Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 03/26/1998E WATER BOARD MINUTES March 26, 1998 3:10 - 5:56 p.m. Light and Power Training Room 700 Wood Street COUNCIL LIAISON Chuck Wanner (Present) 691y;\�I�`11J�;1�] 711 MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Clopper, Chair, Alison Adams, Vice Chair, Dave Frick, Howard Goldman, Robert Ward, David Lauer, Joe Bergquist, John Morris, Tom Sanders, Tom Brown STAFF Mike Smith, Bob Smith, Dennis Bode, Gale McGaha Miller, Dave Agee, Link Mueller, Susan Hayes, Sue Paquette, Molly Nortier GUESTS John Bigham, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Dave Baumgartner - Avery Park Neighborhood Steve Comfort - Avery Park Neighborhood Luke Laydon and Christa Champlin - CSU Journalist Students MEMBERS ABSENT George Reed, Dave Rau (both excused) Chairman Paul Clopper opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 26 1998 David Lauer moved that the minutes of February 26, 1998 be approved as distributed. After a second from Joe Bergquist, the motion was approved unanimously. Water Board Minutes March 26, 1998 Page 2 John Bigham handed out information on reservoir storage and the NRCS snow report from the SNOTEL sites. He said the District system continues to have just under 100,000 ac-ft of total storage space available. He pointed out the boxed in phrase that said "lost 184 of in 1 day." "That means we are beginning to get some runoff on the western slope from Granby Reservoir," he explained. The balance of space left in east reservoirs is 13,157 ac-ft which means they are all nearly full. He said that there is still 146,000+ ac-ft of carryover storage from last year. That water will be available and there could be non -charge water available again this year because there will be plenty of water. He also mentioned there could be a spill on the west slope of close to 60,000 ac-ft. "We can't bring it across because there is no place to put it," he said. About 90% of the snow season is past. "As you can see, we are down into the 80 and 90 percentages, but we aren't hurting for water," he stressed. Robert Ward asked for an update on the flow out of Horsetooth. He understands there is a study in progress. Mr. Bigham said the District has consultants working on the 50-year old dam. "As you know, when you build dams, they usually leak some immediately, and there is always some leakage. He reminded the Board that a few years ago there was some settlement of the dams and those were raised to increase the flood pool and add protection. The District checks the safety of the dams periodically. ffthe current consultants come up with remedial items, the District will take appropriate action. He explained that the system has been in a high storage situation for the last three or four years. As high as the water is, there is considerable pressure towards the right and left abutments, "so there is going to be some leakage." He added that the leakage is clear which is important because it indicates normal seepage. "We monitor that everyday," he assured the Board. "We anticipate the leakage will slow down soon." "The dam in question is at the north end," Mr. Clopper said. "My question is if any of the other dams have increased seepage." "That's the deepest one so it's the most vulnerable, " Mr. Bigham replied. David Lauer asked that Molly Nortier copy the articles on the dams that appeared in the Coloradoan on March 15th, and include them in April Board packets. Mr. Lauer asked if the snowfall forecast is considered below normal. "The long range forecast is somewhat under for temperatures and slightly above on precipitation," Mr. Bigham answered. He thinks we will probably have a close to normal snowpack. He emphasized that the soil moisture is good. Water Board Minutes March 26, 1998 Page 3 Mike Smith said there was considerable interest, after the flood, of looking at two basins in particular; the Canal Importation Basin and the Old Town Basin. In May, Council will have a study session on this, and there will be one more meeting with the Water Board. A recommendation from this Board will be taken to Council. Dave Agee began by saying that given the fact we have been talking for the last few months about the basin hot spots in which we want to begin improvements, we wanted to look at what it might take financially to actually make this happen. Canal Importation and Old Town Basins Currently the estimated project cost for the Canal Importation Basin is $23.6 million and the estimate for the Old Town Basin project is $14.3 million. Mr. Clopper asked if the estimated costs are to complete the as yet uncompleted elements of the master plan. "Yes," Mr. Agee replied. "There were others built in the past?" Mr. Clopper continued. Mr. Agee said there were others built in the past that the Utility is paying for with existing debt financing, such as the Canal Importation Basin. Financing Options Two options were "Pay -As -You -Go" and "Municipal Bonds." One of the problems with "pay-as-you- go is that "it flies in the face of what we have been talking about, namely getting the improvements done soon, and obviously being able to pay for them. There would have to be an enormous increase in fees to accumulate the kind of money we have been talking about." Municipal Bond Option The objectives of a bond issuance would be to have it happen soon and at a reasonable cost. Based on that, "we think the municipal bond option is the way to go in order to make these projects fly," he said. "In order to do that we would need to borrow $38.7 million. The typical bond term for a utility issue like this would be 20 years. We are estimating, conservatively, a 5-6% interest rate, although, currently, interest rates are extremely low and favorable which would make it worth it to market right now. We could probably be in the 5% range or maybe even below that," he noted. The annual payments, once completely funded, would be $3.35 million. Types of Stormwater Revenue In order to make the payments on the debt, we need to look at what fees are available to pay for it: • Development Fee - This is a basin specific fee collected with a building permit. The problem is, you can't count on it when you issue bonds because it happens sporadically. It is difficult to count on because you don't know what might happen with development. Water Board Minutes March 26, 1998 Page 4 Monthly Fee - This fee has an O&M component which is Utility -wide. Basically, it is the same charge to everyone in the basin. Another component of the monthly fee is the Storm Drainage Basin Fee or monthly capital charge. In theory the fee is charged differently to everyone in different basins, although, as