Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 06/19/2014Water Board Minutes June 19, 2014 1 Fort Collins Utilities Water Board Minutes Thursday, June 19, 2014 Water Board Chairperson City Council Liaison Steve Malers, 484-1954 Wade Troxell, 219-8940 Water Board Vice Chairperson Staff Liaison Becky Hill, 402-1713 Carol Webb, 221-6231 Roll Call Board Present Chairperson Steve Malers, Vice Chairperson Becky Hill, Board Members Andrew McKinley, Duncan Eccleston, Phyllis Ortman, Brian Brown, Michael Brown, Lori Brunswig, and Brett Bovee. Board Absent Board Member Heidi Huber-Stearns Staff Present Donnie Dustin, Lance Smith, Jenny Lopez Filkins, Lindsay Kuntz, Patrick Rowe, Carol Webb, Lois Rellergert, Jason Graham, Link Mueller, Lisa Rosintoski, Ron Russell, Robin Pierce, Harriet Davis, Katherine Martinez Guests None Meeting Convened Chairperson Malers called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. Public Comment None Approval of April 17, 2014 Minutes Board Member Brown moved to approve the minutes of the April 17, 2014, meeting. Board Member Hill seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously. *Board Members Brunswig and Bovee abstained due to their absence at the April meeting. Work Session Review Chairperson Malers provided a review of the topics discussed at the June 5 Work Session:  A PowerPoint on the Halligan-Seaman reservoirs was distributed, and due to the heavy agenda, Water Resources Engineer Adam Jokerst will come back at a later date or at the next work session to follow up. Chairperson Malers asked board members to review the materials and notify him of any questions.  A Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) update was presented, and a meeting with Boards & Commissions was missed by Board Members Hill and Malers due to a glitch in the email notification system. Interim Water Resources & Treatment Operations Manager Carol Water Board Minutes June 19, 2014 2 Webb stated an offers spreadsheet list will be distributed to the board, which they will discuss at the August meeting, along with staff’s priorities.  A board member suggested preparing for the next meeting by having each board member prioritize the spreadsheet list with up to 20 items, including essential items. He can then consolidate the choices into one spreadsheet to efficiently determine board recommendations to share with City Council. Other board members shared various ideas.  Information on the Woodward building project was presented. There was an issue in which water flooded the bike path. There was a lot of silt and cobble in two areas due to the river level this year.  Natural Areas Director John Stokes presented information on the Natural Areas Master Plan draft, which was presented at a public event tonight. Chairperson Malers suggested that board members review the draft on the City’s website and provide feedback through the website.  Chairperson Malers provided feedback about the cancelled May meeting and overloaded work session agenda and the need to balance the board schedule, which is challenging due to the activity level at this time, which includes Kevin Gertig being selected Utilities Executive Director last week. Staff Reports Monthly Water Resources Report Water Resources Manager Donnie Dustin provided the information for the agenda packet. He reported snowpack is approaching meltout, with snow left mostly at the upper elevations only. Snowpack at Joe Wright and Deadman Hill SNOTEL sites have gone to zero. Runoff peaked at 6,030 cubic feet per second (cfs), and the average that day was 5,500 cfs, which is three times the normal peak. Today it was running at about 2,200 csf, which is the normal peak, and is at half that here in town due to diversions taking water. Now that temperatures are heating up, demands have increased. We are able to take diversions off the Poudre River, and it is going well, averaging 8.5 million gallons per day (MGD); this time last year there were no diversions for a month because of sediment build-up from 2012 that washed out during last year’s runoff. The floods in September washed away any build-up for this year’s runoff. Mr. Dustin praised the water treatment plant employees for dealing with some TOCs (Total Organic Carbon) and high turbidity during the runoff. Demands are now starting to increase. Demand was 93% of average in May, and 94% projected so far in June. The Colorado-Big Thompson (CBT) system is doing well. Various people have commented to Mr. Dustin that the water level at Horsetooth Reservoir is high. A spill is expected on the western slope. If a spill occurs in Lake Granby, Windy Gap water will be lost since it rides on top of the CBT water. If all the Windy Gap water spills, it affects the Reuse Plan between the City and Platte River Power Authority (PRPA); but the situation is much better than two years ago when there was much less CBT water. Mr. Dustin stated he will keep the board updated; otherwise it’s been a good year for water supplies. Highlights from the discussion:  A board member inquired about the spike in April for demand of treated water. Mr. Dustin stated it was probably a dry hot spot that got people starting to water their lawns. There was a dry week or two in late April/early May, followed by rain, close to the Mother’s Day snowfall.  