Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 06/21/1996J WATER BOARD MINUTES June 21, 1996 3:00 - 4:45 P.M. Water and Wastewater Utility Conference Room 700 Wood Street COUNCILIWATER BOARD LIAISON Chuck Wanner WATER BOARD PRESIDENT Paul Clopper - Phone: W 221-5556 H 226-3377 STAFF LIAISON Molly Nortier - Phone: W 221-6681 H 493-2522 MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Clopper, President; John Bartholow, Vice President; Tom Sanders, Robert Ward, Ray Herrmann, Alison Adams, Howard Goldman, Dave Lauer STAFF Mike Smith, Gale McGaha Miller, Dennis Bode, Molly Nortier GUESTS Gene Schleiger, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Sue Ellen Charlton, League of Women Voters Observer George Reed, Citizen Observer MEMBERS ABSENT Dave Frick, Terry Podmore, Tom Brown President Paul Clopper opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: MINUTES OF MAY 17. 1996 Ray Hermann moved that the minutes of May 17, 1996 be approved as distributed. After a second from Tom Sanders, the minutes were approved unanimously. Water Board Minutes June 21, 1996 Page 2 NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT UPDATE Gene Schleiger distributed copies of the Snow/Precipitation Update as of June 21, 1996, and the more relevant data for this time of year, a summary of precipitation and temperatures for the last 14 days for cities within the District. He began by saying that the District has been either releasing or spilling Granby for about the last week. "Yesterday we were just short of 2400 cfs. in the spill release, trying to match inflow/outflow to hold it stable. It dropped off a little today to about 1800." The District is thinking that's going to be the peak, and "hopefully we are only going to see this for a few more days." People below the run-off are wondering why bridges are being washed out, etc., "but it isn't anything they hadn't been warned about as a potential occurrence," he said. "We think it's early in the season, but considering actual delivery time, when we start looking at our opportunity to vacate some space in Horsetooth and in some of the reservoirs for winter storage, we are getting on the short side," he related. The District's anticipation is maybe there will be a couple more weeks of good river flow where there won't be much of any kind of a release. When that happens, we have until about July 15th to evacuate about 90,000 ac-ft of carryover storage. "We probably won't get anywhere close to getting that out by the 15th," he guesses. Once it gets to that point, "we have only 4-6 weeks of heavy draw on our system." That doesn't provide a lot of opportunity to vacate much space for generating power all winter. The District continues to hope that they will get the Carter Lake system back on line in September and begin moving some water to fill it back up. The Bureau thinks they can meet that date. As far as the installation of new materials, they are progressing very well. In fact they are nearing completion on some of the linings, etc. They will have substantial testing to complete. They also must replace wiring that was damaged in the explosion. Mr. Bartholow asked if it was the Bureau that has been pushing the District to bring more water over to generate power. "Actually, it is the Department of Energy (WAPA)," Mr. Schleiger replied. "Do they have some criteria or guidelines that are in a contract that you must fulfill?" Mr. Bartholow continued. "We had a plan at the beginning of the year where we would be required to evacuate a certain volume for them to generate power. I don't know that we have ever been in the situation of having a physical defect that is preventing any of this. We get into violation if we release water just for the sake of releasing it," he explained. He said he wasn't sure how that was going to turn out in "this kind of year." He thinks it is usually about 150,000 ac-ft. that the District needs to move. WAPA thinks that they lose about $6,000 per day in revenues when they are not able to generate. "Do they get any of the power generation revenues from Windy Gap?" Mr. Bartholow asked. "They get all of it," Mr. Schleiger answered. "So it doesn't matter which direction it goes, they are going to get the power," Mr. Bartholow concluded. Mr. Schleiger pointed out that they prefer to have it coming "this way, because when it goes south to Carter Lake, it takes power and energy to pump it from the Flatiron facility up there, whereas everything this direction is gravity feed." When the project was originally constructed, the majority of the flow was anticipated to be delivered out of Horsetooth, but L Water Board Minutes June 21, 1996 Page 3 nobody expected the growth on the southern end, and the transfers of water going that way. Transfers of water that go south to Carter Lake now must pay an additional $1.50 an ac-ft. as a power interference