a practical matter, it is up to the max that was set by the former Storm Drainage Board; that is $3.58 per month per ERU in all of the basins. Recommended Method for Repayment A stable revenue stream is needed to be able to make bond payments, and the monthly capital charge is what we propose to use," Mr. Agee said. Customer Impact Mr. Agee acknowledged that the customer impact of the proposed financing plan is going to be significant. He reiterated that the current monthly capital fee is $3.58 per month, or $42.96 per year. In both of the targeted basins, the Utility would be looking at a two -stage implementation of a proposed monthly capital fee increase. The fee would be increased substantially in 1-2 years and again in 4-5 years after all the bonds are issued and the construction is basically completed. Canal Importation Basin • Stage 1 - (1-2 years) The fee would increase from $3.58 per month to $15.33/month and $184.00 annually. (1-2 years) Stage 2 - (4-5 years) $27.83/month - This is 777% of what the current fee is. The annual rate would be $334.00. Old Town Basin • Stage 1 - It's similar, but because the costs are less the increases are not quite as dramatic. $14.08/month and $169.00/annual Stage 2 - $16.17/month and $194.00/annual City-wide Mr. Agee informed the Board what the estimated costs would be for a City-wide fee instead of by basin. If the debt service for these projects were shared by customers throughout the City, instead of a $27.00 per month charge, you would be looking at $8.58/month or about a $5.00 increase for all customers." He acknowledged that the numbers are not that scientific, but they show the difference in customer impact with a City-wide fee. He clarified that this would generate money for just the Canal Importation and Old Town Basins. Tom Brown asked if this assumes no increases for all the other basins. "No, I don't think we are saying that," Mr. Agee responded. "It's possible, as we look at all the other basins and their financial plans, they might have to borrow and have fee increases as well." He emphasized that, right now, the plan is to just focus on the two hot spots, "but these E Water Board Minutes March 26, 1998 Page 5 numbers assume no increases in the other basins," he added. He pointed out that the $3.58 fee has been around for quite some time, so it's likely it would go up. Bob Smith added that it hasn't changed for 10 years. "Eventually, what we will want the City Council to focus on is the issue of City-wide versus the basin specific concept for collecting fees. One of the items we plan to work on for next month's meeting, is to bring the Board some pros and cons on the issue," Mr. Agee said. "The other issue we may want to focus on is whether time or the fee drives the process," Mike Smith stated. "In all practicality, can we really fund $40 million in improvements in 5 years without additional engineering staffr' Dave Frick asked. Mr. Agee said that city project management is built in to these costs, so there is an assumption that there would be additional engineering staff to manage the projects. Mr. Brown asked for a reason to try to do this all at once as opposed to spreading it out over many years. The emphasis after the flood was, "finish these projects as soon as you can," Mr. Smith replied. "In other words, get the system up to speed." "What people didn't hear or didn't want to hear, was our master plan is based on a 1-in-100 year event," Mr. Smith remarked. "Our system isn't up to that level yet," he added. "There were those who would like to see the improvements made as soon as possible." Some Council members have asked what it would take to do that. "We need to make recommendations to Council, so they can wrestle with it. Do we want to increase the rates that much, or do we try to go middle of the road?" Mr. Bergquist recalled that Old Town basin decided pay as you go was the option they wanted. "Just to put it into perspective, there are several projects that are roughly $1 '/z million," Mr. Agee continued. "You would have to go to $15.33 and generate that for a year in order to accumulate enough pay as you go money -to pay for those projects. He added that when you get into a $3 million project, you would have to have two years at that rate, etc. "If you use "pay as you go," and you want to stay on a fairly aggressive construction schedule, you are going to have to hike the rates soon and significantly. Bond financing allows you to construct the improvements as soon as you can get them done from an engineering standpoint, and smooth the payments over a longer period of time," he explained. "Just focusing on these two drainage basins," Paul Clopper began, "if you stayed with the current schedule, when would all these improvements be completed?" "The Canal Importation Basin was projected to be completed in 20 years,"Bob Smith replied. "For Old Town we were looking at a 10- year program. We are actually reducing those programs significantly, trying to get them done in a 5- year period based on the numbers presented here." "Is the proposed option on the City-wide increase even allowed?" Mr. Frick asked. "I thought the fees had to be collected by basin because some court cases forced that." Mike Smith said City attorneys researched this, even consulting special legal counsel, and a city-wide basin capital fee is actually preferable. They think that development fees are good to have basin by basin because you can justify your development costs by what goes on in the basin. It may be preferable to have the Utility assess a system -wide fee for maintaining capital and carrying on O&M costs for the future. Water Board Minutes March 26, 1998 Page 6 "The way you are looking at this, you wouldn't increase any of the development fees?" Mr. Frick asked. "We haven't had a chance to look at that," Mr. Smith replied. "We would have to determine what proportion the development fees would have to increase to take care of this." He added that they are such a small portion of the revenue anyway. "You are a victim of the market, so it's pretty hard to say what it would be," Bob Smith said. "It would probably go up, but not a significant amount," Mr. M. Smith said. "Isn't the development fee set so the additional work required by growth is paid for by the fee," Tom Brown asked, "or am I misinterpreting the notion of the development fee in this case?" "When the master plan is adopted," B. Smith explained, `improvements associated with new development are separated from those associated with existing development. Then we look at how quickly the improvements will be implemented. This determines the fees. Developments should pay their fair