Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 12/07/2000E FORT COLLINS WATER BOARD MINUTES December 7, 2000 3:15 — 5:32 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 Molly Nortier — 221-6700 ROLL CALL Members Present (A quorum was present) John Morris, Vice Chair, Dave Frick, David Lauer, Paul Clopper, George Reed, Robert Ward, Tom Brown, Dave Rau, Joe Bergquist Members Absent Tom Sanders, Chairman, Bill Fischer STAFF Mike Smith, Wendy Williams, Jim Hibbard, Dave Agee, Dennis Bode, Gale McGaha Miller, Bob Smith, Ben Alexander, Kevin Gertig, Owen Randall, Lori Clements -Grote, Susan Hayes Brian Janonis, Sue Paquette, Dennis Sumner, Matt Fater, Molly Nortier GUESTS Gene Schleiger, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) Mike DiTullio, Fort Collins -Loveland Water District In the absence of Chair Tom Sanders, Vice Chair John Moms opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: MINUTES David Lauer moved that the minutes of October 26, 2000 be approved as distributed. Paul Clopper seconded the motion. Paul Clopper pointed out some grammatical errors on page 3 and Tom Sanders sent in his minor corrections on pp. 3, 5, 6 and 19. With those changes the minutes , were approved unanimously. Water Board Minutes December 7, 2000 Page 2 UPDATE: NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT Horsetooth Project Gene Schleiger began by saying that he was the bearer of better news about Horsetooth than at the October meeting. When he reported last time, they had not uncovered some of the suspected problem areas in Horsetooth. When those areas were examined, no problems were found, so they were capped off. The District began bringing water back on November 17a`. "We have been running about 75 cfs and went up to about 190 a day," he reported. The City has asked the District to continue bringing the water in, and hopefully, by May 16` it will be up to the 5330 ft. elevation, which is what they are shooting for. He went on to say that funding has been approved in Washington. The Bureau has RFPs out. He thinks the proposals and bids will be back in on December 21, 2000. It is anticipated that they will still be able to have a contractor in place starting repair work on the filter and the buttress portion of Horsetooth Dam by the end of January or the first of February. "But not the wall?" someone asked. "That will be a separate contract," Gene replied. They have 400+ days to do the filter and buttress portion of the dam. Probably by this time next year, they will solicit a separate bid for the cut-off wall. He said they continue to collect data. There is some speculation that they might have to cut down 25-30 ft. off the top of the dam to get in to do some of these repairs. A lot of the data they have been generating over the last month, while they have been sealing things up, will help with the decision as to where they go on that. Allegations from West Slope The other major issue that the Northern District is facing is the allegations that have been made by the west slope regarding the misuse of CBT water by Northern. "That is becoming more delicate day by day," he stated. "Those representing the water users on this side don't think we can roll over for it," he stated. There might be substantial reductions in the amount of water we deliver, understanding that the decree for our use over here is an average of 310,000 ac-ft per year. We are averaging about 220,000 and the last five years about 204,000, so we're not even coming close to the 310,000 we are allowed. The west slope thinks that the non -charge program is a violation of compacts and that it is causing Colorado River compact violations. He emphasized that the District's diversions have never, in the years that they have operated, had an impact on any west slope user. One of the other things they are stressing is that, because CBT is a supplemental water supply, they believe we should use, virtually to extinction, all east slope waters before we begin delivering CBT water. In addition, they don't believe that CBT water should ever be delivered before July 15`h. "There are a number of issues that must be resolved," he concluded. He had copies of letters that the west slope sent to the Bureau of Reclamation, as well as to the State Engineer. They are claiming that the State Engineer's office is not doing its job because it can't account for CBT water in the system over here, and thus, the state is allowing the waste of water. A copy of the District's response letter to the BOR and copies of the correspondence packet were available to Board members. Water Board Minutes • • December 7, 2000 Page 3 Questions David Lauer asked for clarification on the other two sinkholes. "Did I understand you correctly that you didn't have to fill those in with cement?" "That's right," Gene replied. "Are you confident that the seepage is not happening from those sinkholes?" David continued. "When they got in there, they could not find any area that was indicating any seepage. Once they mixed in the grout and sand into the other abutment hole, there were significant declines in monitoring sites down below," he explained. "That appears to have been one of the major sources of where the seepage is. Whether there are any others that are minor, we don't know at this time; at least nothing showed up on the surface," he added. "Do you think that all the seepage is coming from that one source?" David asked. "I don't think we can say that all of it is coming from there. At this time, when we are refurbishing the dam, we need to get the major areas that are susceptible to sediment transport because that could lead to a dam failure," he cautioned. Robert Ward returned to the west slope allegations subject. As he sees it, at this point, it's just an exchange of letters. "Where will this go next?" he asked. "It's in the hands of the BOR," Gene replied. The bureau has not responded to the letter at this point. One of the unfortunate things is that the Bureau has a lot of people who have retired and left the system. As a result, they have very few people, either in the local or regional office in Billings, who have any familiarity with CBT operations. Because of the endangered species aspects in those letters, one of the main things the western slope is questioning is being able to force the Bureau to comply with the Endangered Species Act. What they want is what the state has fought against for years, and that is to reserve federal rights and have by-pass flows. The west slope would like to have two weeks during the peak runoff season on the east slope, when we don't divert any water. Our opinion is that we are entitled to the water. If the reservoirs are in a situation where it looks like they are going to fill and spill, we don't have a problem with participating in providing flows. At the same time, we have constituents all through the Northern District who have paid for the CBT project, and have given the District the responsibility of supplying them with supplemental water. "It would be difficult to tell our users that we would bypass two weeks of water for the fish, and the River goes dry and we can't get water to supply them," he stressed. "So the next step is for the Bureau to respond?" Robert asked. "That's right," Gene replied. The Bureau has had a couple of meetings and will meet with people from Billings in mid -December. Gene acknowledged that the decision will probably be made out of Washington. Whoever wins the election could have a major impact on that decision by whom is appointed to serve as Secretary of the Interior. "Some of the names mentioned by George Bush could be very helpful," he said. He added if the person who is appointed has knowledge of western water, it would be beneficial. There were no further questions. Gene had to leave for another meeting. CONSIDERATION OF CANAL IMPORTATION MASTER DRAINAGEWAY PLAN At the October meeting, Susan Hayes, Senior Stormwater Engineer, briefed the Board on the Canal Importation Basin Master Plan. Each Board member received a copy of the Executive Summary, which explains the main components of the technical plan. A field trip and follow-up discussion occurred on November 22, 2000. Water Board Minutes December 7, 2000 Page 4 Susan said today's meeting focuses on two areas. The first is technical issues about the Canal Importation Master Plan and a briefing on the field trip. Previous discussions indicate there appear to be no technical disagreements about the proposed plan. The second issue is policy. The Board has expressed concerns about the cost proposed in the master plan and the impact on Utility fees and the construction schedule. These are policy issues related to the appropriate level of protection to be provided, the acceptable level of