Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 09/15/2011Water Board Minutes September 15, 2011 1 Fort Collins Utilities Water Board Minutes Thursday, September 15, 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, Vice Chairperson Steve Balderson, Board Members Brett Bovee, Rebecca Goldbach, Lori Brunswig, Steve Malers, Duncan Eccleston, Johannes Gessler, Brian Brown, and Phil Phelan Board Absent Board Member Reagan Waskom Staff Present Brian Janonis, Kevin Gertig, Jon Haukaas, Phil Ladd, Rita DeCourcey, Bill Switzer, Ken Sampley, Susan Strong, Jesse Schlam, Dennis Bode, Susan Smolnik, Ellen Switzer, Robin Pierce, Marsha Hilmes-Robinson, Carrie Daggett, and Harriet Davis Guests Ed Zdenek (ZTI Construction Group, Inc.), Gary Wockner, Bob Gowing, and Amy Volckens Meeting Convened Chairperson Janett called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. Public Comment Ed Zdenek, who owns property on North College Avenue, was present to listen to the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations presentation. Mr. Zdenek stated he has completed his own site specific elevation studies on the area since he is a property owner. Board discussion: Are you attending the Water Board meeting for or against the change in regulations? Mr. Zdenek stated his interest is two-fold. He is attending the meeting because he is a property owner and is concerned about what happens to the property. He is also interested in the quality of the regulations. Is your analysis different from the City’s analysis for the area? Mr. Zdenek stated that his analysis is different from the City’s. Where is your property located? It is located near the Lake Canal area north of the Poudre River, near the entrance to Legacy Park. Are you measuring how the river came up onto the bank? Mr. Zdenek stated he measured the height of the water on both sides of the weir as it relates to the road. Water Board Minutes September 15, 2011 2 Approval of August 18, 2011 Minutes Board Member Goldbach moved to approve the minutes from the August 18, 2011 meeting. Board Member Gessler seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously. Board Member Brunswig abstained from the vote due to her absence on August 18, 2011. 2012 Water/Wastewater Budget Exceptions and Rate and PIF Recommendations; 2012 Stormwater Budget Exceptions and Rate and PIF Recommendations (Attachments available upon request). Chairperson Janett introduced this item and reminded the current members that the previous Water Board recommended a 3 percent rate increase for 2011-2012. They also recommended small incremental rate increases more often rather than large rate increases less often. The Water Board made this recommendation to Council; however, they did not approve a 3 percent rate increase for 2012. Water Fund Financial Analyst Rita DeCourcey presented information on this item and stated the budget exceptions include a 6 percent increase for the water fund. This is needed to stabilize the water fund revenue. This is projected to result in $1.5 million additional operating revenue in 2012, depending on demand. Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) transfers will have to be increased by approximately $88,000 to cover the 2012 rate increase. Additional funds are needed to accelerate the normal upgrade process for meter replacements to meet the timeline of the Automated Metering Infrastructure (AMI) project. Wastewater Fund There are no exceptions to the wastewater fund. There is an 8 percent water fund rate increase included in the original 2011-2012 biennial budget for the wastewater fund. The 6 percent rate increase for 2012 is needed to stabilize the water fund revenue, fund long term capital programs, meet debt service requirements, maintain adequate reserves, and meet financial reserve policies. Water Fund Revenue Total Revenue has dropped almost 23 percent from 2006 to 2010. Since the Operating Revenue has increased from 70.7 percent in 2006 to 88.5 percent in 2010, it has to cover a greater percentage of the costs. Demand has dropped 15 percent from 172 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) to 146 gpcd. Water Fund Expense Analysis 2006-2010 There was a 10 percent overall increase in operating and interest expense and a 16 percent increase in operating program expenses, including an increase in Commodity Costs (chemical costs increased 34 percent even though less water was treated). Payments and Transfers increased 44 percent, including increased funding for the General Employees Retirement Plan (GERP) and asset management. Interest Expense decreased 50 percent because 2002 bonds were paid off and 1998 bonds were refinanced at lower interest rates. Operating expense for the CS&A fund increased 28 percent from 2006 to 2010, including 11 percent for Asset Management. Ms. DeCourcey noted most of the costs for Asset Management are one-time costs. Water Fund Fixed and Variable Expense 87 percent of the costs are fixed considering PILOTs. If PILOTs are removed, approximately 94 percent of the costs are fixed. Demand decreased 15 percent and the total variable expense Water Board Minutes September 15, 2011 3 increased 11 percent. This includes increased electrical and chemical costs such as alum and lime. Ms. DeCourcey noted that alum and lime are utilized the most in the treatment