Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 06/16/2011Water Board Minutes June 16, 2011 1 Fort Collins Utilities Water Board Minutes Thursday, June 16, 2011 Water Board Chairperson City Council Liaison Gina Janett, 493-4677 Wade Troxell, 219-8940 Water Board Vice Chairperson Staff Liaison Steve Balderson, 223-7915 Brian Janonis, 221-6702 Roll Call Board Present Chairperson Gina Janett, Board Members Becky Goldbach, Steve Malers, Reagan Waskom, Duncan Eccleston, Lori Brunswig, Phil Phelan, Brett Bovee, and Brian Brown Board Absent Vice Chairperson Steve Balderson and Board Member Johannes Gessler Staff Present Brian Janonis, Kevin Gertig, Jon Haukaas, Dennis Bode, Susan Smolnik, Lois Rellergert, Helen Matson, Brian Varrella, Jen Petrik, Chris Lochra, Glen Schlueter, Carrie Daggett, Robin Pierce, and Harriet Davis Guests Herman Feissner, Capstone Development Meeting Convened Chairperson Gina Janett called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. Public Comment None Approval of May 26, 2011 Minutes Board Member Goldbach stated that a change should be made in the fifth paragraph on page 10 under Committee Reports. “Board Member Goldbach” should be changed to “Chairperson Janett.” Board Member Goldbach moved to approve minutes from the May 26, 2011 meeting as amended. Board member Waskom seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously. Stormwater Easements: Creekside Park (Attachments available upon request). Chairperson Janett noted that the location under discussion is the site where five individuals perished in the 1997 flood. She felt it necessary for this particular item to be brought before the Water Board for discussion. Water Engineering and Field Services Operations Manager Jon Haukaas introduced the topic and introduced Floodplain Administrator Brian Varrella and Real Estate Services Manager Helen Matson. Chairperson Janett stated that the action on behalf of the Water Board is for the easements, but she desired the map revision be brought to the board as well for review. Water Board Minutes June 16, 2011 2 Mr. Varrella gave an introduction on the project and introduced Herman Feissner with Capstone Development. Easements in Creekside Park for the Choice Center Development • Purpose of easements in Creekside Park o For routing of offsite floodwater o For drainage of local (onsite) runoff o For construction of storm sewer improvements • Easements requested are on City property o Owned by the Stormwater Utility o Maintained by Parks • Project details in brief o Current site is located in a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulatory floodway and flood fringe on Spring Creek o Project is subject to the safety standards of Chapter 10 of the City Municipal Code o No new residential structures permitted in the floodway • Developer opted to revise flood hazard boundaries o Optimizes constructible area o Requires a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) The proposed project went to the City for review, and to FEMA for final approval. FEMA approved the project in January 2010. The boundaries of the floodplain and flood fringe were modified to make residential housing constructible on this site. The buildings will be outside both boundaries, and the public safety standards of Chapter 10 were satisfied with the CLOMR application. Mr. Varrella explained the map revisions for the board members and the need for the easements. Board discussion: How are the revisions happening to the floodway and the floodplain? It is a combination of fill and a substantial flood control channel. Is this project for residential or commercial use? The developer intends to use the space primarily for student housing. The four-story structure will house approximately 650 individuals. There will also be retail space on the first floor. Is this the location of the mobile home park destroyed in the 1997 flood? Yes, the proposed site is on that location. A board member raised a question about the pipe under the train tracks. Mr. Haukaas stated there is a smaller pipe to carry flows, and the majority of the flooding occurs from over-topping of the railroad. A flood control channel is being constructed to manage this water if it were to overtop in the future. What would keep the trains from derailing if flooding happens again? Mr. Haukaas stated that would be operational on the part of the railroad because the trains would not run if a flood happens. The project would be constructed outside the floodplain and there would no longer be flooding in the area of the new buildings. Water Board Minutes June 16, 2011 3 Mr. Varrella stated the flood control channel will be constructed to safely convey the over- topping flows away from the building in a 100-year flood event. The 1997 flood greatly exceeded the 1 percent annual chance. Stormwater Development Review Engineer Glen Schlueter stated since the time of the 1997 flood, a wall has been