to handle fluoride and about $100K per year for annual operation maintenance of the fluoride area. 2. Concerned citizens contacted the Mayor and Council Members, who then asked the board to look at the issue. There are a lot of pros and cons. The fundamental issue is do the benefits of fluoridating outweigh the risks of fluoridating as far as public water supply is concerned. The evidence is conflicting. The committee looked at pro -fluoridating information that cites the same studies that the anti-fluoridationists cite. It is very conflicting in terms of the technical information out there and how people interpret that information. There are some facts that were listed in the committee's report under Issues and Concerns, which Paul highlighted in summary form: • Once you get fluoride in the water it is virtually impossible to take it out, so there is no point in bringing up the issue of home filters. • Less than 2%, maybe even 1% of fluoride that goes in the water is actually ingested by people. • Great deal of fluoridated water going on grass, to wash cars, to take showers, etc. • Chemicals themselves are dangerous. They are dangerous to handle not only at the treatment plant, but a danger to the public should one of the big tanker trucks (an average of 6 per year go through the city), were to have an accident and there was a spill. Paul stated that hydro- fluorosilicic acid is extremely toxic and caustic. • Fluoride toothpaste now carries a printed warning on the tube. • Fluoride is the only chemical we put in the water that is purely prophylactic. It's not put into the water to remove contaminants or to kill germs; it is there for a perceived public health benefit. • The Engineering Committee did consider the fact that right now we are sharing water with other water districts and the water is essentially treated to have more or less equivalent water quality standards. If we were to change our policy on fluoridation, it might pose some difficulty in working with the districts. What if they want to continue fluoridating and we stop fluoridating. Would we still mix and blend our waters? David Lauer asked if that would have an effect in diluting the treatment if our water was not treated with fluoride and their water was. Paul stated that it would result in a difference in the concentration of fluoride from one part of town verses another part of town. Additionally, our water contains about .2 to .3 milligrams per liter of fluoride naturally, so there is fluoride already in the water, we are just raising the level of fluoride to 1.0 mg/l. The Engineering Committee's position on this is that they felt as a group that they are now questioning whether the public drinking water is the most appropriate delivery mechanism for fluoride. In the last several decades, there have been advances in fluoride toothpaste, oral rinses, and mouthwash. There is also fluoride in food and beverages, and it is available in supplements. The Committee felt that providing fluoride to the public, to those that want it and those that don't via the public drinking water, is no longer appropriate. FORT COLLINS WATOBOARD MINUTES • PAGE 3 MARCH 22, 2001 The Engineering Committee identified four different options that they may want to recommend to City Council: 1. Continue the practice of raising the fluoride level to 1.0 mg/l as we have been since the late 60's. 2. Discontinue the practice and let the fluoride stay at its natural background level. 3. Continue to study the issue (no one on the committee was in favor of this). 4. Recommend that Council consider taking the issue to the general public. The Engineering Committee took a vote with each member allowed to vote for only one of the four, as to which one they would recommend to Council. He also stated that there is certainly room for the Water Board to combine options by possibly recommending discontinuing the practice of adding fluoride and taking the issue to the general public. In conclusion, Paul asked if any member of the committee would like to add anything to this report. Ted Borstad added that he went to a web site called "Info Now" that was similar to a professional chat room of people posing questions on landfill practices and engineering practices. He posed a simple question stating that his community is evaluating the benefits of adding fluoride to their water system and any information pro or con would be appreciated. Ted received 9 responses and stated that they were exactly as Paul had stated earlier. There were no specific pros or cons and they weren't very convincing. Chair Sanders thanked Paul for the report and stated that the report is "accepted and received." David Lauer noted that the City of Boulder recently put the issue out to a public vote; 65% of the public said they wanted the water fluoridated. Kevin Gettig commented that David was correct, but he didn't know the history other than it happened a few years ago. David asked what expectation the board would have of a public vote. Chair Sanders feels that the public would be voting as "it's always been that way and it's a feel good thing." The Europeans don't fluoridate the water; they feel you shouldn't be adding things and the public water system should not be a medication delivery system. Chair Sanders thinks it's a strong rule and with good reason. The other one that swayed him, and he's been a strong fluoride person all his life and supported it 100% blindly, is that less than only 1 % in the water is ingested. Also, we are talking about $500K initially and $100K a year, which is a sizable amount of money. Chair Sanders stated that he feels the time has come for the committee to suggest to Council that we not add fluoride. Bill Fischer asked Chair Sanders if anyone has talked to the water districts. From a public relations stand point and a good neighbor stand point, we should at least tell them that we are looking at this issue and bring them up