share throughout the He of the improvements in the basin, not just one given year," he added. Mike Smith said it would be helpful for staffif the Board gives input on some options. For example, if you raise the fees and keep "pay as you go," how quickly could the projects be done? "If there are any obvious options you think might be worth looking at, we'd like to have them before the next meeting." "Are there any parts of these projects that will cost a little bit and give you 70% of the protection, and some that are more expensive bringing it out to 100% protection?" Mr. Ward asked. "Is the information available that shows the benefit you get from each project?" "That's rather difficult," M. Smith said. "Many of the improvements are not just straight forward; they all work together as part of the system," Mr. Frick explained. "Obviously if we pay as we go, there is some sequence; I'm curious as to how that is laid out," Mr. Ward continued. "Generally it's from downstream to upstream," M. Smith replied. Link Mueller explained that the Old Town Basin has three main outfalls. He talked about the locations of the storm sewers and what they serve. He said there is some inter- dependence. "The big ticket items in that basin are the ditch improvements," he said. "Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal, New Mercer and Larimer No. 2 are there, and it's hard to determine which gets done first. We are going to have to prioritize." Of all the basins, Old Town and Canal Importation require the most development, B. Smith said. "We don't have much flexibility for staging detention ponds. They are in the core of the facilities. In the past there have been instances where we just bought the right-of-way and built it later." Tom Sanders said he believes in "pay as you go," "but I think the opportunity for getting bond rates is probably the lowest it has been in 20 years." It seems to him that once a decision is made, the time frame is important. "Once we decide that, we can optimize this, and do a combination of"pay as you go" and bonds." E Water Board Minutes March 26, 1998 Page 7 Mr. Brown thinks there are advantages to not moving too fast. "You get over -worked and you end up making some mistakes. I would like to see how long it would take to complete the work if you went `City-wide,' `pay as you go' and raised the max to $7.00 per month," he proposed. "If you funded this today, you wouldn't be ready to start spending money for a year, but if you started collecting fees immediately and just ratcheted them each year a little bit for the next 5 years or so, you would have all of your money," Mr. Frick suggested. The City has lulled the public to sleep somewhat by keeping the fee at $3.58 for so long and not jacking it up to at least match what the construction costs in those basins should have been. "If we had raised the fee over the last 10 years, we would be up to the $5-6.00 range and we wouldn't be looking at this big increase," he stressed. "I don't think so," Mr. Bergquist said. "I think we moved it up as we needed to, to cover the cost." "The bottom line is, as you go to the $3.58, and the costs increase, you do less and less with the money you have," B. Smith stated. Mike Smith asked about an option to do everything in 10 years. Mr. Clopper was concerned about the effort staff would have to go through to put together a number of different combinations. "I just want to get a feeling for what some of the best options may be," Mr. M. Smith said. Alison Adams agrees with Tom Sanders that this is an opportune time to take advantage of bond financing that might be available. She added that you also need to know how much construction costs are increasing. "If you wait 20 years to do construction, you aren't going to cut costs; you have to compare both of those items as well. Perhaps we can borrow money now cheaper than construction costs are going up," she said. "Over 20 years, you would pay roughly $28 million in interest," Mr. Agee pointed out. Whichever scenario we use, Chuck Wanner thinks we still have to balance the cost if interest costs are added, against the benefit created by bringing the improvements forward in time. "That to me is one of the criteria that I will be pushing as a Council member. If we do it in 5 years and we get only $5 million worth of benefit and we incur $28 or 29 million worth of interest to do it, it just doesn't ring. "We could hire a firm to study that," Dr. Sanders suggested. "Once you have the basics, you can alter for the different scenarios, and combinations of funding mechanisms," Mr. Wanner explained. Mr. Bergquist asked again: "Do we want to go City-wide or basin only, or are we going to isolate these two cases?" "And what happens if, next year, Old Town gets the big rain storm or one of the other basins?" Mr. Clopper added. Mr. M. Smith related that Old Town and Canal Importation are the ones that have the largest improvements financially. "I guess we are reacting in a knee-jerk fashion," Mr. Clopper said. "That's why we're here today, because we had a big flood," Mike Smith acknowledged. Mr. Ward asked if all the basins are up to the $3.58. The answer was yes. "So we could change the uniformity right now," Mr. Ward suggested. "We could change it so the dollars collected from every Water Board Nfmutes March 26, 1998 Page 8 basin go to one pot, and goes wherever it is needed," M. Smith said. "Right now we segregate all those fees and try to keep them separate for each basin, and one might be in the red and another one may be in the black." Mr. Agee pointed out that, currently, one basin has close to $1 million in the bank while there are other basins that don't have any money. It is a situation where we might be able to take some money from basin "A" for improvements in basin `B." "What could happen in the future, if we stay on the present path, is you could have residents of one basin paying very small monthly capital fees while residents of another basin pay $10-12," M. Smith said. "That situation could create inequity; is that okay?" he asked. "Are we still bound to the concept that everything has to have positive benefit/cost ratio?" Mr. Frick asked. "If not, can we even justify spending $38 million?" "That goes back to Chuck Warner's question," M. Smith said. "I can tell you when Council members deal with financial fairness and distribution issues, whether it's wise use of money versus getting benefit out of it, it is a question that will be asked," Mr. Wanner related. "Maybe our focus for next month needs to be identifying, if we can, the benefit of these improvements," Mr. M. Smith suggested. Mr. Bergquist said perhaps there would be enough