Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 07/21/19950 WATER BOARD MINUTES July 21, 1995 3:07 - 4:51 P.M. Water and Wastewater Utility Conference Room 700 Wood Street COUNCIL/WATER BOARD LIAISON Chuck Wanner MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Clopper, President, Ray Herrmann, Tom Brown, Dave Frick, Howard Goldman, David Lauer, Alison Adams, Robert Ward STAFF Mike Smith, Wendy Williams, Dennis Bode, Ben Alexander, Scott Harder, Beth Voelkel GUESTS John Bigham, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District MEMBERS ABSENT John Bartholow, Terry Podmore, Tom Sanders (all excused) President Paul Clopper opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: WELCOME TO NEW MEMBERS President Paul Clopper welcomed Alison Adams, David Lauer and Robert Ward to the Water Board. Tom Sanders was unable to attend. Mr. Clopper asked Board and staff members to introduce themselves and tell the group where they are employed and what they do. David Lauer is currently a Broadcast Marketing representative for KIIX AM and KTCL FM radio. He is also working on his PhD at CSU in Environmental Policy. Robert Ward has two jobs: he is a professor at CSU in the Chemical and Bio Resource Engineering Dept. He teaches courses primarily in non -point source pollution control and optimization in Engineering design. He is also director of the Colorado Water Resources Research Institute at CSU which does research for the entire state and is funded (at least now) by the Federal government. Alison Adams recently moved to Fort Collins from Tampa, Florida. She is a self-employed Water Resources Engineer and a PhD student under Neil Grigg at CSU in Water Resources, Planning and Administration. Currently, most of her work is in Florida doing mostly groundwater resources work and water supply planning. Water Board Minutes July 21, 1995 Page 2 Iu101111M�L• The Board had two sets of minutes to approve: Tom Brown moved that the minutes of May 19, 1995 be approved as distributed. Howard Goldman seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. Since he expected to be late for today's meeting, Ray Herrmann contacted Molly Nortier prior to the meeting to ask that the minutes reflect the following changes in his remarks on p. 13, complete paragraph one in the June 16, 1995 minutes. Beginning with line three, he changed it to read: "Through a regional planning exercise, we're also trying to get all of the people together who have a potential stake in the future of the Poudre River, and develop a plan that will best protect the River, or at a minimum best limit the loading in the River. A third issue is the policy aspect. The "task" committee could work on just improving relationships among the boards, but we need to deal separately with the planning issue until we get study results and we begin to see what the possibilities are for cooperation. If we mix the two up, I think it's going to remain confusing." Paul Clopper also pointed out that Ray Herrmann's name was omitted from the members present list. Howard Goldman moved that the minutes of June 16, 1995 be approved as amended. Dave Frick second the motion and approval was unanimous. UPDATE: NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT John Bigham distributed information prepared by Dr. Art Douglas of Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska on the extended weather outlook for July through September 1995. Mr. Bigham related that Dr. Douglas has been about 85% accurate in his predictions. At this point it looks like we will have slightly above normal precipitation. He also passed out charts of the Lake Granby elevation comparisons and how it has done over the last 38 years. A single sheet listed the number of years of the quota that the District issued, the quota that was delivered and the years that there was non -charge water and carryover water etc. Both of these were basically for the Board's information. He distributed information which he pulled off the computer just before lunch to anticipate what Willow Creek and Granby are doing at the moment. Through the month of July the inflow into Granby through the 12th became as high as 3,000 second feet. A couple of days ago it was 1900 and 1798 yesterday, and with a recent rainstorm it was back up 200 CFS. "You will see that we're releasing about 75-76 CFS to the River for irrigation and fish releases, and a controlled release from the 30-inch butterfly. We've had to raise the spill gates 2/10 of a foot." There is a slight spill going over the spillway. 52 CFS is being released from Willow Creek, so there is actually a controlled bypass of 559 CFS. Tomorrow or Sunday it is anticipated that Willow Creek is going to be more than the 52 CFS. "We'll have to release more water out of Willow Creek, so Granby will probably come up. Granby had raised 1/100 of a foot since noon. "Our operating criteria says that when we get over 8279.5 Water Board Minutes July 21, 1995 Page 3 we have to open the butterfly and for every tenth of a foot increase in the reservoir we have to raise the gates 1/loth of a foot and keep moving up until bypasses equal the inflow. He went on to say that in 1995 the peak flow got up to 3,055, and the historic peak flow for the last 38 years has been just a little over 3500. "We almost reached our historic peak flow, and we are on our fifth