charge. CASH RATE IN -LIEU -OF WATER RIGHTS ADJUSTMENT Dennis Bode handed out copies of a graph that staff had prepared regarding the City's cash rate in - lieu -of Water Rights. The graph showed changes in the cash rate since 1974 and corresponding changes in the market value of water. He reported that the Water Supply Committee had discussed this subject at their last meeting. He went on to explain the cash in -lieu -of rate for those who weren't familiar with it. When developers come to the City and want water service, they are required to provide either water stock or, if they don't have water to turn in, they can turn in cash in -lieu -of water rights. "Is that on a per acre basis?" John Bartholow asked. Mr. Bode said that at one time the City required 3 acre-feet per acre. In 1984 that was changed to a system where it is based on density, so it better reflects water use. Now when a developer asks for water service it is calculated on the basis of the number of living units per acre, or if it's a commercial development, it's based on tap size. "So the ac-ft. requirement is calculated, and if they don't have raw water to turn in, they can provide cash." He continued by saying that historically the cash in -lieu -of rate has been linked to the price of CBT water; primarily because "that is the kind of water we can track fairly easily. Also, there is enough market activity that there is a fairly well established price." He pointed out that the graph tracks the cash in -lieu -of rate and the price of CBT water since January of 1974. "Why is North Poudre not tracking now?" Ray Herrmann wondered. Mr. Bode explained that we have reached a point where there is a lot more demand for CBT water than for North Poudre shares. There haven't been a lot of entities or new buyers seeking that water. It appears to be a supply and demand issue. "Particularly in the last three years we have seen the price of CBT water climb rather dramatically again," he said. Some of the communities in the southern part of the Northern District are buying a considerable amount of CBT water now. He suspects that is affecting the market quite a bit. "That gives you a picture of the history of the prices and how we have traced the in -lieu -of rate for the purchase of CBT water," he said. He mentioned that the cash in -lieu -of rates are significantly higher for some other area cities and districts. Greeley is at $2350 now; Loveland just increased theirs to $1800, and the three water districts in the area range from $1700 to $2000 per acre foot. "It looks like it's about time for us to go up to about $1800 anyway," Mr. Herrmann observed. "It appears that is close to CBT prices," Mr. Bode responded. "About $1800-1850 is the last I've heard," Mr. Schleiger, from NCWCD remarked. Water Board Minutes June 21, 1996 Page 4 Mr. Bode continued by saying that the other item connected to the cash in -lieu -of rate is the raw water surcharge. "That is a surcharge that we apply to commercial users when they use above a certain allotment that we assign them when they turn in their raw water. If they use over that amount, on an annual basis, we charge them X amount per 1000 gallons for that additional water. We tie that rate to the cash in -lieu -of rate. Actually it has been more than 5 years since we have changed this rate. At that time the rate was set at 71 cents per 1000 gallons. If we adjust it accordingly, that would bring the rate up to 85 cents per 1000 gal. assuming the $1800 cash in -lieu -of rate," he concluded. "Are those surcharges assessed to the homeowners association, or whatever entity is left after the developer is gone?" Mr. Clopper asked. "These are commercial accounts; the surcharge doesn't apply to residential at all," Mr. Bode replied. "How much of the $1800, if we adjust the rate, could be defined as an impact fee, or is that just the straight value of the water?" Dave Lauer asked. "It's essentially a development fee to provide funds to acquire additional water," Mr. Bode responded. He added that it might help to explain that in 1995, for example, the City received about 80% of its raw water requirement as either raw water rights, like shares in local irrigation companies, or City certificates that are out in the community, and about 20% in cash. Basically, the cash rate is intended to reflect the cost of acquiring a new water supply for those new customers. Mike Smith pointed out that many people are using the terms development fees and impact fees interchangeably. "If that is the way Mr. Lauer is using impact fee, the answer is yes, it's 100% impact." "There's a certain value to the water that they have in water rights, and I guess my question is, is there a straight across valuation between the value of the water rights, if they have them to turn in, and the $1500 we are charging?" Mr. Lauer asked. Mr. Smith said he could be