Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 12/19/1996WATER UTILTI'IES BOARD MINUTES December 19,1996 3:00 - 5:35 P.M. Light and Power Training Room 700 Wood Street MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Clopper, Co -President, John Bartholow, Co -Vice President, Bob Havis, Co -Vice President, Tom Sanders, Joe Bergquist, Ray Herrmann, David Rau, Howard Goldman, John Barnett, Tom Brown, Robert Ward, Dave Frick, Dave Lauer COUNCIL LIAISON Chuck Wanner STAFF Mike Smith, Wendy Williams, Gale McGaha Miller, Bob Smith, Dennis Bode, Ben Alexander, Link Mueller, Molly Nortier GUESTS City Staff: Mark Sears, Gary Diede MEMBERS ABSENT Alison Adams, George Reed, John Morris, Terry Podmore, Randy Fischer President Paul Clopper opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: MINUTES Ray Hermann moved that the minutes of November 21, 1996 be approved with the following corrections: On p. 9 Mr. Herrmann pointed out that the word "excess" should be inserted in front of water in the second sentence of the first paragraph and that `for possible overdevelopment in Northern Colorado," be added after the word water. On p. 8, paragraph 1, in the last sentence, the word "our" should be "out," Mr. Lauer said. Commissioner Duvall's name is spelled with 21s. After John Barnett's second, the Board voted unanimously to approve the corrected minutes. 1 1:51 am 1 mawl PRO Leiz111 a According to a memo from the Timberline Extension Design Team, in June 1996, following an extensive public participation process, City Council directed staff to proceed with the preliminary design of the Timberline Extension from Prospect to Summit View. City Council decided they would review the preliminary design and project budget at the beginning of 1997 before deciding whether to proceed to final design and construction. Water Utilities Board Minutes January 19, 1996 Page 2 Since June, staff has been working on the preliminary design, developing a clear picture of what the proposed project should include. Staff is currently focusing on developing a "base project" which will include all the improvements necessary to provide a functional roadway and storm drainage and trail systems. Beyond this, they are developing a list of enhancements --improvements which could be added to the base project --and estimating the costs of each of the enhancements. If additional resources are available, it may be possible to add some of these enhancements to the base project. Three open houses were held between November 7th and November 13th. Based on input from the interdepartmental staff design team working on the project and from the open houses, work is proceeding on the preliminary design. With the help of a number of enlarged maps and photos., Gary Diede, Transportation Services, Mark Sears, Engineering and Link Mueller from Stormwater gave a presentation on the preliminary design of the proposed Timberline Extension project, detailing what the improvements would include. They said they will be going to a Council work session on January 28th to ask Council how they want the Design Team to proceed on the project. Prior to that work session, staff has been seeking input from the various advisory boards which had provided input on the Timberline Extension during the public participation phase in the spring. One of those boards was the Storm Drainage Board, now a part of the newly created Water Utilities Board. Comments received from the Board will be passed on to the Council when staff prepares information for the work session. The team first pointed out on a map the exact route of the proposed project. Currently the project is budgeted for $7.5 million. They took the Board through what that $7.5 million "does for us right now." There is a flood plain problem which they are trying to resolve with the help of Storm Drainage, Natural Resources and the Parks Dept. There are a number of environmental issues that are of concern. Ultimately, through the City Plan and the Master Street Plan, Timberline would be a major connection for going all the way south to Loveland. Eventually it would be a 6-lane roadway that would go up to an activities center in the latest City Plan proposal that will be going to Council in March. The City limits stop south of the River basically and it is County property through the rest, "but we plan on annexing the road all the way up to International Blvd." Gary Diede emphasized that this project was never envisioned to build a 6-lane roadway; six lanes aren't needed right now. A two-lane road was approved by the voters in 1989. Mr. Diede pointed out that just the east two travel lanes will be built, including a sidewalk on one side, and a bike path, so there will be alternative modes going up and down that corridor. A bridge will be built across the Poudre River through the 100-year flood plain. Since June, plans for the bridge have been revised to construct a wider and longer bridge than had been anticipated. It will cost $600,000 more to build the larger bridge. Water Utilities Board Minutes January 19, 1996 Page 3 In the northern part of the project there are severe underground water problems. Those areas have to be drained by working with Storm Drainage on their Dry Creek Project on the west side. "This is a $250,000 problem that we weren't aware of initially," Mr. Diede related. He said that they have also found that FAA rules won't allow them to build the road as close to the runway as indicated on the plans, "so we have to build 400 ft. of runway on the northwest end. That's about a $130,000 job; with the other unanticipated increases, it adds up to about a million dollars worth of increases in costs since June." Mr. Diede went on to list some of the things that they are tying to do to make the project more compatible with the environment. He mentioned that the City recently purchased 98 acres of natural area, within the vicinity of the project, which will not be developed. He emphasized that they are trying to fine tune