facility. Water Fund Net Income The net income has dropped approximately $4.8 million from 2006 to 2010. Water Fund Reserves As Is Rate Increases and Capital per 2011 – 2012 Budget and Revised Capital If Utilities looks at capital reserves without the rate increase and the revised capital budget, the capital budget will be increased by approximately $33 million from 2012 to 2020 above the original 2011-2012 budget. If Utilities looks at limiting the capital expense approximately $5 million from 2012 to 2014, this will assist the reserve calculations. Utilities will look at prioritizing capital projects to see what needs to be completed in the future. The water fund 6 percent rate increase is an across the board increase and does not vary by customer class. A typical residential customer’s bill will increase $1.47 for winter use (5,000 gallons) and $3.93 for summer use (21,000 gallons). Water Rate Comparison Ms. DeCourcey showed a graph comparing the water rates for the City of Fort Collins with other cities in the Front Range. This water rate comparison is for average residential usage in January and July. Board discussion: A board member asked for clarification on the administrative costs and why they increased? The biggest component is the transfer to the CS&A fund and this included the new asset management program. Water Engineering and Field Services Operations Manager Jon Haukaas stated most of the costs are up-front fees associated with the consultants as a part of setting up the program. A board member questioned the item concerning over charging from the Water Fund Expense Analysis. Ms. DeCourcey stated the internal IT department overcharged Utilities for an internal service charge. Utilities will receive a reimbursement from this overcharging. Will customer billing become less costly? Financial Analyst Phil Ladd stated Utilities does not expect an increase and no upgrades are planned to the billing system. Some other services will be brought in house and this may offset the costs. Are more people having trouble paying their water bill? Mr. Ladd stated the collection rate has stayed steady. The City of Fort Collins has a lien ordinance which states that if a tenant moves out of the property without paying their water bill, the bill is collected from the property owner when the property changes hands. A board member noted reserves decline over time. At what level does Utilities want the reserves and why at that particular level? Ms. DeCourcey stated Utilities would like to cover their capital appropriations including prior year and new appropriations, a 5 percent operating reserve, a principal and interest reserve, a debt service reserve, and an Art in Public Places reserve. Are the costs for the Halligan project included in the projections? Yes, those costs are included in prior year capital projects. Water Board Minutes September 15, 2011 4 A board member suggested showing the rate comparison over time rather than showing year to year increases. Chairperson Janett stated when the Legislative, Finance, and Liaison (LFL) Committee reviewed the financial information at their September meeting, they noted that even though demand is going down, fixed costs are increasing. Water Resources Manager Dennis Bode reiterated this point by stating the water use for August was less than predicted. Ms. DeCourcey stated this may be due to the fact that industry is learning how to use less water in their processes and consumers are more educated on water usage. Chairperson Janett stated this is a dilemma because it sends a mixed message to consumers that they should save water even though their rates are increasing. Is the 15 percent decrease in demand per person? Yes. Chairperson Janett requested the information presented to the LFL Committee concerning the concept of less demand and increased costs be sent to the entire board. Stormwater Fund 2012 Budget Exceptions Mr. Ladd presented information on this item and stated there are three budget exception requests for the Stormwater Fund: • Land Acquisition – Remove structures from Poudre River Floodway • Land Acquisition – Master Plan Flood Mitigation project property • Household Hazardous Waste Community Event Increase (The event held in 2011 exceeded expectations so additional funding is needed for 2012.) Board discussion: Do the expenses for the hazardous waste event include paying for the waste to be hauled away? Yes, the items are removed by professionals who handle household hazardous waste. What is the largest volume of items collected? Environmental Regulatory Specialist Susan Strong stated paint is the most collected item. A pilot project is being implemented to use collected paint for a graffiti abatement program. How much is going to the landfill versus what is going down the drain? Ms. Strong stated she is unsure how much is collected versus what is sitting in garages and such. Water Resources and Treatment Operations Manager Kevin Gertig stated there will also be a prescription drug collection event sponsored by Police Services. This event will be held in October 2011. A board member stated he felt the numbers are overwhelming. He feels that it is important to portray the information to the public and feels staff should remind the public of the costs associated with projects such as the renovation of the Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility (MWRF). It is also important to consider population density when presenting the numbers, such as comparing Denver to the City of Fort Collins. Stormwater Rate Comparison Mr. Ladd presented a graph showing stormwater rates for the City of Fort Collins compared with other cities along the Front Range. Utilities does not anticipate an increase in fees. Water Board Minutes September 15, 2011 5 Will there be any reduction in fees? Yes, there is the potential for reduced fees because debt will be paid off in 2017. How long has the rate been at $14.26? It has been at this current rate since 2005. Stormwater and Floodplain Program Manager Ken Sampley stated since these fees have funded capital improvement projects, it is not a straight comparison when looking at other cities in the graph. A board member expressed concerns that Utilities promised the rates would be reduced and they haven’t been reduced as of yet. Plant Investment Fees (PIF) (Developer Fees) Utility Rate Analyst Bill Switzer presented information on this item and stated City Code requires Utilities to review the fees annually and submit for Council approval at least every second year. Plant Investment Fees are an additional source of revenue and help offset rate increases. The fees presented are the maximum allowable. A consulting company was hired in 2005 to set up a new PIF model. In March 2011, the City Manager asked Utilities to review the fees. • Water PIFs increased 4.7 percent for all commercial customer classes. • Wastewater PIFs decrease 3 percent for all customer classes. • Stormwater PIFs increased slightly by 1.2 percent. Increased infrastructure was offset by an increased service area. Board discussion: Chairperson Janett stated because of the reduction in water usage, there is excess capacity in both the water treatment and wastewater treatment plants. The concept of sharing capacity with the special districts has been discussed. What would happen with the PIFs at that point? Mr. Switzer stated this would be beneficial in relationship with Capital Investment Fees. Chairperson Janett stated this is another incentive to encourage cooperation with neighboring districts. Additional Fee Changes – Construction Water Mr. Haukaas stated there are additional fee changes including construction water fees and miscellaneous service charges. Construction water fees are applied to new construction projects for water that is not metered. The contractor pays 1.5 months of their base charge. Since there has been a slow down in the building industry and some of the projects have taken longer than anticipated, Utilities is losing revenue and metering of actual water usage with these construction projects. Utilities would like to initiate a monthly billing charge. As soon as the property has a certificate of occupancy, the user would receive a meter and would be charged actual usage at that point. If there is a large development, a temporary meter pit may be installed to meter the usage. Utilities can track the usage better with this implemented. Additional Fee Changes – Miscellaneous Service Charges The after-hours water connect fee and the fees for special trips will increase because Utilities desires to recover their actual costs. The after-hours water connect fee of $85.35 includes two hours of personnel time and one hour of vehicle usage time. Water Board Minutes September 15, 2011 6 Board discussion: What does Utilities define as a special trip? A special trip is defined as any service request from a citizen including water turn-ons and turn-offs. This does not include normal projects such as turning on a water meter? No. Why would Utilities make a trip after hours? This is simply because of customer service issues. Will the 6 percent rate increase for 2012 pay for future projects or will there be another rate increase? Utilities is only asking for the board’s recommendation for the 2012 budget. Utilities needs time to determine what other projects are priorities and what kind of rate increase may be needed at a later time. The current rate increase is to stabilize the revenues and balance increasing expenses. A board member suggested it might be beneficial to remove the line item concerning the asset management expenses from the operating expense presentation when the information is presented to Council. This may be helpful in showing that the increase was not as severe because most of the costs associated with asset management were up-front fees. Also, when presenting information on the average bill, it may be beneficial to present the information relative to several years’ worth of data. It may also be beneficial to show what the average consumer will conserve over time. Vote on the motion. It passed unanimously. Vote on the motion. It passed unanimously. Board discussion: A board member asked for more details on the land acquisition items under the 2012 Budget Exception Requests for the Stormwater Fund. Mr. Haukaas stated that when the 2011-2012 budget was submitted, there was not a major capital project identified for 2012. Typically, Utilities does approximately $3 million in capital projects every year. At that time, the only identified stormwater item was for approximately $300,000. If a project is not identified, the funds would be earmarked for later capital