individual peak at Granby," he said. He obtained inflow information from BOR, for example, in which they indicate that Lake Powell should gain approximately 8 ft. in elevation, up to 3694, and that would be within 6 feet of being full. It has been down considerably in recent years and now it is running 150% of normal. Flaming Gorge is running in at about 117% whereas last year it was 25% of normal. The District has issued two batches of non -charge water; the first was 11,000 Ac-ft, and they have just released another 10,000 Ac-ft. "What we are trying to do is create a hole over here so we can keep the tunnel running at 550 cfs to try to keep from spilling anymore on the west side." It's unfortunate that there isn't much demand on the east side because it has been relatively cool and rainy. "If anybody needs any water, it's there," he laughed. From October of 1994 through July 9, 1995, there has been about 930,000 Ac-ft of water that has flowed into Nebraska. There have been a number of phone calls from Omaha telling the District to "shut off the flow, store it, do anything, because we don't need it!" However, this is their chance to experience what the flushing flows will do on the river; "we hope they will take heed." He stressed that this clearly points out that we need some storage on the front range for future protection. He said this morning the Poudre River was running a little over 1300 cfs at the mouth. "I don't think that anyone has anything more current than that." He travels all over the state and he only knows of two reservoirs that aren't full; Trinidad (That's because it has a long straw, and you can't get enough through to fill it.) and the plains reservoir east of Pueblo where they could use some water. That reservoir has a long canal system so you can only get so much water in it. Related to the Windy Gap settlement, the Wolford Mountain Reservoir above Kremmling, which the Colorado River District has built, now has 31,500 Ac-ft of storage out of the 60,000 Ac-ft potential storage. They wanted to fill it in a three-year period. Now they have half the storage already. They would like the dam to settle some to make sure everything is holding before they fill it. "At this point it looks great," he said. Robert Ward asked what the target flows are that U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service requested for Nebraska, and what are the flows going there now? Mr. Bigham didn't recall the exact figure but said they are looking for a little over 400,000 Ac-ft. However, they wanted it at a particular time. Dave Frick thought the numbers he heard were around 8,000 cfs to reach the Grand Island area. He heard recently that they had run 11-12,000 down there. "I don't know if it's still running, but it Water Board Minutes July 21, 1995 Page 4 was earlier in June." "There was at one time, 25,000 at Kersey and I believe right at 21,000 going to Julesburg going out of state," Mr. Bigham recalled. "How far down the river it got, I don't know," he added. "Do you know if Fish & Wildlife is observing what that's doing to the habitat?" Robert Ward asked. "I can't answer that," Mr. Bigham replied. Obviously there is encouragement for someone to conduct observations. He did relate that there have been quite a number of bird nesting areas that have been destroyed, but he didn't know what kinds of birds. "Are people asking, based on the snowpack we have now, what the prediction is in terms of flows for the rest of the year?" David Lauer asked. "Everyone is anticipating that these flows are going to continue," Mr. Bigham replied. The District probably won't deliver more than a 40-50% quota in comparable water. "What that tells us is were going to have a spill next year if we just have a normal year. We are going to end up with carryover water and most of the reservoirs full. "This has as much to do with the reduced use as it does in the increase in what's available, doesn't it?" Mr. Lauer asked. "Yes, because there is no demand," Mr. Bigham answered. SYMBIOS LOGIC. INC. WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT Scott Harder presented background on the proposed Symbios Logic, Inc. (SLI) water service agreement. SLI has a computer chip manufacturing facility on Timberline Road and they approached the City some time ago regarding water rates. A reduction in water rates might be justified because their water use is more consistent and has lower peaks than the typical commercial customer with a 3-inch meter. SLI has on -site water storage, high-tech cooling systems, and facilities to make "ultra pure" water for use in rinsing down chips during the manufacturing process. In addition, SLI irrigates with raw water so there is no contribution to peak hour or peak day from irrigation. This would further indicate that a special industrial water rate may be in order. To determine actual water use patterns, the City installed a monitoring device which recorded SLI's water use in 15-minute intervals for a period of approximately one month. Using these figures City staff determined that SLI's maximum day to average day ratio was 1.16 which compares to a ratio of about 2.5 for normal commercial customers. SLI's maximum hour to average day ratio was found to be 1.75, about half that of the average commercial customer. Staff used this information with the "cost of service model" to