the costs. They still don't have money for landscaping in the project. "If we did landscaping from the north end to the south end, it would cost about $600,000." Mr. Diede pointed out an area in which they would like to create more water noise where the bike lane goes through, but they haven't settled on a way to do that yet. For next year, Choices 95 revenues are going to be a million dollars higher than is available now, "but we aren't assuming that Council is going to use that million dollars for this project." Paul Clopper asked iftoday's session is for information only. "Is it correct that you are just soliciting feedback? What issues or what constraints and opportunities can you identify that would specifically relate to this Board?" "Yes, we want feedback," Mr. Diede replied. One of the constraints may be the size of the structure. "We are trying to accommodate wildlife through there, whether it's a 360 or 400 ft. bridge; that's a pretty large structure. It gets a 100 year flow under there. If we weren't trying to save the trees in the middle, we could excavate the channel and the bridge would be shorter, but that would have some impact on the wildlife." He doesn't think there are any water quality issues. Link Mueller thinks that one initiative that will come to the Board is the Dry Creek Channel. In the `97 budget we included money for the Mulberry St. crossing, the Lincoln St. crossing, and we have a siphon crossing underneath the Timnath Reservoir Inlet. He displayed a map of the Dry Creek Channel "We just completed the hydrology this week," he related. "We are looking at about 1100 cfs crossing there." The money budgeted doesn't build the whole thing from the air park to the Poudre River. "Right now we are working with Engineering and trying to refine our cost estimate. It would probably be an advantage to go ahead and build it with them. Perhaps we could find some cost savings. We are tying to bring a recommendation to the Board on our findings," he concluded. Mr. Lauer asked if Dry Creek flows the whole year. "It's dry right now, but during the summer, it gets some irrigation return flows," Mr. Mueller replied. "The whole air park is in the flood plain for Water Utilities Board Minutes January 19, 1996 Page 4 Dry Creek. There are still some problems that need to be corrected," Mr. Smith added. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Mueller to address the Timberline project. "Do you see any concerns related to the bridge or conditions there in terms of diverting the flow?" "As far as diverting the flow, we had approached the issue conservatively because we didn't want to impact the upstream properties in raising the flood plain elevation," Mr. Mueller responded. `We tried to find a way that was environmentally compatible. For both the Timberline and Dry Creek projects we have worked together by using the same hydrology technology firm FEMA is asking us to redo the baseline study because of some inconsistencies in the original FIS study. "I think that is even going to help us more," he said. "Right now we are carrying all the 100-year flood plain underneath the structure, and three feet of free board. There is the ability to raise the water level a half a foot according to the City's policy;1 foot according to FEMA's policy. We're probably going to challenge that. We could make that a little tighter by making the bridge a little shorter, thus reducing the costs. When we go into the final design, we will probably consider that. It would definitely be something we would bring back to this Board to discuss." Mr. Mueller mentioned another issue which is a flood path that splits off from the River. We are working on how the road is designed through there. We could try to allow the 100-year flows to go through there, or Engineering could ask for a variance to the Storm Drainage criteria and provide 50 year protection for the roadway. There are also some issues related to working with the developer and actually doing some levees. That's still in the negotiation stages. The issue that may come back to the Board is, if they are going to allow the R path through, and if they do want to provide only 50-year protection for the roadway, they would have to come back to the Water Utilities Board for a variance. Mr. Clapper asked for questions from the Board. Dave Rau said that the last time the Storm Drainage Board looked at this, he thought they were allowing for a flood over top of the roadway south of the bridge. "That was the R. path," Mr. Diede replied. "We had several designs: one coming directly off the bridge, and perhaps some of the water flow over the roadway, but with all of the issues about noise, the road is going to stay higher, so we don't plan to have any water flow here (he pointed to a place on the map) but the R. path is one we are still going for." John Bartholow asked what kind of bank stabilization would be required on the outside of that bend, and then, presumably to keep it from breaching into the River Bend Ponds. Mr. Diede said they were going to have to provide considerable protection. "There is a lot of rubble there that needs to be replaced, so we need to armor this portion of the channel to make sure that the water doesn't keep moving in that direction. The River Bend Ponds is an issue that Natural Resources and Parks continues to try to figure out. "Do they want it to flood or do they not want it to flood? Right now it would flood the River Bend Ponds, so we are not going to preclude that. We have moved the road 200 feet away from the Ponds. They can build a weir to protect that area if they want to. We've left Water Utilities Board Minutes January 19, 1996 Page 5 that option open for them" `Would they have to fund that if they wanted it?' Mr. Bartholow asked. "Yes," Mr. Diede replied. Mark Sears said that they would be providing protection where the water comes by at River Bend Ponds, for any increase in velocity due to the bridge. Joe Bergquist said there seems to be an excessively