A board member inquired about Chimney Hollow Reservoir being built near Carter Lake, which means Windy Gap water could be saved in that reservoir if it isn’t full. Mr. Dustin agreed. Ms. Webb stated the City is using the pre-sedimentation basin off the Pleasant Water Board Minutes June 19, 2014 3 Valley pipeline that the board approved to address issues from runoff associated with the fire, treating 4 or so millions of gallons per day (mgd) and reducing turbidity by about 20 ntu (nephelometric turbidity unit), it’s about 26 ntu going in and about 6 ntu going out, which makes the water much easier to treat, when the board approved that appropriation and the associated rate increase; it’s been effective.  An additional staff member for Mr. Dustin’s group will start August 1 and will attend a board meeting.  A board member inquired about Kevin Gertig’s hiring and its effect. Ms. Webb stated that no positions are expected to be changed. There is a priority position to fill on the Light & Power side, and posting of the Water Resources & Treatment Operations manager position will occur in late summer, with Ms. Webb acting as Staff Liaison to the board until then. Commercial Water Allotments (Attachments available upon request.) Strategic Financial Planning Manager Lance Smith distributed the Agenda Item Summary, which explains the Excess Water Use Surcharge (known as the “conservation rate” by some people) and several proposed options to address the customer inequity beginning in the 2015 calendar year. One-third of all commercial water customers are subjected to an annual allotment of water and two-thirds are not. The intent is to make the City Council aware of the current situation and propose some options forward if City Council decides to address the inequity. Commercial customers with an allotment who exceed their annual allotment, pay a surcharge of $3.06 per thousand gallons, which is applied to all water consumption for the remainder of the calendar year. It effectively more than doubles their charges for water, as an incentive to conserve water or provide additional raw water to meet their demand. The surcharge was added to the City Code in 1984, and those who didn’t require a water service permit after March 1, 1984 were grandfathered in. In 2012, during the fires and drought, the inequity came to Mr. Smith’s attention and he reviewed three years’ worth of data. Commercial customer totaled 2,641 in 2013. Of those, 35% have an allotment and 65% of customers do not. In 2013 total commercial demand was 1.8 billion gallons of water of which 80 MG was subject to the Excess Water Use Surcharge. If the standard allotment were applied to customers who don’t currently have it, an additional 90 million gallons would have been subjected to the surcharge. The 80 million gallons in excess (for customers with allotment) generated $245,000 in surcharge fees, which went into water reserve fund. Another 90 million gallons were in excess for customers without the allotment. This means the City collected half the money it could have, but the issue is inequity rather than revenue. In 2013 commercial customers who paid the surcharge paid about $1,300 in surcharges. Options to present to Council: (1) Apply Standard Allotment to All Customers, which is the easiest administrative solution, but the least palatable, and would require significant outreach to customers. (2) 110% of Customer’s 3-Year Peak Demand (2011-13), which is more difficult to administer. It applies a customer-specific allotment based on the last three years: choose the highest year, add 10% for growth, by doing that, there would be no cost to the customer in 2015, unless their growth is more than 10%. Water Board Minutes June 19, 2014 4 (3) The Greater of Option 1 and 2: take the greater of the standard allotment, which would not reduce allotment, and ensures all commercial customers have an allotment as least as large as the standard allotment. (4) Phase In Standard Allotment: As new businesses come in, they would be given the standard allotment, but this does not eliminate the inequity. (5) Remove Annual Allotment for All Commercial Customers: elimination of the allotment would also eliminates the opportunity for conservation, which was the original intent. (6) Maintain Status Quo, which doesn’t address the inequity. Mr. Smith stated that he believes three of the options are viable, and staff recommendation is for Option 3, because it won’t cost commercial customers money in 2015 and allows the City to establish an allotment for all commercial customers. He stated he is taking this item to Council in the August 26 Work Session, then the Council would take action later in the year. Any allotment changes must be implemented on Jan. 1, 2015 because the allotment is given annually. No action is required of the board now, but Mr. Smith can include any board comments on the AIS.  