Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 06/26/2008Fort Collins Utilities Water Board Minutes Thursday, June 26, 2008 Water Board Chairperson City Council Liaison Doug Yadon, 484-3611 David Roy, 217-5506 Water Board Vice Chairperson Staff Liaison Gina Janett, 493-4677 Robin Pierce, 221-6702 Roll Call Board Present Vice Chairperson Gina Janett, Reagan Waskom, Johannes Gessler, David Pillard, John Bartholow, Mike Connor, Gary Wockner, Phil Phelan, Steve Balderson and Eileen Dornfest Board Absent Chairperson Doug Yadon Staff Present Brian Janonis, Carrie Daggett, Bob Smith, Susan Hayes, Kevin Gettig, Keith Elmund, Dennis Bode, Susan Smolnik, Diane Jones, Patty Bigner, Jennifer Shanahan, Katie Bigner, Robin Pierce and Olivia Brown Guests Lori Brunswig Meetine Convened Vice Chairperson Gina Janett called the meeting to order at 5:17 p.m. Citizen Participation None Minutes of April 24, 2008 Board Member Johannes Gessler moved to approve the minutes from the April 24, 2008, meeting. Board Member Mike Connor seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously with one abstention from Board Member John Bartholow. Boxelder Stormwater Master Plan and Inter -governmental Agreement Bob Smith, Water Planning and Development Manager, provided the Water Board with a brief summary and update of progress related to the Boxelder Stormwater Master Plan and Inter- governmental Agreement (IGA) for stormwater cooperation. Mr. Smith solicited the Board's comments and recommendation, as this item is scheduled to go before Council on July 15. Since the last presentation to the Board, staff has updated the cost estimate, received a pre -disaster mitigation grant (PDM), presented at a Council work session and obtained preliminary rate numbers. Boxelder Creek covers 266 square miles, including farmland in Larimer County, as well as residential and commercial areas of Wellington, Fort Collins and Timnath. The Boxelder Creek Regional Master Plan calls for improvements totaling $14.7 million. By providing a more detailed project design, staff cut the estimated cost of the improvements to Clark Reservoir Detention by $2.2 million. Additionally, Larimer County applied for a PDM grant from FEMA and has received preliminary notification that a $3 million grant has been approved, bringing the total out-of-pocket cost to participating entities to $9.5 million. The shared local match for the PDM grant is $1 million. Fort Collins' share amounts to $200,000. Mr. Smith expects the official notification from FEMA regarding the grant by the end of July. At that time, they will have approximately 30 days to respond. At that point, the City will need to show that its share of the matching $1 million is available. The Master Plan improvements will remove 2,535 acres from the floodplain. Of that, 1,410 acres are undeveloped, including land in the County, Fort Collins and Timnath. The Boxelder Creek Regional Alliance completed a cost benefit estimate that included the value of land coming out of the floodplain. However, Council asked Utilities staff to calculate the benefit to cost ratio in the traditional format, as is typically done for master plans. This method includes only the damages, direct and indirect, and the costs of the improvements. The benefit to cost ratio, as calculated originally, was 1.1. Along with the cost revisions mentioned above, this estimate came to 1.5. Since Mr. Smith's last presentation, Timnath has submitted paperwork to the County for review of its flood control project. The IGA the County and Timnath are working on would require any property that is a tributary to Boxelder Creek to pay fees when then the authority is formed. The IGA between Wellington, Latimer County and Fort Collins will entail several provisions, such as steam stability, erosion control, habitat protection, transportation connections and water quality. While the provisions in the IGA are still subject to change, there will be uniform fees for each of the three entities so each pays a fair share for stormwater improvements. Board Member Waskom said 1.1 or even 1.5 seems like a low cost benefit ratio and asked how it compares to other stormwater projects. Susan Hayes, Stormwater Civil Engineer III, said it compares favorably. The ratios in the rest of the City's basins are between one and two. She explained that for drainage projects, anything above one is considered quite good. Board Member Connor asked if the cost is calculated on a per -incident basis. Mr. Smith said they look at what damages are associated with storms over the life of the project, with probability spread over 50 years. Board Member Wockner asked who is assumed to bear the cost of flood damage in the cost benefit analysis. Mr. Smith said they do not assume who would pay for damages when they do the cost benefit analysis. It is used to compare alternatives for cost effectiveness. Board Member Wockner asked if the underlying assumption is that the Cities or Counties are going to bear the cost of ensuring private property does not get damaged in the event of a flood. Brian Janonis, Utilities Executive Director, asked the Water Board if they would entertain a question from the audience. Visitor Lori Brunswig said she believes Larimer County requires property owners to pay an extra fee when they develop property in a floodplain, but the City of Fort Collins requires everyone pay to remove properties from the floodplain. Mr. Smith said he believes the County has the same fee structure as the City. He explained the City has two fees, the Plant Investment Fee (PIF) and the monthly stormwater fee. At the time of development, property owners pay a PIF, due to the change in runoff that development