fees and their relationship to the overall utility bill, and the length of time it takes to build the projects proposed in the master plans. These policies were established in the past and staff would like to know if the Board wants to re -visit these issues prior to acting on the Canal Importation Master Plan. Technical Issues and Field Trip Susan said staff isn't necessarily asking for action from the Board today. She emphasized that the issues that will be discussed today are not unique to the Canal Importation Basin. First she asked for discussion on the technical issues on the master plan itself to make sure staff has answered all the Board's questions. She began by discussing the field trip, which was held on November 2rd. Four Board members participated in the tour. "We visited most of the sites in the basin," she said. We talked about various options, for example, where the water was going. At this point, there don't appear to be any outstanding technical issues with respect to the master plan. Internally, staff is still working on some issues with respect to the ability to construct certain projects, and that may force us to go back and re-evaluate some of them. John Morris thanked staff for the excellent tour. Susan said staff will try to schedule tours for the other plans as well. David Lauer asked about the question of constructibility. "Does that involve one of those areas you showed us on the tour, where it was so restricted that you either had to go all the way under or not do anything at all?" "Yes, the New Mercer improvements are probably the most up in the air as to how constructible they are, and whether or not we are really going to be able to provide 100-year protection there," Susan replied. There are also some areas along the Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal where the question is whether we have sufficient rights -of -way, and how we would impact adjacent neighbors. "There are a couple of areas where you would be required to build a parallel channel next to the ditch. Do we have to keep those separate?" John Morris asked. "You don't want to combine them completely because you end up with such small irrigation flows compared to the capacity of the channel," Susan explained. "Keep in mind that everything we have proposed here, is subject to modification and improvement at the time of the final design. She added that staff has tried to be as conservative as possible to make sure there is enough money to do the projects, but they are open to change upon design. David Lauer asked about cooperation with the Ditch companies. "We've had a good working relationship with them so far," Susan replied. "Frankly, most of what we are showing on the PV&L is not that much different from what was shown in the original master plan," she added. "None of the ditch companies object to changing portions of the ditch as long as they are carrying flows they would like them to carry, and that the City takes on the ultimate maintenance and repair." Dave Rau thinks it's kind of a benefit to them. Susan said they do the routine Water Board Minutes December 7, 2000 Page 5 maintenance, but if there is a failure in a culvert, the City fixes it, not them. She also mentioned that it keeps trash out of portions of the ditch. There are trash racks on the start of the culvert that the City has to maintain. Policy Issues Before going into policy issues, Susan said staff wants to know where the Board would like to go with this. What policies would you like to revisit? What information do you need from staff in order to make an informed decision on changing or not changing current policy? In her memo Susan related that the Board has expressed concerns about the cost proposed in the master plan and the impact on the utility fees and construction schedule. These are policy issues related to the appropriate level of protection to be provided, the acceptable level off fees and their relationship to the overall utility bill, and the length of time it takes to build the projects proposed in the master plans. These policies have been set in the past and staff would like to know if the Board wants to re -visit these issues prior to acting on the Canal Importation Master Plan. Level of Protection The City of Fort Collins is required by Colorado and Federal laws to regulate to the 100-year storm event. This means the 100-year storm is used to map the regulatory floodplain and enforce floodplain regulations. In 1999, a higher rainfall standard was adopted. This was based on sound technical analysis and recommended by the Water Board and adopted by Council. Higher rainfall has resulted in higher runoff and larger floodplains. In the late 70s and early 80s, the City of Fort Collins adopted the 100-year level of protection as the design event for all new development. This is enforced through the storm drainage design criteria and construction standards. Many other communities use this standard, as well as the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District which encompasses most of the metro -Denver area communities. For basin master plans, the City has adopted the policy to provide 100 year protection only if the benefits outweigh the costs. This means it is possible to provide less than 100-year protection. "There are parts of Old Town where ten-year protection was recommended," she pointed out. "In West Vine, we are seriously looking at 25 or 50-year protection, rather than 100-year," she added. However, the regulatory floodplain is still mapped using the 100-year storm, and property and structures remaining in the residual floodplain are subject to the floodplain regulations. Susan said, "In terms of designing for new development, that is up to each community to decide what level of protection they would like their community to have. So, a community could decide to adopt a 50-year level of protection, but they still have to map a 100-year residual floodplain and regulate to that floodplain," she reiterated. Dave Rau asked what is meant by "regulated to 100-year protection." "In our Floodplain Regulations, if you have an identified 100-year floodplain, there are criteria for how you build in that floodplain (whether you have to be elevated, flood proofed etc.)," Susan replied. "From a Water Board Minutes December 7, 2000 Page 6 practical standpoint, it means you must meet FEMA 100-year regulations as an absolute minimum," Dave pointed out. "Or local basins can have stricter criteria than FEMA," Susan added. "If you are looking, as you have been for awhile, at West Vine to go to 50 or 25-year, comparing that with Canal Importation, especially the more severe areas, how serious would we get with the southern or central areas?" David Lauer asked. "How do you define severity?" Susan asked. "I'm referring to the volume of water and potential damage based on the number of structures," David answered. "The highest potential damage is along the Mulberry Corridor because it floods out the Mountain and Oak Street areas," Susan explained. "Comparing that to West Vine, is it as bad potentially?" David continued. "It's worse. There are far more structures in Canal Importation in the floodplain, than there are in West Vine, for example," Susan stated. She added, "That's when you have to start backing off on level of protection because it is the number of structures that are damaged that generate your benefits through damage reduction from building improvements that take them out of the floodplain. If you don't have very many structures in the floodplain, frankly it is hard to justify building a lot of protection for a few buildings versus 100s," she stressed. "Is density graded that way too?" David asked. "Yes," Susan replied. "It bothers me that it always appears to be property value rather than value of life," David remarked. "It's always a ticklish issue when you do the cost/benefit analysis," Dave Rau pointed out. "The Code says the benefits must outweigh the costs; it does not say you must have a benefit/cost ratio greater than one," Susan explained. "You can tell a very good story, for example, if you have a nursing home in the middle of the floodplain, you will have a higher likelihood of loss of life because of that." We do not ignore loss of life at all," she emphasized. "A lot of what we do revolves around emergency response, ensuring that our streets aren't overtopping, so people don't get washed away in their cars, and the ability to get emergency vehicles to critical locations during a flood," she explained. Paul Clopper wanted to be clear on the calculations of benefit/cost ratio and this particular area. "The current recommendations and guidelines place loss of life at about $2 million per life lost. Did you assume lives lost?" "No," Susan