to speed. So that they can discuss this with us and feel like they are in the loop. Chair Sanders responded that he has not officially talked with anyone in the district, but that it raises an issue about quality concerns. Kevin Gertig stated that they have discussed this with the district in a monthly meeting that they have, but that he didn't feel in position to elaborate any further with them until this was presented to the board. The districts were told that we were studying this and asked if they had any feelings, which they relayed as pretty strong to continue their program. Chair Sanders stated that the consensus of the report appears to be no more studies. Paul Clopper asked if Chair Sanders was looking for a recommendation to council today. Chair Sanders responded yes. Paul Clopper agreed to formulate a motion based on the Engineering Committees general position. Paul stated that "I would make a motion that we recommend that Council consider FORT COLLINS WATER B, RD MINUTES J PAGE 4 MARCH 22, 2001 discontinuing the practice of fluoridating the water supply and I would like to make that a combination motion. If Council does choose to pursue our recommendation on discontinuing this practice, then we take it to the public by any of several means." John Morris seconded the motion. Paul added "Let me be more specific on this issue of the public participation and public feedback by including any of the following means: open houses, neighborhood meetings, media coverage, Council work sessions and/or meetings, and ballot referendum, to consider any or all of those." Joseph Bergquist added "If they are necessary." Paul agreed. Tom stated that a motion is on the table and asked for further discussion. Paul asked Councilmember Wanner if Council has had any discussion on this particular issue. He responded that they are waiting for the board's recommendation. Bill Fischer had a question for Paul on his motion, which stated, as he recalls, that "the council consider discontinuing fluoridation." Bill stated that this is different than recommending that the City discontinue fluoridation. He wondered if we're recommending that Council consider this issue rather than discontinuing flouridation." Paul noted that there is a good distinction here. That in 1967, this issue of fluoridation was brought to the City of Fort Collins voters and the voters didn't vote to fluoridate. They voted to give Council the authority to decide which way to go. Chair Sanders asked if Paul would like to change the motion and Paul stated that he would like to make this a stronger motion. Paul asked John if he would go along with the change to the motion, "that the board recommend to Council that the City discontinue fluoridation and that we take it to the public by any of several means." John agreed. David Lauer noted that if we do this and the tri-districts don't do this, we are going to have parts of the communities that are going to get diluted fluoridation counts and other parts of the City that aren't going to have any. Chair Sanders responded that most people in the city would have less than I mg/1 and greater than 0.3 and some will have the full 1 mg/l. David asked if that's a problem and Tom replied with yes it is a problem, but that's how it works and that it's going to be a major issue down the road. Ted Borstad noted that the other comment he has is that without some public education and outreach, the people will vote just the way he would have a few months ago which is "yes, lets keep fluoridating. You really have to somehow objectively look at the situation. If it's going to end up in a ballot referendum its going to take some education." Rami Naddy pointed out that he thinks there still will be some kind of backlash from recommendation to get rid of fluoridation. He thinks the board needs to stay away from the idea that fluoride is bad and all the toxicity type issues, because that is where all the controversy lies. Rami feels that dentists are probably going to come out and try to hammer us over this. Action: Motion and Vote Tom asked for a vote for all those in favor of recommending to City Council that the City stop fluoridating the water. Vote was unanimous. FORT COLLINS WAT&OARD MINUTES PAGE 5 MARCH 22, 2001 POUDRE RIVER FLOODPLAIN VARIANCE - 304 E. LINCOLN AVENUE Explanation of Procedures for Variance Hearing Marsha Hilmes-Robinson, Floodplain administrator, began by directing the board to Section 10- 38 and Section 10-39 of City Code, parts of the code that apply to a variance hearing procedure to City Council. Marsha noted that the Water Board is to consider all technical evaluations, all relevant factors and standards, health and safety, danger to property. Explanation of Procedures for a Two Part Request The first variance has to be heard before proceeding on to the second part. The Docket Fee Variance will be the first item discussed and a decision must to be made prior to considering the second variance. Staff Presentation (Part 1) - Docket Fee Variance City Code Section 10-38 states that a $300 docket fee is required for a variance hearing. The applicant has asked to have this fee waived. Staff presented the board with two options: 1. Grant the variance to waive the docket fee. The Water Board would then hear the variance for which the docket fee is required. 