projects. Utilities desires to have the budget exception in place for a grant match for acquiring property in the floodplain and floodway areas. Utilities desires to have funds available for buying properties to remove from the floodway in the College Avenue and Vine Drive area. The second budget exception relates to a master plan flood mitigation project property near LaPorte Avenue and Vine Drive east of Taft Hill Road. Is this the direction the City wants to go in philosophically from the City’s Master Plan? This policy has been in place for a number of years. Utilities will revisit the grant application process Board Member Gessler moved that the Water Board recommend City Council adopt the proposed 6 percent across the board water rate increase and the 8 percent across the board wastewater increase for 2012. Board Member Goldbach seconded the motion. Board Member Gessler moved that the Water Board recommend City Council adopt the proposed changes to the 2012 plant investment fees for water, wastewater, and stormwater. Board Member Goldbach seconded the motion. Water Board Minutes September 15, 2011 7 in 2012. The City desires to have the grant match funds available if the opportunity becomes available to purchase the properties. What is the benefit for the city? The primary benefit is public safety; however, there are also environmental and recreational benefits when the properties are converted to open space. Would the Water Board revisit the issue or does the board have one chance to review the information? Utilities Executive Director Brian Janonis stated the negotiations are not held in the public format because of sensitivity with the negotiation process. Floodplain Administrator Marsha Hilmes-Robinson stated there are no capital projects mitigating flood damages on the Poudre River. There are regulations in place to control new development and land acquisition is just another tool for the City to use to remove the risks. With the risk, there are damage potentials that affect the City as a whole such as debris removal and landfill storage issues. Chairperson Janett reminded the board there was less impact during the 1997 Spring Creek flooding because the City bought properties and removed some of the risk. A board member stated that it seems counter productive for the City to remove successful businesses. Mr. Haukaas stated the properties are only purchased when the property owners are willing to sell the property. A board member asked for clarification on the concept of how the properties are sought for purchase? Mr. Haukaas stated Utilities and Real Estate Services staff members handle the negotiations on a one-on-one approach for each property. Vote on the motion. It passed unanimously. * Board Member Eccleston departed at 7:05 p.m. Poudre River Floodplain Regulations (Attachments available upon request). Stormwater and Floodplain Program Manager Ken Sampley presented information on this item and stated this item will also be presented to the Natural Resources Advisory Board. Ms. Hilmes- Robinson was also available to answer questions concerning the regulations. Mr. Sampley presented background information on the Poudre River as a flood threat. Since it is the largest watershed in the city, the flood risk is greater because of rain, snow melt, and rain-on-snow storm events. Purpose of Poudre River Floodplain Regulations Review This is one aspect of the stormwater repurposing effort. It is the City’s duty and responsibility to manage foreseeable risks to protect current and future citizens from the impacts of flooding. Board Member Balderson moved that the Water Board recommend City Council approve the Water and Stormwater Funds’ 2012 proposed exceptions to the 2011-2012 Budget. Board Member Bovee seconded the motion. Water Board Minutes September 15, 2011 8 Problem Statement Summarized Unless mitigated, development in the floodplain can result in adverse flooding impacts. The current regulations do not include requirements that specifically address increased risk to human life and safety, impacts of redirected flood waters, and increased preservation of natural and beneficial functions of the floodplain. The current regulations focus primarily on protecting new structures from flooding damage. Floodplain Regulation Options Mr. Sampley listed the four options for the board to consider. Board discussion: Can you remind us what the board initially recommended? The board recommended staff look at Option #2 which states, the Poudre River floodplain regulations be revised to not allow any new structures in the 100-year floodplain. This recommendation was made in 2010. Did the Adverse Impact Review (AIR) involve the change in velocity? The AIR involved no change in velocity or erosion. Mr. Sampley stated this item was presented at the February 22, 2011 Council Work Session. Council expressed interest in further investigation of the AIR approach with an expanded Working Committee. The Working Committee consisted of property and business owners, engineers, developers, environmental stewards, and staff. Staff developed the potential AIR Review Criteria and Review Process with input from the Working Committee. Several of the committee members questioned the Problem Statement. A technical subcommittee was established as a result of this. This subcommittee looked at a floodway