causes. Once a property is developed, they pay a monthly stormwater fee that is the same base rate for everyone. This rate is calculated based on the impervious area of the structure. Undeveloped property does not pay a monthly fee. Before the flood of 1997, each basin had a different fee. Since then, Council adopted a policy stating everyone benefits from drainage improvements, so all customers pay the same fee, whether the property is inside or outside the floodplain. Board Member Wockner asked if a proposed commercial development on top of a hill pays the same PIF as a proposed development in the middle of a floodplain. Mr. Smith said a proposed development in the floodplain would have to pay a fee and meet the City's floodplain regulations for development, such as building elevation. Board Member Wockner said he believes if this project goes forward and moves a lot of undeveloped land out of the floodplain along I-25, developers will not have to bear the cost of floodplain regulations because the City will have done that for them. Board Member Bartholow asked if this was considered in the cost benefit analysis. Mr. Smith said only existing structures were considered when calculating the cost benefit ratio. Board Member Connor then asked if the increase in property values, and therefore property tax revenue, from properties removed from the floodplain were included in the cost benefit ratio. Mr. Smith said that is not traditionally included in the benefit analysis. Board Member Bartholow said just as there may be benefits not counted, there are also costs that are not counted, for example, the natural value of the floodplain as it stands without alteration. Measuring or quantifying that is difficult. Vice Chairperson Janett asked how much of the floodplain is natural and how much was created by construction of I-25 and irrigation ditches. Board Member Bartholow asked if all the existing structures counted in the benefit cost analysis would have the opportunity to purchase private flood insurance. Mr. Smith said every property in a floodplain with a mortgage or a loan is required to have flood insurance. Vice Chairperson Janett asked if there are existing Fort Collins residents in the Boxelder floodplain who are currently paying monthly stormwater fees to the City. Mr. Smith said yes, and their fees will not change. However, people in the County do not currently pay a fee. One of the benefits of moving ahead with this project is that people in the County will now pay fees and contribute to improvements from which properties in the County benefit. Vice Chairperson Janett asked if monthly stormwater fees will increase for existing Fort Collins residents as a result of the revision to the master plan. Mr. Smith said no, the City's share of the Boxelder improvements is based on what is in the basin. The City's portion of the Boxelder fees would not be coming from the whole city, it would just be those fees collected because of the Boxelder basin. Board Member Connor said he was concerned about the cost of the project and asked how it will be funded. Mr. Smith said the City's goal is to pay as little as possible, adding that the City's policy has been to pay as we go. There is a short window of opportunity for the $3 million PDM grant. Vice Chairperson Janett clarified that the City will pay cash. Board Member Wockner asked about the Board's role. If the Board votes no, will it still go before Council? Mr. Smith said yes. Vice Chairperson Janett said the Board is serving in an advisory capacity on this project and clarified the motion would be to vote on both the master plan and the IGA. Board Member Gessler moved the Water Board recommend City Council approve the Boxelder Stormwater Master Plan and IGA. Board Member Connor seconded the motion. After discussion, Vice Chairperson Janett called for a vote. Three board members voted in favor, six were opposed, with one abstention. Board Member Dornfest explained she chose to abstain because she was not present at the last meeting when the project was presented in more detail. Board Member Wockner explained why he voted no, stating he has problems with both the IGA and the master plan. When the IGA was discussed by City Council, there were issues with the makeup of the five -member board that were not adequately addressed. There also are problems with the relationship between the City and Timnath. He believes the citizens of Fort Collins are being asked to pay for something that benefits Timnath, but Timnath is refusing to agree to work with the City on several issues. The master plan would require current customers to pay for improvements that benefit future developers by significantly reducing the cost to develop. He believes the purpose of this project is to facilitate cheaper, faster growth along I-25. He also requested stormwater staff be more sensitive about the language they use, indicating they are using an antiquated idea of what a cost and a benefit are. They are talking about removing a 100- year floodplain along many miles of a stream, but the cost benefit analysis is not taking into account the ecological benefit of the floodplain. Nature creates floodplains and they play a role for a river or stream. They have a benefit to many species and ecological processes. Board Member Bartholow questioned whether we have a natural stream, but said the fact that private insurance is available to those in the floodplain was a significant reason for voting against the project. Board Member Connor said he also wanted his reason for voting no on the record. He also has concerns about the City's relationship with Timnath and concerns about the low cost benefit ratio. Vice Chairperson Janett said she would write a summary of the Board's concerns to submit to City Council for the July 15 meeting. 