misunderstanding Mr. Lauer's question. "The raw water requirement itself is an impact fee that is designed to collect back what development impacts," he explained. "Whether they give us cash or water, it's considered an impact fee." Mr. Lauer clarified that he is saying there may be some justification for increasing it not only to $1800 but to $2000 as perhaps Greeley is doing at $2350. Mr. Sanders would have problems with that if we did it because he thinks the City may raid the water fund and take a part of that to use it for other impacts. "The way we do it now it's so close to real value that all the money that goes into the water fund is for buying additional water. Ms. Adams pointed out that there are other impact fees that take care of other infrastructure issues that Mr. Sanders is raising. "That $1500 is not the sole impact fee that the developer puts on the table." The last time staff looked at this a few years ago, it looked liked water versus dollars basically tracks, Mr. Herrmann began. "If we get a little above, there is less of a tendency to give us money and more of a tendency to seek the water out, and vice versa," he said. "That's right, there is somewhat of a balance there," Mr. Bode agreed. L Water Board Minutes June 21, 1996 Page 5 Dr. Sanders asked if staff had a recommendation for the adjustment in the rate. Mr. Bode said that staff thinks that $1800 is a good number. "We try to just lag the CBT price, and I think that has worked pretty well for us," he said. Mr. Clopper asked if the Legislative and Finance Committee has had any input on this. Mr. Smith said that's something the Board needs to consider. "Do you want further committee input or do you feel comfortable taking action today?" "I think we should act on it today, so I move that we raise the price of the cash in -lieu -of rate to $1800," Mr. Herrmann said. Tom Sanders seconded the motion. President Clopper called for further discussion. Tom Sanders asked when this would go into effect. Mr. Bode said that this change would require an ordinance to adopt it because it is a change in the City Code. "We would probably take it to Council on July 16th for the first reading and the second reading would be their first meeting in August; it would not go into effect until at least 10 days after that." Paul Clopper made a couple of observations on the graph. If you look at the time period from 1989 to 1991, the Board changed the cash in -lieu -of rate rather frequently. He remembered being involved in that. "We haven't touched the rate since 1991," he said. He added that every time we made an adjustment we were lagging what was happening with the market. "In other words, we adjusted after the market changed, and we didn't try to project where it was headed for the next year." He recalled that the Board, as a matter of policy, did not feel it was appropriate to lead the market, but to adjust the rate when the market dictated that need. Essentially since this change doesn't go into effect until next year, Mr. Herrmann suggested, it might be logical to go to $2000 assuming the price is going to keep climbing. "This goes into effect in August," Mr. Smith pointed out. "But you aren't going to sell much water in August or September, are you?" Mr. Herrmann asked. "We continue to collect PIFs and there is still development occurring," Mr. Smith said, but, he admitted, "not the activity we see in June, July and August." "If we have tracked all along with CBT, shouldn't the fact that we might not be able to purchase many more shares of that water, have a major impact on the value of water we receive?" Mr. Sanders asked. The price of CBT water may still affect the price of other water that we are able to acquire, and I think it will still generally follow the same trend," Mr. Bode responded. Mr. Bartholow pointed out that CBT water turned in by developers is not subject to the NCWCD cap or limitation on CBT. Mr. Sanders thinks if we can get the water through the development route, "let's raise the price to $2,000 to kind of force us to get more CBT." Mr. Bode made the point that the City gets very little CBT water turned over in Fort Collins to satisfy our raw water requirements. "If you can go out and buy North Poudre at this price, instead of buying CBT, or even if you had CBT attached to the land, you ought to just sell that and buy North Poudre," Mr. Bartholow suggested. Water Board Minutes June 21, 1996 Page 6 Mr. Herrmann believes that the reason for the way North Poudre is tracking is that it's not being sold; there's not that much of it out there. "There is some question about how CBT is used in that too," Mr. Smith remarked. "What does staff prefer, water or money?" W. Sanders wondered. "It's always nice to have a mix," Mr. Smith replied. "If something comes up, you have money in the reserve," he said. "How much do we have in reserve?" Mr. Sanders