answered. "Actually, the benefits are pretty conservative," Paul commented. "You said earlier that things associated with floods such as down time due to lost business while it's closed, isn't included as part of avoided damages, so your B/C ratio is pretty conservative, and it's still darn good," he concluded. "Even if you felt that we were too generous with the property values and the depth of flow, we could cut them in half and still have a B/C ratio of greater than one, in this particular basin," Susan noted. "In other basins you have to include all of those intangibles and tell a convincing story to justify the improvements you'd like to build, but sometimes you still are at 25 or 50-year protection," she added. John Morris recalled at the wrap-up after the tour, Board members had discussed whether to recommend that the Council try to fund the $49 million or if we should recommend reducing the 100-year level for this one basin because of the cost. Susan responded, "that's the kind of feedback we would like from the Board. We meet the policy with this plan. It appears that people have sticker shock for this particular basin. So, do you change the policy of level of protection for one basin or city-wide?" she asked. She also asked if the Board needs other information from Water Board Minutes December 7, 2000 Page 7 staff to help make the decisions. Is it physically possible to build the projects in this timeframe? New master plan projects have not yet been included in this projection. Stormwater Utility Fees and Construction Schedule Prior to 1998, the City collected stormwater fees on a basin by basin basis. Each basin master plan was adopted as a system and the fees collected in the basin were used to fund the proposed projects. Capital fees were limited to $3.58 per month for a typical residential lot. Financing was on a "pay as you go" basis with some debt financing. This resulted in long build -out schedules due to the limited funds collected. Basins such as Canal Importation and Old Town, with high costs of improvements, had the longest build -out schedules. Susan said now that we have gone to city-wide fees, the questions about the impacts on the fees become harder to answer. In 1998, the Water Board recommended, and Council adopted, citywide stormwater fees. The projected fees were based on the estimated costs to complete the outstanding projects shown in the original master plans (excluding the Poudre River and Cooper SloughBoxelder). These costs did not include the impacts of raising the design rainfall. The fees were based on constructing projects worth $68 million over 15 years. The highest priority projects were in the Old Town and Canal Importation basins. Susan said the question becomes, if we are no longer going to do $68 million worth of improvements, what will it be? Is it going to be $100 or $120 million? And, how long will that take and what will the fees be? Again she asked what information would the Board like from staff on this issue. She said that Dave Agee will share some information today to help guide the Board's decision. Enterprise Fund Restrictions Susan mentioned that after the field trip, Board members mentioned other sources of funding. For example, can we go to the General Fund or can we get money from LOCO? She said there are limited opportunities to get money from the General Fund. The reason the Utilities was set up as an Enterprise Fund in the early 1980s, was because the General Fund did not have money to fund storm drainage improvements. It was specifically set up to have a dedicated funding stream. Dave Rau thought it was because of the TABOR Amendment. "The Utility was originally set up to have a dedicated source of funding. The Enterprise Fund was set up to address TABOR restrictions," Susan explained. She added, "That limits us as to how much outside funding we can accept; 10% total revenue." She mentioned that the Colorado Water Conservation Board has a low interest loan program, and the City has taken advantage of that as well as the County. There are other sources, but it wouldn't be likely that we would get $49 million. "I don't see why we can't go after 10% of it," David Lauer suggested. "We must remember that these suggested improvements are the result of a flood that affected a whole lot of people a few years ago and may happen again," he stressed. Tom Brown pointed out that the impact on fees is probably a function of how quickly the work gets done, and that's still a variable. "That's true, the total cost and how long it takes," Susan responded. The 15-year schedule needs to be evaluated to see if it is still physically possible to Water Board Minutes December 7, 2000 Page 8 build the projects in this timeframe. New master plan projects have not yet been included in this projection. Stormwater Budget Plan Dave Agee, Chief Financial Officer, went on to say that currently we have extended our budget plan to 10 years from the 5 years in which we actually do the budget. It calls for borrowing $10 million every other year, starting in 2001 through 2010; basically $50 million. In order to do that, fees will have to go up about 6% per year based on current projections, and that's every year between now and 2010. Essentially, the fees are going to double in that amount of time to cover just part of the plan. He said staff has already talked about what we are going to borrow in 2001. About $6 million is for basins other than Canal Importation. Beyond that we haven't set priorities. Obviously, with the numbers we are seeing, it is looking more like we are either going to have to extend this out or see some very substantial fee increases over the next 20 years to be able to do this. Certainly it calls into question the 15-year plan which we talked about earlier. Dave would like to see the Board debate what is going to be an acceptable fee increase. "Is that just in the context of the Storm Drainage Fund or the fees all Utilities customers pay?" he asked. He tends to think it's probably the latter. He pointed out that we don't have enough information yet on the costs of some of the other basins to fully inform the Board of what it's going to look like or what the options are. "At least we should open it up for the Board to debate what, philosophically, they want to do." Discussion Dave Frick asked what the fees are now. "We clock those on the basis of an ERU and they are $7.44 in 2000. The fee is actually going up 9.3% in 2001; that was 8% already planned for capital and another 1.3% for the Stormwater Monitoring Program," Dave Agee explained. "Fees are going up to $8.13 in 2001 and 6% every year for the next 10 years if we stay on this course. Dave pointed out that Canal Importation is $50 million. "And the other basins are at least another $50 million?" David Lauer asked. Dave Agee said staff doesn't want to speculate about what that might turn out to be. "What does the fee become at a 6% growth rate?" Tom Brown asked. "It almost doubles," Dave A. replied. Susan reiterated that Canal Importation and Old Town are still the top priorities of the basins in the City. She pointed out that once these improvements are built out, as well as the improvements in Old Town, a significant chunk of the damage areas in the City will have been removed. Mike Smith listed the options that the Board is faced with: 1. Change the standards of the City. 2. Modify the time interval in which the improvements are done. 3. Limit the number of rate increases 4. Do a combination of the above. Water Board Minutes December 7, 2000 Page 9 "If you feel strongly about standards, we should look at adjusting rates and timing, or is timing more important than the rates, or are the rates more important than the timing?" Mike suggested. "Those are ideas for discussion," he added. Dave Frick suggested that we could also accelerate the rate increases. For example, you could double the rates now and hold it constant for the next ten years. That would generate more money to keep up with everything. "Physically doing the improvements becomes a limitation with that scenario," Mike responded. Tom Brown asked if the 6% a year is real dollars? "In other words, where does inflation fit into this?" "All of this is based on assuming current dollars," Dave Agee replied. Mike explained that we are making a projection based on today's costs, and more than likely, costs are going to increase, so a $50 million program, to try to get it done, would probably cost $60-70 million." "So if you are going to keep up with inflation, you'll have to increase the nominal rate even more than the 6%?" Tom continued. "When we do cost projections, the model assumes a certain percent of increased cost, and if we program each project in a certain time frame, and inflate the costs, you