large bridge just for wildlife. "Is that really necessary? Is there any input from experts on what you actually need?' Mr. Diede said there are many schools of thought about that. "I don't know that it needs to be 400 ft. wide just for wildlife. What we will do with the consultants is ask them, if we don't leave the raised portion in the natural area that is presently there, and excavate that to make the bridge crossing as small as possible and still be reasonable for wildlife, I'm not sure how people would feel about taking out that mature landscaping," he stressed. There are two different activities: nighttime the wildlife is moving through and during the daytime bicycles, pedestrians and bladers are going through. Dave Lauer asked what is going to happen to the bike path if the bridge is made shorter. "If you make the bridge shorter, he indicated on the map where the bridge might end up and where the bike path might end up. The bike path would still be separated far enough away from the wildlife corridor," Mr. Diede stressed. "Have you put a price on what it will cost to maintain that wildlife corridor?" "That's the question I have for the design engineers of the bridge. Ifwe excavate that, how much shorter can the bridge be? Then we ask natural areas people what we have to do to make sure we provide what the wildlife corridor needs in terms of vegetation etc. It's obviously not going to be mature trees," Mr. Diede explained. "Do you have a feeling for what percentage of trees you would have to remove?" Mr. Lauer asked. "We're not going to take out very many trees," Mr. Sears answered. "Probably the largest impact would be on the north bank where we need to do some grading. The existing south slope has all the trees on it." It was mentioned that the whole conveyance channel would be re -landscaped in the base project. Mr. Clopper recalled three numbers that Mr. Mueller mentioned earlier which may have significant policy implications for the Water Utilities Board. "You mentioned that FEMA's regulatory policy is a one -foot water surface rise and the City's policy is more stringent, and would allow only a half a foot rise. Mr. Mueller said this project is looking at no rise, or not affecting upstream water levels. He returned to the point Mr. Diede was making on the different spans. Perhaps the way to approach this, is to say, `what do we need as a minimum span to hydrolicly convey that water and stay within our half foot policy, or perhaps a different policy interpretation ifwe want to make a choice of getting that water surface rise even lower than the City currently allows?" Water Utilities Board Minutes January 19, 1996 Page 6 Mr. Diede explained that this stretch of the River is quite complex. "I have heard that from the hydrologist and Link Mueller's office. I think we are willing to look at a half a foot, a quarter of a foot, or whatever it might be. If we back up the water, and really do create a lot more damage upstream, we would be concerned about that as well. We would like to look at it, not in terms of the portions of a foot, but by asking the consultants, when they have all the survey data, to do better modeling on elevation of water, etc. Maybe we need to ask, if we raise the water, do we have severe impacts downstream by backing that water up?" Mark Sears added that because they had to redo the baseline topography to redo the model, it seemed Eke they had to double their effort. "Seeing how we can squeeze that bridge span is one of the things we will be looking at now that we have the new data." "We want to make sure we maintain a comfortable, visually aesthetic experience for people on the bike path, as well as making it compatible for wildlife," Mr. Diede assured the Board. "Can we do this with a smaller space; yes, but it may result in impacts on the vegetation." Mr. Lauer remarked that the vegetation can be re -planted. `We have plans to re -vegetate the channel wherever we do excavation," Mr. Diede stressed. Mr. Clopper commented that this is the first opportunity for the merged Board to learn where the project is headed and what kinds of issues the design team is facing. Robert Ward asked what time ofyear they normally do construction; "I presume it's not during peak flows." "We normally like to start earlier in the year, but due to our design schedule, we are probably going to begin construction in July and hope to have it completed in July of the following year," Mr. Sears replied. Bridge construction would probably start late August or early September. "Upstream of this is the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1," Mr. Ward began. "In terms of the water quality that runs through this area, and the potential impact that flow conditions might have on that, if you do talk about raising that flow, you probably want to keep that flow moving through there fairly steadily," he suggested. He compared it to the problems that the metro area has with the South Platte. "As you get diversion structures, you get pools backed up behind them, which results in severe water quality problems," he explained. "Has that been discussed at all?" "We talked about that this morning," Mr. Diede said. "In trying to create this `white noise', do we pool a little water, or do we pump water around, or pipe in other water? What do we do to create more substantial flows? Do we place boulders in certain areas? Somebody mentioned this morning that pooling the water is a situation we may not want to get into." It was suggested that the team may want to look at the Boulder Creek enhancement project where they have actually incorporated parts of the creek into a kind of post treatment type approach on the creek. What they have found it that it is quite beneficial. "This approach has the benefit of enhancing the water quality." Mr. Diede doesn't think we're ever going achieve the `babbling brook" effect because the area in question is quite flat and the river is moves slowly. Water Utilities Board Minutes January 