constructed on the east side of the embankment and the embankment has been reinforced. What keeps the wall from eroding on the west side? There is no velocity on the west side. How is the water being redirected? The site has been graded so the 100-year runoff water can no longer touch the buildings from any side. Where does the stormwater go? The water will flow to Spring Creek. As part of the proposed design, the flood control channel will be built to also direct the stormwater runoff to the creek. Does the Creekside Park property act as a collection pond for the stormwater? No, it is not a pond; however, it catches all the discharge from the flood control channel and directs it under the bridge to College Avenue. What about the possibility of the bridge catching debris? Mr. Varrella stated the high water mark was created by a combination of debris and high discharge. The new structures and the surrounding parking lots will be protected by structurally designed bollards or “car-catchers” designed to catch large debris. Will the control channel be covered? Yes, it will be planted with a dense native grass mix and turf reinforcement matting in the upper reach. What is the effect of the Canal Importation Ponds and Outfall (CIPO) project upstream? Mr. Haukaas stated the effect is really minimal and this project is not dependent on CIPO. Mr. Varrella stated improvements made at Spring Canyon Park, Taft Hill Road, and Rolland Moore Park detained water flows, and the 100-year discharge will be reduced from 3,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 2,000 cfs by those projects being in place. Has this project received preliminary approval? The project has received conditional approval. Buildings cannot be constructed until the map revision has received final approval and the floodway and flood fringe have been moved off the site. Who is going to pay for the flood control channel? The developer will pay for the channel. Will the channel be turned over to the City? No, it will be privately owned. The City is only involved in review and inspection. There are no concurrent public projects. Are there any safety issues with individuals entering the channel? Because the slopes are gentle, there should be no safety issues with the channel. How will the project impact water quality? Due to the location, there will be water quality improvements. Water Board Minutes June 16, 2011 4 Chairperson Janett stated this location is a high profile location for the development of student housing because of the 1997 flood. Does the City receive many CLOMRs? Are these normally brought to the Water Board? Mr. Haukaas stated the CLOMRs are handled administratively because approval is required by FEMA. Does City staff review comments before the CLOMRs go to FEMA? Mr. Varrella stated staff approves CLOMRs before they are presented to FEMA. Staff signs that the property is safe from flooding and that areas removed from the floodway are safe from flooding. These certification documents become part of the CLOMR documentation. The City has to approve the CLOMR before it moves forward? Yes. A board member questioned if a 1997 rain event happened again, what would happen with this development in place? Mr. Varrella stated if a similar event happens again, the proposed flood control channel is not designed to carry the flow that would overtop the railroad. Has the City considered what would happen since the other projects upstream would hold back some of the water? Mr. Haukaas stated since the changes have not been recognized yet, it was designed based on current mapping. The City did not calculate for the volume of water from the 1997 flood. Chairperson Janett requested more information on the subject of water quality. Mr. Schlueter explained the concept of the porous landscaped detention area and how water from the construction site will be treated. How is the water treated by running it through porous material? It is treated by an infiltration process of running it through a layer of sand and a layer of peat. A board member questioned the rules about discharging into an impaired stream (Spring Creek) and expressed concerns about pollutants from the development. Has the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) been conducted for Spring Creek? Mr. Haukaas stated that the TMDL rules have not been finalized or put in place yet. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater quality treatment have been put in place. Mr. Schlueter stated the improvements will be a benefit to the current water quality. Chairperson Janett stated that the board will review the Stormwater Criteria Manual at the July board meeting and requested the current discussion move to the easements. Ms. Matson introduced the easements: • Easements are requested within Creekside Park o Flood Control Channel connection to Spring Creek - Channel construction is necessary per the CLOMR - Conveys 100-year flows overtopping the adjacent railroad - Must be constructed to tie into the Spring Creek channel o Sheet Flow Easement for onsite local drainage - Adjacent property directs concentrated flow to Creekside Park Water Board Minutes June 16, 2011 5 - Proposed mitigation activities would reduce erosion potential on Creekside Park property - Easement area will not be disturbed during construction o Temporary construction easement for development features - Necessary for construction of permanent improvements to City property • Includes a trail connection from project to existing Spring Creek Trail • Includes an extension of existing underground stormwater pipes from project to Creekside Park - Surface restored by developer, maintained by City Board discussion: Do you have a before and after flood diagram of the Creekside Park area? Mr. Varrella stated a flood diagram was not available for this presentation. He emphasized the current design ensures no impact on water surface elevations on any of the cross sections and this has been documented in the CLOMR. The water will fan out across the area. This design proves that hydraulic conditions would not worsen in the area. Mr. Haukaas stated there is still a main flow coming down the creek and through the culverts underneath. The energy from that is much higher than the overtopping that would come down the channel. Mr. Varrella gave more details about the flow design. What happens next in the process if the Water Board approves or disapproves the easements? Ms. Matson stated the easements go to Council on July 5, 2011 with the Water Board’s recommendations as part of the Agenda Item Summary (AIS). Once the easements are approved, they would go into the planning process. The project has already been approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Haukaas stated if the easement is not approved by Council, it would go into an appeal process. Deputy City Attorney Carrie Daggett stated Council is making a legislative decision regarding the project and there are other considerations that Council takes into account when making decisions about these types of easements, including the benefits of the project moving forward. Chairperson Janett stated administrative work typically does not go to Council. The Planning and Zoning Board takes public input and makes decisions yes or no. The Water Board’s role is to act as an advisory panel on the legislative act of the easements. Ms. Daggett stated staff is implementing what is in the City Code in terms of making decisions on applications. If standards are to be applied differently, it may be worthwhile in the future to have the Water Board review changes to the code. Is the Sheet Flow Easement just an easement to accept sheet flow from the parcel itself? Yes. Has this item been before Council before? No. Can the developer ensure there will not be any further water quality issues for Spring Creek? Mr. Haukaas stated all Chapter 26 code requirements regarding water mitigation have been met by the developer. Water Board Minutes June 16, 2011 6 Will the BMPs remove E. coli from Spring Creek? E. coli is not directly addressed because it is not a regulated contaminant for stormwater runoff. Vote on the motion: 8 for, 1 against. Reason for the nay vote: Board Member Brunswig: The water quality issues in Spring Creek are not being addressed. The proposed development will impact the future of water quality. Nutrients and Water Quality Memo (Attachments available upon request). Chairperson Janett introduced the topic and the purpose for the memo on behalf of the Legislative, Finance, and Legal (LFL) Committee. She and Board Member Goldbach will meet with Council Liaison Wade Troxell regarding issues relating to state legislation concerning nutrient regulations in Colorado, specifically, the issue of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. Chairperson Janett stated the Water Board is prohibited from participating in state legislative recommendations. Board Member Goldbach stated the memo is presented to the full board for informational purposes. Chairperson Janett stated a comment needs to be added to the memo that staff is participating in the technical review of the regulations. The memo also includes a reference to a resolution passed by the state legislature asking for more time to develop nutrient regulations and asking the governor to direct the health department at the state level for an impact study on nutrient regulations. This reference needs to be included with the memo before it goes to Council. Board discussion: Does the impact study look at non-point sources? The study only looks at costs of discharge. Board Member Waskom stated the LFL Committee looked at the resolution while it was still in process. It is very difficult for the board to weigh in and give opinions or advice on matters because the process happens very fast. Water Resources and Treatment Operations Manager