calculate a water rate based on SLI's industrial processes. Using the cost of service model and SLI's peak day and peak hour ratios, the recommended water rates for SLI would be $1,450.00 per month plus $0.78 per thousand gallons greater than 2,000 gallons per month. This equates to the same percentage of base charge to thousand gallons charge as paid by 3-inch commercial customers. The proposed rate is significantly lower than the Water Board Minutes July 21, 1995 Page 5 standard commercial rate, due to the lower peaking requirements. The facility cost required to meet peak demand is a significant cost to the City. Water utilities staff evaluated three options: 1) continue charging SLI standard rates (which are about 32% above what the cost of service model would suggest they be charged); 2) create a new Industrial Class of customers (which would be a very small class of customers); or 3) establish a special water service agreement with SLI. Wendy Williams explained the terms of the proposed agreement. It is suggested that an agreement be established probably beginning in September 1995 and continuing through the end of the calendar year. The agreement would then be renewed in January 1996 and continue through December 1996. This would be an ongoing annual contract, to be renewed each year, unless either SLI or the City opts to terminate the agreement. SLI would be charged at the rate of $1,450.00 per month plus $0.78 per thousand gallons for usage greater than 2,000 gallons per month. Staff recommends that the agreement require quarterly monitoring at a minimum of 15-minute intervals. This monitoring would be done at SLI's expense using data logging equipment acceptable to both parties. If a change in consumption patterns is observed, the agreement could be modified accordingly. Ms. Williams indicated that this agreement would mean a savings of almost $22,000 per year to SLI. Consequently, this would indicate a reduction of $22,000 in revenues to the Utility. Mike Smith explained that, from a cost of service standpoint, SLI may have been overcharged by $22,000 per year. Cost of service is reviewed each year and charges to all customer classes refined to more closely reflect their actual cost of service. Scott Harder emphasized that with roughly 50,000 residential equivalent customers in the City, $22,000 spread across the entire customer base would result in an increase of only about $0.04 per month. Because 1996 will be the second year of a 3-year cost of service adjustment in water rates, the slight adjustments due to the agreement with SLI will be incorporated into 1996 water rates. Wendy Williams pointed out that, each year, SLI will receive the same rate increase as all other customers with a 3-inch meter. Tom Brown was curious whether there are any 3-inch customers whose water use, from a cost of service standpoint, is above the average as opposed to below as is SLI's case. Scott Harder indicated that this is undoubtedly the case since cost of service rates are determined as an average for each customer class (3-inch commercial, in this case). Howard Goldman was curious as to whether there was some relationship between the timing of this special water service agreement and the recent decision by SLI's parent company not to move their operations to Fort Collins. Ms. Williams indicated that discussions with SLI regarding water rates pre -date and are not related to the issues that City Council recently considered. Paul Clopper stressed that the Utility reviews individual customer's water use in an effort to be fair to Water Board Minutes July 21, 1995 Page 6 all customers, "not just those that squeak." Dave Frick pointed out that those customers that don't put as much stress on the water system as others in the same customer class should not have to pay as much as the others. He emphasized that agreements like this should be an encouragement to other large water users to "flatten out" their water use patterns. Alison Adams questioned why the agreement would have to be renewed each year rather than fixed for some period of time. Wendy Williams indicated that renewing the agreement should not really be a problem because the agreement will not need to be taken to City Council each year. If the agreement were for a fixed period, rather than automatic renewal each year, it would need to go to City Council each time to be renewed. Alison Adams then asked "what kind of termination clause is in the contract?" Ms. Williams responded that "either party can terminate at any time" and for any reason, at which time SLI would revert back to being charged whatever rate would be in effect without the agreement. Robert Ward wondered how many special service agreements the utility has in place. Staff responded that there are very few; Anheuser-Busch, West Fort Collins Water District, and the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District. David Lauer asked if it would make more sense to structure an "industrial" class based on these agreements rather than handling each situation individually. Then we would have a set of policies to refer to when considering including customers in an industrial class. Should the Water Board ask City Council to approve a more comprehensive approach rather than taking each individual agreement to City Council for approval? Mike Smith responded that each of