19, 1996 Page 7 Mr. Clopper thanked Mr. Diede, Mr. Mueller and Mr. Sears for the presentation. The Board will look forward to further updates on the project. • I �._ . ul. �M Copies of the Meadow Springs Ranch Agreement of Purchase and Sale of Real Estate were included in members' packets. Mike Smith first provided background on the agreement. Several months ago, when there was another potential buyer of this same portion of land at the Ranch, the Water Board voted to recommend to the Council that this land not be sold. What the Board received in their packets was another offer to purchase the same portion of land. John Fishbach, the City Manager did not sign the agreement because it doesn't sufficiently protect the land. Moreover, he doesn't think it should be sold either. "Are you looking for a formal recommendation from the Board today?" Mr. Clopper asked. `°Ihe Board made a recommendation earlier not to sell. Today, if you are comfortable with it, perhaps you could re -affirm that decision, and even suggest that the land be pulled off the market," Mr. Smith proposed "You also may do nothing if that is your preference." John Bartholow asked who is the proposed grantee of the conservation easement. Gale McGaha Miller said it is the City. "Would it be the Department of Natural Resources that would manage it?" Mr. Bartholow continued. "We haven't gone that far with it, so we haven't considered that potential," she responded. Dave Lauer asked if the parcel for sale is the same eastern side that was considered for sale earlier. "Yes, it is," Mr. Smith replied. He indicated on a map of the Ranch the exact location. He related that a couple of council members suggested two years ago that perhaps we didn't need that eastern portion, and that is the part which is currently for sale. It's about 4600 acres; the whole ranch is about 26,000 acres. He then pointed out the colored sections which had been the school sections. When the Ranch was purchased, they were owned by the State of Colorado. A few years ago the City bought those in a three-way deal at a cost of $750,000. "When we bought those the Council thought, since we were spending 3/4 of a million dollars, maybe we could get some of that money back. It happened that the east side of the Ranch was appraised at about that same price. Council members on the Water Planning Committee suggested that the City try to sell that portion to recoup some of the money. "Staff wasn't interested in selling the property because we didn't need the money at that time, and we were concerned about the future. If we would have a need for the extra land later, we probably wouldn't be able to buy it back; especially for the current price," Mr. Smith explained. "Nevertheless, we ended up putting it on the market." The broker the City hired has had a difficult time trying to sell it because ofthe conservation easements that are required. "Frankly, we would rather not sell it," he reiterated, "but we felt obligated to follow through on the direction of the Water Planning Committee." Paul Clopper thought it would be helpful to re -visit the issue of the sub -irrigated meadow and the fact that large portions of that land on the east side would never be used for sludge operations. Mr. Smith Water Utilities Board Minutes January 19, 1996 Page 8 referred to an infrared photo. He pointed out that the red is wet areas, and also indicated that the sub - irrigated meadow contains a plant that is on the list to be considered as threatened. `Basically the land is used for grazing, and grazing doesn't hurt the meadow; as a matter of fact, it helps it to thrive," he stressed. This is an area where we must have a very protective conservation easement to prevent it from being destroyed. The other part of the easement would require that there be no development; e.g. 35 acre lots right next to our project. John Bartholow asked what the current lease of that property is. The entire ranch is leased to a grazing association, Ms. McGaha Miller replied. "We are midway through a five year lease, and it's on a per animal unit basis. The lease has some additional language in it that allows for the possibility of the east side being sold and it would pro -rate according to the additional acreage left if that were to happen," she continued. "The annual income is about $80,000." "What is it per animal unit?' Tom Brown asked. "Per animal unit per month it's about $13.00; a pretty good rate," she responded. Mr. Lauer wondered if this was something the prospective buyers are intending to develop, "or do they just want to increase the number of ranching acres?' "'They talked about wanting to divide the property in three tracts and putting houses on each tract," Mr. Smith replied. "People who have looked at it have considered it for possible development of small ranchettes, for example." Ms. McGaha Miller added that it is not clear what would happen if they re -sold one of those parcels. Mr. Smith thinks it's not a prudent thing to sell land that you may need in the future. The observation was made that `you can always sell it, and perhaps it may be worth more later." Tom Sanders asked, "if the City Manager had signed this lease, would it have gone through?' "No, if he were to sign it, that would mean that it would be presented to the Board and Council," Mr. Smith explained. Mr. Sanders also stressed that we currently have a great place for the next 100 years to apply sludge. "Now we don't have anybody up there to complain about it, but if we sell this, those who locate there will begin to complain about our operation," he insisted. "Why open it up to those kinds of problems!" ACTION Tom Sanders moved that the Board recommend that the City abide by its current position by rejecting this proposal and by removing the property from the market. Ray Herrmann seconded the motion. John Barnett asked that the record reflect that he did not participate in the discussion and abstained from the vote due to a perceived conflict of interest. The