money if we made the fees City-wide. Mr. M. Smith said staff can prepare some possible scenarios for the Board to review. "What would it take to change the financing? Can the Utilities do it on their own?" David Lauer asked. "The Council would have to make a change in the City Code," M. Smith replied. "How much money is in the pot?" Mr. Lauer asked. "Approximately $8 million," Mr. Agee replied. "Some of that is spoken for from the 1997 bond issue," he added."Realistically about half of that would be available for projects, etc." "The other piece of the puzzle is when the basins are fully developed," Mr. Wanner began. "What are the final costs incurred at that point and what is the effect in the future? Is there going to continue to be an imbalance in the cost? If we have new basins that continue to be built out, there is going to be strong concern about the cost of that development continuing and the people who do it absorbing the costs," Mr. Wanner stated. "We had better have some projections of new development in this game plan," he suggested. John Morris wondered how we view ourselves as a community. "Do we help our neighbors, or project an attitude that says, `I have paid for mine so you take care of yours,"' "There is some benefit, if we are going to grow, of taking care of each other," he believes. "I think the current philosophy would be that if you choose to expand here, you need to bear the cost of that development," Mr. Wanner stated. Tom Sanders is concerned if we go city-wide and eliminate fees by basin, the "pay as you go" concept is going to diminish. "One good thing about the `pay as you go' idea is that there are going to be some basins that we shouldn't develop because of the potential for flooding." He stressed that this is a critical issue. Dr. Sanders thinks this decision is beyond the Board's scope because it is basically political. "It could change the way we handle development and planning." M. Smith said when you Water Board Minutes March 26, 1998 Page 9 think of the implications of this, there are significant pros and cons for each scenario. "If you asked me what I like today, I couldn't tell you because there are so many pros and cons," he said. Paul Clopper asked what the Board will discuss next month on this issue. "We are going to try to focus on the financing aspect," M. Smith responded. "We shouldn't be spending money that exceeds the benefits," he said. "When you finance things you increase the costs, because the finance costs are usually higher than the inflationary costs. The question is, do we really need it now? We hope to come to the Board in April with a definition of where the benefit is for these two basins. When we identify that, perhaps we can tailor a program to fit. When we go to Council, we will present them with some options and ask them their comfort level. If they aren't comfortable, perhaps there will be a need to survey the community." "It seems like an awfully complicated topic on which to survey the community," Tom Brown asserted. "The Board could discuss it for the rest of the day!" "It may not be one of those that you survey," Mr. Smith admitted. "Is the perception that people want this done now?" Mr. Lauer asked. "Now being within the next 3 years as opposed to 20 years. You could determine from some informal, unscientific survey, something as simple as getting the Coloradoan to do a telephone poll or using a phone bank, to get a sample opinion from water users in the Districts and City-wide. "I want it done now too, but I don't want to pay for it," Mr. Brown insisted. "Of course we all want it done now," he added. "Are you willing to pay $10.00 a month to get it done in 5 years?" M. Smith asked. "You would have to tell me more than that," Mr. Brown responded. "The results of the poll would probably be in proportion to the number of houses impacted versus the number of houses that weren't affected by the flood," Mr. Frick predicted. M. Smith talked to some people in the Old Town area who said if the people in the basin took another vote, people along the flood path would vote yes and the others would vote no. For next month, Mr. Brown also wants staff to explain how the fees are derived and how the process works. "Is it possible that the improvements that are on the books could be re -designed to provide a little less?" Ms. Adams asked. "When was the stormwater management plan done? Is what was determined then, what we still need to do?" she wondered. "The Old Town plan was approved in 1994, so it's fairly current," Mr. Mueller replied. "The Canal Importation Master Plan was approved in 1982, so it's fairly old. One of the first things we would like to do is get a complete master plan update to determine what Ms. Adams is asking," he said. "Do you have a feel for which way the numbers are going to go?" Ms. Adams asked. Bob Smith explained that when master plans are produced, you first identity what it will take to provide the 1-in-100 year protection. "We will actually balance the damages to costs, and benefits to costs, to see what is the best alternative in a particular area. Before the plan is approved, we always ask are these the right improvements for that section?" B. Smith concluded. Water Board Minutes March 26, 1998 Page 10 Paul Clopper reminded the Board of the decision at the February meeting to form an Ad Hoc Water Board Committee to come up with a recommendation on the allocation of HUD funds. They have met two times since then, and today they will give their recommendation to the full Board. Dave Frick chaired the Ad Hoc committee. He reviewed the direction given to the Committee at the last meeting; that they should be looking at how the CDBG money from HUD should be used and make a recommendation to the CDBG as to storm drainage, and primarily focus on what has been proposed for the New Mercer Canal and vicinity downstream of the Avery Park area. The Committee met with City staff and a representative from the neighborhood to talk about options. Staff brought three options to the first meeting: (1) looking at comparisons between Elizabeth St. and just south of Prospect where the overtopping caused damage during the flood; (2) looking at increasing the detention pond size in the Avery Park area (the pond empties into the Canal); and (3) increasing the capacity to spill water south of Prospect in order to keep more water out of the Canal. After discussion, the Committee gave staff the assignment to do a little more detailed analysis of the ability to increase the ditch capacity, and the benefits of increasing the stormwater detention. Mr. Frick referred to a two -page handout from the Committee; Canal Importation Basin