2. Deny the variance for the $300 docket fee request and then the Water Board would not hear the variance until the docket fee has been paid. Should the applicant decide to pay the fee today, proceedings could continue. Marsha noted that the staff was not making a recommendation on this issue and was leaving it up to the Board. Rami Naddy asked Marsha as to what the docket fee covered. Marsha explained that the fee covered staff time for packets, background, and documentation as well as to make sure applicant is serious about issue. Applicants Presentation - Mr. Baca Mr. Baca noted that he has been on Social Security and disability, which pays him $700 per month. He stated he would appreciate the Boards consideration in waiving the docket fee. Discussion Bill Fischer posed a question to applicant regarding his lack of ability to pay the $300 docket fee, but ability to acquire $18,000 to $24,000 for a remodel. Applicant responded that he had been approved for a loan if he gets approval to build. Action: Motion and Second David Lauer moved that the fee be waived in this case so that the original variance could be heard. Paul Clopper seconded the motion. Further Discussion Ted questioned if there is a precedent, had a fee been waived in the past. Marsha responded that a fee had been waived once before. There was a case where ultimately the variance was denied, but the fee was waived first following the same procedure. Paul Clopper commented that he had read Mr. Baca's letter and he would be voting in favor of waiving the fee. FORT COLLINS WATER B( RD MINUTES PAGE 6 MARCH 22, 2001 Action: Vote Chairman Sanders called for the question; the motion was to waive the fee. The motion passed 6-2 with John Morris and Joe Bergquist voting against. Staff Presentation (Part 2) - Variance Hearing Marsha displayed the City's Regulatory Floodplains map and overheads of the view of the property and the vicinity map. Marsha pointed out that where the Poudre River runs through the center of town, between the Lincoln and Linden Street bridges, there is a breakout of the Poudre River, commonly known as the Oxbow site. The water spills over, flows down Lincoln Avenue and then flows to get back to the river eventually. The area she is talking about, 304 E. Lincoln, is right in the middle of the overflow section. The Floodplain Regulations that were passed by City Council last year for the Poudre River, prohibits additions to residential structures in the floodplain, floodway and product corridor. The applicant has requested to construct an addition in the floodplain area. Marsha pointed out the area of this request on the map and added that it was just a breakout of the Poudre, the main channel of the Poudre still carries the majority of the flows. Marsha stated that the 100-year discharge of this overflow area is 403 cfs and the 500- year discharge of this area is about 3,911 cfs, just in the breakout piece. She added that the velocity through this area is pretty slow at only 1.5 ft/sec. for the 100-year and 3.5 ft/sec. for the 500-year. Again it's not located in the floodway or product corridor. Paul Clopper stated that there was not a floodway here. Marsha agreed and stated that the floodway was contained in the main flow of the Poudre. She reported that the ground elevation around the house based on the 1999 aerial photography which is 2-foot contours and is the best information that they have right now, is 4,944 feet. The water surface elevation (BFE) for the 100-year is 4,944.7 feet, so there is approximately 7/10ths of afoot of flood depth on the property. For a 500-year flood, the water surface elevation is 4,946.6 feet, just under 2 feet higher in the 500-year than in the 100-year flood. Paul noted, if we looked at our product number, depth times velocity it would be 1.5 x 1.7. Mr. Baca stated that probably in the worst flood we would get, the most he would have is probably 8-inches of water. Marsha stated this would be true for a 100-year flood. Marsha stated that this property was unique in some circumstances. She showed an overhead picture of the house, and stated that the house is 456 square feet with one room and one - bathroom and a garage to the back of the property. Mr. Baca added that basically this is a one room house with a front door, little kitchen and bedroom, and that you can spin around and see the whole thing. Marsha showed a map of the existing house showing the existing house and the addition they would like to add to the backside of the property, which is the north side of the property. Basically it would be divided into two rooms on the lower floor, a bedroom and a new kitchen area and possibly a second floor on the addition. Approximately 416 square feet of new area would be added on the lower floor. Chair Sanders stated that he would like to hear from the applicant first, prior to the staffs recommendation. Applicants Presentation Mr. Baca stated that basically he's not really asking for much, that as long as he goes along with the codes of FEMA and elevates the rest of the house, he would be much safer than he is right now. Right now there could be 8-inches of water in his house and if he adds this bedroom on, it would be above the flood zone and the floodwater. Paul asked Mr. Baca what the floor elevation would be on the new addition. Mr. Baca responded that it would be about 2-1/2 feet. Marsha FORT COLLINS WATEWOARD MINUTES • PAGE 7 MARCH 22, 2001 stated that Mr. Baca has agreed to elevate the addition which he stated would be done by first building the dirt up. Chair Sanders asked if we are positive on this, and could we follow up on it to make sure that it's done properly. Paul Clopper stated that Building Inspection would be checking it. Marsha stated that part of the requirement for a Certificate of Occupancy would be a hold for floodplain reasons. That the applicant would have to have a FEMA Elevation Certificate filled out by a registered engineer or surveyor who would come out and actually survey the foundation and all of the utilities and everything that FEMA requires on their elevation certificate. The Elevation Certificate would have to be filled out before they would release the Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Baca added that he would also like to stress that his kitchen consists of a sink, refrigerator and a stove which is 3 foot wide by 10 foot wide. In a corner of the little house are a couch and TV and their bedroom. He feels they would be safer by elevating it, plus with the levee on the river. He