motion passed 12-0 with 1 abstention. ORGANIZATION ISSUES - BYLAWS Paul Clopper reminded Board members that today, they are to turn in written suggestions to the secretary for changes in the Bylaws. Those will be forwarded to Assistant City Attorney John Duval, who will incorporate them and highlight them in the next draft of the bylaws. The Board will discuss Water Utilities Board Minutes January 19, 1996 Page 9 these changes at the January meeting. Mr. Clopper suggested that those offering changes should make copies to make sure they have been addressed in the next draft. He stressed that he has some very strong feelings about how this document should be structured to clearly define the Board's purpose. "That sense of it is not in the current draft," he stated. "Is it something that belongs in the bylaws or does it belong in the Charter'?' Ray Herrmann asked. Robert Ward pointed out that the functions are referred to in the City Code now. "From my perspective, that's where the problems begin to crop up. The Code now points us in a very skewed direction." "Last time when you (Mr. Ward) were not here, the Board had more discussion about the Code than the bylaws," Mr. Herrmann recalled. "At some point we are going to have to clarify what does what. I think the bylaws should be simple. They should basically say how the Board functions. The mission statement may be more proper in the Code." Another member stated that it was pretty clear at the last meeting that nobody was overly enthusiastic about how the Code was adopted. "At the time that we come up with a good mission statement, we need to look at the Code," he said. He agreed with Mr. Herrmann that there is a need to keep it as simple as possible, and still operate. Dave Lauer suggested that the Board make sure that the Code is the way they want it, and he also wants to keep the bylaws as simple as possible. Mike Smith said that John Duval would probably agree with the idea of simplicity in the bylaws; the bylaws are merely a statement of how a group conducts business. Robert Ward said he has read the previous bylaws, "and if they were a re -statement of the Code, where did the Code come from, because it is not at all like those." "The Code that was approved was the one that existed before," Mr. Smith explained. "Ifthe Code that existed before was quite different from the bylaws, this is not a new problem," Mr. Ward observed. "There were no major changes in the Code," Mr. Smith said. "After hearing this discussion," Dave Frick began, `Smaybe it would be better if we develop a mission statement separately and propose it as a modification of the Code. That way the Council can buy off on our mission statement by adopting the Code." Mr. Clopper reminded Board members to turn in their bylaws suggestions to the WUB secretary. A committee comprised of the co -presidents, co -vice presidents, standing committee chairs and two staff members met on December 17th to draft a Water Utilities Board 1997 work plan. They updated and combined the previous plans of the Storm Drainage Board and the Water Board, and identified some new areas. The draft was included in the packets. Mr. Clopper explained that there was not a one to one correspondence between each section of the work plan and some kind of committee. "Obviously there are sections that relate more to one committee than others," he said. Each committee chair went through the elements of their sections, and suggestions and changes were made through this process. After considerable discussion, the draft below is the reflection of those Water Utilities Board Minutes January 19, 1996 Page 10 suggested changes. The additions and other changes are highlighted in bold and the deletions are in italics: WATER UTRXIUS BOARD 1997 WORK PLAN 1. Water sunnly A. Identify opportunities for improved water supply through regional cooperation. B. Review City's position on possible future efforts by Denver metro entities to purchase northern Front Range water rights. C. Review City's position on its responsibility to protect the health of riverine ecosystems affected by City water use, and the relation of that responsibility to traditional water supply goals. D. Review proposed Halligan Reservoir project. E. Review opportunity to purchase water rights. 2. Water Conservation and Public Education A. Play an advisory role in implementing demand management measures and monitor progress relative to goals as recommended by the Demand Management Committee and adopted by the City Council. B. Continue to monitor volunteer the transition from volunteer to mandatory metering program C. Help promote additional public education projects. D. Promote stormwater quality and flood hazard awareness. E. Help promote integration of Stormwater management activities with community issues and needs. (Moved from section 5) F. Review procedures for informing citizens about the quality of their drinking water. (Moved from section 6) 3. Leeislative and Finance A. Review and make recommendations on water, wastewater and stormwater reistod legislation. B. Review Utilities proposed budget and make recommendations regarding water, stormwater and wastewater rate increases and water and wastewater Plant Investmesit Fees (PIFs) and Stormwater Basin Fees. C. Continue to develop Poudre River Drainageway Plan - Funding policies and implementation. D. Develop Stormwater Capital Fee Policy. 4. Enstincering A. Continue to monitor Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) Regional Water Supply Study. Water Utilities Board Minutes January 19, 1996 Page 11 B. Review planning and designing phases of construction projects as needed. C. Review Water Treatment, Stormwater and Wastewater master plans. D. Review scope of work for Halligan Feasibility Study. E. Review Stormwater Master Plan Updates. Review design criteria. F. Review Dry Creek Floodplain Project. 