these entities has a different set of circumstances and a completely different cost of service. Therefore, each would still have to be considered individually because they are all different. Paul Clopper stated that although these are all based on similar cost of service analysis, the frequency of these agreements is so small that it isn't really a problem to take them to City Council. Mr. Smith indicated that if there comes a time when there are a lot of these agreements then the Utility would probably look at creating another customer class. Alison Adams made a motion to recommend to City Council the Special Water Service Agreement with Symbios Logic, Inc. as presented. Robert Ward seconded the motion which then passed unanimously. STAFF REPORTS Treated Water Production Summary Treated Water Production summary information was included in the Board packets. Dennis Bode reported that the first graph shows the City's average demand curve and what's happening this year. During April, May and early June the demands were flat and much below our demand curve, but there were a few very warm days in July where the water use increased above what was Water Board Minutes July 21, 1995 Page 7 projected. The other graph of the accumulative precipitation illustrates why the demands were so low. Back in March and April it actually started out very dry. Then suddenly in May and June the precip. was amazing with a total of 7.47 inches in May and 3.59 in June. The other table in the packet showed the results of the abundant precip. in the amount of water used each month. During June we used about 1954 Ac-ft of water and that was 58% of what was projected for an average year. Also, as of the end of June we are 77% of what was projected year to date. Another graph indicated the projected use and the actual use, and it was fairly flat. So far for July we are running at about 80% of the projected use so we are still behind the curve for use. David Lauer asked how the lower demand affects our finances. That will be discussed next in the financial status report. Financial Status Report Scott Harder agreed that what Dennis Bode presented on water use certainly affects the income statements. He explained for the benefit of the new Board members, that every month at Board meetings a verbal financial status report is a part of the agenda. "Normally I report the water and wastewater operating revenues and water and wastewater Plant Investment Fees (PIFs); operating revenues being primarily revenues from rates and PIFs the indicators of the growth," he said. To give an indication of how what Dennis Bode reported affects finances, as of the end of May, we are 8% above where we were last year for water operating revenue, and that's with a 5% water increase and about 2 1/2% growth in the customer rate base. As of the end of June, we are down 4% over where we were last year, "so we are not even collecting the amount of revenue we should have received from the rate increase and our increased customer base. We are feeling it with people not irrigating," he added. He went on to say that the Utility is getting about 1300 metering volunteers a year. The flat rate revenue at this time last year was $428,000. It's down to $414,000, due to flat rate customers being converted to meters. There was a 1995 rate increase of about 6-7% on the average for the flat rate customers. "Where we have seen the big hit is in the metered customers category," he said. Metered single family is down. 25% from where they were last year and metered commercial, with the effects of both metering and the conservation rate, are also down 25%. Last month Mr. Harder reported that both water and wastewater PIFs were down significantly over last year; he pointed out that last year was pretty much a record year. This month picked up a bit and we are now ahead of where we were last year, primarily in wastewater PIFs. Water PIFs are pacing where they were in 1994 at this time. Wastewater operating revenue is also about 5% above last year. For wastewater, the Utility converted to a winter quarter based rate for single family. "We had to guess what people would be using in the winter quarter, and we were off slightly, and although we did a pretty good job, it did affect revenues somewhat." Water Board Minutes July 21, 1995 Page 8 Mr. Harder explained to the new members that Plant Investment Fees are impact fees and connection charges. There is a charge for raw water, for water and wastewater. "It's the best measure we have for not only how much growth is occurring, but where it's occurring," he said. He added that the number of permits we issue is also an indicator. He explained that in some areas of the City we serve customers water but not wastewater, or vice versa. If wastewater doesn't track with water, we surmise that growth is primarily in the south part of the City. "How does the 5% increase in wastewater revenues track with the percentage increase in the number of users?" David Lauer asked. "Wastewater customers increased about 2 1/2% over last year," Mr. Harder replied. "We had a 6% rate increase, but we also implemented winter quarter consumption rates for single family residents, and we are coming in slightly under where we guessed we might be. The combination of those two factors suggests we should be up around the 7 or 8% range, whereas we are actually