Avery Park Pond Improvements and Avery Park Pond SWMM analysis. These show what would happen if we were to increase the capacity of the pond and what happens to the outflow. Staff concluded, after looking at more detailed hydraulics of the Canal, that isolating improvements on the reach from Elizabeth to Prospect, although you can increase the capacity there, would end up causing the extra water to spill just north of Elizabeth into the Ram Village; and probably would increase the problem there. "It essentially wouldn't solve any problems, just shift where the problems would be." It was decided that increasing the ditch capacity wasn't a feasible alternative, at least with the limited money available. With that decision, the Committee focused next on increasing the capacity of the Avery Park Pond. Staff looked at the potential benefit of enlarging the pond by determining how much capacity could be gained, and roughly what the difference in discharges would be from the pond as a result of the enlargement. They also put together a cost estimate of those improvements. "You could decrease the discharge from the pond significantly by increasing volume," he explained. It would be feasible to do it with a cost of about $324,000. Mr. Frick went on to say, if we look at the CDBG money available, and take the floodproofing money, as well as the money that was initially recommended --the $207,000 for the New Mercer Ditch --you come up to about $327,000. "If we combined the two sources, we could end up with a way to fund this project." The one criteria that the Committee gave to the staff was, "if we put some improvements in, we would like it to be something that would contribute to the ultimate solution of the Canal Importation Basin improvements, and not something that would be installed on an interim Water Board Minutes March 26, 1998 Page I I basis, or wouldn't contribute to the overall solution." The enlargement of the pond seems to fit that criteria. It provides flood protection and benefits about 70-80 houses in the area that were impacted. He acknowledged that it wouldn't protect them against the kind of flood that we had, but it would give protection from the more frequent events. He said that the recommendation of the Committee to the CDBG Commission was to: Pool the funds for floodproofing and the original $207,000, and Enlarge the Avery Park Detention Pond. Before he took comments from the board, Paul Clopper asked if staff or representatives from the Avery Park neighborhood had anything to add to Mr. Frick's report. Dave Baumgartner, a neighborhood representative, pointed out what the neighborhood had originally identified as the two likely improvements that would benefit the neighborhood; either some increased capacity to the New Mercer Ditch between Elizabeth and Prospect, or the cleaning out and enlarging of the Avery Park Detention Pond. `Basically, that's what this sub -committee has worked on," he said. Initially, when the neighborhood met with the CDBG Commission, they thought, at the time, the right thing to do was to enlarge the capacity of the New Mercer Ditch. "Susan Hayes showed us the numbers, and we realized enlarging the canal was not the answer. We now support the enlarging of the Pond." Steve Comfort, from the Avery neighborhood, made the following comments. He lives at 1317 Constitution, which is between Springfield and Prospect. He also works for the City as an employee at Grandview cemetery. "The New Mercer Ditch, that runs through the cemetery, also runs by his home. "When the Ditch topped off at the Cemetery, I was concerned about what was happening at my home," he began. "I went home at 1:30 on the day of the flood and found City trucks parked in front of my home. I went to the back yard and found water out of the Ditch already in my back yard a little higher than ankle deep. Three homes in the area already had water in their yards. The City employees were from Streets, Water and Stormwater. Their comment at the time was, `the City needs to do something about this because it is too low an area and can't hold the water.' They drove a stake with a mark on it into the ground and asked me to watch it for them. It did decrease a bit in the afternoon after it stopped raining, but about 6:00 when the rains picked again, it was up and beyond the stake. We were flooded in that area long before the rest of the City when the heavy rains came. I don't know how much water the Ditch can take or how much the Pond can take. My concern is that something needs to be done in that area. In 1992, I'm not sure how much rain we received, but the four or five homes along my street all were flooded at that time, and nothing has been done since then. Something needs to be done," he concluded. Dave Frick said the numbers in the model show about 70 cfs going out of the pond into the canal. The canal was estimated to have 80 cfs before it started causing problems. It runs normally about 40-50 cfs from irrigation flow. In the model, instead of 70 cfs coming out of the pond, it was cut down to under 20 cfs, which would mean, if you had the additional 30 cfs capacity in the Pond, an event like this wouldn't overtop, where as before, it did. In 1992, the peak was like a 25-year event. I think, out there it was probably less. The smaller events the neighborhood has been experiencing probably could be reduced considerably as a result of the Pond enlargement. Ultimately, if you increase the capacity Water Board Minutes March 26, 1998 Page 12 of the Ditch for a 100-year, you are going to have a little less flow to have to deal with. Someone asked if it was about a 5-year event when it starts going over. "Yes, somewhere in that area, as compared to now it's less than a 2-year," Mr. Frick responded. Dr. Sanders wondered how they plan to increase the Pond. "You're not just going to dig it deeper, are you?" "Essentially, where the Pond is now, it would be excavated more to the west and enlarged pretty much to the limits of the site. It can't go deeper because of the groundwater," Mr. Frick explained. "If you look at just management of it, could you drain it dry in the summer so it has capacity?" Mr. Sanders continued. "There is no real capacity below the outlet pipe, because between the ditch, the groundwater and everything else, it's going to maintain that, so basically the outlet pipe from there on out is where you get realistic storage," Mr. Frick pointed out. "The control is the irrigation ditch," Bob Smith added. David Lauer said there is a large wetland associated with it. "My understanding is that would be rebuilt after the excavation." "We would excavate the wetland material and stockpile that. Once