would probably see higher rates," Mike explained. "If it goes to $15.00 in 10 years at 6%, then will it go to $23.00?" Tom Brown wondered. "Impacts are more focused on timing issues because if our 15-year plan turns into a 30-year plan, the cost of the projects with inflation will increase," Mike said. "Either you pay now or you pay later." "Is build -out in the Canal Importation area such that you don't have to worry about much new development?" David Lauer asked. "Yes, that's correct," Susan replied. "The master plan takes that into account," Dave Rau noted. "When they build, they will protect themselves, so we won't be adding more people to the damage rolls, or a lot of structures," Susan stated. Paul Clopper agreed with David Lauer that we need to remember why we are doing this. We suffer memory loss as we get further away from the '97 flood. "I can remember the Board sitting around the table about 3 months after it happened and nothing was going to stop us from doing what was right," he asserted. "I think it would be irresponsible of us and frankly, spineless to back off on the 100-year protection," he stressed, "with the proper measure of the benefit/cost ratio," he added. "That's a good yard stick on which to judge that 100-year policy." He said he didn't mind allowing the schedule to slide. Practically speaking, with all the infrastructure improvements that need to be done, maybe the 15-year time frame we talked about earlier is a little too aggressive. Dave Rau agreed that, even when we have half the basin protected, we start seeing benefits right away. "If our benefit/cost ratio is favorable, I don't see how we could do anything to change the current policy," Paul insisted. Robert Ward also agreed with that philosophy. "I would much rather work with the length of construction than to have fundamental policy changes," he said. Dave Frick reiterated a previous comment. "Are we better off increasing our rates higher now and less later on, to `put a little more money in the bank now' while people still have a memory of the flood? Instead of doing 6-8% over the years, maybe going 10-15% for the next couple of years, and back off to a 2 or 3% from then on when we start getting things constructed," he suggested. "That way we will be gathering a little more money up front. We could put that in the Water Board Minutes December 7, 2000 Page 10 bank and save interest on bonds." "You would reach a point where your rates go down to a maintenance level?" Robert Ward added. Both Robert and Paul Clopper thought that was an interesting way of looking at it. "That's pretty aggressive and it carries my feelings about the issue a little further. It's actually a pro -active way to address it," Paul remarked. "Somebody is always going to convert things to percentages," George Reed observed. "I don't know how much we really need `real' dollars because we don't know what the other half of this is to start funding all of these things right now." He said that 10% on an ERU is going to be $.80. "My view is, when it's small, why not increase it to say $2.00 or more now." Dave Rau said some people are impacted differently though. "The dollar amount for the Foothills Fashion Mall, for example, is going to be significant." David Lauer agreed that the commercial customer is going to see a major increase. Tom Brown said another reason to collect more money now is because the price of purchasing land is going up faster than the rate of inflation. David Lauer asked if a 15% rate increase, ratcheted down over a 3-year period would be feasible. Mike Smith said staff would like the Board to narrow down the options. It appears that the Board does not want to change the standards. If that is a Board decision, staff could use that as a base. Then staff can do some more work on timing and dollars. They would then put together a few options based on what we have heard today. "It helps to narrow down the field a bit," he concluded. ACTION: Affirmation Motion George Reed moved that the Board affirm the current standards for flood protection in which we protect to the 100-year flood with the criteria that benefits outweigh the costs. Paul Clopper seconded the motion. Mike Smith emphasized that we are not going to do something different for each basin. This will be for the whole City policy. Tom Brown was not clear about the affirmation. He recalled that when the West Vine Basin was discussed, it appeared that because of the benefits compared with the costs, it looked as if 50 or even less return period was more sensible. "How does that decision relate to this motion?" "It's consistent that the benefits don't outweigh the cost of 100-year protection," Staff replied. The vote to re -affirm the standards was unanimous. Staff will bring options on fees and timing to the January Board meeting. Dave Frick wanted to raise the "check flood" idea again in connection with Canal Importation Master Plan. "It would be nice, with Canal Importation, to see what the residual floodplain looks like if we were to have a '97 event again, and maybe center it about 2 miles north of where it was." He thinks that we seem to lull people into thinking that they have 100-year protection. "100-year protection doesn't necessarily mean that you are not going to get wet. It's nice to have something in the record that would show that there is a potential there." Water Board Minutes December 7, 2000 Page 11 FLUORIDE: TO BE OR NOT TO BE Mike Smith said the Utilities had received comments from members of the community about the Fluoridation issue. Kevin Gertig, Water Production Manager and Gale McGaha Miller,Water Quality Services Manager, gave presentations. In their packets, Board members had received a number of articles and publications on both sides of the issue. Mike said that some citizens have suggested that the City not fluoridate the water. Gale introduced the subject with some history. She said drinking water fluoridation has been controversial and has had proponents and opponents ever since it was introduced. She said that she and Kevin will provide some information that should help the Board to advise Council. Background Gale referred to both sides of the issue in the handouts; from those who promote fluoridation for dental health reasons and those who have concerns as a public health issue. In 1908, Dr. McKay, a physician in Colorado began to see a correlation between stains on his patients' teeth and fewer cavities in dental care. He studied this phenomenon for years and discovered that the cause of the stain was fluoride. At about the same time a Dr. Dean was also studying fluoride. Most fluoride research in the first decades of the last century happened under the auspices of the U.S. Public Health Services and Alcoa Aluminum. Fluoride is a waste product of aluminum production. The Mellon Institute was one of Alcoa's research arms. In 1939, the Mellon Institute began promoting water fluoridation. Opponents have a number of reasons that they say these promotions were occurring. They said it was a convenient way to get rid of a waste product from aluminum production, but proponents say that simply isn't the case. At that time Andrew Mellon, who was a major owner of Alcoa, was appointed to the U.S. Treasury, and the Department of Public Health Services was under the Treasury Dept. "This is something that gets conspiracy theorists really excited. You'll have to draw you own conclusions on that," she said. By 1941, the U.S. Public Health Service predated the EPA in terms of certain public health and environmental health issues. They set the fluoride maximum for drinking water at 1 part per million. That's based largely on McKay's and Dean's earlier studies. In 1946, they raised the maximum to 1.5, but according to the research Gale has done, this wasn't based on any new studies. They may have thought that the first number was unnecessarily lenient. In 1956, Proctor and Gamble promoted Crest as the first fluoridated toothpaste. By 1960, the American Dental Association endorsed it as the toothpaste that prevented cavities. In 1961, the USPHS raised the fluoride maximum in drinking water to 2.4, again based on no new studies, "which keeps the conspiracy theorists entertained," Gale remarked. Water Board Minutes December 7, 2000 Page 12 As we arrive at 1970, most of the toothpastes in the U.S. had fluoride in them. While the U.S. was putting fluoride in water and toothpaste, people in Europe were trying to get rid of it. Germany and Sweden were banning drinking water fluoridation because they had seen studies that linked fluoridation practices to health problems. By 1971, the EPA was created, which took over some of the roles of the Public Health Service. In 1985, they raised the drinking water fluoride mg/L to 4 parts