HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 10/23/2008Fort Collins Utilities Water Board Minutes
Thursday, October 23, 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 Interim, Meagan Peil, 221-6700
Roll Call
Board Present
Chairperson Doug Yadon, Board Members Steve Balderson, Johannes Gessler, John Barthalow,
Gary Wockner, Phil Phelan, David Pillard, Eileen Dornfest and Reagan Waskom
Board Absent
Vice Chairperson Gina Janett and Board Member Mike Connor
Staff Present
Brian Janonis, Kevin Gertig, Susan Smolnik, Cliff Hoelscher, Jim Hibbard, Terri Bryant, Carrie
Daggett, Meagan Peil and Patty Bigner
Guests
None
Meeting Convened
Chairperson Doug Yadon called the meeting to order at 5:19 p.m.
Public Comment
None
Minutes of September 25, 2008, Meeting
Additions were requested to the September 25, 2008, meeting minutes: Eileen Dornfest should
be added as an absent Board member and wording included to express the conservation budget
comments. The question and answer portion of minutes is helpful for those not present to
understand the meeting proceedings.
Meeting minutes approved. Vote: 9 for, 0 against. Motion Passed.
Reminder: Please respond to the staff liaison's query to establish quorum when packets are e-
mailed or one of the Board members if you are unable to attend a meeting as soon as you can.
Leadership Updates
Water Engineering and Field Services Operations Manager Jim Hibbard provided an update from
the City Council work session on 10-14-08 on the Stormwater Program.
Staff is in the process of reviewing policies and practices on current stormwater
programs. Outside representatives, Barbara Cole and Dr. Neil Gregg from Colorado State
University (CSU), have been hired to do one-on-one interviews with City Council to get
some of their views out in the open and give the feedback to staff to ensure the 10-14-08
work session was more productive. For those interested, the background material for the
study session agenda items, as well as the figures, are on the City Clerk's website, as well
as the streaming video of the work session itself. The session was about two hours long.
Board members were encouraged to review this for the work plan discussion and the
Board's ongoing involvement and process.
Results of the work session were also summarized in a two -page memo written back to
City Council to ensure accuracy of the direction staff received from Council. This memo
was not part of the packet, but was distributed to Board members at the meeting.
Highlights from the memo to Council included:
• Council would like to re-examine the adopted policies of the program including the
level of protection provided, discussion of the type of risk the program is
designed to protect against, and whether it is life and property or wet basements.
• Council requested the Stormwater mission statement be revised to make it more
environmentally friendly, even though the statement does include "protect health,
safety and environment".
• Council would also like to evaluate community benefits though budgeting for
outcomes. In other words, if the magnitude of the program is in line with the risk,
there are other parts of the community which would benefit from a decrease to
stormwater rates. City Council might consider an increase in funding for other areas
throughout the City. They would like to review the rate structure and impact of it.
Council would like us to review our capital projects with benefit cost analysis and the
environmental benefits of the programs. They would also like us to look at spending,
whether it is the most efficient way possible and the benefits. Council would also like
to look at removing people from the floodplain by buying them out and returning the
land back to the floodplain instead of building projects to protect the citizens. Council
would like to look at vacant property in the floodplain and study other cities to assess
the benefit of removing property from the floodplain. Floodplain regulations are
based on health and safety perspectives; the greater the risk, the stronger the
regulation. Council questioned if development should not be allowed in floodplains
and asked what would that look like and how other programs of the City would be
supported, including natural areas and natural resources.
• Next steps for Stormwater staff will be to prepare an outline and course of action to
address the requested materials. Council requested a lot of information, and staff will be
2
able to prepare alternatives and staff recommendations for presentations at future work
sessions. Final Council consideration will be in March, 2009, which is a very aggressive
timeline.
Stormwater Best Management Practices Review:
Council also asked staff to review this practice as well. It's narrower than the overall program
review and has to do with Best Management Practices being used for water quality. Council
would like us to verify we are in fact using Best Management Practices. We currently have a
three-year contract with CSU and another consultant. The program is divided into two phases:
Phase One:
• Review of City practices. We found and reviewed some of the benchmarking tools, and
the Center for Watershed Protection has a fourteen point benchmarking process we will
be comparing ourselves to.
• Look to see what we are doing well and identify gaps, then using this tool to guide the
continuation of the Best Management Practices program.
• We are going to adopt new Stormwater criteria and are favoring adoption of urban
drainages criteria. This is universally used throughout the Front Range area. We are also
currently working on demonstration projects for porous pavement, pavers and filters and
a variety of demonstrations in conjunction with CSU's guidance.
• Review our stream monitoring systems for Fossil Creek, Boxelder, and Spring Creek.
The Cooper Slough program will be included
• Establishing a retrofit program to look at the practices installed ten years ago was not the
best option, and some practices have failed. This is a risk when trying to be on the
leading edge.
• We are also looking into working with homeowner's associations and looking at our own
facilities to improve the Best Management Practices. Produce GIS (Geographic
Information Systems) coverage of our Best Management Practices to determine areas of
town and facilities where the Best Management Practices are in place, so we can focus on
where we do not have them in place.