surcharge analysis as well as life safety, damage reduction, and property rights evaluation criteria. The subcommittee utilized City staff to provide input, feedback, and guidance on the floodplain regulations and the AIR from a multi-disciplinary perspective. Utilities also evaluated this based on the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) philosophy which includes economic, social, and environmental considerations. Mr. Sampley explained the model for the Floodway Surcharge Analysis. The goal of this model is to identify flooding impacts that allowable developments will have on life safety and determine if these impacts are of the magnitude and significance to support migrating to an AIR approach for floodplain management. The model shows a maximum 6 inch floodway rise; however, not all the cross sections are at 6 inches. Board discussion: What are the assumptions with the model? Are you assuming that every piece of land in the flood fringe is developed and filled in? To develop the original floodway limits, the water surface elevation is raised six inches. However, in this model, the surcharges from a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) model were plugged into the cross section. Is a portion of the flood fringe filled? The purpose of the surcharge model was to determine impacts of the water surface elevation increases. This will make the floodway expand wider. This model assumes no changes to the floodplain from stormwater mediation projects? There is no capital projects proposed in this region. When the floodplain widens, there is an opportunity to impact other properties that are not currently in the floodplain. Water Board Minutes September 15, 2011 9 A board member asked for clarification on the cross section with the 3.8 inch rise versus the 5.5 inch rise. Ms. Hilmes-Robinson stated the model can be changed. The maximum is a six inch rise, but each time the model is changed, the numbers will vary some. The current regulations allow a 6 inch rise. What is allowable for the developer? A developer does not have to conduct an analysis for building outside the floodplain or the floodway. Ms. Hilmes-Robinson stated the purpose of the model is to predetermine what could happen with developments. Mr. Sampley stated this is a very preliminary look. A board member asked for clarification on topology changes concerning the rise. The maximum is six inches. A board member asked for clarification on whether fill was used on the property where the Northside Aztlan Community Center was constructed. Ms. Hilmes-Robinson stated this structure was not constructed on fill. A board member asked for clarification if a new development with a six inch rise caused an eleven inch rise at a different point along the floodway. Mr. Sampley stated that because of the topology, the development would not cause a six inch rise. If someone downstream builds a development, do they not have to cause a six inch rise? If a developer builds outside the floodway, they do not have to quantify the impact. A board member asked for clarification on what would happen if new developments were constructed in the floodway. Ms. Holmes-Robinson drew a diagram explaining what would happen if new developments were constructed in the referenced area. Mr. Sampley gave a summary of the floodway surcharge analysis: • Area added to the 100 year floodplain: Total = 8.88 acres Link-N-Greens only = 7.08 acres • Number of structures not currently in the 100 year floodplain that would be subject to the expanded (wider and deeper) 100-year floodplain = 5 • Number of structures currently in the 100-year floodplain that would experience an increase in water surface elevation = 122 (up to six inches) Board discussion: Does that increase flood insurance? No, because most of the 122 buildings are older structures. Future developments would need to look at elevating the structures to remove them from the floodplain. A board member expressed concern about the older buildings and feels these structures are just as important as newer structures. Mr. Holmes-Robinson stated that the statement concerning the older buildings came from the working committee and property owners. There are some residential structures; however, most of the structures are commercial. A board member asked for clarification on velocity in the area. Ms. Holmes-Robinson explained the Product Corridor Equation (depth times velocity greater than or equal to 6). Water Board Minutes September 15, 2011 10 The current regulations allow 18 inches of water? No, that is the existing condition. Currently, the water overtops College Avenue and Vine Drive without any further developments. Are you assuming the current rainfall criteria? The Poudre River does not use rainfall criteria in the mapping. Mr. Sampley gave a summary of the life safety, damage reduction, and property rights evaluation criteria. This was a separate process in addition to the technical analysis. The goal is to compare the existing regulations and proposed AIR review process to evaluating their applicability for evaluating life safety and property damage. Board discussion: A board member asked for clarification concerning if someone wants to develop in the area, whether they have to conduct an analysis of the floodplain? No, they are not required to do an analysis if they