Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 02/17/2011Fort Collins Utilities Water Board Minutes Thursday, February 17, 2011 Water Board Chairperson City Council Liaison Gina Janett, 493-4677 David Roy, 217-5506 Water Board Vice Chairperson Staff Liaison Steve Balderson, 223-7915 Brian Janonis, 221-6702 Roll Call Board Present Chairperson Gina Janett, Vice Chairperson Steve Balderson, Board Members Phil Phelan, Lori Brunswig, Becky Goldbach, Duncan Eccieston, Brett Bovee, and Steve Malers Board Absent Board Members Johannes Gessler, Brian Brown, and Reagan Waskom Staff Present Brian Janonis, Patty Bigner, Jon Haukaas, Kevin Gertig, Ken Sampley, Susan Smolnik, Carol Webb, Dennis Bode, Rita DeCourcey, Susan Strong, Keith Elmund, Phil Ladd, Basil Hamdan, Gary Schroeder, Felix Lee, Carrie Daggett, Robin Pierce, and Brian Varrella Guests Meeting Convened Chairperson Gina Janett called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m. Public Comment None Minutes of January 20, 2011, Meeting Vice Chairperson Balderson moved to approve the minutes from the January 20, 2011, meeting. Board Member Phelan seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously. Monthly Financial Report (Presentation available upon request) Utilities Executive Director Brian Janonis introduced this topic and explained the intention for routinely informing the Board of the water utilities’ funding priorities. Water/Wastewater Funds: Utilities Financial Analyst Rita DeCourcey Board discussion: How was $5 million cut from the operating budget? Much of our actual expense varies with the actual demand. The Board recommended previously that Council consider step increases on the water rate to anticipate asset management issues and treatment costs. The Utility is using a “leveling” approach to average those anticipated costs over several years in order to prevent constant rate fluctuations. Water Board Minutes February 17, 2011 Why was so much budgeted fir gravel pit storage? Last year, the Riverwalk project emerged as a possible site for gravel pit storage. If it had sLicceeded, the appropriated funds would have been spent. Another site is now being considered. Are improvements planned fir the Larimer County No. 2 Canal? The City is a shareholder of the canal and contributes to various aspects of maintaining it. Fees pay for increased capacity for new development. Do we lose out in other ways? Plant Investment Fees (PIFs) are designed to keep up with development, assuming build-out. In good years, the additional revenue goes into the reserve fund. Our bond payments remain the same during periods of less development. Is the Canal finportation Ponds and Outfull Project (CIPO) completed? The Red Fox Meadows project is complete, and staCf will begin the Glenmoor segment next. Stormwater from the Northeast College Corridor Outfall (NECCO) project returns to the Poudre River through channelization. Some culverts will be part of the project in order to provide crossings. Existing channels through the area provide an outlet and are sufficient. Stormwater Fund: Utilities Financial Analyst Phil Ladd The Stormwater fund has had no rate increases for some time now. Operating revenues increased primarily due to the Southwest Annexation. There will be no Stormwater bond payoffs for about the next six years. The Utility continues to get favorable rates on bond debt. Land was purchased for regional detention ponds as part of the Stormwater Master Plan. Board discussion: Related to the plan fir drainage running parallel to Vine Drive, is this part oft/ic NECCO project? Part of it is related to the NECCO project. A certain level of development needs to be in progress before there is sufficient cause to add the “spine” of the project, as there is a dependency on development fees. The land needed to be purchased now to prepare for it in the future. Are there plans to take the neighborhood at Lemay and Vine out of the floodplain? There are no current plans to remove the area from the floodplain. Sonic in a low—income neighborhood are paying storimiwaterfes, vet not receiving any benefit from their investment. These are considerations when the Utility looks at the Stormwater Master Plan update. There are new revenues froni the Southwest Annexation; will projects be needed there? The area has minimal stormwater infrastructure, and some features will he added to the area. Consulting services for best management practices study: The work is being done; less was needed. The Board referred these updates to the Legislative, Finance, and Liaison Committee with an annual report to the full board. Tables and variances are helpful. Water Board Minutes 2 February 17,2011 Officer Elections Nominations for the Chair and Vice Chair positions were discussed briefly. Chairperson Janett and Vice Chairperson Balderson were retained in the positions. Building Code Green Amendments (Presentation available upon request) Green Building Code Project Manager Felix Lee and Energy Services Engineer Gary Schroeder presented this information to the Board. The item will go to Council for First Reading on 3/I and Second Reading on 3/22. Support and training materials for staff and contractors will be developed this year. Most measures would be effective January 2012. The original proposal for individual metering on large multi-family properties was retracted