at 5%." Dave Frick asked if in these shortfalls we rely on our reserves. "That's generally what happens when you have a year like this, you draw from reserves," Mike Smith responded. "When you have a plus year you return revenue to reserves. It's not as critical this year as when we will be totally metered," he predicted. Alison Adams asked what percent of the customers are metered. Mr. Smith replied that initially the Utility had about 19,000 flat rate customers, and we have about 13,000 left. Between 8 and 9,000 customers are metered. Update on Water Treatment Master Plan Mike Smith reported that the Water Planning Committee sent a memo to the Council informing them of the direction that we plan to take in the interim. Staff is in the process of hiring a new consultant, and hope to hire someone by the first of September. At that time we can begin reviewing the master plan again and doing the small number of projects that were outlined. Paul Clopper recapped the Master Plan for the new members. There are a number of improvements to the treatment facility at Soldier Canyon that have been proposed, and what we have done in working with the consultant is break those down to prioritize the improvements that need to be made, as well as project timelines when those improvements will be phased in. Mr. Smith said within the next couple of months staff will provide the new members with information that will hopefully bring them up to date. Mr. Smith said the previous consultant recommended a plan which was estimated to cost about $60-70 million for the improvements. Staff was uncomfortable with the recommendations, acknowledging, however, that they did identify some of the issues, but the amount of money they spent was too high. "We tried to work with them to come up with a different plan, and that didn't happen, and, as I mentioned earlier, we are in the process of hiring a new consultant." Some of Water Board Minutes July 21, 1995 Page 9 the improvements they identified will be implemented, and those will amount to $2-3 million. "We will review the rest of the recommendations with the new consultant, and try to come up with a different plan that is more affordable. Hopefully by this time next year we will be looking at some new recommendations," he concluded: REPORTS For the benefit of the new members, Paul Clopper asked each of the committee chairs to provide a brief description of his committee and what they have been working on. "We also want to get a feel for where we need to fill in the gaps in the membership due to the retirement of four members," he said. The new members can fill those gaps according to their interests, comfort level and abilities. Water Supply Chair Tom Brown said that his Committee currently has three members: Dave Frick, John Bartholow, and himself. They review issues having to do with water supply. Today, for example we will be talking about our relationship with the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District because the City owns shares in the CBT project. The Committee has also discussed the proposed enlargement of Halligan Reservoir on the North Fork of the Poudre. The Committee reviews the rates, on an annual basis, at which the City rents back its shares of surplus water the City owns but does not need. They reviewed; this past year, a complicated deal involving water exchanges, a transfer of shares, etc. that involved Kodak Colorado. The Committee reviews these issues and makes a recommendation to the full Water Board where some action is taken. Legislative and Finance Chair Howard Goldman began by saying that the only other member is John Bartholow. Primarily the Committee has worked with staff to monitor and update whatever legislation is pending that could affect the water utility. This occurs during the time when the Colorado Legislature is in session. The Committee also works with staff on reviewing the annual operating budget and monitoring fees, etc. Conservation and Public Education The Chair Terry Podmore was unable to attend the meeting today. Ray Herrmann, the only other member of that committee, gave the overview. Briefly, what the Committee has been doing is working with staff, primarily the Water Conservation Specialist, on the Water Conservation plan, called the Water Demand Management Ordinance. They have been overseeing its creation and implementation and reporting its progress to the City Council. They are also involved in reviewing the Water Utility's public education program. Water Board Minutes July 21, 1995 Page 10 Engineering Paul Clopper was a member of the Engineering Committee, and continues to be an ex officio member as president of the Water Board. The only other active member is John Bartholow who was not able to be at the meeting today. Mr. Clopper explained that the Committee has looked, as the need arises, at various aspects of infrastructure as may relate to water policy. They also . looked at the Halligan Reservoir enlargement from a technical perspective: hydrology, yield, and the different types of dams that would be proposed as options for completing the enlargement. They examined the Utility's Cross Connection Control Policy about a year ago, by looking at various ways the City could implement the rules and regulations of the State of Colorado. They studied the various technical aspects of doing that