2007 Drinking Water Ouality Policy Annual Report and Consumer Confidence Report Kevin Gertig, Water Resources & Treatment Operations Manager, presented to the Board the 2007 Drinking Water Quality Policy Annual Report and Consumer Confidence Report. Because of the weight of the other topics on the meeting's agenda, he offered to present the reports in more detail next month if the Board requests it. Vice Chairperson Janett encouraged the Board to read the reports. Northern Integrated Supply Proiect (NISP) DEIS Vice Chairperson Janett encouraged the Board to participate in collective discussion for the purpose of developing a Council recommendation on the NISP DEIS. Multiple motions are anticipated. A series of meetings has taken place to discuss the DEIS as a Board and prepare for this action. Staff provided a presentation on errors, omissions and gaps that they have identified during their technical review of the DEIS. Board Member Wockner expressed concern about the term "potential flow enhancements through Fort Collins" used on the slides. It seems to contradict the fact that the NISP project would remove vast amounts of water from the Poudre River. He encouraged staff to be cautious of the terminology used in their presentations, which will become public information. 19 Board Member Gessler asked whether the increased sedimentation statement was taken from the DEIS or other documentation. Mr. Bob Smith, Water Planning and Development Manager, confirmed it was part of the DEIS. Board Member Bartholow asked for clarification on the relationship between the NISP and Halligan Seaman permitting processes. If NISP is permitted, does it influence the probability of permitting for the Halligan Seaman project? Mr. Dennis Bode, Water Resources Manager, responded that the projects have two separate EIS reviews with different purposes, needs and separate water rights. The NISP project is approximately a year behind the Halligan Seaman project. Board Member Connor noted psychological and emotional connections that may be present if NISP goes forward. There may be public backlash in response to what they view as a second large project in Halligan Seaman if that is permitted following the NISP permit approval. Board Member Wockner noted when the Northern District was here, an expanded Glade Reservoir was suggested as a possible alternative in the Halligan Seaman EIS. Mr. Brian Janonis, Utilities Executive Director, added that the Army Corps of Engineers has recognized water quality as one of our key concerns, and NISP does not meet our water quality requirements. Mr. Kevin Gettig, Water Resources and Treatment Operations Manager, noted that the Halligan Seaman project is one of the first of its type to use shared -vision planning where all stakeholders meet together to work through concerns and impacts. Vice Chairperson Janett asked if the Halligan Seaman project will reduce flows on the Poudre River through Fort Collins to the same extent as NISP. Mr. Bode confirmed it will not have the same impact as NISP. There may be some minor effects in a few years, but through Fort Collins in particular, it will affect the river very little due to specific water rights that will be used in the Halligan Seaman project. Board Member Bartholow asked whether City staff feel the existing DEIS answers the questions they need to have answered in order to effectively assess the full suite of impacts. Board Member Gessler noted the risk in requesting a supplemental DEIS, and if the Corps does not issue one, Alternative Two may be permitted. Therefore, mitigation needs to be stated now in the event the developments follow that path. Board Member Janett stated the Corps has an obligation to read and respond to public comments. Ms. Carrie Daggett, Deputy City Attorney, noted that if the Corp's analysis needs to be changed in order for the Corps to respond to substantive comments between the draft and a supplemental draft or between the draft and the final, it's reasonable to expect the Corps to make the change. Views differ about whether comments have been adequately addressed in environmental impact statements that can lead to controversy. Therefore, the potential for disagreement exists. Board Member Janett noted the likelihood that some information in the DEIS will change between the draft and the final, regardless of whether the Corps issues a supplemental. Her understanding is that a supplemental DEIS is a larger effort than simply amending content in the DEIS. It appears to her from the perspective of City staff and consultants that there are too many discrepancies, errors and gaps to allow them to adequately determine the significant impacts. Board Member Balderson asked Vice Chairperson Janett to review what the Board is hoping to accomplish with the recommendation. The Board serves as an advisory board to City Council. The Council has to make a decision by the end of the public comment period, currently set for July 29. Under that timing, this is the Board's only opportunity to provide feedback on the water supply and water quality issues with the project and offer a recommendation for Council's response to the Corps on the DEIS. Other Boards, such as the Natural Resources Board and Parks and Recreation Board, also are reviewing and may offer Council recommendations. Board Member Waskom asked whether staff will make a recommendation to Council. Ms. Daggett noted that, under the current schedule, the Council would be proceeding to adopt a resolution on July 15, and the resolution staff expects to present would direct the City Manager to finalize