due to the difficulties involved, but an option for small multi-family properties (up to four-plex size) and strip malls is still on the table. Maximum flow rates have been reduced from those which were initially proposed and align with states who have adopted the strictest standards. Board discussion: A question was raised about counting all new building, when a large percentage of buildings are already meeting these standards. The cost-benefit ratio is close enough that, if they’ve been flictored into the benefit, it iiiav tip data the other way. Staff responded that educating underwriters on the value of green building and the economics of the money recycling in the economy is an important strategy. Some of those types of benefit factors are softer. The intention of the Code is to support the bottom of the building market. Many builders are already using these standards, whereas others builders need assistance. These will be continually revised as measures become standard practice. When energy is reduced, water use is also reduced. This may not be seen directly, but they are connected. Are Low Impact Development (LID) measures being considered? Landscaping and LID measures are part of the Land Use Code, which will be addressed in the future. It’s important to tell Council the bigger picture; we all benefit. The individual is going to see the beizefit in utility savings, health and safty, and building valuation, but the economic health and carbon reduction is a community benefit. If those are removed, the cost-benefit ratio becomes less than 1.3. Council charged staff with finding the best approach to green building, not just from the individual owner’s perspective. Twenty-year payback for commercial projects and four-year payback for residential projects is anticipated. The refi?rence to utility rates remaining constant is suspect. Staff kept the analysis very conservative. This should be mnade as a !najor point when presenting the infrmatiomi to Council. Water Board Minutes 3 February 17, 2011 Motion: Board Member Bovee moved the Water Board recommends the proposed building code green amendments for residential and commercial construction are adopted by Council. Board Member Brunswig seconded the motion. Discussion on the motion: Vice Chairperson Balderson appreciates the i’ork staff has put into this. He speaks with builders who report they hai’e no i’ork. Is implementing this now going to help? Staff has heard ifs a great time to implement these measures now, precisely because there is minimal activity. A friendly amendment was suggested to the motion to scale it to the water aspects. Amended Motion: Board Member Bovee moved the Water Board recommends the proposed building code green amendments pertaining to water for residential and commercial construction is adopted by Council. Board Member Brunswig seconded the motion. Another friendly amendment was suggested to add “Council considers that utility rates are likely to increase rather than stay constant, and benefits would increase proportionately”. Board Member Boyce declined the friendly amendment. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously. 2011 Rental Rates and Delivery Charges Water Resources Engineer Susan Smolnik provided information on this year’s recommended raw water rental rates and delivery charges. Staff anticipates additional raw water supplies this year due to above-average snowpack in the Poudre Basin this winter. For this reason and other factors, staff recommends lowering some of the rental rates. Board discussion. Related to the two $35 rates being reduced to $30, was the Utility able to rent water at $35 last year? Last year, the Utility could not rent all of its surplus water. If the weather is hot in June this veal; will water demand change? The water demand would increase if the weather gets hot. However, because water supplies are expected to be plentiful, this may not affect the price. Are the numbers of shares listed? Staff can provide this information as needed. Why are the reusable sources priced a! $500? To the extent possible, we try to follow the regional market for reusable water. We only rent small quantities from this source. is reusable water the effluent from the treatment j,li,it: Most of the effluent is single-Lise waler. Single-use water can only be used one time and then must be returned to the Poudre River where it is reallocated under the prior appropriation doctrine. Reusable water is water that can he re used multiple times and is not reallocated. Water Board Minutes 4 February 17, 2011 It’s difficult to interpret some of this information ii’here shares are sometimes used instead f acre-feet. Some of the markets use acre-foot as the unit of measure and others use shares as the unit of measure. Is there a reason we need to lock in the prices now, or could we wait and be responsive to the market later as weather conditions develop? Language is provided to allow for adjustment if the market conditions change. Motion: Vice Chairperson Balderson moved the Water Board recommends the proposed rental rates and charges are adopted by the City Council. Board Member Phelan seconded the motion. There was no discussion on the motion. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously. Update on Floodplain Regulations (Presentation available upon request) Stormwater and Floodplain Manager Ken Sampley introduced the option for staff to develop a regulatory approach that allows for a case-by-case determination of beneficial and detrimental impacts from new development and/or redevelopment on other properties. The Board had recommended no structures in the floodplain at a previous meeting. Staff will hold firm on no residential and mixed-use structures in the floodplain. Water Engineering and Field Services Manager Jon Haukaas distributed a draft Poudre River Floodplain Regulation Review Process. All City areas will he involved in the review process, which will begin in Development Review. A prescriptive approach will remain an option, as well as a new process that allows for those cases that require an Adverse Impact Review, which can follow two tracks: a hearing determination or an administrative determination. This discussion applies to the flood fringe, not the floodway. Staff has taken the collective input from the groups who participated in public outreach sessions and technical guidance documents to assist with meeting the standards. The working committee recommended a panel rather than a hearing officer. The Utilities Executive Director will have the latitude to assign a single hearing officer or multiple staff members with the addition of a technical advisory expert. Flooding will be the single scope of the technical panel, and other impacts would he addressed via the existing variance hearing process through the Water Board. Staff is developing conceptual costs for various scenarios. They will bring results from the working committee back to the Board prior to Council. Board discussion: How did we go from No Adverse Impact to Adverse Impact? The concept of Adverse Impact recognizes that there is some level of adverse impact involved in all development and places the focus on defining the adverse impact. Water Board Minutes 5 February 17, 2011 Can the analysis be applied to a signfica,it development project? Its location in the floodplain matters, rather than size of the development. This simplified type of analysis can be applied to signilcant projects. There are 149 property owners in the Poudre River floodplain. It seems like a lot ofstaffwork to develop this/br a/eH’ property owners who may be interested in developing their properties. The data will he available to assess cumulative impacts. Lower Cache Ia Poudre and Urban Creek Water Ouality Report (Report available upon request) Environmental Services Manager Keith Elmund began the discussion on this water quality report. He noted dynamic regulatory changes have been occurring with the Poudre River since 2009. If a water body is not meeting its designated use, such as drinking water or fishing, it can be listed as impaired. In some cases, our urban creeks are now listed as impaired due to a higher standard or degradation of the water body. RegLilatory and Government Affairs Manager Carol Webb added that the State of Colorado is beginning to address nutrient requirements mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Control Regulation 85 calls for monthly effluent monitoring for nitrogen and phosphorus. The rulemaking hearing is set for March 2012 with an effective date of May 2012. Control regulations become effective immediately. Ms. Webb referred to Regulation 3 1, The Basic Standard and Methodologies for Surface Water, which was amended Aug, 9,2010, and became effective Jan. 1,2011. Nutrient criteria guidelines follow the same track with Total P and Total N both effective in 2017. There is a non-point source section in the regulations, but there is no authority over those sources. Staff will return to the Board in August to discuss the City of Fort Collins’ position in more detail. Ms. Webb will present in-depth information on this at the March 1 Legislative, Finance, and Liaison Committee meeting. Board discussion: Would the City be subject to fines/br not meeting the standard? Max imurn daily load calculation is performed to determine the allocation. Calculations have not been done for our stream segments. Has the Board considered having Aware Colorado do a presentation? They have presented in Fort Collins, but not specifically to the Board. I)uring times ofdrought, pollutant concentrations would be greater, which should provide incentives/hr the City to consider in-stream flows to help illeel the water quality standards. There are a variety of factors, so this is not necessarily always true. Water Board Minutes 6 February 17, 2011 Committee Reports Upcoming meeting dates for all the committees were reviewed. The Instream Flow Committee met today to develop a recommendation for the full board. The Legislative, Finance, and Liaison Committee will meet March 1. Engineering Committee (Vice Chairperson Balderson, Chair): No report. Water Conservation Committee (Board Member Phelan, Chair): No report. Legislative, Finance and Legal Committee (Vacant, Chair): No report. Instream Flow Committee (Chairperson Janett, Chair): No report. Water Supply Convnittee (Board Member Gessler): No report. Other Business None Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:33 p.m. Submitted by Robin Pierce, Utilities Administrative Services Supervisor Fort Collins Utilities Approved by the Board on lT)ckc’2—/i / 7 , 2011 Signed: tRg&i3’ijc n_Y Board Secretary Date Water Board Minutes 7 February 17, 2011