5. Liaison Issues A. Explore implementation of policies which adopt regional solutions to current and fixture water problems. B. Identify proactive steps being taken to develop a regional vision for the management ofwater, such as water banks, the Regional 201 Study, water court modification, and future legislation. C. Meet with regional water boards, mayor's commission, and related City boards to discuss issues of regional interest. E. Pursue reorganization of Water Utilities Board Committees which would place legislative functions in this committee and finance functions in the Water Conservation Committee. F. Maintain and enhance Stormwater management matters with Larimer County, City Council and Staff 6. Water Quality A. Review and monitor Water Treatment Master Plan Improvements. B. Review raw water, drinldng water, wastewater, and stormwater quality trends, permits and regulations. C. Cooperate with other water, wastewater and stormwater entities. D. Review efforts to protect sources of drinking water (e.g., Poudre River watershed, Horsetooth Reservoir) from external contamination. E. Mitigate Stormwater runoff environmental impacts. (1) Review habitat protection and restoration criteria in Master Plans. (2) Review erosion control criteria Stormwater A. Provide for the safe and efficient passage of stormwater runoff (1) Variance considerations a. Floodplain Management b. Design Criteria and Construction Standards c. Stormwater fees B. Improve delivery of services. (1) Review trends of Community Rating System 8. Routine Other Items Water Utilities Board Minutes January 19, 1996 Page 12 A Review and consider, as needed, such items as raw water rental rates, cash in -lieu -of water rates, and Water Utilities Board attendance goals. B. Develop a Mission Statement with includes goals and objectives. C. Undertake reorganizational issues that were formulated to help the transition process for the combined board. D. Develop a scheme for the gradual reduction in the size of the Water Utilities Board. Note: The additions and other changes are highlighted in bold and the deletions are in italics. Specific Comments John Bartholow thinks Conservation and Public Education should be an overall public relations committee. (He wasn't sure that `public relations" was the right title.) "We should not only be educating the public but also be the public liaison." He, at one time, advocated putting the financial component into this sub committee, as well. "Me public is not only interested in quality water but quality rates as well." Mr. Herrmann, a member of the Committee, agreed that it might be time to incorporate the financial issues as well. Mr. Bartholow also proposed that the focus of the metering program be one of "transition from volunteer to mandatory." After discussion and agreement from the Board, that focus was incorporated in part B of the C&PE section of the draft. Howard Goldman proposed that the legislative function of the Legislative and Finance Committee be moved to Liaison Issues. Mr. Clopper added that there has been a ground swell of support for that concept. "In the past the legislative function was concentrated on monitoring what the legislature was doing," Mr. Goldman continued. "Ifwe are looking at trying to recommend policy around a regional vision, and if we really want to do that, it might require some kind of proactive legislation that might allow for a more regional approach in water issues." Mr. Goldman also pointed out, in connection with the new Liaison Issues Committee, that all the other committees have to deal with other entities inside and outside the City. They are looking at it from a substantive, "how do we maintain the water supply and the water quality, for example, and how do we do that in relation to other entities?' There were no changes in the four items under the Legislative and Finance section. Tom Sanders wanted to make sure that the staff person who monitors the legislative items meet regularly with members of the L&F Committee when the legislature is in session. Mr. Bartholow pointed out that when the group met to create a draft work plan, there was no opposition to moving the legislative part of the L&F Committee into the Liaison Committee, but the Financial aspect was different. Tom Sanders, for example advocated keeping it separate because it is relatively well contained. "You might want to think about that as you make your own decision," he suggested. Bob Havis also wanted the Board to give some thought to moving the legislative issues to the Liaison Committee, "but that would set up Finance on its own," he said. Robert Ward was thinking of combining finance with Water Conservation and Public Ed. "How does the City deal with people who will be paying for all 0 Water Utilities Board Minutes January 19, 1996 Page 13 oftbisT' he wondered. Those people have to be educated on many issues. Mr. Havis pointed out that it becomes more of a customer liaison function. Thus, it becomes more "political" rather than institutional. Mr. Goldman thinks there are a number of things that customers want to know about their water. Mr. Herrmann, on the other hand, thinks that most customers don't want to know anything about water other than `it comes out of the tap when they need it and if it might make them sick." Mr. Ward related that Congress is now saying to cities that they must tell customers about water whether they want to know or not. Mr. Herrmann reiterated that the Board is talking about restructuring the Conservation and Public Education Committee to something it hasn't been in the past. Mr. Bartholow responded that some of the other roles the Committee has undertaken are more institutionalized. "Those things are set up; they are ongoing programs, etc." Mr. Havis observed that each of the committees has an appropriate public education role. "It's certainly not a matter of getting everybody to know all the ins and outs of the engineering aspects, for example." It was observed that, as members of the Board, they do bring a certain expertise to the community. Mr. Sanders would like to see the Finance Committee kept