comment themes consistent with the general outline and endorse technical analysis from staff. The comment document will likely be very long and technical in nature. Council will likely approve comments based on comment themes. Board Member Wockner asked if staff has a recommendation for the Board on a Council recommendation. Board Member Connor noted the diversity of opinions on the Board, and whether the Board can come to a common recommendation. Vice Chairperson Janett stated the Board will listen to comments of all members, and then vote on the recommendation. Board Member Gessler feels the Board is in agreement with the problem areas staff has identified, thus laying the groundwork for a first motion. Vice Chairperson Janett outlined the points the Board has made thus far: 1) The City describes to the Corps the potential significant impacts on drinking water quality, wastewater treatment and stormwater management from the proposed action (concerns as identified by staff and consultants, and the Water Board agrees are legitimate). 2) The City requests the Corps to respond to the omissions, errors and discrepancies and provide the missing data and correct errors in order for the City to adequately quantify the potential negative impacts. Board Member Connor is not sure this adds value. Board Member Gessler would like to add additional mention that relates to the Corps responding with a refined report. He feels it is important to bring the mitigating measures into our response now. Board Member Connor would like to see a motion that states our "support or no support" stand on the permitting of NISP, given the current information we have. Board Member Pillard rephrased that, in the absence of obtaining any of the additional information, this is our recommendation at this point in time. Board Member Connor noted two different ways to look at this issue, either as the northern Colorado community or specifically the Fort Collins community. Vice Chairperson Janett's understanding is that the NISP project is designed to provide water storage for new development that does not currently exist, so the populations of these cities in the consortium do not need this water as they exist now. In response to Board Member Wockner's earlier question on staff's recommendation to the Board, staff's preference is the Water Board recommend that Council endorse staff comments and concerns to the Corps around the themes of water quality, quantity and flood impacts, and that staff submit this information to the Corps. In the timeframe available to us, by the time this goes to Council, staff may have identified additional omissions and concerns. Motion 1 (Approved) Board Member Connor moved that the Water Board endorse staff recommendations regarding the serious and significant omissions and concerns identified in the Draft EIS for NISP and recommend that Council request that staff proceed with submitting said comments on those omissions and concerns. Board Member Phelan seconded the motion. Discussion on the motion: Vice Chairperson Janett is concerned about the issue of adaptive management. Will staff comment that it is an inadequate method of responding to significant water quality and wastewater operational impacts? Mr. Gertig noted staff would request the necessary data for operational assessment. Vice Chairperson Janett also asked for clarification on statement from the presentation that seems to differ from this response. Some of the repairs and potentially significant impacts should be identified and committed to prior to issuance of the permit versus making adjustments on data after the fact. Deputy City Manager Diane Jones clarified staff's intent to state that the adaptive management approach is not adequate. Board Member Bartholow noted his extensive experience working with adaptive management projects and indicated that the vast majority of them fail in terms of governance structure, commitment to long-term funding and ongoing issues with lack of data and decision making. Board Member Gessler stated the motion thus far does not address what happens in the future under the No Action Alternative. He noted that with that alternative, the flow on the Poudre River will go down as dramatically as if NISP goes forward and noted that the NISP report explicitly states the No Action Alternative allows holders of water rights junior to the district to receive permits to divert flows that would have been diverted by NISP. If NISP is not built, the water rights will not disappear; they will remain and can be sold or passed on by default to the junior holders of water rights. The City, in those future cases, may not have the opportunity to respond. In the worst case scenario, the Green Mountain water rights go to Thornton, and combined with the water rights they already have, the water supply situation worsens without our ability to exercise any control over it. Board Member Gessler encouraged the Board to work on Alternative Two, because the No Action Alternative doesn't allow any comment. Board Member Wockner responded to Board Member Gessler's statement. He referred to the Green Mountain Dam proposal of 25 years ago, which involved the same water right that is now being proposed. Citizens stopped that project then, and a significantly larger and stronger citizen coalition currently exists to stop the NISP project. The idea that if we don't allow NISP to be built, the water could disappear, and there's nothing we can do about it is not true. Board Member Wockner noted he sees it as a threat and a scare tactic. Having worked on this issue (and served as spokesperson) to save the Poudre River, it's been interesting to watch the evolvement of statements