stated that he hears that the City had some plans to do it, but it's been put on hold because Keifer's under review to get it rezoned and build on it. He feels like the levee's going to be built and it's in everyone's favor and his favor to build. He stated that he is right across from the golf course and the last time it flooded in that area was in 1954. The river was rerouted to where it is now and it hasn't flooded since. Paul asked Mr. Baca if it flooded in 1997 and Mr. Bacca replied that it did not. Chair Sanders asked if anyone had questions for Mr. Baca. Chair Sanders stated that being in the flood area, in a 500-year flood, Mr. Baca would have 2 feet of water in his place, which would be tough to walk out of in the night. Chair Sanders reminded Mr. Baca that he was still under some risk for the big flood. Paul Clopper noted that the 500-year flood would be in comparison to the Spring Creek flood in 1997. Mr. Baca stated that this is why he pays for flood insurance and he feels it should be up to them if they want to build there. Also it is their property and they are willing to take the risk. David Lauer asked Mr. Baca, if the opportunity presented itself, would he be interested in selling his property to the City at fair market price. One of the provisions in floodplain regulations is that a seller could sell property to the City with the intent of removing structures from floodplains. David asked Mr. Baca if he would consider this option. Mr. Baca replied that it is a big consideration, cause he actually feels that that is what is trying to happen. He feels like the property is going to be condemned and the property is not going to be worth anything and the City is going to come in and buy it. Rami Naddy asked Mr. Baca if there are commercial buildings around his property, he thought he had read it somewhere in this packet. Marsha said commercial buildings surround them. The only thing that's left down there is Buckingham and regular citizens. Mr. Baca replied that he understands that the reason it is commercial is that it's closed down at night and so if it floods at night there is no threat to life. Plus he has heard that Kiefer is getting river zoning that would allow commercial or residential buildings. That's one of his concerns. Chair Sanders thanked Mr. Baca. Paul Clopper asked Chair Sanders to hear a staff recommendation. FORT COLLINS WATER B AD MINUTES PAGE 8 MARCH 22, 2001 Staff Recommendation Marsha stated that the staff suggests that the board grant the variance. The circumstances are unique to this appeal. She continued that the Poudre River regulations cites that no additions are to be added to residential structures. But in this case where the sleeping quarters of this house are not elevated at all, having a sleeping addition improves the health and safety for the structure. That would be a benefit to granting this variance. Discussion David Lauer asked Marsha for the comparison regarding the provision about the percentage of value compared to the value of the property. Marsha stated that because it is an addition and since the addition needs to be elevated, then that value amount does not count towards the substantial improvement percentage of the existing house, because the addition, the new part itself, is protected. If you were doing a lot of remodeling to the existing structure than that part would get counted towards the substantial improvement. Action: Motion and Second Tom Clopper made a motion that the board approve the variance as presented and David Lauer seconded the motion. Further Discussion John asked Marsha about Section 10-39(a) regarding conditions for granting variances. Marsha stated that would apply. John then asked if 10-61 2(b) is a further restriction just within this floodplain and how these two sections relate. Marsha responded that 10-39 is a condition for variance of 10-61. So 10-61 prevails, as this is the code, but the Water Board has the authority to grant the variance for these lots with these other conditions. Chair Sanders asked for further discussion. Paul asked Marsha if to her knowledge, anyone had voiced any opposition. Marsha stated that she had not heard any. Mr. Baca stated that he had also had a meeting with Mayor Ray Martinez and John Fischbach about this. John said he would recommend approving the variance. Chair Sanders asked Mr. Baca if he knew of any opposition. Mr. Baca responded no. Action: Vote Vote was unanimous. Discussion Bill Fischer stated that he had an issue related to the procedure on the issue and the Water Board. He suggested a fee waiver request be presented at one meeting and that the staff not work on the variance request until a decision has been made on the waiver request. If the staff has already done a lot of work, which he doesn't believe to be covered by the $300, it seems rather inefficient to have both of them at one meeting and if the fee was not waived then it would be all for not. It seems to him that in the future it would be best to have this presented at two separate meetings. Chair Sanders stated that he felt it should be discussed at the next meeting and has a lot of validity to it. Chair Sanders also stated that they don't want to set a precedent here. Staff thanked Mr. Baca and Marsha. Mr. Baca thanked the board. FORT COLLINS WATOOARD MINUTES • PAGE 9 MARCH 22, 2001 STAFF REPORTS Treated Water Production Summary - Dennis Bode Dennis stated the report was included in the packet. We are probably going to be short on Poudre River supply this year unless we get a good snow. RECEPTION Present and past board members presented Molly Nortier with a cake, cards and gift certificates in honor of her 23+ years of service as Secretary to the Water Board. Past members reflected on their many wonderful memories with Molly - she will be dearly missed. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by Chair Sanders at 4:57 p.m Kim Vondy, Water Board/Secretary