we finished the grading, we would replace the wetland material," Link Mueller explained. He added that the City would have to obtain a permit to excavate. Mr. Lauer, a member of the sub -committee, mentioned that about 70-80 homes would be positively and directly impacted by this change in terms of a 100-year event. "One of the structures included in that count, is the Woodbox condos. Because of that complex, you could increase the number of families that would be protected. The other point the Committee made very clear and asked staff about, was the indirect positive effect on many more homes downstream. Their response was that there would be an indirect effect. That was the point that made me decide it was something we could recommend to the Board," he stated. "Has there been a cost/benefit analysis done on this," Mr. Ward asked. "Not in the strict sense," Mr. Frick replied. "If we were looking at floodproofing that number of houses, it would be roughly a half million dollars. Mr. Lauer said it would be $552,500 to floodproof 85 houses at $6500 each, which is the average that the staff provided. "This was the gut check that made us think we were giving the right recommendation," Mr. Clopper added. Mr. Frick pointed out that, because this is federal money, there may be some strings attached to it. If we put it in a bigger pot for another part of a larger project --such as Fairbrooke or Rodeo Pond --it might tie us into the entire funding of the $900,000. Therefore, keeping it as an isolated project may have some benefits. Chuck Wanner asked if the Committee has a rough idea of how many dwelling units would be spared damage in 5 and 10-year incidents. "In my neighborhood," Mr. Comfort pointed out, there are 4 or 5 homes flooded prior to everybody else, "and perhaps 8 or 10 houses are affected in a minor event," Mr. Frick added. Mr. Comfort asked that someone from the Utilities look at the low area on his lot Water Board Minutes March 26, 1998 Page 13 to see if that bank could be built up along those 4 or 5 homes, even if the decision is to do a project on the Pond. Mike Smith said that someone would look at it. Mr. Wanner said, "if you had some idea of what would happen with a 5-year incident, you could say in 10 years we would have protected a certain number of homes." "We didn't get to that level of sophistication because of time limitations," Mr. Frick responded, but he thinks that a rather large number of homes would be affected. Bob Smith said, "you are putting less water in the canal, so that helps the whole system." Mr. Lauer said one HUD requirement comes into play here, that these monies must be used primarily for low income housing. In other words, they have to impact in some way, low income households. I& Clopper pointed out that it is only a certain percentage; "it doesn't have to be the whole pot." B. Smith said staff asked that question, and the Avery Park area is compatible with the criteria. "Another issue is a time limit on when the funds can be used," Mr. Lauer said, "which is one of the reasons we decided to recommend this rather than opting into the larger Rodeo arena project. That would mean we would have to stockpile these hundreds of thousands of dollars for longer than CDBG would allow." "In other words, it's kind of a use it or lose it concept," Mr. Clopper remarked. ACTION: Motion Mr. Clopper asked for a motion. John Moms moved that the Board recommend approval of the Committee's recommendation which was to: • Expand Avery Park Detention Pond; • Use $327,000 for the project and remove previous floodproofing recommendation; • Direct staff to look at the low spot in the bank of the New Mercer Canal. Alison Adams seconded the motion. Mike Smith clarified that this is the Board's recommendation to the CDBG Commission. Further Discussion Mr. Frick commented that the Committee discussed the idea of trying to save $100,000 for the floodproofing, but they couldn't see a way of cutting that amount out of this project and still have it provide some protection. They concluded that taking the whole amount would be better because there is still some FEMA money available for floodproofing. ACTION: Vote Mr. Clopper called for the question. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Chairman Clopper thanked the ad hoc committee and staff who did considerable work coming up with this well thought out recommendation. Water Board Minutes March 26, 1998 Page 14 POTENTIAL LAND EXCHANGE WITH GREEI Mike Smith asked the Board to make a decision about whether to go into executive session to discuss a potential land exchange with Greeley. "We will be talking about strategies for land acquisition and dealings with the Forest Service and Greeley. If you want to be totally candid in those discussions, the Board has the option to go into executive session. That is allowed under the rules regarding discussing strategies to acquire land," he explained. Mr. Clopper suggested the Board move this item to the end of the meeting and convene the executive session then. Mr. Smith said it could be done either way. "It's nothing we are going to `get burned on' regarding the cost," he said, "but the candid discussion about what's going on would be reflected in the minutes if we weren't in executive session." Mr. Clopper asked Mr. Smith to give the Board a sense of the general nature of what the Board will be discussing. The Greeley city manager has approached the Fort Collins city manager about a couple of items. Greeley would like some land at the old water treatment plant site for future expansion of Seaman Reservoir and where the dam might be. They would like to have it even though it would be open to the public. They suggest a trade or a land sale. "What we might respond with is an option of another 40 acres at the Arapaho Ranch in the Kelley Flats Campground. That's a good trading option for the Forest Service." Mr. Clopper asked for a show of hands from the Board to determine how many thought this item should be moved to the end of the meeting and be discussed in executive session. The general feeling of the Board was to move it to the end of the meeting and vote on whether to go into executive session at that time. Mr. Smith went on to discuss the other item, a letter from the Forest Service, which was not confidential. He said that the Forest Service has a half million dollars in funding to upgrade the Kelley Flats Campground which the City owns. If they don't have some kind of instrument of commitment from the City for a lease (they can't get an exchange done in the next three months) so they are asking for a lease for just the Kelley Flats Campground with their commitment to