and what the ramifications were for homeowners, as well as commercial and industrial entities. The last thing they looked at were some of the technical aspects of the Water Treatment Master Plan, e.g. the potential installation of a new raw water pipeline off the Poudre River to increase the reliability of the Poudre River part of our supply. The Committee assignments for the new members were: David Lauer - Engineering and/or Conservation and Public Education Robert Ward - Water Supply and Legislative and Finance Alison Adams - Engineering and Legislative and Finance Tom Sanders - Engineering and Legislative and Finance (Dr. Sanders was a member of these committees when he was on the Water Board previously. Since he was unable to attend today, he was tentatively re -assigned to those pending his approval.) Water Supply Report Chair Tom Brown reported that the Water Supply Committee met prior to today's Board meeting to discuss the recently instituted interim guidelines on limitations of ownership of Colorado Big Thompson water by municipalities. The interim guidelines were adopted by the NCWCD in February and they were discussed briefly at the Water Board's March meeting. Basically the Committee looked at staffs estimates of the number of units that the City would be allowed to own under the old and new methods. The old method has been used for many years, and the new method was proposed in the interim guidelines. The two come out with very different answers in terms of the amount of CBT water the City would qualify for. "The old one has us a little short of what we could qualify for, and the newer one suggests that we are way over," he pointed out. In discussing this the Committee ended up thinking that perhaps all the City's water obligations were not included in the calculations. The issue was that the newer method requires the City to Water Board Minutes July 21, 1995 Page 11 list in its so called firm non-CBT yield, water that has been transferred to the City by developers but hasn't yet been applied to specific parcels of land. The demand calculations include the demand that all that additional water represents because it's not actual demand today. "In other words, there's not a pipeline to a house at this point," he added. Because of that it appears that we own a lot more CBT water than our cap would allow. He said that staff plans to estimate the demand that this additional supply represents just to see where it comes out. Dennis Bode explained that mainly what staff will do is make an estimate of the amount of obligation that the City has due to developers turning in raw water to satisfy requirements. To the extent that they haven't connected to our system there is an obligation out there. "If we were going to buy additional water, we would have to bring those numbers up and talk to the District," he said. Mr. Brown stressed that, at this point, "we are just trying to understand the Northern District's interim guidelines that have been proposed and understand the implications of those for the City." The second part of the meeting focused on the larger topic of why the District is proposing these procedures for calculating a cap because the District raised issues that couldn't be resolved in the Committee meeting. "It's not entirely clear why the District is proposing these procedures," he reiterated. What can be seen from publications like their Water News, is that their goal is to preserve the agricultural sector in the CBT area. "They say for example, "The District has historically sought to protect the area's vital agricultural economy by placing limits on how much water could be owned by any entity." "Yet it seems to us that these guidelines which limit the amount of CBT water that cities can own, don't necessarily work towards that objective," he related. There were two reasons that came up at the meeting: (1) It essentially limits the people who are out there trying to buy this water. It lowers the demand by removing some of the "demanders." A likely outcome is that the price will drop somewhat. What that does is drop the price at which a farmer could sell his CBT water if he wants to sell it. As a result, it's not necessarily helping the individual farmer who wants to sell his/her CBT shares, perhaps at a difficult time when funds are short. (2) Because it's limiting the number of buyers of CBT shares, it seems to encourage farmers to sell their land as well if they are strapped financially; not just their water which they will be able to rent back and continue farming. "There is nothing in the guidelines to prevent a farmer from selling everything," he stressed. Therefore, it doesn't seem to encourage maintaining a strong agricultural presence in this part of Colorado. The main point is that the Committee couldn't see how the guidelines that are being proposed actually further the objective of the District as "we understand it." Water Board Minutes July 21, 1995 Page 12 Finally, the Committee reviewed a draft of a letter, prepared by staff, to Eric Wilkinson, Manager of the District. That draft essentially asked for some clarification of reasons why these caps are being proposed and then suggests some reasons that have already been mentioned, that perhaps the District isn't meeting its own goals by proposing such a system. The meeting was ended by discussing possible changes