Kevin Gertig stated water quality in the upper alpine areas is more sensitive to the nutrient issues. Can you clarify how the subcommittee and the Water Board are involved in forwarding information to Council? Why doesn’t staff take information to Council? Chairperson Janett stated Council has a state legislative agenda with very general policy language. City staff is more involved in regulatory issues than legislative issues. The lobbyist for the City does not spend her time on water issues. The LFL Committee’s intent with the memo is to get the attention of Council regarding potential costs to the City. Motion: Board Member Brown moved that the Water Board recommend that the City Council consider approval of a Permanent Drainage Easement for a Flood Control Channel as described in Exhibit “A,” a Permanent Drainage Easement for Sheet Runoff as described in Exhibit “B,” and a Temporary Construction Easement as described in Exhibit “C” to Capstone Development Corporation. Board Member Eccelston seconded the motion. Water Board Minutes June 16, 2011 7 Does the City need someone more involved with the Legislative issues? No, the memo is intended to inform council of nutrient issues, not to ask that staff become more involved in legislative issues. Is the City a member of Water Congress? No, not currently. Chairperson Janett questioned the cost implications for stormwater permits. Mr. Gertig stated there are possible cost implications. A board member questioned the next step in the process. Chairperson Janett stated she will ask Mr. Troxell for suggestions regarding the memo. Is State Representative Randy Fisher a point of contact for the City? Perhaps; he is a member of the Water Congress and represents the City of Fort Collins. Would the Water Board like to continue to see these types of reports? Yes, these types of reports are helpful with regards to issues concerning the LFL Committee. The amendments will include a copy of the Colorado House Joint Resolution 11-1025, a sentence about possible cost implications for stormwater permits, and a sentence that staff is actively participating with the stakeholder groups who are monitoring the proposed regulations. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously. Drinking Water Quality and Annual Consumer Confidence Reports (Attachments available upon request). Environmental Regulatory Specialist Lois Rellergert was available to answer questions concerning the reports. She stated the reports will be presented to Council in July. Board discussion: What do you attribute the shift in grades from “A” to “B” in some of the categories? Ms. Rellergert attributes the downshift in grades to the change in price structure as a result of the water conservation. Will you talk about the downshift to Council? At this point, there is no presentation planned for Council. Chairperson Janett stated that in looking at the survey as a whole, 95 percent of the City is giving Fort Collins Utilities a grade of A or B across the board. A board member questioned the value of asking people’s perception of items such as reliability or quality of the water when you have an index to measure those characteristics in the lab? Another board member stated that as residents, we pay for a product and the product has Board Member Waskom moved that the Water Board recommend the amended memo go forward to City Council. Board Member Bovee seconded the motion. Water Board Minutes June 16, 2011 8 services associated with it. If there is a discrepancy between those numbers, it is probably attributed to communication. Mr. Janonis stated Utilities does a Gap Analysis every two years to measure customer satisfaction. If the customer’s perception is less than the actual quantifiable number, Utilities knows it should “bump up” the information going to the customer. If there is a trend where a gap is forming, programs are developed to address those issues. Is there an operational reason for the down turn in grades? No, we have a highly reliable system. Mr. Janonis stated that if a utility is in the 85 th percentile or above, they are in the upper echelon. He also stated that the City of Fort Collins Utilities’ grade is always very good compared with other areas. A board member stated the customer has no frame of reference since the only water they receive is from the City of Fort Collins. Mr. Janonis stated that the customer’s perception concerning water quality is used to direct our informational programs. In terms of reliability, were there more water main breaks in 2010 versus 2007? No. In terms of basin information and the Big Thompson Watershed, is Utilities collecting sufficient amounts of data? Ms. Rellergert stated the watershed program has improved and expanded with changes made within the last three years. Mr. Gertig stated a retrospective statistical analysis study has been conducted on the Cache la Poudre and Big Thompson Watershed. He feels more flow