follow through with the land exchange; that would be included in the land exchange. Mr. Smith also explained that the Greeley and Fort Collins city managers are initiating reconnaissance studies of the Seaman Project. "They asked if we would like to participate in those studies." The Northern District has indicated they are interested, and the tri-districts may be interested in participating as well. There could be some interest in determining how Halligan interacts with that, and perhaps the whole thing becoming a big project in which all the entities share. "We would be interested in looking at it, with approximately $25,000 being our share,"he said. "That's right in line with our recommended policy on regional cooperation," Mr. Clopper pointed out. "It would involve some hydrology as far as functioning and joint operations," Mr. Smith added. Dave Frick asked what Water Board Minutes March 26, 1998 Page 15 the City hopes to gain out of it. "Actually there is a slim chance that this is something we want to be involved in, so we want to be on the ground floor as it moves along," Mr. Smith replied. "Is there any kind of agreement on this?" Dr. Sanders asked. "There will probably be a written agreement between the city managers on cost sharing or something like that," Mr. Smith said. "What you're saying is that it might be more feasible to enlarge Seaman rather than Halligan," Mr. Frick stated. "That may be a direction. One of the options may be to do a smaller project at Halligan just to keep what is there, and move the conditional right to Seaman," Mr. Smith responded. Mr. Lauer said there are two enlargement scenarios involved here. "Yes, there is an 80,000 ac-ft enlargement and a 200,000 ac-ft one," Mr. Smith replied. "The 80,000 ac-ft one would be on the same site where Seaman's is now and just build up the dam; the 200,000 scenario is across from the original Gateway site," Mr. Lauer explained, "and would essentially take care of what is presently a natural confluence of the North Fork of the main stem of the Poudre." "There really isn't anything there right now. If we transferred our conditional right down there, it would be 33 or 34,000 ac-ft." Mr. Smith explained. "The Greeley expansion was junior to us. Halligan expansion is senior to the Seaman expansion." Mr. Smith said the study will look at two or three options. What they want to do is geo-tech work on various locations to see what is feasible, and then do some hydrology to see how things would operate. "How will staff be involved," Mr. Clopper asked. "Staff will probably do the hydrology work," Mr. Smith replied. "Consultants will do some of the reconnaissance environmental work and NTRO; ERO and GEI are going to do the geo-tech work," he added. Mr. Ward asked if there was going to be an attempt to look at the role of sediment as it moves into these reservoirs, so we can talk about sustainable storage rather than have the Halligan situation occur again. "This effort probably won't get that far," Mr. Smith replied. Dave Frick mentioned that the City of Greeley did a study like that. "Is there a chance that some of that capacity could be restored by determining a way to move that sediment through?" Mr. Ward asked, "or dredge it out?" He added, is that a part of getting extra storage? "I would like to have us think in terms of long term capacity," he stressed. "As I recall there was less than 1,000 ac-ft of sediment in there over a period of 50 years," Mr. Frick responded. "If you're talking about a 30-40,000 ac-ft of expansion, I think it would be a minor part." "How much have we lost at Halligan?" Mr. Ward continued. "I guess about 300-400 ac-ft of storage out of 6,000 ac-ft," Mr. Bode replied. Mr. Smith continued by saying that the City Manager is willing to comply with our regional policy and cooperate. ' $25,000 is not a large sum of money, and perhaps there will be some interesting information for us to look at to help us decide the direction we want to go," he said. Mr. Clopper asked if staff would like the Board's Engineering Committee to look at any of the information. "Once we generate some information, we will want the Committee to review it," Mr. Smith replied. Water Board Minutes March 26, 1998 Page 16 "Regarding the NCWCD's long range plan to build Grey Mountain Reservoir, does that inundate the confluence?" Tom Brown asked. "Oh yes," I& Smith replied. If the District decides to build the other dam, would.that inundate the Greeley dam?" Mr. Brown wondered. "I don't think they are going to do both of those at once," Mr. Smith responded. "I would suspect that if the second one became feasible, Grey Mountain would go away." he predicted. Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported that February treated water use of 1,359 ac-fl, was fairly normal. Regional 201 Study Gale McGaha Miller reported that there was an open house last month at CSU. "I'm glad that several of you were able to make it," she said. She made copies of the overheads from the presentation for Board members who would like to have them. "What has been added in these overheads, that wasn't in the presentation given to the Board last summer, is the collection system evaluation, the alternatives evaluation and the sensitivty anaysis. It's a good summary of the study." She said there was a good turnout of at least 50 people at the open house. She was pleased that nothing controversial came up in the question period. "There were mostly just a few technical questions." "Did you have people from the other participating entities who showed up?" Mr. Clopper asked. "Yes, some of them," she said. Mr. Lauer wondered if the conclusions are basically the same regarding a regional facility. "Unless the population projections and growth projections are way off, it looks like it makes sense for everyone to expand individually," she replied. "A regional plant was as much a contender as indivival expansions if it turned out that everyone needed additional capacity at the same time." "At some time we are going to have to wrap up the report on this, and probably before the end of the year, we will get some formal recommendations to Council," Mike Smith stated. "The report isn't entirely finalized because we gave the public 30 days to comment after the open house. Then we will make a final report for review," Ms. McGaha Miller said. Mr. Smith said perhaps we can have the consultants give a final wrap-up presentation in the summer and arrange a study session with City Council. Joint Meeting of Regional Water Boards Molly Nortier announced that the joint meeting this year will be hosted by Loveland. They have selected Wednesday, May 27th as the date for the