continued. "It's close to $3 million," Mr. Bode answered. "That's in a specific fund?" Mr. Lauer asked. "Yes," Mr. Smith said. Dr. Sanders commends the Water Board for recommending the purchase of several million dollars of water in 1988. That was an important year for water supplies, he stressed. Mr. Bartholow suggested that rather than recommending a specific price like $1800 or $2000, wouldn't it make more sense to recommend that we periodically just peg our fee to CBT water, and let that be the policy. "We could recommend that this be renewed every six months, every year, or whatever time seemed appropriate." Mr. Herrmann pointed out that the City Council has to do this by ordinance. "Can't the ordinance say every six months, for example?" Mr. Bartholow interjected. Mr. Bode explained that part of the difficulty is pegging the market; there is considerable variance in the prices you see. "I think it's better than bringing it back to the Board every time, which is okay, that's part of our job, but it seems that the process is more important than the actual price," Mr. Bartholow argued. "If we haven't changed it in five years, it doesn't appear to be much of a burden to the Board," Ms. Adams asserted. Mr. Herrmann pointed out that there may be a time when there is a major policy shift on this, and the Board may feel that we should jump to $2000, and lead the market or that we drop down and follow behind the market. "That's the reason that staff bringing it to the Board is a good idea," he emphasized. Dr. Sanders noted that this uncertainty makes it more difficult for the developers because generally they do their long term planning in six month increments. "Why not make it six months or a year," Mr. Bartholow suggested. Mr. Clopper recalled that the Board was asking these same questions 5 or 6 years ago when the Board was making the frequent adjustments in the rate. The guidance that was given at that time was that it would be left to the staffs discretion; if it's been relatively static for 3 years, don't visit the topic, if it is changing rather rapidly we might want to discuss it quarterly. Instead of trying to presume a frequency at this time, it might be more prudent to continue to operate with that guidance. Dave Lauer asked why Greeley is much higher in their price than most other entities. "I think their requirement is a little different," Mr. Bode replied. "Instead of using one acre foot per unit the way we calculate it, they use .75 acre feet per unit of CBT, dividing the price by .75 and that gives them the dollar amount, he explained. "For the same kind of residence they may come up with a smaller requirement," he added, "but in the end it probably works out to be pretty close to what we do." "Does it cost them more money to move the water around?" Mr. Herrmann asked. "I'm not sure, but Water Board Minutes June 21, 1996 Page 7 I think they are very similar," Mr. Bode replied. "They have some fairly complicated requirements for some of the stock they are accepting." Ray Herrmann called for the question. Mr. Bode asked that the surcharge change be part of the motion. The motion then read that the Water Board recommends that the cash in -lieu -of rate be increased from $1500 to $1800 and that the surcharge amount be raised from 71 cents to 85 cents per 1000 gallons. The motion passed unanimously. STAFF REPORTS Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported that May treated water use was 3105 ac-ft which was about 15% above the average. "The high use was primarily because May was a warm, dry month up until the Memorial Day weekend when we received about 4 inches of rain," he said. For the year, use is near 100% of what was projected for average. He also referred to a graph which showed the Joe Wright and Deadman Hill Snotel sites. It shows that the run-off came rather quickly once it started, he said. He indicated that "it is quite a contrast from what we saw a year ago." Mr. Bartholow asked how many years go into that historical average. "About 10-12 years," Mr. Bode replied. "Where is Deadman Hill?" Mr. Sanders asked. "It's up on the North Fork of the Poudre area; northeast of Chambers Lake," Mr. Bode answered. Financial Status Report Mike Smith reported that with the increased water use in May, there may be "a little peak" in June. "We keep thinking that development might cool off a little, but the PIFs revenue is holding steady," he said. Regional 201 Study Update Gale McGaha Miller said there wasn't much to report. "The consultants are working on the water quality planning piece and the land use of planning and population production piece. We hope to have some draft technical memoranda out by the end of July," she related. When is the first public participation scheduled? Mr. Clopper asked. "According to the latest time map, it is planned for September," Ms. McGaha Miller