per million, again according to fluoridation opponents, it was based on no new studies. At that time there began to be some internal controversy among EPA scientists. The Union of EPA Scientists began taking action to try to stop EPA's new limit and reverse it back down, because they had concerns about recent studies and some of the toxicology. "That opposition continues to this day," she said. In Board packets there was testimony from an EPA toxicologist who was not there on behalf of EPA, but on behalf of the union. Meanwhile, the promotion of fluoridation of drinking water to prevent caries has continued. We have been successful in our attempts to fluoridate more and more public drinking water. The total number now of public supplies is about 62%. The goal nationally is much higher than that. There is a baseline of people who will always get a certain natural level of fluoride in their water. Colorado, for quite some time has had a dental health program through the Department of Public Health and Environment, and nationally, CDC also has a division of oral health, as well as EPA's program. A long list of large institutions promote fluoridation in drinking water as a means of dental health. In Fort Collins, the issue was debated several times in the `50s when it was being promoted nationwide. In a 1959 vote the citizens rejected it, and in 1966, voters didn't approve fluoridation, but instead authorized City Council to fluoridate the water. In 1967, Council authorized the fluoridation of water. It was begun at Water Treatment Plant No. 1 in the Poudre Canyon. From the start we've had people lining up on both sides of the issue. "We've had dentists and other public health folks saying it's wonderful, and others saying it's the cause of hyperactivity in children and osteoporosis." Unfortunately, despite the fact that there are a large number of research studies, nothing is definitive. So the controversy remains. "Is it a toxin? Of course it's a toxin. So is lead, so is arsenic and even oxygen, but it's all a matter of at what dose is it a toxin? This is something that opponents tend to forget. It's all a matter of what is a safe level." This issue showed up in this year's elections. Nationally there were a number of communities who voted to stop fluoridation. In the same elections there were a number of communities who voted to begin fluoridation. Arguments on Both Sides There is an impressive list of proponents of fluoridation, including organizations of which many of us are members, such as the AW WA, EPA, National Institute of Health, American Dental Association, etc. Proponents say that fluorosis, one of the downsides of fluoridation is a small Water Board Minutes December 7, 2000 Page 13 price to pay for preventing cavities. Opponents say our decrease in cavities comes, not so much from fluoride, but from better brushing habits, flossing, etc. Supporters say that all the scientific studies have been very well established, well founded and, that there have been no adverse side effects, while the studies reporting otherwise were poorly put together and made incorrect conclusions. "The consumption of fluoride through drinking water, as well as topical application will prevent caries," they contend. Opponents, including the EPA Scientists Union, as well as a variety of scientists and individuals, are beginning to break ranks with some of these organizations. They say the studies are flawed. If you go back to the original communities that were compared with the Crest kids and the non - Crest kids, or fluoridated or non -fluoridated water, there is no statistically significant difference in caries in the different communities. They even go so far as to say that some of those results have been massaged. These differences result in a "war of scientists." Furthermore, they are seeing new studies that show potential links with osteoarthritis, various kinds of cancer, people who have hypersensitivity to fluoride, and even links with things like ADHD and autism. There is also the argument that says we have plenty of sources of fluoride now, so we don't need to fluoridate drinking water. We have fluoridated toothpaste and one can get fluoridated supplements, and fluoride in a variety of foods now, which wasn't the case a century ago. Others argue that it really needs to be a topical application, and that ingesting fluoride in the water does absolutely no good. Gale went on to say that, locally, we've had a few concerned citizens who have been very loud in voicing their concerns. They have complained to the mayor and city manager. That is one of the reasons we are discussing this issue today. "Frankly, over the years, we've only received a handful of phone calls in any one year, and usually it's about 50-50, or even a few more who call to make sure we fluoridate the water. It's time to revisit the issue. We haven't talked about it for a long time," she said. As a matter of fact, it's a good time because we are in the middle of a new design for new fluoride facilities. "One thing to keep in mind is, if we decided today to stop feeding fluoride, that would not guarantee that all Fort Collins Utilities citizens or even all Utilities customers would receive un-fluoridated water, because many citizens receive water from the Tri-districts, and because of our arrangement of sharing water, many of our customers in our own service area will get some fluoridated water from them. Unless we all stopped fluoridating, we could not guarantee that our customers would receive un-fluoridated water. Unlike other things in water that people might not like, and might want to remove with a home point of use device, fluoride is difficult to remove. It takes a home reverse osmosis system to get rid of it. "Because Fort Collins has chosen to fluoridate, we strive to do so extremely carefully," Gale assured the Board. She introduced Kevin Gertig, who described the City's practices, quality control measures and some operational issues. Water Board Minutes December 7, 2000 Page 14 Fluoridation Practices, Quality Control Measures and Operational Issues Kevin reiterated that the Utilities is in the midst of upgrading the fluoride system. "We have not delayed that project; it's about a $300,000 improvement project. When you feed fluoride, there is a limited life to things like tanks because it is a very aggressive chemical. It has a pH less than 2. For health and safety reasons, we have a prudent capital upgrade project. The City spends about $95,000 a year on fluoridation, and that includes all the water that is treated. People like the American Dental Ass'n. and others that do the stats. on it, figure about $50 per person a year in most communities. Obviously that's very site specific because that can be skewed depending on the size of the community. Kevin went on to say that the Utility adds fluoride at the recommended dosage, "and we optimize at one milligram per liter." This is one of the few chemicals that is added based on ambient air temperature, so if one were to add this in Arizona, you would optimize it at a lot lower concentration because you wouldn't want to overdo the amount. Based on all the toxilogical data and all the studies that Gale mentioned, right or wrong, it is a chemical that we feed at a certain prescribed rate. In Colorado, that happens to be one milligram per liter (mg/L). "We have about 0.2 mg/L naturally occurring in our water supply, in both CBT and Poudre, so we adjust it to maintainl.0 mg/L," he explained. When we started adding the fluoride, we began with a dry product that is common in most plants. Since then we have changed to a liquid form. Where Does Fluoride Come From? Fluoride is a byproduct of the addition of sulfuric acid to phosphate rock. It is quite typically purchased from the fertilizer industry, and also aluminum industries. There are many different processes that have these compounds as a byproduct. "Does that mean it's bad? Again, it's a matter of definition, because we use byproducts in a lot of things in chemistry." As he mentioned earlier, the Fort Collins plant uses a liquid form, which is much easier to handle. In its raw form it's a very aggressive chemical and a number of safety measures must be used. When it blends with water, that's not a concern. Is there a difference between natural and adjusted fluoride? The answer is no. Regardless of the source the ion is the same. The ion net is what we measure on a routine basis to determine the amount of fluoride in our water supply. We pay a lot of money for the water in the material that is trucked to our facility from Louisiana, but, because it is in solution, we also get away from some of the hazards and others things that operators have to deal from the dust. Larger facilities typically use