A board member inquired about the number of customers without an allotment who would have exceeded it if it were applied. Mr. Smith clarified that 195 commercial customers with allotments in 2013 paid the excess surcharge, and 168 plus 16 commercial customers without an allotment were in excess. Mr. Smith stated that typically if they exceed, they exceed it by a lot. It’s an annual allotment. If at any time before December 31 a customer has additional water rights, their allotment is increased for the year. Customers on the cusp, such as breweries with 10% to 30% growth per year, may choose to wait until October to see if they need additional water rights.  A board member inquired whether it’s possible to simply eliminate the allotment and modify the tiered rates as necessary, which would achieve an equitable result.  A board member inquired about residential lawn water requirements, and also how do you compare the water use of a brewery with that of a car wash? Mr. Smith stated a tiered rate would make more sense than a flat rate.  A board member inquired what happens to new customers under Option 3. Mr. Smith stated they are given a standard allotment, and can choose to provide additional water rights.  A board member inquired about whether data exists that backs up the excess surcharge was first promoted to encourage conservation. In 2013, those with an allotment exceeded their allotments, therefore the excess surcharge alone is not driving conservation. Mr. Smith stated there were other reasons for implementing the excess surcharge other than conservation, including determining the capacity of the water treatment plant.  A board member commented that Option 3 continues the inequity and Option 1 would eliminate it.  A board member recommended Option 1, and asked about the possibility of phasing in the surcharge in 2016 or 2017, which would create equality and still bring in revenue. The idea is to start with a smaller surcharge and phase it in over three years.  A board member stated it would be easy to explain a new structure to customers if it’s fair, such as Option 1.  A board member discussed the cost of service to make it equitable, versus having customers pay for a chunk of the water treatment plant they’re not using, and also questioned the consequences of commercial customers exceeding their allotment.  Mr. Dustin stated the issue is about business equity, trying to fix the inequity, not about trying to increase revenue. Water Board Minutes June 19, 2014 5  Mr. Smith indicated his concern about Halligan Reservoir and paying for storage, paying for more raw water and not having any storage, or developing storage and exercising all the raw water rights we have today. He stated the plan was always to have cash-in-lieu-of water rights. These customers are using more water rights than they’ve paid for, and this is a way to receive payment for it.  A board member summarized businesses as belonging to one of two categories: those that don’t experience growth (such as restaurants that have dishes to wash), and those that do (such as breweries), and the City must adjust for that due to concerns about the water supply. Do you reevaluate allotments every year?  Mr. Smith stated he will add an Option 7 about phasing in a surcharge over three years, resulting in equity.  A board member inquired if everything was included in the cost of service study, such as future development of growth industries, and to say why we’re doing it; it’s an opportunity to start from scratch. Mr. Smith stated it does include raw water costs.  A board member stated that doubling the average get close to equity, and likes the idea of starting from scratch, because there are some customers who have been getting a free ride.  A board member suggested deleting Option 2 because it’s not fair to customers.  A board member expressed support for developing allotments from scratch, or discontinuing the whole program, if equity is the goal.  A board member suggested adjusting the excess surcharge so that customers don’t receive a 20% increase; new customer would receive a 5% surcharge, for example.  Mr. Smith stated he will present the options to Council at the Aug. 26 Work Session, and return to a future board meeting. An ordinance or resolution would be required for an eventual code change. No motion was made on this agenda item. Nunn Telephone Company Fiber-Optic Easement at Meadow Springs Ranch (Attachments available upon request.) Technical Services Supervisor Ron Russell (Utilities Water Reclamation & Biosolids Division) presented information, along with Real Estate Specialist Patrick Rowe, and Water Reclamation & Biosolids Manager Jason Graham. Meadow Springs Ranch (MSR), owned by the City and managed by the Water Reclamation and Biosolids Division, contains 26,600 acres, about 40 square miles, extending from the Buckeye exit of I-25 at Rawhide Power Plant to about a mile from the Wyoming border. The proposed easement is in lower right hand corner of map. Mr. Russell stated the easement is needed for NTC to make a connection to an AT&T fiber-optic regeneration hut located on MSR, to continue receiving service from the hut. He described the installation process; surface disturbance (vegetation) is not at a high level. Previous easement work by NTC in fall 2013 did not cause long-term damage. Discussion Highlights  A board member inquired if there is a better time (season) than others to do the easement work. Mr. Russell stated seeding probably won’t be required due to the disturbed area’s potential to recover on its own; therefore timing won’t make a difference. Mr. Russell stated if seeding were required, he would work with Natural Areas to determine the best seed mix and other such details. Water Board Minutes June 19, 2014 6  A board member expressed concerns about invasive plants such as Dalmatian toadflax thriving in disturbed areas. Mr. Russell stated a requirement for Nunn Telephone Company to control weeds will be added to the conditions for granting the easement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Utilities staff has reviewed the easement proposal from NTC and found the easement will have minimal environmental disturbance or impact on Utilities activities at Meadow Springs Ranch. Discussion on the motion: There was no discussion on the motion. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously. License to Enter and Perform Work to the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) at the Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility (MWRF) (Attachments available upon request.) Special Projects Manager Link Mueller gave a presentation on the planned bridge project on Mulberry Street that is expected to begin in late summer or early fall 2014. The project involves replacing the existing State Highway 14 / Mulberry Street Bridge over the Cache La Poudre River, and requires reconstruction of the eastern entrance to the Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility. Full access to the west entrance will be available while the work is done. CDOT needs to obtain a License to Enter from the City for permission to enter the City’s property to perform the work associated with the entrance reconstruction. CDOT will perform grading, utility relocation, and paving, and will reimburse Utilities for the City contractors who are doing everything else. Regarding the schedule, CDOT started advertising the project today, and work will begin in August. Work on the east side of the road is scheduled to be finished at the end of 2014. Highlights from the discussion:  A board member inquired whether the City has its own inspectors. Mr. Mueller stated he acts as the resident engineer. For project elements that are not his expertise such as grading and paving, the Engineering department will assist Utilities with inspections.  A board member inquired about the west entrance access. Mr. Mueller explained there is a break in the median just east of the railroad tracks; the west entrance is necessary because it would be the only safe entrance in the event of a flood.  A board member inquired how Mulberry Street will look after the project is complete. It will have four lanes, bike lanes, pedestrian exits on both sides, and vegetation easements.  A board member inquired about whether there would be any issues about river high flows impacting the project. Mr. Mueller stated that floodplain elevations were reviewed and would not have any effect on the outcome.  A board member inquired whether citizens who fish or put a canoe in at that spot will still be able to do so. Mr. Mueller stated it would probably be harder to access, but there will be other opportunities for people to recreate. Board Member Brian Brown moved for City Council to consider approval of an Ordinance authorizing conveyance of a permanent utility easement to Nunn Telephone Company on the City property Meadow Springs Ranch, with additional of adding noxious weeds in the agreement. Board Member Brunswig seconded the motion. Board Member Brian Brown moved that the Water Board recommend that the City Council consider authorization of a License to Enter and Perform Work to the Colorado Department of Transportation, consistent with staff's recommendation. Board Member Eccleston seconded the motion. Water Board Minutes June 19, 2014 7 Discussion on the motion: There was no discussion on the motion. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously. Annual Drinking Water Quality Policy and Consumer Confidence Reports (CCR) (Attachments available upon request) Highlights from the discussion:  Chairperson Malers asked the board to review the reports before the next meeting.  Environmental Regulatory Specialist Lois Rellergert stated she had no formal presentation and attended the meeting simply to answer questions on the two reports, The Water Conservation Annual Report 2013, which is required to provide to City Council as an update on the provisions of the Water Conservation Plan, water use, accomplishments and partnerships; and the 2013 Fort Collins Utilities’ Drinking Water Quality Policy Report, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires the City to make available to customers, to show compliance with drinking water quality policy (per the Safe Drinking Water Act).  