replied. By the time that is scheduled they will have completed the population and water quality pieces, and also an evaluation of existing facilities. "Hopefully they will know who needs what when," she said. Mr. Clopper thinks that's a good milestone to begin public participation. She agreed that it is a good time to ask for input. "They will be able to say, here's what we know, do you have any ideas?"' she said. Mr. Bartholow asked if there has been consistent participation from the other members in this process. "Yes there has," she replied, "except for Timnath. Because they don't have a full time Water Board Minutes June 21, 1996 Page 8 representative, we have included them as a courtesy; we don't know if they are going to be involved or not," she added. Report on Meeting with Regional Water Boards Paul Clopper reported that the Loveland, Greeley and Fort Collins Water Boards and their staffs met for an enjoyable evening at the Moot House on May 29th. Doug Robotham, of the Department of Natural Resources, gave an interesting talk about the Recovery Program for Platte River Endangered Species. Mr. Herrmann asked about the status of the endangered species. Doug Robotham spent considerable time talking about the negotiating teams and the options that are being reviewed at this point, Mr. Clopper responded. "Are all three states participating in the negotiations?" Mr. Herrmann asked. "They are, but the groundwater issue continues to be a sticking point," Mr. Clopper stated. The Northern District has been looking at a groundwater banking concept where you look at recharge near the Colorado/Nebraska border. They call it the Tamarack Recharge proposal. In the off months, Colorado would artificially recharge the groundwater aquifer and then be able to draw on that as part of their requirement for later in the year, thereby fulfilling the demands of the Tri-state compact. "It seems that Colorado now has a good reverse argument based on the way we got smeared on the Arkansas, which we deserved," Mr. Herrmann asserted. Mr. Lauer remembered Mr. Robotham emphasizing the point two or three times of how he feels Nebraska is going to come along, "but it's only a gut feeling." Most of whatever cooperation there is among the tri-state participants at this point, is between Colorado and Wyoming. Mr. Robotham feels that some of the recent changes in the federal position have drawn Nebraska a bit closer to the table. Mr. Herrmann said the Feds are threatening to withhold the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license at Kingsley which puts some pressure on Nebraska. Additional Comments on Combining Water and Storm Drainage Boards Mike Smith reported that the Storm Drainage Board discussed combining the two boards and voted in favor of it at their last meeting. One board member voted against it. Paul Clopper invited George Reed, who is the Chair of the Storm Drainage Board, to comment. He said there were a number of people on the Board who were willing to support the sub -committee concept for Storm Drainage, and some were interested in participating personally. He thinks the one person who wasn't in favor, felt that the more citizens who participate in City government the better. He will not be returning to the Board. Tom Sanders asked if more comments would be welcome or whether the decision to merge the boards is final. "It's up to the Council," Mr. Smith replied. Mr. Sanders also asked if the Water Board voted unanimously for it. "For the people who were there," Robert Ward said," but two people who weren't there wrote letters." Mr. Clopper pointed out that it wasn't a formal action; it was merely a Water Board Minutes June 21, 1996 Page 9 straw vote. "The Council gets our minutes, so they will note the discussion that took place," he added. Dr. Sanders said he saw that the topic was on the agenda, but he had to travel out of the country, so he wasn't able to attend the meeting or send a letter. "I am against the merger because I think it de- emphasizes the importance of each of the boards," he said. For years the Council has had input from each of the boards, but by combining them, each of them loses some clout, he believes. He also contends that boards with 16-18 people become unwieldy. He determined from the sample agendas of the Storm Drainage Board, that the types of decisions made by the Water Board are different (the way he envisions it) from those of the SD Board. "Our issues are much broader and more fundamental and have ramifications for 40-50 years," he pointed out. However, he realizes that consolidating two boards saves a lot of time for the staff. He concluded that, in the long term, it is a move to improve efficiency, and in gaining efficiency, you lose effectiveness. He added that in the nearly 14 years he has served on the Water Board he has seen its influence gradually diminish. "How do you