Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Commission - Minutes - 08/18/2022 WATER COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING August 18, 2022, 5:30-7:30 p.m. Hybrid in person at 222 LaPorte Ave and online via Zoom 08/18/2022 – MINUTES Page 1  1. CALL TO ORDER 5:31 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL  Commissioners Present: Jason Tarry (Chairperson), Greg Steed (Vice Chairperson), John Primsky, Jordan Radin, Paul Herman, Rick Kahn, Tyler Eldridge, Randy Kenyon  Commissioners Absent - Excused: Ken Bruxvoort  Staff Members Present: Jason Graham, Lance Smith, Kelly Smith, John Song, Kendall Minor  Members of the Public: None 3. AGENDA REVIEW  Chairperson Jason Tarry briefly summarized items on the agenda 4. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION  None  5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES CHAIRPERSON TARRY ASKED FOR COMMENTS AND REVISIONS ON THE JULY 21 MINUTES. Commissioner Radin moved to approve the July 21 minutes. Commissioner Herman seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: it passed unanimously, 8-0 6. NEW BUSINESS a. Staff Reports (Attachments available upon request) i. Financial Monthly Report (meeting packet only) WATER COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 08/18/2022 – MINUTES Page 2    ii. Water Resources Monthly Report (meeting packet only)   Discussion Highlights There are no potential water restrictions as there has been a lot of rainfall lately. The City did have to shut down the Poudre River source due to a leak from a 27” raw water line this week. There is a 24” line that could be used if the leak isn’t fixed soon. A Commissioner commented that there seemed to be high turbidity in the river, but Staff Liaison Jason Graham responded that it was not enough to shut down the source completely.   iii. 1041 Regulations Update Senior Environmental Planner Kelly Smith provided an update on the 1041 Regulations for the City of Fort Collins, which allow local governments to regulate areas and activities of state interest. It gives local governments permitting authority over development projects even when the project has statewide impacts. A local government must designate the areas or activities of state interest and adopt guidelines pursuant to state statutory procedures and limitations. Discussion Highlights A Commissioner asked what projects the regulations would apply to, to which Ms. Smith clarified that it would apply to all projects within the City’s growth management area (GMA). Another Commissioner inquired how many projects this would capture. Ms. Smith responded that previous plans had gone through the Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR) process, through which they did some analysis of past projects, and there had been about three or four in the last ten years that would’ve been subject to the 1041 Regulations. Another Commissioner inquired if projects outside of the City limits that would affect water quality and availability in the City would fall under the regulations, to which Ms. Smith responded that it would not as there has to be a specific infrastructure within the City to serve as a nexus to these regulations. Another Commissioner asked what the precipice had been to adopt 1041 Regulations to City codes, especially as many of the entities she’d listed that had adopted the regulations were mostly counties. Ms. Smith responded that it came down to a couple water projects that came through SPAR in the past about which the public expressed frustration regarding the City’s role, and so City Council initiated this so that it could be better involved in future City projects. The Commissioner followed up with how Ms. Smith’s position is WATER COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 08/18/2022 – MINUTES Page 3  funded; she responded that she’s funded through general funding. This was an inherited project that was not in the Council Work Plan, and so they had to request additional funding of $50K for engagement efforts and technical expertise from an attorney with experience writing these types of regulations. The Commissioner asked for clarification for how many staff members are involved; she responded that it was just her, as well as the land use attorney. A Commissioner inquired if there’s any funding planned for staff in the future to review projects through the 1041 Regulations. Ms. Smith said that there have been conversations, but there may be just two projects a year to review at most. The Commissioner commented that there is already the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) in the coming year that will need to be reviewed, to which Ms. Smith reiterated that there will need to be conversations about funding the review process, as well as conceiving processes to put in place, as the regulations could have an opportunity to grow through new designations of activities and areas. A Commissioner commented that other water supplying entities within the GMA may run into hurdles or issues due to the regulations, but Ms. Smith clarified that existing and maintenance projects would not be subject to review, as well as stormwater projects, as only domestic water and wastewater projects are defined to be subject to review. Staff Liaison Jason Graham added that Ms. Smith has done a great job engaging stakeholders to inform them of the new regulations. Another Commissioner wondered if the Planning and Zoning Commission is the only entity that is equipped to interpret these regulations. Ms. Smith responded that City staff will compile research, consult technical experts, and work with outside agencies to make an informed recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission, which would then make a recommendation to City Council, who would be the ultimate decision maker regardless of Commission and staff recommendations. A Commissioner clarified that it would be up to the applicant’s expense to fund any consultants. Another Commissioner wondered whether the initial application review for anything water-related shouldn’t come to the Water Commission—such as projects related to water conservation, groundwater, water quality—to which Ms. Smith answered she’d look into the charter and what the Water Commission is able to review, and whether the process can be changed to include Water Commission recommendations. Another Commissioner inquired about public engagement. Ms. Smith responded that there are neighborhood meetings, public notification processes prior and after decisions, the formal public hearings, as well as public comments at the Planning & Zoning Commission meetings. The Commission expressed that they would like to hear another update in October on changes and how to be funded.   