and additions to the letter and trying to decide if the Committee should conclude the letter by asking for a formal response from the District, or whether we would schedule a time when the Water Board would discuss it in more detail. The Committee also suggested that they let the District know that it would be nice if someone from the District were prepared to discuss the guidelines with the Board. President Clopper asked if the full Board wanted to allow the Committee to continue to work with staff to make some of the changes in the draft letter to the District and send it on to the District prior to the next Board meeting. "That way we don't delay it a whole month," he added. Perhaps John Bigham can answer some questions from the Board today, he said. Tom Brown asked Mr. Bigham if the District has a schedule set for finalizing the guidelines or even addressing the issue. Mr. Clopper stressed, along with Mr. Brown's question, that these are interim guidelines. "The last word I received," Mr. Bigham responded, is that the District is trying to receive reaction on the guidelines through 1995 as they are considering revisions to their rules and regulations. They may begin their revisions possibly the first of next year. He added that the Board is on the right track to send the letter, and "you might also request both a written response and for someone from the District to discuss the details of the guidelines with the Board." Mike Smith said that staff feels strongly that a letter needs to be sent to the District as soon as possible to let them know our reactions to the interim guidelines. "I would suggest that we get a response in writing from Eric Wilkinson who is my counterpart at the District, and invite him and even their Board president and a couple of directors to one of our meetings, so they can hear the concerns of the Board directly." He added that the Board may need a more thorough briefing before meeting with them. Ray Herrmann moved that the Water Supply Committee and staff produce a final version of the letter, and send it to the District as soon as possible. Tom Brown seconded that motion. Alison Adams asked if the Board would have a briefing on this in August. "We'll send the letter, and copies will be included in Board packets for the August meeting, and perhaps suggest a September meeting with District representatives," Mr. Clopper said. Dennis Bode related that he plans not to be at the August meeting. Mr. Bigham said, after looking at the District's schedule, that October would work better for the District Board. Dave Frick asked if we would have a response from the District by September. "I think so," Mr. Smith replied. "Let's discuss it in E Water Board Minutes July 21, 1995 Page 13 September and ask representatives from the District to be present in October," Mr. Frick concluded. Paul Clopper clarified the motion. He said that it should include asking for a written response from the District prior to the September meeting and a request that they meet with the Board in October. David Lauer asked if the questions in the letter relate to the way the policy is being framed. "Is there a real problem with the caps in the way they are being suggested?" "The way the caps are being suggested basically eliminates CBT water as a future option for us," Mike Smith responded. "If a developer turns it in we can accept it, but as far as the City purchasing CBT directly, I think that would be out of the question," he asserted. Mr. Lauer also asked if it is a mutually exclusive categorization the way they define agricultural use and city use. "Is there any overlap between what a city might use for agricultural purposes for providing water for open space or parks, etc.? In other words, is private sector agriculture an exclusive category?" Mr. Bigham replied that irrigation is defined as being crops or something being produced for sale. It may include a green house or an orchard, or something like that, but not a golf course or open space, or wildlife habitat. "Isn't there a limit for agriculture on how much water goes to the land?" Mr. Smith asked. "Oh yes, not many people are aware that the District does a survey to make certain that there is only a certain amount of CBT water allocated to go along with what is going to be put to beneficial use, plus their base water supply; it's supplemental only," Mr. Bigham explained. Mr. Frick clarified that if you own 100% CBT water you can maintain 100% CBT water; there's no cap on that." Mike Smith commented that the process seems to penalize people who plan for and acquire water long before they need it. The District is trying to encourage people to have a base water supply because CBT is still considered supplemental water. Tom Brown remarked that one of the things that happens is that cities often own more water than they use, so they rent their surplus water or sell most of it back to agriculture. He explained that a fanner who is hard up for cash may have sold his units to the city, but then he buys the water back year by year if it's available; and it is available from the City unless it is a really dry year when the City needs it all. "Does he do that at a loss," Mr. Lauer asked. "No, it's usually sold at the assessment rate that he was paying to the District anyway when he owned the shares," Mr. Brown replied. According to the release