A board member inquired about the category of “other” complaints on page 7 of the policy report. Ms. Webb stated there were various topics raised by citizens, such as cloudy water. The document highlights activities in the water shed and water quality, and is therefore a good historical document. She stated the policy is critical because it has been used many times to justify capital projects and other projects.  Every water provider is required to provide a report to customers. Ms. Webb and Ms. Rellergert stated the City used to spend about $25,000 to mail the report to every customer. Now citizens receive a link to the report, which is announced on Utilities bills during the May-June billing cycle and promoted on hand bills. It is also available via mail upon request.  A board member inquired if 92 main breaks are normal. Ms. Rellergert stated fewer than 100 are considered normal.  A board member asked Ms. Rellergert to briefly summarize highlights of the policy report. She drew the board’s attention to the photos on page 1 taken by Pollution Control Laboratory staff while monitoring the Cache La Poudre River at Lincoln Street before and after the 2013 flooding event.  A board member inquired about water quality during the 2013 flood event, and Ms. Rellergert stated the water treatment plant did an excellent job of treating the water during that period.  A board member inquired about fluoride. Ms. Rellergert stated it’s included in report and that the City is fluoridating at the state-recommended level (which results in 0.9 – 1.05 milligrams per liter). If it changed, City would adjust to that. In 2011, the EPA considered reducing it, but didn’t move forward with lowering the amount to a flat 0.7 mg/L instead of a range.  A board member inquired about how the recent fires and floods affected post-treatment water. Ms. Webb said the events affected raw water lines, but did not affect the treated water distribution system, which was due in part to avoiding sediment by not using Poudre River water for a while, and also blending with Horsetooth Reservoir water to keep turbidity down. Ms. Webb welcomed any comments and recommendations from the board. Water Board Minutes June 19, 2014 8 Water Board Recommendation on Public Trust Doctrine (Attachment available upon request.) Chairperson Malers stated that water is a public resource, and one of the fundamental issues of the Public Trust Doctrine is giving citizens’ access to water, such as allowing people to cross private property to access public streams, and if water is taken and used, it should be returned. Farming, timing and temperature are just a few factors that make water access challenging. The doctrine is meant to emphasize water as a public resource. The Colorado Water Congress started an initiative to promote understanding of the Public Trust Doctrine, educate the public. The City is member of Colorado Water Trust. Mr. Malers stated it’s important for City Council to be aware of the doctrine, and prepare for future ballot initiatives and potential effects. Staff circulated a memo about this issue. Highlights from the discussion:  A board member stated that California has a public trust doctrine for many years, and the only time it was used was by environmental groups to prevent taking any more water from an endangered stream in the City of Los Angeles. The board member inquired about the doctrine’s goal, and expressed concerns about how it would affect future use of the Cache La Poudre River.  A board member stated that the Friends of Mono Lake used the doctrine in this case. City of Los Angeles had been taking water from the Owens River from the beginning of the 20th century. Mono Lake’s water level was decreasing during drought of the early 1980s. The doctrine was used to successfully argue that the public has a right to Mono Lake. The City of Los Angeles had to give up approximately a million acre-feet of water during the drought. The board member added that more recently, there was the issue of the Delta Smelt a non-native species of fish; the public trust doctrine was used to shut down the pumps that move water south of the delta, which resulted in 46% unemployment in Fresno, a city whose economy relies on agriculture.  Board members suggested revisions to the language of the suggested motion and discussed the connotations of certain words.  Assistant City Attorney II Jenny Lopez Filkins stated the City is restricted under the Fair Campaign Act in promoting its opinion about a ballot measure, but that it may use its usual means to promote its opinion, such as simply stating its position on the Public Trust Doctrine. The Water Board may provide Council with a transmittal memo stating its motion. Discussion on the motion: There was no discussion on the motion. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously. Other Business There was no other business. Chairperson Malers moved that the Water Board recommends that City Council evaluate the potential effects of Public Trust Doctrine ballot initiatives on the City of Fort Collins and consider adoption of a resolution expressing the City Council’s position regarding those effects. Board Member Ortman seconded the motion.