a liquid form. The containers are lined with rubber, because if it were metal, the material would eat a whole in it. Our facility uses approximately 6 loads a year. He stressed that each load is sampled, so if any questions come up where staff wanted to do any analyses, they are able to do that. Next, Kevin talked in some detail about all the safety measures and precautions they take at the plant in handling the material. "As I said earlier, in 1992 we changed from a dry sodium silica fluoride system to a liquid Water Board Minutes • • December 7, 2000 Page 15 fluoride system." The facility currently uses FSA (Fluorosilicic Acid). We use a day tank to minimize the potential of overdose of fluoride. "We have very good control of our system," he emphasized. We are committed to analytical testing and we measure fluoride daily using electro- technology. He went on to say that past data indicate that the Facility has a credible record. "We have been awarded year after year for the consistency of the operation of our facility." As Gale pointed out earlier, there are alternatives to fluoridation. "From the standpoint of public health and water treatment, and I'm not taking sides, one of the issues that is brought up is that it seems consistency is the issue. Therefore, another thing that we didn't mention is why we add it to water supplies in general. It seems to center around consistency, at least in the thinking when this was started. If you want to have a consistent dosage, and a consistent distribution, what better way to do that than the water supply? Of course, if you are an opponent, that doesn't work for you. He pointed out that there are a lot of references to consult on this issue. Gale has complied a pretty extensive list, including web sites. Kevin distributed "Fluoridation Facts" booklets put out by the American Dental Association. He mentioned that there are a lot of anti -fluoridation sites out there, but he always likes to be careful about validating that. Questions and Comments from the Board "Although the liquid method is better in terms of handling, and in terms of safety, it appears that the material in the truck is still pretty nasty," Paul Clopper remarked. "If six trucks a year come here, what happens if they get into an accident and the contents spill out?" "There have been small issues across the country, but I'm not aware of large scale issues," Kevin responded. "Certainly from a hazardous material point of view, it could be a concern, but it can be neutralized." Kevin acknowledged that it does have issues, as do Chlorine gas and other things that we take in. Although there hasn't been any kind of accident locally, he said it's a good point and one that staff and folks that use it have discussed. "Like chlorine, does fluoride volatilize?" George Reed asked. "No," Kevin replied. "When it goes through the wastewater treatment plant, is it still in the water?" George continued. "Yes, depending on the chemistry, of course, but as Gale pointed out, once that ion is in there, it is very difficult to remove," Kevin explained. "That's one of the arguments for the folks who oppose this." Tom Brown asked what the basis is for the 1.0mg/L dosage. "That goes all the way back to the early studies in the 1930s," Gale replied. "Why are we using that dosage? Because that's translated into EPA's recommendation to public water supplies as the optimal to prevent caries," Gale said. Paul Clopper pointed out that the maximum was 4. Gale said that studies showed that above 4, there is too much fluorosis of the teeth. Water Board Minutes December 7, 2000 Page 16 Tom mentioned the EPA Scientist Union's recent expression of concern. "Are they concerned about the maximum going up, or are they concerned about the use of fluoride?" `Both," Gale replied. "They were outraged, apparently, at the maximum going up at the face of what they believe to be scientific studies that indicate evenl part per million was not safe when it was linked to health effects. In fact, they have demanded that EPA headquarters bring in bottled water, because tap water has 1 part per million fluoride, and they believe that it's toxic to human health at that level. Everybody lines up their studies on both sides," she concluded. "If we stopped using fluoride today, we could save roughly $300,000 in capital costs and around $100,000 per year," Paul Clopper pointed out. "And we'd still have 0.2mg/L of natural fluoride in our water," Robert Ward added. "Are there conclusive studies that have shown that if you ingest fluoride, it has a significant effect on caries?" David Lauer asked. "Proponents say yes, unequivocally. The opponents say those studies were flawed," Gale said. "They fight over ingestion and topical also," she stressed. They talk about ingestion being helpful when the teeth are being formed. "The opponents say it accumulates, the proponents say it doesn't." John Morris asked if staff is suggesting that we refer this issue back to the voters. "The City Manager said that Council is looking for a recommendation," Mike Smith replied. "It seems that we should be concerned as to whether there are any new studies," Tom Brown stated. "There are new studies being done in Britain that indicate a possible link between fluoridated water and hip fractures, and there are other studies that refute that," Gale responded. "There are new studies coming out every day, and it doesn't seem to clear up the problem," she stressed. John Morris asked if we could defer this and put it on the next agenda. "Yes, there is not a problem with that," Mike replied. Joe Bergquist asked why Europe is opposed to Fluoridation. "Traditionally there have been concerns over potential adverse health effects," Gale answered. "They don't use chlorination either, do they," Robert Ward said. He explained that they have an entirely different philosophy of water treatment in Europe that is so much driven by health. "They have other advantages that we don't have that lets them go that way," he added. Action: Item tabled John Morris tabled this item until the January 25, 2001 meeting. INTER -GOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH FORT COLLINS-LOVELAND WATER DISTRICT According to the memo distributed with Board packets, the proposed agreement is the outcome of a joint request for assistance from the District and various builder/developers. (The draft agreement was attached.) At the present time the District's water development fees are much higher than the City's fees. The difference is primarily a result of two factors. First, the rising price of CBT (Colorado -Big Thompson water) and the fact that the District accepts only CBT Water Board Minutes December 7, 2000 Page 17 water to satisfy its raw water requirement. The City, on the other hand, accepts a variety of water rights, most of which are not impacted by the price of CBT water. Second, the District's fee structure does not recognize or give credit for the lower water use per unit associated with higher density development. The District charges the same for large and small residential lots. When applied to a multi -family development, the fee difference is dramatic. The District is concerned about these issues and is in the process of reviewing their raw water policy and development fee structure. They are looking at the possibility of accepting other water rights, thus providing builder/developers lower cost options. The District is also looking at developing a different fee structure for high density development. However, it is anticipated that the development and implementation of a new raw water policy and new fee structure will take some time possibly 4 to 5 years. In the spirit of regional cooperation, the proposed IGA was drafted as an interim solution while the District is developing and implementing their new policy. The following is a brief summary of how the proposed IGA would function: • The agreement applies to only specific subdivisions in the southeast part of the City. These are subdivisions that will be served by the District, but are within City limits. They are also subdivisions that could be served, with minimal effort, by the City in the future. • Developers and builders requesting water taps in these subdivisions will be served by the District, but will be assessed the City's water development fees, whatever those fees may be at the time of the tap request. The City will collect and retain those fees. • For each tap sold, the City will sell the District a corresponding amount of treated water to be delivered at a cost -of -service rate determined by the City Council. • The amount of water sold to the District will be adjusted annually, corresponding to the number and size of taps sold the previous year (This is based on a formula