measurement is needed in the Upper Basin and stated other stakeholders are needed to join in the effort because of the costs involved in the program. The study involves long-term data sets. A board member asked if the report should include a section that includes a request for more water monitoring stations. A board member stated there has been publicity about the presence of mercury in Horsetooth Reservoir? Does that affect the public’s perception of water quality? Ms. Rellergert stated Utilities took care of that particular issue concerning mercury. Chairperson Janett stated that public perception is determined by the information they receive. Ms. Rellergert stated that perhaps these types of issues should be brought to the public in future reports. A board member questioned the item concerning Illness/Health Complaints on page 10 of the report. Does Utilities follow up when a complaint is received? Generally, the complaints cannot be traced back to the water. Utilities follows up by taking a water sample at the customer’s house and testing the water for E. coli. Mr. Gertig stated that if an illness is reported due to a pathogen, an investigation would be launched involving other agencies. He stressed that it is important for individuals to report such issues. Chairperson Janett requested the report be modified on page 10 to include the title on the Y axis of the graph for the number of complaints. The report will be modified before it is presented to Council. Water Board Minutes June 16, 2011 9 She also questioned the statement on page 4 concerning the Source Watershed Water Quality Monitoring Program. Are there other operational changes besides the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) that may affect our water quality? Ms. Rellergert is not aware of any other changes relating to the Colorado-Big Thompson (CBT) Project. Mr. Gertig stated the Windy Gap Project is one potential project and that continued monitoring is critical to study any impacts to our watershed and water supply. Are there any specific potential operational changes? No. Chairperson Janett thanked staff for the report. She mentioned the studies listed on page 6 of the report look particularly interesting and requested more information once the studies are completed. Committee Reports Conservation and Public Education Committee (Board Member Phelan): Dr. Tony Koski, Colorado State University (CSU), gave a presentation on alternative turf and the cumulative effects of irrigating turf on the entire landscape. The water usage goal is 140 gallons per capita per day. A question was raised concerning the effects on the landscape if it dropped to 130 gallons per capita per day? Water Resources Manager Dennis Bode stated that Dr. Koski seemed surprised by the reduction in water use in single family residences. There was a 50 percent reduction in water use from before 2002 to after 2002 (Clarification: This pertains to outdoor use for single-family residences). A question presented to Dr. Koski pertains to maintaining a healthy urban forest and landscape with the alternative landscaping. Chairperson Janett requested that Dr. Koski’s presentation be sent to the entire board. Engineering Committee (Vice Chairperson Balderson): No report due to Committee Chair’s absence. Legislative, Finance and Legal Committee (Board Member Goldbach): The LFL Committee will meet Monday, June 20, 2011. Water Supply Committee (Board Member Gessler): Chairperson Janett gave an update on Board Member Gessler’s behalf. The committee is still looking at the possibility of a water sharing agreement between the City and North Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC). Staff drafted a memo to the Water Supply Committee stating the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal. Chairperson Janett requested the memo be sent to the entire board. Staff Reports Monthly Water Resources Report Water Resources Manager Dennis Bode presented this report. He stated it is too early to tell if the Poudre River has hit high flow or not. Water Resources Engineer Susan Smolnik stated that the averages listed on the Snotel Data Report are meaningless at this time of year. What is important is looking at how high the number goes up. Utilities Civil Engineer Chris Lochra stated the Poudre River’s peak is at 54 inches, and is currently at 35 inches. It is too early to predict the flow. National Weather Service has not predicted high flows and nighttime temperatures are not particularly warm. which is slowing down the melt. Other Business Board Members Brunswig. Goldbach. and Malers expressed their thanks to staff for the tour to the Halligan-Seaman Reservoir on Friday. June 10, 2011. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m. Submitted by Harriet Davis. Administrative Assistant. Fort Collins Utilities Approved by the Board on Z I . 2011 Signed: HH’ Board Secretary Date Water Board Minutes 10 June 16.2011