separate. He specifically mentioned Plant Investment Fees (PIFs), PILOT, (Payment in -lieu -of taxes), rental fees for water and a number of other financially related areas that are important to have the committee review and discuss. "I think these things will become diluted if they are incorporated into other areas." Mr. Clopper said he wasn't asking to restructure the committees at this point "We want to get a longer range view regarding what the presidents, vice presidents and committee chairs think are concepts that they want to pursue later." Dr. Sanders observed in looking at the draft plan, particularly for the engineering area which he heads, that committee members need to be more proactive in bringing up subjects instead of waiting to be asked to review them. He then preceded to give the new Board members some background on why the Utility should continue to pursue the Halligan Reservoir project. Note: Due to a mechanical failure, the remainder of this discussion was not recorded. Suggested changes in the Work Plan are indicated in the draft included in the minutes. The revised draft of the Work Plan will be reviewed and finalized at the January meeting. STAFF REPORTS Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported that treated water use for November was 1,481 ao-$. which is about 94% of what had been projected. He referred to the other side of the treated water summary which contained a Snotel Data Report as of 12/19/96 for Joe Wright and Deadman M. The snow water equivalent for Joe Wright was 10.9 inches, 119% of average; for Deadman it was 7.1 inches, 101% of average. Water Utilities Board Minutes January 19, 1996 Page 14 Financial Status Report Wendy Williams pointed out that a revised copy was distributed in place of the one included in the packets. For year-to-date operating revenue, the Water Fund is 100.14%, Wastewater is 91.19% and Stormwater is 93.28%. John Bartholow asked what the big spike in August was for Stormwater Plant Investment Fees. "There was a change in building permit fees for the City, and a number of people pulled permits in advance," Bob Smith replied. Stormwater wasn't the only area where that occurred," Ms. Williams added. `°Wirth the variety of impact fees that went into effect throughout the City, a lot of folks pulled permits early," Bob Smith emphasized. Update: Regional 201 Study Gale McGaha Miller reported that she met with the Regional 201 Study group today, to provide final comments on two memoranda; population projections and land use planning, and the other one on water quality planning. They took a look at future trends and regulations, and the current state of each of the entities' discharge permit limitations and the their current discharge quality. "I'm hoping those will be in final form in early January." The next step is to evaluate treatment facilities' capacities. We now know what the population is likely to be in these years and that will be translated into how much capacity wastewater treatment facilities are going to need, and when they are going to need it. That will resuh in a memoranda that should be ready possibly by the end of February. "We will then evaluate collection systems. The consultant will then take a look at some possible alternatives to address future capacity needs. Right now it looks like the first public meeting will be sometime in April," she concluded. Someone asked who was responsible for actually publishing the population projections. "That will be in the final report," Ms. McGaha Miller said. `Basically we received published projections from the Planning Dept.," she added. "Our service area is estimated to have a build -out population of 140,000. We expect most of that to occur by 2020. For this project, the planning period is way out to 2040, and the growth is expected to be much slower from 2020 to 2040," she explained. We really don't have that much more land to develop. It looks like a lot of it is out of the service area," she said. She emphasized that the projections are just for the current service area. There were no committee reports. REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY STRATEGY Alison Adams wrote a memo and made copies of the handouts she received when she attended the Northern Region Water Issues Meeting on December 9, 1996. These were included in Board packets. She was not able to attend the Board meeting, so she reported on the meeting in her memo. Two objectives of the meeting were: 1) to develop a presentation that was to be given at the • Water Utilities Board Minutes January 19, 1996 Page 15 Metropolitan Water Supply Investigation (MWSI) TAC on December 16th, and 2) to form a Northern Coalition. She said that the group basically settled on the following main points of focus for the presentation: 1. Base water supply issues including that there is adequate water but not an abundance of supply 2. The Northern area is already implementing the 4 alternatives discussed in the MWSI draft report. 3. From NCWCD's perspective, the C-BT project is not for `wheeling" (i.e. not to be used to route water through) and that there is no excess of water at the southern end of the project. 4. Emphasize the benefits of agriculture to the region and the state and discuss the economic impact to communities resulting from the loss of agriculture. 