Phase Two:
• Monitor our demonstration projects, review the performance of existing treatment
facilities, recommend improvements on those facilities and monitor results.
• This will be going on for the next three years and involves CSU students.
Another item discussed was Low Impact Development (LID). The video titled, "Polluted Rain
Run -Off Poses Threat to Water Systems ", from the Jim Laher News Hour from PBS, was shown
to the Board
Video Synopsis:
Water pollution: When it rains, which is pretty common in the Northwest, most people look at
the sky. Water pollution experts look at the ground, and what they see disturbs them, such as
chemicals, motor oil and herbicides washing from neighborhood streets and yards into creeks
and bays. Half of U.S. water pollution comes from stormwater run off. In Seattle, it is
responsible for more than 70% of zinc and copper which ends up in Puget Sound, toxic heavy
metals which kill Sockeye and Canyon Bubo Salmon protected by the Endangered Species Act.
King County Stormwater Manager Kirk Crawford took us to a typical subdivision outside
Seattle. Though it is only 42 acres in size, as many as 200,000 gallons of polluted water drains
off of it after a normal rainfall. Urban development causes 300% increase in volume of pollution.
Houses are not built for clean water. Flow of stormwater must be reduced to reduce pollution
with roof water run-off. Low Impact Development strategies, redirect water with pipe, goes
through green garden, then to stormwater drains. Other ideas for stormwater run off is concrete
with pores, smaller footprint and homes are clustered around open space and less pavement, roof
gardens to absorb water, less curbs, less sidewalks, drain road to one side, compost into soil and
community rain gardens. These ideas need more regulations like permeable streets. There is a
need to compete with homes that are not under strict guidelines in this area. Ninety five percent
of already built homes are not asked to fix problem that they are experiencing. Regulations on
factories and feedlots have never been used to put regulation into new development of houses or
land use. How far can you use the Clean Stormwater Act? These regulations would be used for a
reduction of pollution and should be cost effective and should be used to regulate Stormwater
use.
Discussion:
Council would like Water Board and City staff to look at regulations and sizes of houses and
lots, land development, widths of streets, curbs and gutters and assemble a cross -functional team
including Planning, Engineering, Transportation, and Natural Resources.
Who is working on this for Council for the review of the significant amount of work?
Right now, for the Best Management Practices, it is a three year process with CSU, Dr. Rossner,
and City staff. For the overall Stormwater program review, it is primarily staff.
Is it a good idea to have staff who is doing the work review this for Council?
Our goal is to work with City Council and provide the requested information to Council. We
have discussed this with our staff and feel confident we can accomplish this without prejudice.
Was the sustainability committee involved in any of this?
Our mission is to do what Council would like and address issues about how we break down cross
function within the departments including Streets, Engineering, Planning and Conservation. We
are handling more to make this work together as a whole for the City.
Our goal:
Some things will be done quickly and implemented very easily, and other items could take years
such as the LID item.
Water Board would like to have this item added to the November 20 meeting agenda for more
discussion and possible formation of a special committee or focus group.
Update of Shared Vision Plannin¢
Water Resources and Treatment Operations Manager Kevin Gertig and Halligan Project
Manager Cliff Hoelscher provided an update to the Board on Shared Vision Planning (SVP)
related to the Halligan -Seaman project.
There are three areas of practice: traditional water, structured public participation/recreation and
collaborative computer models.
Outside of the (National Environmental Policy Act) NEPA process, this is not a recognized
process of the Corp of Engineers (Corps). This process is a test, and it has not been done parallel
with the regulatory process. The Corps provided $50,000 start-up funds and continues funding
the project. This, in turn, could be the future of the process.
Flow enhancement for the North Fork and Mainstem of the Poudre River, the upstream
confluence resulting from the Halligan -Seaman Project, is being studied. The results will be a
preferred project as a plan for managing releases from the reservoir to the eco-outcome, and if it
meets water supply and the intention of the reservoir.
There will be a series of workshops offered. The first workshop will be for the stake holders, the
second workshop will introduce the models and the third workshop will relate to the actual
process. There is the possibility of two other workshops involving review and ranking
alternatives.
To learn more about Shared Vision Planning, visit the following websites:
www.svp.iwr.usace.anny.mil
www.iwr.usace.mil/inside/news/20080623.cfm
www.youtube.com/watch?
Discussion:
Who is invited to the workshops?
Environmental firms, legislative contacts, other categories and service groups are invited to
attend the workshops.
Will a Water Board representative be in attendance?
Anyone interested is able to attend.
Comment: The Save the Poudre Coalition believes in stakeholder process, but the invitee list was
very inclusive and positive. The Shared Vision Planning (SVP) process is only looking at
preferred alternatives, spending money and wasting time if not picked as a project. Open, fair
and useful with a serious problem; SVP is limiting the scope of the mouth of the North Fork,
Mainstem and above.
Why?
Below the Mainstem, the process is open up to full scope of impacts, and the applicants refused
to address those.