meeting, which is the night before our Board meeting on Thursday night. There were limited dates available because they are going to have the meeting at the Sylvan Dale Guest Ranch. Also Dan Tyler, the author of The Last Water Hole in the West, will be the speaker and he was available that evening. Ms. Nortier suggested, rather than meeting two nights in a row, that the Board change their meeting to Wednesday. After the meeting Water Board Minutes March 26, 1998 Page 17 we could car pool to the Guest Ranch. The social hour will be 6:00 - 7:00 and dinner will follow at 7:00. The Board agreed to move the May meeting to Wednesday May 27th. The Water Supply, Engineering and Liaison Issues Committees did not meet. Legislative and Finance The legislative and Finance Committee met today prior to the Board meeting. Gale McGaha Miller provided a summary of Current Water Legislation which other Board members also received. Chairman Howard Goldman said there was not much the Committee needed to do, and it looks like anything we would want to comment on has already been discussed. Two items he pointed out were HR 859 which was discussed and voted on at the last Board meeting. It would repeal water efficiency standards for toilets, showerheads and urinals. HB 1006 was the second bill. It creates an endangered species fund to finance state recovery programs on the Colorado, South Platte and Rio Grande Rivers, as well as assist the state in stabilizing habitat of the declining species. Currently, it is stuck in House Appropriations and faces stiff opposition due to the amount of money requested (estimates range from $5.1 to $24 million). City Council has already taken a position of support of this bill. The Committee thought there might be a need for another letter in view of the discovery of an endangered mouse in Larimer County. "It probably would be a good idea to go ahead and pass this," he concluded. Alison Adams pointed that, while the bill targets 3 or 4 other existing recovery programs, it also opens the door for any other new programs that are started as well. The Conservation Trust Fund could be used to facilitate future recovery programs also. "It is thought that were the state to pass something like this, it would make it easier for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to delay declaring this to be an endangered species, and give the state time to set up programs to deal with the mouse," Robert Ward explained. "If the mouse is declared a threatened species, what does that do to our Stormwater program or our water supply pipeline? Are we about to see a train wreck and are we ready?" he asserted. "Is there something else we could be doing with this type of legislation to perhaps provide more opportunity for getting in the business of protecting mice? The consequences of that mouse becoming endangered concerns me," he concluded. Bob Smith said Stormwater staff has tested two sites for the mouse and haven't found any. Mr. Frick said if we were confronted with this for the Avery Park Project, we couldn't do it. "My understanding is that mouse typically is going to be in more rural areas," Mr. Lauer stated. "There are so many cats in town, that I doubt there are any of those mice around here," B.Smith remarked. "Timberline is in Water Board Minutes March 26, 1998 Page 18 a pretty remote area, and we haven't found any there." "Do they have to be there, or does it just have to be a suitable habitat for them?" Mr. Ward asked. "They have to be there," B. Smith replied. Mr. Clopper asked if there are any other bills we are taking a position on. Ms. McGaha Miller mentioned SB 179. This bill grants the State authority to assess administrative penalties and fines. EPA requires such authority as a condition for receiving State Revolving Fund monies. The water community generally supports this bill. It is currently awaiting its second reading on the Senate floor. Council has agreed to take a position supporting the bill. "We will prepare a letter for the Mayor's signature and call our local delegation," Ms. McGaha Miller concluded. Conservation and Public Education Chairman David Lauer said his Committee will meet prior to the Board meeting at 2:00 on Thursday, April 23, 1998. Mr. Lauer asked if the Board should move ahead on any of the items discussed at the last Board meeting. "Should we put that on the agenda for April?" Mr. Clopper said, "let's play it by ear and see what positions the Committee comes up with. They can request the Board to act on any of the items." "So far the items have just been informational, and "I'm not comfortable with that," Mr. Lauer said. "I think maybe we ought to do something that the Board could act on in one or two of those cases." "If the Committee wants to come with a firm recommendation, let's take action on it," Mr. Clopper concluded. NCWCD Spring Water Users Meeting and Northern Water Coalition Meeting Alison Adams referred to the notification in the packets of the NCWCD Spring Water Users Meeting on April 12th in Greeley. Following that meeting, she said, there is another meeting of the Northern Water Coalition. She invited members who are attending the water users meeting to think about coming to this meeting as well. Letter from Mayor and Council members Paul Clopper pointed out the letter in the packets from the Mayor and City Council thanking the Board for their good work. They encourage members to communicate on issues through their Council liaison or directly with Council members. They realize that all board and commission members can't attend the appreciation event at the Lincoln Center, so they wanted to thank each board and commission member for their contributions to the City. P&Z Board Work Session Bob Smith announced that the P&Z Board work session with Water Board members has been rescheduled for April 10th at noon at 281 North College. Please let Molly Nortier know if you plan to attend because lunch is provided. Those who attend will receive a packet prior to the meeting. • Water Board Minutes March 26, 1998 Page 19 Dave Frick moved that the Board move into executive session. After David Lauer's second, the Board approved the motion unanimously. After reconvening, the Board recommended that City Council proceed with the land exchange with Greeley and to initiate an agreement with the Forest Service. Dave Frick moved that the Board recommend to the City Council that they approve a lease with the Forest Service for 10 acres of the Kelley Flats Camp Ground. After a second from Tom Sanders, the motion passed unanimously. Since there was no more business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:55 p.m. _4e—e� 2-2� Water Board Se retary