5. Water quality The primary message is that the northern area will protect its agricultural industry. Mayor Ann Azari provided a letter that was distributed at the meeting. That letter was included in Ms. Adams' packet of handouts. Dennis Bode also attended the meeting. He said that Ms. Adams summarized the meeting on the 9th very well He went on to summarize the meeting of the Northern Region Presentation to MWSI on December 16th at the Northglenn Holiday Inn. Mr. Bode attended the meeting on the 16th of the metropolitan Water Supply Investigation (MWSI) Technical Advisory Committee. The purpose of the meeting was to have the entities in the Northern area present supply and demand information to the larger group that has been involved in the study. "They didn't have a lot of the detailed information previously because their focus had been more on the metro area," he explained, "so the purpose of this meeting was to provide some of the detail about the Northern region. They had given presentations at several other meetings that had focused on the metro area. Mr. Bode handed out an outline of the agenda of the December 16th meeting. "Some of the metro area people were unable to attend due to weather, but the project team and the Denver Water people were there," he related. Mr. Bode went on to discuss the actual agenda. Eric Wilkinson, of the District, provided the introduction and a general overview. "The Agricultural Systems agenda item was probably the key issue," he said. They also spent some time going over the Domestic/Municipal systems. Most of the Water Utilities Board Minutes January 19, 1996 Page 16 presentations focused on the individual supply systems, some information on demands, and some of the concerns in the various areas. He referred to the letter that Mayor Azari prepared and provided for the meeting. As was mentioned earlier, Alison Adams included the letter in her packet for the Board. Mr. Bode related that the MWSI group has been working on this project for close to three years. That effort is about to be concluded. "They haven't decided what the next step will be or whether there will be another step." One of the main purposes of this group at the beginning was to acquaint people with different entities and their supply systems, and look for opportunities to cooperate and optimize some of the supplies, particularly in the metro area. Most of that has been accomplished. "As a part of that they have looked briefly at the Northern region, but that has not been the focus," he said. One of the things yet to be done is to determine whether there will be proposals that will result from their study to seek an increase in supply for some users in the metro area. "I think they want to complete the final report shortly after the first of the year," Mr. Bode concluded. `Will there be recommendations of where Denver is going to get the water?" "No, I don't think this was ever intended to be a plan," Mr. Bode replied. "It was intended to get people talking to each other, to explore ideas and evaluate options. I don't think there will be specific recommendations. There may be some general recommendations about what should come next. They may say, for example, that there is some potential for some entities to work together to enhance their supply. `Will there be a recommendation for the Northern District to work together with the Denver Metro area?" Robert Ward asked. "There could be a general recommendation that there could be some opportunities to do some exchanges, and arrangements to reuse some of the effluent in the Denver area," Mr. Bode answered, `but I don't think it will be very specific," he stressed. "Is it correct that this group has had $400,000 for this work?" Mr. Ward wondered. Mr. Bode said that he thinks that's right, but he wasn't sure. `But no recommendations?" Mr. Ward continued. "As I said, I don't think there ever was the intent to come up with specific plans," Mr. Bode replied. "I remember when this was getting started. It seems to me that it was cast in the context at the Colorado Water Conservation Board meeting, where I think they received their funding, that it was to look at options to meet some of these needs," Mr. Ward recalled. "Therefore, I thought there would be some options spelled out. "I think there will be some options, but I don't think there will be specific recommendations," Mr. Bode responded. Mr. Clopper wondered ifthere was a compilation of presentations from the December 16th meeting, if someone was interested in finding out more about what some of the entities said. "Nothing very formal, although I think they will provide a summary or meeting minutes," Mr. Bode answered. "I'll keep an eye out for those," he added. The other place that will include that information, is in the report when it comes out. Mr. Bode related that one of the other things the MWSI wanted to do as Water Utilities Board Minutes January 19, 1996 Page 17 a result of this meeting was to summarize, in the report, the whole water supply and demand for the northern region. "That's a task that probably the NCWCD will lead," Mr. Bode concluded. OTHER BUSINESS NCWCD Letter to City Manager Dave Lauer referred to a letter that the District sent to the City Manager about Greeley's proposed Cache la Poudre Canyon Gateway Park The Northern District Board of Directors passed a resolution about this at its November 8, 1996 meeting. The park would be located just downstream of the mouth of the Canyon on lands currently owned by the City of Greeley. Attached to the letter was the letter the District sent to the GOCO Board of Directors voicing the District's concern over "spending significant amounts of public monies on the proposed "Gateway Park" located at the confluence of the North Fort and the mainstem ofthe Poudre River at the site of the now retired Fort Collins Water Treatment Plant No. 1. In the letter, the District recommended that "Canyon Gateway Park" be investigated and seriously considered as a viable alternative to "Gateway Park." In essence, "Canyon Gateway Park at its location would not be affected "by fixture water development on the Cache la Poudre River." Mr. Lauer is concerned that this "displays a fundamental difference in focus on the river and the canyon, and what they represent to the future of Northern Colorado. They are getting to the point of using public funded pressure that is going way beyond what they ought to be doing, given the sentiment of the community," he contends. Molly Nortier will make copies of the letters for Board members. This will be discussed fiuther at the January meeting. ADJOURNMENT Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m.