specified in the agreement.). Mike Smith introduced Mike DiTullio, the General Manager of the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District. He said Board members could ask Mike specific questions about District operations. Mike Smith emphasized that the FCLWD was once a rural District and now being next to the City, is experiencing considerable growth. With City Plan, densities are going to be even greater. The District is in the process of examining their development fee structures, and they are also looking at Raw Water Requirements and what water they accept. A consultant is doing some studies for them. Basically, the reason for this IGA and another piece of regional cooperation, is to offer assistance to the District in the interim while they are looking at their fee structures. "When you are exploring raw water policies and development fee policies, it doesn't happen over night. It's especially difficult when you are accustomed to being a more rural district, and you are now faced with high density city development, and you don't have a lot of data to look at," Mike S. said. Water Board Minutes December 7, 2000 Page 18 Attorneys have developed an IGA agreement where the primary areas of concern are in the southeast part of Fort Collins; basically, south of Harmony Rd., east of Timberline, north of the Fossil Creek Reservoir area and.west of County Rd. 7. In that area, there are a number of subdivisions on the drawing board, some ready to go. He stressed that the only thing the City would be doing is selling the District treated water when the agreement is approved. We're collecting those capital fees up front because we are going to be using our transmission lines and our treatment plant to treat the water that we deliver to the District. Dave Rau asked if the City will be delivering to the users. "It's our water, we treat it, take it through our transmission lines, and deliver it to two points where we have ties with the District," Mike explained. The District customers will continue to be served by the District. Mike also mentioned that the City will be treating a little more raw water, getting paid for the PIFs and will be charging an O&M fee based on what it costs us to treat and deliver the water. "We will bill the District directly for that, and their customers will not see that transaction." Mike went on to say that the District looked at other options and their Board decided that they preferred this option. We drafted an agreement to assist the District. "I don't think we are hurt at all in this agreement," Mike assured the Board. "We are getting all our costs back." "It seems that we actually gain a little bit," Dave Rau remarked. "It looks like a win/win situation to me. The District gets water probably at a cheaper cost, and we get to treat more water which may make our own water cheaper to treat," he said. "That's a possibility," Mike responded. Mike said the advantages are that we are helping the District to whom we have committed for regional cooperation, and these are City customers that they are going to be serving. "The downside is that it has a flavor of promoting growth and development," he related. "Some may say, don't do it; let the developers pay the higher fees." "What about the issue of subsidizing growth?" John Moms asked. Tom Sanders had mentioned that as an issue in remarks he sent to John when he found he wouldn't be able to attend the meeting. Mike responded that the City is not subsidizing growth. Some might say that the developers are benefiting on this deal, but they just pass the costs on to the homeowners. Perhaps with this arrangement, the homeowners may see less cost than if the developers had to pay the higher costs. "How does this affect our water supply master plan policy?" Dave Frick asked. "Right now, for example, New Mercer water, if it was sold, would come to the City and would be used for the City within our service area. Those were the projections that we used when we were looking at full development. If we are now servicing a whole new area, with essentially the same water rights, is that going to mess up the whole analysis on meeting the Halligan enlargement and the drought vulnerability?" he asked. "That's a good question and Dennis Bode has looked at that," Mike said. Dennis stated that when staff did some analyses, they looked at what would happen if we needed to serve other residents inside the City. Under this agreement, we would continue to get raw water or cash -in -lieu -of. "I think we are fine. I don't think it would be something that would upset the projections that were made," he assured the Board. "Would we need the Halligan enlargement sooner?" Dave Frick asked. "It would be relatively small in terms of time," Water Board Minutes • • December 7, 2000 Page 19 Dennis replied. "It's kind of a water rights versus storage issue," he added. "It also may depend on the mix of cash versus water rights." "Because this is a high growth area, there will be a larger volume of water to satisfy that growth. How will that affect the percentage?" David Lauer asked. "It would increase our total commitment in terms of both supply and demand," Dennis replied. "You're saying that it would make an insignificant change to our overall supply, but I'm saying that these subdivisions, or the area that is affected here, is going to grow," David reiterated. "Won't this agreement impact that?" "The area is a defined area and the subdivisions that are going to be served and allowed to be included in this, will be listed in the agreement and only modified by the City Manager to add a subdivision, but they have to be within this boundary," Mike Smith explained. "It's a finite area, but a rather large area," he added. Mike Smith reminded the Board that the City has a water sharing agreement with the District. "If we don't do this, it doesn't impact the water sharing agreement at all." "So doing this increases our delivery obligation by what percent?" Tom Brown asked. "Under current zoning there could be about 5,000 homes," Mike DiTullio said. "Of that 5,000 how many are existing now?" David Lauer asked. "Maybe 100," Mike D. replied. "That's my point," David asserted. "That will mean going from supplying 100 to eventually 5,000," he said. Mike Smith said the percentage would be from 10-15%. "Are you saying the raw water for these is going to come with development of the houses?" Tom Brown asked. "The raw water will be turned in and people can either give us, like any new builder or developer, raw water, stock or money," Mike S. replied. "We can buy the water with the money, but the more critical issue, that's already been hinted at, is storage capacity," Tom continued. "This is going to increase our need for storage." Mike S. said that Dennis showed the Water Supply Committee some scenarios related to future planning, and they didn't have anything to do with this agreement. "One of the scenarios showed that if something happens, and we have to serve people in the City that we don't serve now, what impact that has. It does increase, by a small percentage, the amount of storage that we are going to need." "Define small," Dave Rau asked. "We were looking at a scenario where there was 10,000 ac-ft of storage for 40 years. That 10,000 would have taken care of, not only the Utility service area, but an additional water district area that is inside the City," Dennis explained. "It's relatively small in the whole scheme of things; maybe by 1000-2000 ac-ft of new storage," he said. George Reed said that this is a precise area that has been designated as part of the Urban Growth expansion plan. "The way that developers are allowed to build in there is by buying development rights, and buying those development rights off of other properties, is essentially equivalent to creating a conservation easement in other areas, which creates open space," he explained. Mike DiTullio clarified that the area that is in the County, which is south of County Rd. 36, has been designated as a receiving area for the transfer of development rights from the County." He doesn't think they are doing anything in the City right now. "That's the Urban Growth Area for Water Board Minutes December 7, 2000 Page 20 the City. Is that the area we are talking about?" George asked. "Yes," Mike replied. George emphasized his point that the transfer of development rights creates open space in other areas by trying to concentrate development in this area. Mike Smith pointed out the area on a City map. He emphasized that the City won't sell water to the District where it is outside of the City. David Lauer said that part of the language of this draft is that this is an ongoing agreement, and there isn't a time limitation. "Yet, in the introduction it says the