that Mr. Bigham brought from the District, cities own 47% of the shares but agriculture uses 3/4 of the water because it's rented back to agriculture, Mr. Brown pointed out. "This may be pushing the whole market in Northern Colorado toward alternative arrangements. Instead of cities buying the water and owning it, they may end up buying dry year options or something like that. You are still leaving it in the control of agriculture, but you have the option in a dry year to buy it. "It's just the reverse of what you just described," Robert Ward commented. Water Board Minutes July 21, 1995 Page 14 "What percentage of the total supply for the City is from CBT?" Howard Goldman asked. "Probably a fourth of it," Mr. Bode answered. Paul Clopper called for the question. The motion passed unanimously. REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY STRATEGY UPDATE Mr. Smith said there isn't much happening with this issue. He explained for the new Board members that this item is a regular part of the agenda to keep the Board up to date when there is any activity. He said that the raw water pipeline that was discussed briefly in the update on the Water Treatment Master Plan, could have the potential of being a joint effort among Greeley, Fort Collins -Loveland Water District, ELCO and even the Northern District. REGIONAL WASTEWATER SERVICE ISSUES UPDATE This item also appears regularly on the agenda. A Wastewater Treatment Master Plan was adopted a few years ago where the consultant suggested the potential of constructing a regional wastewater treatment facility in the future; probably at least 5-7 years away. "We have been working with and will continue to work with various regional entities on looking at that option,' Mr. Smith said, "but it's moving along very slowly." Paul Clopper explained to the new members that the Board had a joint meeting in Junewith the board from the Boxelder Sanitation District. They serve basically the northeast part of town; the industrial area at the Fort Collins Air Park and at East Mulberry near the I-25. The items of discussion centered around their expansion of their wastewater lagoons, (their method of treating wastewater), and also regional opportunities that may exist related to joint wastewater treatment. One of the things that came up in that meeting was that none of our Board members had much familiarity with the wastewater lagoon system at Boxelder. They invited us to take a tour of their facilities. He asked for two or three potential dates, sometime in late August or early September to take to their manager Dean Smith. They agreed on three possible dates: Monday, August 28th, Wednesday, August 30th, and Tuesday, September 5th to last for 45 minutes to an hour at the lunch hour or at the end of the day. If one of those fits for Boxelder, the Board secretary will notify Board members. Howard Goldman wanted to clarify his observation at the meeting with the Boxelder Board when Dr. Albertson was giving his presentation. "It seemed to me there was a lot of disagreement in the room with his position on the lagoon system, is that correct?" "I don't think his procedures have been proven quite as well as he portrays them," Ray Herrmann commented. Mike Smith said that staff had asked Dr. Albertson to give a presentation to them about a year ago, "and the facts and figures he presented even left questions in our minds because some of the data he had showed that Water Board Minutes July 21, 1995 Page 15 his systems weren't that efficient." It is evident that more studies need to be done on those systems, especially in cold climates. There are obviously a lot of areas where they work well for residential wastewater, e.g. Mr. Smith acknowledged that they can be very efficient if they are designed right. Mr. Herrmann commented that it would be a good research project. Mr. Smith announced that, once it is installed, the Utility will be doing a wetlands treatment research project at the Wastewater Treatment Plant where we will be looking at the impact of wetlands treatment on our effluent. "That is currently being constructed." OTHER BUSINESS Paul Clopper asked about the manganese reports in the newspaper. Have they basically gone away and was it limited to certain parts of town? Generally the manganese gets in the system during the time it shows up in the reservoirs which is August, September and October, Mr. Smith explained. "We treat it as well as we can with the system we have, but some gets through and settles in the distribution system, and usually that's at the time of year when the demands aren't very high. In the spring we usually flush the system as well as we can, but even that doesn't remove the deposits in the larger diameter mains. You can't get enough velocity to do that. "We usually flush in April when the weather gets warmer and the system demand picks up. This year the rains came and the demands didn't pick up until July, and that's when the system picked up the residual amount of manganese. Now it's back to normal, but we can look for it to pick up again in August. In our wastewater treatment master plan we hope to develop a system where we can treat for the manganese without worrying about a lot of carryover in the system," he concluded. ADJOURNMENT Since there was no further business the meeting was adjourned at 4:51 P.M. Water Boa Secretary