judge that?" Howard Goldman asked. "We get less and less input on decisions. Granted, the staff is much better than when I was appointed to the Board about 14 years ago," he acknowledged. He also pointed out that the Board was removed from the City Charter in recent years when the voters in a City election made that decision. That makes it easier to dissolve a Board or Commission and prestige and influence are diminished. "Furthermore, if the boards are combined we're going to spend from 20-50% of our time on storm drainage problems," he emphasized, "and that's time taken away from Water Board problems." "You say that this is one more step in a long 10-20 year history of steps that have reduced the effectiveness and authority of the Water Board which has led to what? What's the big problem for the City?" Mr. Goldman insisted. "Is the water dirty; are we running out of water? What specific things have occurred? How are we all affected by what you are afraid of?" he asserted. "A lot of things can happen," Mr. Sanders responded. Due to the push for regionalism, we might be mixing our water with other entities who have lesser quality, and whose production capability is less than ours, "and take water both ways." Moreover, "we are being trapped into allowing the Boxelder Sanitation District's oxidation ponds treatment system to exist inside the City limits by selling them land," he related. "A lot of things have been happening through the years," he contends. "I agree with a lot of what Dr. Sanders is saying," Alison Adams interjected. "Why does the Mayor want to create another committee to look at regional water supply issues when this Board hasn't been asked to look at the same thing?" She explained that the Mayor and the County Commissioners want to get together to create a new citizens group to look at how to keep Thornton and Denver from getting our water. "Why hasn't that issue come to us?" she insisted. "If we diminish the Water Board by bringing in other issues, we remove ourselves further and further from the water supply issues." Water Board Minutes June 21, 1996 Page 10 Tom Sanders spoke about an article in the newspaper recently discussing the need to maintain agriculture in Larimer County. There was a picture of George Wallace, a former member of the Water Board, who farms in the Waverly area in addition to a full time job at CSU. "When Mr. Wallace was on the Board, he represented the farmer's interest on water matters; we no longer have that kind of representation on the Board," he said. (Now City Board and Commission members must live in the Urban Growth Area.) Mr. Sanders recalled when Anheuser-Busch began their quest to build a plant in Larimer County. "The Water Board wasn't consulted on that matter either. I admit that was a long time ago, but I still regret that the Board didn't have input until the latter part of that process," he related. "In my opinion, that was the turning point when the Board's influence began to diminish somewhat." He went on to say that regional water supply and planning, and maintaining water for agriculture and the City, are issues that the Board has been facing and should be facing. Mike Smith said he wasn't seeking to try to change Mr. Sanders' and Ms. Adams' minds, but he asked to clarify some points. Regarding the size of the combined board, he admits that it would be large for awhile, "but we intend to get it back down to a manageable size (perhaps 11 members). That may take a few years, but I don't think it will be a major problem." "As far as diluting the importance of the Board," Mr. Smith continued, "I think it works the other way. When you add another issue the size of stormwater to water and wastewater, I think it makes the board more influential and adds importance." He stressed that if you add it you gain clout, and if you divide it you lose some clout. On the point that there is not enough time to spend on water issues, "honestly, when you look at our agendas from the past, we don't always have a full agenda," Mr. Smith related. Regarding the Storm Drainage agendas, maybe it isn't necessary to spend as much time as they do on some items. "I don't think there should be concern that staff is not going to have quality time with the board," he stressed. Regarding regional items, "I don't think that's the Board's responsibility," he said. "Members of the Board may be involved in that, however." The Mayor may think, although she hasn't said it, that the three water boards from Fort Collins, Loveland and Greeley haven't done anything to resolve this issue, "so I'm going to do something." It may not be reasonable to expect that three diverse boards will agree on something like that, because politically and philosophically they don't agree anyway. Mr. Smith contends that the issue needs to be handled on a different level. "I don't think I would be too offended by the