District wants to take another four or five years." "Paul Clopper had the same question. "What triggers the end of this agreement?' he asked. "The end can come a couple of different ways. It can be terminated by the parties. The subdivisions, which will be initially listed in there, can be served until completed and no more subdivisions added. We will probably start out, when this agreement is approved, with four or five subdivisions in this area. The City has to approve adding them. "Doesn't that create a problem?" Dave Frick asked. "If we are enlarging the treatment plant, and the agreement is terminated, we end up with extra capacity and the District doesn't have enough." "Once we begin serving a subdivision, we can't back out," Dave Rau pointed out. Mike S. said termination means two things: "we're not going to add any more to this or we are going to undo the whole thing." He said there is no thought of undoing it because once we have the money for the water rights and the PIFs, if the District wants to terminate the agreement, they have to come up with the money and water to serve the area. "I'm not sure what the District's structure is for their raw water," Dave Frick continued, "but, if the CBT price dropped drastically, would that reverse the agreement? "I think this is strictly an economic issue," Mike DiTullio. said. "It certainly isn't related to our ability to serve. We can serve the area and we have the water to do I," he stressed. "The City has excess capacity to River water and it's available cheaper. We think this is a win/win situation for everybody." He reiterated that they charge more for their water, which is driven by the CBT prices. Mike S. said if there is a drastic drop in CBT prices, the difference between the City and District costs would diminish, and the issue may be moot." Dave Frick said if the District ends up with capacity in the Pleasant Valley Pipeline, when the Pipeline is built, this becomes a moot issue also. He contends that this appears to be a short term arrangement, and we're locked into it for a long period. Mike Smith said he won't ask the Board to act on this unless they are comfortable doing so. Some of the developers are pushing for this, "but I'm not going to push you, because you need to understand it," he assured the Board, "and you need to make a good decision," he added. Dave Frick thinks there are a lot of implications here. He would prefer to have some time to think about it and address some of the issues. Others agreed. Paul Clopper clarified that the Board will be making a recommendation to the Council who will make the decision. David Lauer thinks it would be far more palatable if there were some time limitation in the language of the agreement. Mike S. pointed out, that this is complicated, because once we start serving, there is no turning back, but you can not expand it anymore. "I think both because of geographical restriction, and in terms of time period, that somehow gives the District a deadline Water Board Minutes December 7, 2000 Page 21 at which they have to re -define their policies," David suggested. "It sounds like that would come anyway," Robert Ward stated. "Geographically, it's perfectly well defined," Paul Clopper pointed out. "There's no way that the District can take advantage of our change decree for Southside Ditch water," Dave Frick noted. "Right now, the use of that water has some restrictions in terms of the area that it can serve, although it is something that could be adjusted if need be in terms of where it is used," Dennis Bode explained. "In the future, we'll need to go in for additional changes," he added. Mike S. said he thinks we've done a lot of home work in terms of setting things up for the Southside Ditch water for the District, so we wouldn't have to re -invent the wheel. "I expect the consultant has already recommended some of the Southside Ditch water that they would look at," he added. ACTION: The Board agreed to resume discussing this at the January meeting. Mike Smith encouraged Board members, in the meantime, to call him or e-mail him if they have comments or questions. APPROVAL OF 2001 WATER BOARD WORK PLAN The Board discussed the draft 2001 work plan extensively at the last meeting. The plan approved today will be passed on to the City Clerk's office. They will distribute it to the City Council along with other board and commission work plans. David Lauer, Chair of the Conservation and Public Education Committee said his committee met today to discuss their section of the work plan. They wanted to add, "Monitor water conservation efforts," which wasn't part of the first draft. Under that would be: Review water conservation plan and monitor the mandatory metering program. The Committee also discussed, at some length, the idea of possibly doing a periodic reporting of water quality so that area media would have an opportunity to provide an educational basis for informing the general public about water quality, both raw and treated water. The Committee wanted to add: "Monitor communication to the public about impacts of water shortages and multi -season drought." The Committee also wanted to add: "Monitor progress on suggestions from the R.W. Beck research study. Mike Smith and Wendy Williams asked them to add the phrase: specifically related to the customer satisfaction survey that referred to customer communications. The final item added was: to Monitor communication to the public on potential impacts of the Horsetooth Reservoir Project. The Conservation and Public Education Committee wanted the above items added to the work plan. There was one more addition to the Water Supply section, which would state: "Review and update the City's Water Supply Policy including issues related to the "drought contingency plan." It was also suggested that "Monitor water supply implications ofHorsetooth Water Project" be moved from the Engineering section to letter "F" under Water Supply. Water Board Minutes December 7, 2000 Page 22 Tom Brown was curious as to why there isn't a Stormwater Committee. "If we have that, we should have a wastewater committee and a water committee," Mike Smith explained. He went on to say that Stormwater has aspects of engineering and regional cooperation. "It seems that we're trying to re-create the Storm Drainage Board when the two Boards have combined." You could make the same argument for every committee," Tom stated. "The Engineering Committee has stormwater elements in it," Dave Frick pointed out. "Generally, you are going to be reviewing master plans from an engineering prospective," John Morris responded. "All of the committees have stormwater components in them," Dave Frick added. "We are trying to move away from functional areas and focus on issue areas," Mike Smith emphasized. "Water Supply is independent of Engineering, in my view," John said. "Essentially, we have two different structures going on here," Tom Brown observed. "Most of them do overlap," John added. Mike Smith pointed out that Water Supply has been pulled out because it's such a high profile issue. "When you are doing a Water Supply policy update, it's very time consuming. Therefore, the Board thought that was an area that should be separate." Tom Brown has observed that the Board spends considerable time on Stormwater issues. "Yet, there is no committee that tends to look at those items ahead of time and pare them down." David Lauer recalls that the Board concluded, after a similar discussion on this, that Stormwater would be a committee of the whole. Mike Smith reiterated that Stormwater master plans have been reviewed by the Engineering Committee. Tom acknowledged that he wasn't aware that other committees have spent a lot of time on Stormwater issues. John Morris said today's discussions on fluoride, potentially, could have started in a sub- committee with some kind of recommendation. Perhaps this issue could be turned over to the Engineering Committee. "That puts the fluoride issue in a broader context, but it is a more helpful context from the public point of view?" Robert Ward asked. "We all realize that this is a sophisticated, very complex operation, and it's not just a fluoride issue. There are many other issues out there. On the other hand, there is that public education component that might become confusing." Once the Board makes a recommendation about additives, public education would be a part of that. There was a recommendation to have the Engineering Committee review water additives ACTION: Motion and Vote Robert Ward moved that the Water Board approve the 2001 Water Board Work Plan as amended. After a second from Tom Brown, the Board voted unanimously for the motion. ADJOURNMENT Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:32 p.m. Wate�Secretary