Why won't the City of Fort Collins address those concerns?
It is not only the City of Fort Collins who must get consensus from all the groups. A lot of work
and time is involved, not only for the City of Fort Collins, and many things can be brought to the
table. Processes to move along with the stakeholders, other synergies, the web, water quality,
fish species and trying to facilitate discussions of all. We would like to narrow the scope, and
this is a long process. We welcome concerns with scope and all issues at the workshops. Also, by
narrowing the scopes too far, we may not get to the point, isolating some groups.
Any other comments to add to this discussion? Any interest in attending the workshops?
Board members are certainly welcome. If someone would like to attend, please get in touch with
Kevin or Cliff. We need to have more direct involvement by the Board, which would be
interesting or helping with Board expectations in the future.
Agenda Item: The Board would like this item on the next meeting agenda to discuss workshop
attendance, depth of commitment and a discussion on this issue.
Discussion of 2009 Work Plan
Verbal and email requests have been processed from the committee chairs as input for the work
plan. Staff reviewed and made notes on the revisions to include their perspectives.
If you have further suggestions on any items, please advocate for these and let your position be
known. Committees have very time consuming issues coming up, so the intent is to streamline
the work plan where possible.
General Issues:
Board members will need to evaluate all items in General Issues. Item #11 under General Issues
will be removed, as it will be on the November meeting agenda.
Conservation and Public Education Committee:
Water Conservation Specialist Laurie D'Audney provided input on this section. Board would
like to see "all education" instead of only "youth education" under Monitor public outreach and
education projects.
Board members would like more tours of the Drake Water Reclamation Facility (DWRF), but
Homeland Security guidelines speak to this item. One more tour in November or December had
been discussed. The City Attorney's office has been working with Poudre School District, but
Board have done our part, and some issues have come up with the District, such as an
insufficient number of picnic tables, reserving a bus for an entire day and planning for the
students during that time. There are also considerations to make for home schooled children.
Deputy City Attorney Carrie Daggett and her office staff are working with them on this and will
keep the Board informed. The DWRF item is completed and will be removed.
Emergency Preparedness: The Board is uncertain on the intent of having this item on the work
plan. If the phrase, "as needed", is at the end of the item, it is not mandated the committee review
it. These represent ongoing or occasional items and will be recognized if those issues come up.
Item #4 will be removed. It is on the November agenda for discussion.
Engineering Committee:
This section was revised by Committee Chair Balderson and approved. The committee removed
the item related to the FEMA Community Rating System.
Legislative, Financial and Liaison Committee:
The same items will likely stay on the work plan for next year. The budget item will be changed
to 2010-2011 for the August to September 2009 time frame. This will be set as the time frame to
6
be presented to Water Board and to Council. Item C related to the Plant Investment Fee update is
no longer an item requiring discussion and will be part of the budget planning presentation. The
Cost of Service Study will be added for Utilities. Windy Gap will not be removed but will
designate it as an "as needed" item. Under Other Policy Issues, a review of the Boxelder
Regional Area Authority will be added and labeled "as needed".
Water Supply Committee:
Item #5 related to Council recommendations regarding drought restrictions will be designated
"as needed". Also, this is under the Water Supply Committee, because water supply drives the
Drought Protection Plan. It does not belong in the conservation area since the recommendations
are based on supply. Item #6 is an upcoming study for climate change and will be kept on with
an "as needed" notation.
The Board would like to add a review of the Stormwater program. This item will be added to
General Issues -Committee of the Whole.
The revised draft work plan will be sent to the Board Chairperson and committee chairs for
review. A copy will also be attached to the meeting minutes.
Instream Flow Proposal Request for the Lower Poudre River
Board members received and reviewed the proposal request The Board learned a lot from the
information provided by staff, and the Board's consensus is to ask staff to develop five
conceptual level scenarios to achieve the bare minimum of flow.
Vice Chairperson Janett through Board Member John Barthalow would like to add the following
language to the beginning of this proposal:
Whereas the Water Board is concerned that current and future water development may
negatively impact water quantity and quality in the Poudre River through Fort Collins
relative to the natural environment, as well as water and wastewater treatment, and
whereas the water utility staff has in depth knowledge of water law, as well as water
management opportunities.
Discussion:
No discussion of this item.
Should we include the wording in front of the Instream Proposal?
9 for, 0 against. Motion passed.
Committee Reports
Engineering Committee (Board Member Balderson): No report.
Water Conservation Committee (Board Member Phelan): No report
Legislative, Finance and Legal Committee (Board Member Pillard): No report.
Instream Flow Committee (Board Member Wockner): No report.
Water Supply Committee (Board Member Waskom): No report.
Staff Reports
Water Resources Engineer Susan Smolnick added graph of use for the City of Fort Collins
Projected and Actual Treated Water Demand for 2008
Other Business
None
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:31 p.m.
Submitted by Meagan Peil, Interim Staff Liaison Fort Collins, Utilities
Approved by the Board on J�a2O , M.
Si ned
-'
aga ' Pe4Dtte