about the condition of the river. The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) first said four years ago that the river is in great shape, and this will have no impact. After many successive statements, press releases and newspaper articles, NCWCD now agrees the Poudre River is not in good shape, it's been dry a long time, and they always anticipated this to be the case. Board Member Wockner shared a brochure that NCWCD recently circulated to the public stating the Poudre River is protected. He stated that the Poudre River is not protected and called that a fact that is widely known. He noted that the brochure also states that in -stream flow requirements will assure water remains in the river through Fort Collins, which also is not true. It states the river's fishery habitat has steady values and will continue to be of high quality. Sixty percent of the water is already gone before it gets to Fort Collins, and habitat is not of high quality now. The water rights are there, and they have always remained there and have not been taken for 150 years. A vast coalition has formed to keep them from taking it now. Board Member Wockner respectfully disagreed that the Board has to settle for Alternative Two. Board Member Gessler noted from the DEIS, the sentence about water rights comes from Corps consultants, not from NISP. Board Member Bartholow brought up a possible mitigation measure for a worst -case scenario. In various technical memorandums, they refer to expected additional flows in the Poudre River due to some augmentation needs for lower South Platte farmers. Mr. Bode noted there is not yet information specific to that scenario, but augmentation plans are used more over time to help address issues with wells. Vice Chairperson Janett expressed her sense that much of the DEIS is speculative in nature. Considering water rights must be based on purpose and need, not speculation, it would seem to point to an issue with validity of the information on which NISP is based. In the same way, we are perhaps speculating what may occur in the No Action Alternative. There are a number of rather difficult obstacles for Thornton in order to take the water rights. Her understanding of Thornton's scenario is that they have to take the water from the same place it is being diverted now, pipe it to Thornton via a route around ongoing development (a very costly proposition), and they are then obligated to have return flows to the river at the specific places it would have been returned. This would require them to build two pipelines, one going south, and one going north to return their wastewater flows. Board Member Wockner noted there is no necessary reason to believe Thornton could do this without also triggering an EIS, meaning this is not the last stand on the water in the Poudre River. Board Member Balderson likes the idea of having a plan either way and would like to see a motion to recommend the City be in a position of knowing what to do in either scenario. Vice Chairperson Janett noted that we have preliminary information on issues, but it's not quantified, therefore it is likely premature to ask for specific mitigation measures. Board Member Connor called the question. There were no objections. After discussion, Board Member Connor called the question, and Vice Chairperson Janett asked for a vote. Eight board members voted in favor of the motion, and two were opposed. (Motion 1 Vote) Motion 2 (Approved) Board Member Gessler moved that the Water Board recommend City Council insist the final EIS addresses mitigation measures for Alternative Two of the following issues at a minimum: 1) Potential contamination of Horsetooth Reservoir water quality with increased levels of TOC (Total Organic Content); 2) TCE (trichloroethylene) plume should be monitored before and after construction of the dam; and 3) Minimum flow requirements be established in the Poudre River and riparian rejuvenation events be required to address flood impacts. Board Member Connor seconded the motion. Discussion of the motion: Board Member Domfest is hesitant to list specifics in case something else of importance is omitted. Board Member Connor noted the first motion was a blanket motion, and this motion only exists to emphasize items of importance to Board Member Gessler. Board Member Waskom notes this motion moves to mitigation, which is different than identifying impacts. He offered a friendly amendment to include "Alternative Two." Board Member Dornfest offered a friendly amendment to add "at a minimum." Board Member Gessler accepted both friendly amendments. Vice Chairperson Janett asked staff if they have enough information to recommend these mitigation measures to Council. Mr. Janonis responded that staff may not have time to address mitigation measures at this time. However, if Council directs staff to address mitigation measures to the Corps based upon the Water Board's recommendation, the Corps will be called upon to address the measures. Board Member Pillard noted these are just a few of the potentially important mitigation measures addressing specific items, but due to the potential impacts over a large spatial area, there are likely other mitigation measures that may be necessary and important to consider under Alternative Two. Will staff put together a more extensive list of mitigation measures, if directed to do so? Mr. Janonis responded that if directed to do so, staff will comply. If an extension is granted, staff could come back to the Water Board to continue discussions in more depth, but we're operating from the assumption that this meeting is our last opportunity. Board Member Gessler spoke to the possibility of additional potential