are in the flood fringe. Mr. Haukaas stated by identifying the floodway and flood fringe, the analysis has already been conducted. Mr. Sampley gave a summary of the results. The matrix shows the current regulations either did not consider, or only minimally considered the following criteria: • Risk to workers, customers, delivery people, etc. during a 100-year flood event; • Safe access for emergency personnel during an event; • Emergency warning and evacuation plans; • Blockage of existing bridge, culvert, and stream improvements; and • Notification to potentially impacted property owners The matrix shows that the current regulations do consider, to a significant degree, the following criteria: • Flood damage resistant materials • Structure design for new development in the floodplain • Freeboard Mr. Sampley gave a summary of the recommendations from the working committee. Staff considered the possibility of requiring if a new development should conduct a technical engineering analysis to determine the increase in velocity. Since part of the impact has already been indentified, it does not seem appropriate for an additional analysis to be conducted; however, when an analysis is not conducted, the opportunity is lost to provide notice to some of the properties. Staff believes emergency access and emergency evacuation and warning plans should be reviewed to improve the current regulations. During the process, staff also incorporated technical guidance such as ineffective flow and conveyance shadowing. Mr. Sampley gave a summary of the recommendations from the technical advisory committee. Staff met separately with the Poudre Fire Authority (PFA). They are very interested in regards to implementing specific life safety and property damage criteria. They also desire to focus and improve coordination of City departments to better consider life safety and property damage considerations including street layouts and zoning. Water Board Minutes September 15, 2011 11 Mr. Sampley gave a summary of the revisions to the floodplain regulations. In November 2010, the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) approved new floodplain rules and regulations. In January 2014, local governments will be required to adopt floodplain regulations that meet or exceed the new requirements. Board discussion: What is a moderate risk floodplain? In some instances, the 500-year floodplain is mapped; in other instances, shallow flooding is mapped. This is not currently regulated. Some areas will now be required to have a floodplain use permit. Does the map show the 500-year floodplain? No, this map does not show the 500-year floodplain. Mr. Haukaas stated today’s discussion does not have an impact on the 500-year floodplain; however, these issues will be discussed with the board at a later time. Mr. Sampley gave a summary of the conclusions. He stated it does not seem necessary to require an additional engineering analysis to quantify the impacts; however, staff believes that specific life safety and property damage criteria could be combined with current floodplain regulations to enhance regulations. Mr. Sampley gave a summary of staff’s recommendations, which include retaining existing floodplain regulations, but also to consider implementing specific life safety and property damage criteria that would enhance the current regulations. Recommendations also include partnering with PFA to develop criteria concerning emergency access, evacuation, and blockages. Staff also recommends incorporating the criteria into the regulations required by the CWCB. Board discussion: You can fill in the entire flood fringe and it doesn’t raise the water level along the mapped corridor more than 5.9 inches? Yes, that is correct. What defines the floodway limits? The concept behind the floodway is to preserve an area with the highest risks. This is based on the fact that historically, individuals and businesses like to build near creeks and rivers. Chairperson Janett stated she feels protection of the natural floodplain as well as the environmental component (as part of the TBL analysis) has not been taken into consideration. Mr. Sampley stated development cannot happen in the floodway without a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) or Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). If you are filling in the floodplain, you are increasing the speed of the water. The water will be channeled instead of going through a wide area. How can we develop the flood fringe exercise? Mr. Haukaas stated when Utilities started looking at the AIR process, Utilities looked at a worst case scenario. The area is still going to flood, but the overbank has some advantages. The impact of a worst case scenario is pretty minimal. There are commonalities from the AIR process, including increased evacuation, better dry land access, and public safety components. Does the City plan to enhance and maintain the models over time? Are you proactively looking at properties where development could occur with potential safety issues? Is the City going to plan out recommendations if a development does occur? Yes, Utilities will continually try to improve the mapping. The federal grant process will re-map the area to obtain better data. Until Water Board Minutes September 15, 2011 12 the development happens, Utilities does