HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 07/20/20171
Water Board Minutes
July 20, 2017
Fort Collins Utilities Water Board Minutes
Thursday, July 20, 2017
Water Board Chairperson City Council Liaison
Brett Bovee, 970-889-0469 Wade Troxell, 970-219-8940
Water Board Vice Chairperson Staff Liaison
Kent Bruxvoort, 970-219-2832 Carol Webb, 970-221-6231
ROLL CALL
Board Present: Chairperson Brett Bovee, Vice Chairperson Kent Bruxvoort, and Board
Members Rebecca Hill, Steve Malers, Jim Kuiken, Phyllis Ortman, Michael Brown, and Andrew
McKinley.
Board Absent: John Primsky, Jason Tarry, and Lori Brunswig.
OTHERS PRESENT
Staff: Carol Webb, Katherine Martinez, Liesel Hans, Donnie Dustin, Adam Jokerst, Kevin
Gertig, Jennifer Shanahan, John Stokes, Eric Potyondy, Jill Oropeza.
Members of the Public: Kristy Klenk, Jakob Bruxvoort, and R.W. Critter.
Meeting Convened
Chairperson Bovee called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m.
Public Comment
None
Approval of June 15, 2017 Board Meeting Minutes
A board member requested one minor revision to correct a typo.
Board Member Michael Brown moved to approve the June 15, 2017 meeting minutes as
amended.
Board Member Becky Hill seconded the motion.
Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously 7-0 with 1 abstention.
Board Member Andrew McKinley abstained due to his absence at the June meeting.
Staff Reports
Water Resources Monthly Report (included in meeting packet only)
Changes to the Utilities Raw Water Requirements
(Attachments available upon request)
Water Resources Manager Donnie Dustin summarized changes to the Utilities Raw Water
Requirements (RWR) and the timeline of public outreach. RWR are the water rights or fee paid
2
Water Board Minutes
July 20, 2017
by new development to ensure that adequate water supply and associated infrastructure are
available to serve the water needs of development; the amount paid is based on use and type of
development. Currently RWR can be satisfied with acceptable water rights, cash-in-lieu (CIL) of
water rights, city certificates (credits), or a combination. Changes to RWR and CIL have not
been made in many years.
Staff requests Water Board’s recommendation for approval of proposed changes before seeking
adoption by City Council on August 15 and September 5. Staff previously presented this topic to
Water Board on October 5, 2016 and to City Council Work Session on February 14, 2017, and
has since presented to other City boards and commissions, and to several key stakeholders (e.g.
local ditch company boards).
Discussion Highlights
Board members commented on or inquired about various related topics including: future water
supply needs and the cost to increase firm yield for new development; Halligan Reservoir costs
and how they relate to future water supply needs; adjustments staff made to the proposal as a
result of public outreach, such as delayed implementation and related financial impact;
assessments paid to ditch companies; the types of water rights/shares accepted; water supply
costs for a typical single family home in Northern Colorado; and methodology for proposed
changes. Mr. Dustin, Utilities Strategic Finance Director Lance Smith, Water Resources and
Treatment Operations Manager Carol Webb, and Assistant City Attorney Eric Potyondy
responded to Water Board members’ questions.
Board Member Michael Brown moved that Water Board recommend that City Council adopt
the proposed changes to the Utilities Raw Water Requirements, which includes changes to the
cash-in-lieu rate.
Board Member Kent Bruxvoort seconded the motion.
Discussion on the Motion: Board members discussed the staff recommendation to delay
implementation to April 1, 2018 and the benefits of a long time frame to address developer
concerns. Staff stated that if the proposed changes and April implementation date are adopted by
City Council, it should provide adequate time for developers to complete current projects under
the current RWR and CIL rate system. For developers that have acquired water rights in
anticipation of completing longer-term projects (e.g., ODP process or more complex
developments), they can dedicate water rights until January 1, 2019 as long as the developers
show they were in the City’s development process and that they owned the water rights prior to
February 14, 2017 (date of City Council work session on proposed changes). Board members
stated concerns about a possible unintended consequence of higher workload on City engineers
to process a potential rush of permits in a short amount of time, and whether staff is equipped to
handle larger amounts of cash and water rights certificates coming in to fulfill RWR. Staff stated
that it is well equipped for this eventuality.
Vote on the motion: It passed 6-2, with Board Members Jim Kuiken and Phyllis Ortman
opposed. Reasons for dissenting votes: Board Members Kuiken and Ortman believe the $40.5
3
Water Board Minutes
July 20, 2017
million number is too low of an estimate for the “buy-in” value of the City’s existing water
portfolio (used in the calculation for future water supply needs, which is used to determine the
CIL rate) and don’t want to set the precedent of not charging the full buy-in cost now. They
stated concern about being vulnerable to legal action by developers who might take the stance
that previous developers were not charged the full buy-in costs in the past and that the City must
stick with its past methodology. Staff responded that BBC Research and Consulting (a consultant
hired to review the proposed changes) determined the full buy-in cost to be $33,800 (which was
calculated with the current market value of the Utilities existing and future water supply
portfolio). Staff further explained that the buy-in component estimated the value of the water that
the new development would use and applied the long-term CIL rate of $6,500, which continues
to be the current market value of the types of water rights that would be used in the additional
storage Utilities is working to acquire. Staff also explained that it has a legal responsibility to
only charge for the impact of the new development (as opposed to the full current market value).
Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) Update and State of Colorado Wildlife
Mitigation Plan
(Attachments available upon request)
Natural Areas Director John Stokes summarized the process, timeline, and City staff’s comments
on the State of Colorado Fish and Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan for the Northern
Integrated Supply Project (NISP) and Northern Water’s recent presentation to the Colorado Fish
and Wildlife Commission on the plan. Staff has presented this topic to various City boards and
commissions, and will present to City Council on August 8, as well as provide public testimony
on August 11 to the Colorado Fish and Wildlife Commission. City Council’s direction to staff in
2017 was to engage in discussions with Northern Water regarding mitigation, which Mr. Stokes
emphasized does not change the City’s 2015 position on NISP; these discussion meetings so far
have not gone beyond sharing information.
Natural Resources Watershed Specialist Jennifer Shanahan summarized the City’s topics of
interest in the plan (avoidance and minimization, compensatory mitigation, enhancement) and
City staff’s key concerns and recommendations including the topics of peak flows, water quality,
mitigation (restoration, channel improvements, channel conveyance), adaptive management,
cost, and big game wildlife.
The City has developed draft comments to the NISP Fish and Wildlife Mitigation and
Enhancement Plan, which can be found at http://www.fcgov.com/nispreview/ and the City
invites the public to submit comments through July 30.
Discussion Highlights
Board members commented on or inquired about various related topics including: water rights;
Glade Reservoir; peak flows and impact on channels including scouring vegetation; potential
changes to flood levels; the idea of a stream management plan or master plan for the Poudre
River and incorporating NISP and other projects into such a master plan; future negotiations and
tie to the science and statute; desire to see examples of typical days on the river; and similarities
and differences with the Halligan Reservoir project.