issues. When looking at the original list from the Utilities staff, all points are related to item three with one exception, the high level of TOC contamination of Horsetooth Reservoir. All of the items that staff addressed are covered in the first motion. Mr. Janonis understands the Board intends that the first motion remains intact. Vice Chairperson Janett sees the second motion as amplifying the first motion in additional detail. Board Member Waskom sees the first motion as suggesting to Council that they accept the staff's identification of issues identified in the DEIS, and that staff bring them forward to the Corps. The second motion insists that mitigation measures be considered. Board Member Pillard participates in portions of EIS processes. When comments come in with a list of significant impacts, is the Corps likely or not likely to address those comments by suggesting mitigation? His experience has been that if there are multiple comments on specific issues, the lead agency will make a substantial effort to address those particular issues, including on insisting specific mitigation measures be made. They are not required to respond to these, but it's normally in the best interest of the agency if there are some serious issues that have been raised to address them in the final EIS. Vice Chairperson Janett noted that the third item in the first motion concerning specific flow requirements is not addressed in the second motion. 0 Board Member Bartholow feels that we're getting away from the strategic elements that Board Member Gessler wished to address. This is not the right time to interject mitigation in the process. Our focus should be to identify the holes in what we have available to us to base our recommendation on, and otherwise, we don't know what to speak to. Board Member Wockner feels this motion reads as if the Water Board thinks NISP should be built, and we're recommending that to City Council. The vast majority of Fort Collins residents that the Board represents would disagree with that assumption. Board Member Balderson does not interpret it that way. He feels the motion addresses having options lined up no matter which way it goes. Board Member Connor interjected that this motion be followed by another motion to address the central issue of the Board's statement to oppose or support NISP. Board Member Pillard does not feel this motion implies the Board is advocating the NISP project. Part of the Board's directive is to look at the water supply and water quality for the City of Fort Collins, and as part of that directive, it seems this is a reasonable approach to Council to express the possibility of water -related issues if this project goes forward. Vice Chairperson Janett feels the issue with the TCE plume goes beyond monitoring and clean-up should be required. After discussion, Vice Chairperson Janett called for a vote. Seven board members voted in favor of the motion, and three were opposed. (Motion 2 Vote) Motion 3 (Approved) Board Member Bartholow moved that the Water Board recommend to Council that as part of the package staff would forward to the Corps of Engineers, due to the severity and magnitude of the errors, omissions and discrepancies identified to date, that the Corps produce a supplemental draft EIS that fully addresses the City's concerns. Board Member Gessler seconded the motion Discussion of the motion: Vice Chairperson Janett offered a friendly amendment to change the term "holes identified to date" to "errors, omissions and discrepancies identified to date." Board Member Bartholow accepted the amendment. After discussion, Vice Chairperson Janett called for a vote, and it passed unanimously. (Motion 3 Vote) Board Member Gessler noted that City Council will not have the opportunity to formally oppose NISP if the Corps does not issue a supplemental EIS to address these concerns. It was noted that legal options would be available to City Council. Board Member Connor stated that it does not appear to be in best interest of Fort Collins to support this project, and the charter of this Board is to represent the interests of the citizens of Fort Collins. Board Member Waskom feels it serves the interest of Fort Collins to look at the interests of the region as well. Board Member Pillard thinks it's possible that the issues raised by staff could be addressed without producing a supplemental DEIS. Taking the step to oppose it without a supplemental DEIS may take it too far, as the Corps may have very adequate responses for these concerns. Motion 4 (Not Approved) Board Member Connor moved that should the Corps of Engineers opt not to issue a supplemental draft EIS, the Water Board recommend City Council formally oppose the permitting of NISP with a Council Resolution. Board Member Gessler seconded the motion. WC After discussion, Board Member Gessler called the question and Vice Chairperson asked for a vote. Two board members voted in favor of the motion, and eight board members were opposed. (Motion 4 Vote) Committee Reports Engineering Committee: Board Members Balderson and Connor met with Mr. Gertig about the expansion of the Drake Wastewater Reclamation Facility at the request of Chairperson Doug Yadon. Mr. Gertig's presentation was provided in the Board packet. Staff Reports Treated Water Production Summary and Water Supply Outlook were provided with the Board packet. Other Business None Future Agenda Items Send them to Robin Pierce, Water Board Staff Liaison. Adiournment Board Member Balderson moved to adjourn and Board Member Pillard seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m. Tx1&-n ol/T u Robin Pierce, Water Board Staff Liaison ib�'n �l,�hty �livia Brown, Water Board Secretary 11