not know specifically on the map where they will be located. Is it possible to address the flood fringe in the same way as a landscape requirement? This analysis does not take the Poudre River buffer into account. Ms. Hilmes-Robinson stated the Poudre River buffer is a natural areas buffer. The area defined as a buffer depends on important features in the area, such as an eagle’s nest or wetlands. In some places the areas are wider than the floodway. In other places they are within the floodway. Is the Link-N-Greens property outside the buffer zone? Yes. Could the buffer be within the floodway? Yes, in certain places. What is the current regulation for the floodway? The current regulation is for a 6-inch floodway. This matches the current Larimer County regulation. Ms. Hilmes-Robinson stated there is a whole series of criteria relating to the structure. Most of the criteria are related to property protection of the structures. This is because floodplain regulations were originally developed for the purpose of reducing payouts from flood insurance. No residential structures or critical facilities are allowed in the 100-year floodplain. Will you change the floodway and floodplain limits when you re-map? Would property be grandfathered in? No, property in the floodplain would not be grandfathered in. It would be subject to the new floodway requirements. How much did the modeling cost? The modeling cost approximately $7,000-8,000. A board member questioned the statement from the problem statement concerning increased preservation of natural and beneficial functions of the floodplain. Mr. Sampley stated this is covered by the requirements in the City Code concerning the natural areas buffer; however, it is not indentified in the floodplain portion of the Code. The board member suggested this should not be part of the problem statement. Chairperson Janett stated that more floodplain regulations will be presented to the board at later times. The City had a 0.1 rise on the books for eight years, from 2000 to 2008, and chose to relax their standard in 2008. The board may choose the option for a lesser rise in the future. Also, the board is scheduled to hear an item on the state’s modeling for Climate Change. Due to the potential for greater flooding frequency and higher magnitude storms, today’s 100-year flood fringe may not be the same as what it will be 30 years in the future. Mr. Sampley reiterated the staff recommendation which states the existing floodplain regulations be retained, but that additional consideration be given to implementing specific criteria, which are similar to the AIR criteria. This would be a modified approach. Board discussion: A board member stated the recommendation does not consider the environmental aspect in the regulations. Chairperson Janett stated the motion wording can be modified to include a statement for the environmental aspect. Water Board Minutes September 15, 2011 13 What is wrong with cross referencing the flood regulations with some of the environmental regulations in the City Code? Perhaps a gap analysis can be done concerning this. Mr. Sampley requested Deputy City Attorney Carrie Daggett respond to this question. Ms. Daggett stated the Land Use Code requirements contain information that applies to development activities. The Land Use Code contains a definition of development; however, there is a broader definition of development in Chapter 10 of the City Code. In relating to floodplain management and effects on flood flows, there legally would be room to have requirements in Chapter 10. She stressed it is important to think about the relationship in terms of the floodplain provisions. Ms. Hilmes- Robinson stated the code language is not void of any code that talks about velocity and erosion issues. The Land Use Code and Chapter 10 include provisions concerning this. Board Member Brunswig requested a friendly amendment to staff’s recommended motion. The motion did not carry. Discussion on the motion: Chairperson Janett asked for clarification on what Board Member Brunswig means by “not be retained.” Board Member Brunswig stated that she wants the environmental aspect to be considered since the other aspects are being considered. Board Member Goldbach requested a friendly amendment to the motion. She suggested building the motion around the fact that the AIR might not be worth the expense. The motion was not seconded. The motion does not carry. Mr. Sampley stated the AIR approach as originally proposed included all of the considerations identified in Attachments 5 and 6 to the Poudre River Floodplain Regulations AIS as well as the determination of impacts to base flood elevations, velocities, and erosion potential. However, based on the results from the Floodway Surcharge Analysis, a comprehensive AIR review process that requires a detailed engineering analysis of changes in flood elevations and velocities and their impact on adjacent properties is not appropriate for all development situations in the Poudre River floodplain. Staff believes that incorporating specific life safety and property damage reduction criteria in combination with the existing floodplain regulations will address the key common considerations associated with public safety. Board Member Brown requested a friendly amendment to staff’s recommended motion. He liked