Mayor's discussion about that," Mr. Smith assured the Board. Mr. Clopper observed that there is a similarity, when you consider the possibility of the two boards combining, to what occurred when the much smaller Stormwater Utility merged with the much larger Water & Wastewater Utility; the idea that the big Utility will, in a sense, swallow up the smaller Water Board Minutes June 21, 1996 Page 11 Utility. He had heard that there would be several people from the Storm Drainage Board that aren't planning to return. Mr. Reed said that the situation will probably be resolved with the help of Council liaison Chuck Wanner, so the number is smaller than anticipated. "I have sensed, in the past month, that the Storm Drainage Board has a feeling of being'swallowed up' by the larger Water Board," Mr. Clopper stated. "What can we do to make sure that the feelings of losing their individual identities, both on the part of the Stormwater Utility and the Storm Drainage Board, doesn't come to pass? he asked. Mr. Smith acknowledged that there is always that fear when confronting change. "I don't think it's really going to happen," he said with assurance. "If the Council decides to combine the boards, I think they will be addressing important storm drainage issues, water issues and wastewater issues as they come. They may not get into the specifics that they were accustomed to, but perhaps they shouldn't have been involved in some of those things anyway," he remarked. Perhaps those issues will be discussed at the committee level instead of the board level, he added. From the staffpoint of view, there will be some changes. They have previously been independent and now they are a part of a large water and wastewater utility. He pointed out that the same thing occurred when the water and wastewater utilities combined several years ago. Now they are comfortable being part of one utility. He acknowledged that it may be difficult for some of the staff people and perhaps some of the Storm Drainage people too, but he is confident that it will work out. "Is it a trend across the country for municipalities to combine these utilities?" Robert Ward asked. "We're seeing a little more of that," Mr. Smith replied. "There are many places where water and wastewater have been combined. Stormwater is basically on the leading edge right now because a lot of municipalities don't consider stormwater as a functioning utility. Fort Collins has adopted the utility concept which works quite well," he said. Here there are a lot of common issues emerging among stormwater, water and wastewater, i.e. water quality, water shed protection, and the irrigation ditches that cross through town. The Water Utility owns a major portion of those irrigation companies, and the Stormwater Utility is counting on those more and more as part of the stormwater system. There are areas where people can work together which results in more efficient management, better coordination and a broader look at the whole range of water issues, he concluded. Mr. Ward likes to think that since Fort Collins is on the leading edge of this, as we combine these utilities, we could begin to take a broader view. "One of the things that has intrigued me, is the fact that the water comes into the treatment plant and comes out of the wastewater treatment plant. We can look at the quality coming in and the quality of the flow going out. We can get a big picture of the footprint the City puts on it. But that's not the entire picture; you need to include the stormwater as well." He knows that Stormwater is collecting a nice data base, but he's not sure it is in the form that can let us begin to look at the big picture. That would be something that the combined board could begin to look at, he suggested. "Not only can we see the footprint that we put on the water, but there are people upstream who contribute their own footprints, which is costing us money," he Water Board Minutes June 21, 1996 Page 12 related. He pointed out that it starts moving in the direction that the Mayor and the County Commissioners are looking at, which is trying to determine these related impacts. Mr. Smith thinks that once the boards are combined it would become a water resources board, instead of a water board. "Frankly," he reiterated, "I think it gives us more clout." Mr. Clopper thinks there are some technically interesting and challenging issues going on in stormwater right now. Alison Adams asked if the Water Board is still planning to have their workshop in September. "I think it's very important that we proceed with that," she stressed. She said that one of the problems she's having, and perhaps other members of the Water Board are having, is really understanding what the role of the board members is; "what is it that we are supposed to do? Who do we work for or advise? Are we here to help the staff more, or are