WATER COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 08/18/2022 – MINUTES Page 4  iv. 2022 Budget Update Financial Planning and Analysis Director Lance Smith presented to provide a mid-year update on the current year financial performance of each utility, as well as to present the revenue forecasts and budget offers for the 2023-24 budget cycle. Discussion Highlights A Commissioner asked clarification whether underspent budget that carries into the next year has an adverse effect on future budgeting and needs to be re-allocated. Mr. Smith responded that it does not. A Commissioner inquired about predictions regarding Utility rate adjustments. Mr. Smith responded that there’s a self-imposed ceiling of a 5% increase, but inflation has been a big factor as of late, and he will return in October to request a recommendation for rate increases to take to Council. A Commissioner inquired whether the $16M budget offer for the Halligan Project is to buy permitted easements, fee titles, condemned properties, etc. Mr. Smith responded that permitting efforts run about $1M a year. Another Commissioner asked about the budget plan for staff for Halligan. Director of Water Utilities Jason Graham responded that there is an offer for a permit coordinator, derived from a conversion from what we have now up to a full-time position, but the project manager and coordinator positions are not included in the $16M budget request, but rather their own offers. He clarified that these are just proposals, and decisions need to go to City Council first. The Commissioner further inquired whether the $16M budget would support necessary consultations, to which Mr. Graham responded that it would definitely help fund consultant fees. A Commissioner would like to see a breakdown of the Halligan budget request to have better insight, and Mr. Smith mentioned that much of the information is in the offer narrative, though it may not be all-inclusive. Mr. Graham added that they are currently planning to rebuild the team better going forward by resourcing, prioritizing, and funding it differently than before, and to raise the level of importance of shared commitment. Utilities Executive Director Kendall Minor added that they are looking for better longevity and consistency, and to achieve that, they currently have a request for proposal (RFP) for staffing consultants just for Halligan to avoid burnouts, with additional consulting dollars in the Executive Director budget if needed. Ultimately, they can’t start building until 2026 until the permitting and land acquisitions are complete, but the City will need to submit its estimates in the next two weeks to the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Smith added that if the $16M is not enough, they will need to submit a midcycle appropriation. A Commissioner inquired about the reserves to gain perspective and would like to see a completed analysis. Mr. Smith responded he’d come back in October with a reserve analysis, and continued by explaining that there were WATER COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 08/18/2022 – MINUTES Page 5  84M in the water fund reserve at the end of last year, a lot of which is appropriated to projects such as the Halligan Project, leaving about 41M in the reserves not appropriated to any projects. A Commissioner asked if there’s a prioritization list for the budget offers. Mr. Smith responded that the Budget Lead Team draws the line, but nothing can be claimed for certain until the City Manager’s recommendations are released in two weeks. A Commissioner inquired about the meaning of a 0.2 full-time employee (FTE), to which Mr. Graham responded that it may mean that different departments or divisions fund a FTE. Another Commissioner asked about keeping up with the market regarding FTE compensation. Mr. Smith responded that the BLT is looking at the reality of that, but ultimately, it will be up to the City Manager’s recommendation and City Council’s decision. Mr. Minor added that in regard to market analysis to invest in existing staff, they’re anticipating a substantial 4.5-8% salary increase that’s baked into the offer to remain competitive, to which Council seems very supportive. Mr. Graham added that recruitment has been challenging as of late, which is why they’d like to see the appropriate adjustments made. Another Commissioner inquired about the Wastewater fund and the concern around the 4% rate increase, to which Mr. Smith responded that the concern centers around burdening rate payers at a time if the economy may enter a recession. Another Commissioner inquired if there’s funding for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and whether there’s a need. Mr. Graham responded that there currently is not funding, as there is not a lot of treatment needs just yet, just investigation that’s being absorbed by the current budget. Mr. Minor responded that there is high importance around it, and so are ready to respond when the need arises. 7. COMMISSIONER REPORTS   Commissioner Kahn met with City staff from Water and Natural Areas regarding the recreational aspect of the Halligan Dam.   Typically the chairperson adopts the Work Plan as put forth by the previous chairperson, and Chairperson Tarry would like spend a Work Session to talk about priorities prior to the transition in order to give more guidance.   Meadow Springs Ranch tour.   8. OTHER BUSINESS None WATER COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 08/18/2022 – MINUTES Page 6  9. ADJOURNMENT 7:48 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Water Commission on October 20, 2022.