the motion language, but would like to modify it slightly to include the environmental consideration. He would like the floodplain to function in its natural capacity. Amended Motion: Board Member Brown move the Water Board recommend the existing floodplain regulations be retained, but that additional consideration to implementing specific life safety and property damage criteria and increased preservation of natural and beneficial functions of the floodplain that would enhance and support the current regulations be incorporated with the process to adopt the new Floodplain Rules and Regulations for the State of Colorado as approved by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB). Board Member Gessler seconded the motion. Amended Motion: Board Member Brunswig moved that the Water Board recommend that the existing floodplain regulations not be retained until Council considers environmental aspects of the Triple Bottom Line analysis of the Poudre River regulations and include protection of the natural processes of the floodplain. Water Board Minutes September 15, 2011 14 Board discussion: A board member feels it would be valuable to hear comments from members of the Natural Resources Advisory Board after the item is presented to them. Ms. Hilmes-Robinson asked the board if there are specific criteria they are looking at that might help guide staff in the right direction. A board member stated the new AIR process seemed to focus on processes to protect structures. He is interested in the methods available to address the beneficial aspects of the floodway for presentation to the board. Chairperson Janett stated the working committee was predominantly composed of business developers and real estate individuals. She feels there is plenty of expertise available on the subject for future discussion. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously. Stormwater Quality Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit Annual Review (Attachments available upon request). Environmental Regulatory Specialist Susan Strong presented information on this item. The information will also be presented to the Natural Resources Advisory Board. Presentation to the board is required by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) under the Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS) and authorizes discharge into waters of the State. She presented information on six Minimum Control Measures (MCM), including Public Education and Outreach. The goal is to reach 50 businesses per year in an outreach program that targets businesses with previous reports of spills to the stormwater discharge system. Staff developed materials and a process to notify businesses that will host outside events. Ms. Strong also presented information on illicit discharge detection and elimination and stated staff has collaborated with the Colorado Division of Fire Safety and Water Quality Control Division on discharges from fire suppression and backflow prevention systems. Staff is now on call to handle these types of situations and there is a storage building available to store hazardous waste until it can be disposed of properly. Information was also presented on Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control and Post-Construction Stormwater Management. Ms. Strong presented information on upcoming regulatory changes, including an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rulemaking to strengthen the stormwater program (post construction rule). This also includes other measures that could affect the program. The EPA wants more infiltration on site; however, this is not necessarily possible in Colorado. Other changes possible include the possibility that the City’s fleet yard could be permitted with an industrial stormwater permit. The City could also be required to do retrofits on stormwater quality features to allow for more infiltration. This will also affect the industrial permits for the City’s wastewater plants, Transfort, as well as the Fort Collins/Loveland Airport. Board discussion: Can you characterize the problems? Staff responded to approximately 67 calls during 2010. A lot of the calls are very small spills that can be cleaned up by the responsible party. Are there fines issued for continued patterns of negligence? There is an Enforcement Response Plan that is initiated for repeat violators. A verbal warning is issued first. There was one criminal conviction in 2010. Mr. Haukaas stated the majority of the verbal calls are mostly educational opportunities to inform citizens. How much ojihe City’s resources are devoted to federal regulation compliance? Ms. Strong stated the Regulatory and Governmental Affairs (RGA) department covers both federal and local regulations. There are specialists within the department that handle stormwater regulations, air regulations, hazardous waste, drinking water, etc. Committee Reports No committee reports were given. Staff Reports Monthly Water Resources Report Water Resources Manager Dennis Bode provided this report for the agenda packet. Other Business None Future Agenda Items None Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Submitted by Harriet Davis, Administrative Assistant, Fort Collins Utilities ApprovedbytheBoardon OdTh3tr Z-O ,2011 Signed: L Board Secretary Date Water Board Minutes 15 September 15, 2011