we some sort of intermediate between staff and the City Council?" She said that what Mike Smith has pointed out as advantages, from a staff prospective, makes sense, but it is different from a board prospective. She thinks that when the Council has made a decision about combining the boards, and after the September workshop, it would be helpful to meet with staff and thoroughly discuss the role of the board. "I believe that it might help to smooth over this transition and help us focus on what our function is when we meet each month," she emphasized. "Just so you don't have to wait until September, the Board advises the Council," Mr. Smith responded. "I realize that, but with this whole issue of merging, I don't feel that the Board really has a whole lot of say in the decision. The staff has a lot of input and the Council makes the final decision, but I'm not sure where the Board lies in all of that," she said. "The Board does have a lot of influence," Mr. Smith stressed. Mr. Herrmann thinks the Council is going to pay a lot of attention if both boards have strong feelings one way or the other. Mr. Herrmann went on to say in reference to what Tom Sanders said about the Board's authority and influence, "when I joined the Board several years ago, it was quite different. The Board had more of a personal imprint on what the Council did, which means it had a little more control over water policy than it does now; at least it seemed to." He admitted that a lot of that could have been attributed to personalities as much as the Board actually having that power, but it did have special status in the City Charter at that time too. "As the City has changed in the way it governs itself, the role of boards is changing somewhat, but not that much; the role of the Water Board, however, has changed drastically over the last 10 years in the sense that we were personally helping to determine the water history of the City. We truly are like any other board now; we advise the Council, and there are issues where the Council chooses to ignore us completely," he contends. "I don't think they are ignoring you. They are just saying thank you for your advise, the 'buck stops here,' and they make the decision," Mr. Smith observed. Mr. Smith stated that the Water Board was created in the 1960s because there was a crisis, and the crisis has long been over. He emphasized that the Board, along with Council members, has been Water Board Minutes June 21, 1996 Page 13 instrumental in developing many important policies through the last several years, which have made the Board's advisory job much easier. "Once you develop the policies, they are in place except for reviewing them occasionally." Some of those policies are the Water Supply Policy, the Demand Management Policy, the Wastewater Treatment Master Plan, the Water Quality Policy, the Water Treatment Master Plan, etc. "People are quick to forget that the Water Board was a part of that," he stressed. "That's why the Board was here to help the Council develop those policies." He added that the Board's job isn't over, because there will be other problems to solve and policies to enact. Mr. Herrmann remarked that probably combining the boards will make it more exciting again, at least for awhile. Mr. Clopper said he didn't think it was appropriate yet for the Board to vote on this issue of combining the boards "unless someone feels strongly about that." He was comfortable with letting the record and the minutes of the Board's discussion reflect how the Board feels about this, and trust that the Council reads those and understands what the different perspectives are. Dr. Sanders said he just wanted to "get his views on the table," and listen to reactions and other viewpoints. He added that he wanted to articulate his biggest fear in all of this, and that was to make sure that the water fund is used only to purchase water. "That's a Charter issue which the voters would have to change," Mr. Smith assured Mr. Sanders. George Reed commented that the Storm Drainage Board was adamant in supporting each basin's capital fund, and supporting those activities. Dave Lauer proposed that perhaps it might be appropriate for this Board to suggest to the Mayor and the County Commissioners that this Board be asked for some input in developing whatever strategies that the region plans to take in terms of water supply issues, "considering the expertise we have, rather than completely ignoring us." President Clopper said that discussion of that item is out of the realm of this agenda heading, and suggested that it be revisited under other business. Mr. Lauer said he just wanted to bring it up. Mr. Clopper noted that the minutes will reflect his comment. COMMITTEE REPORTS Water Supply No report Legislative and Finance Howard Goldman pointed out that John Bartholow had written a letter in June, cc to Wendy Williams, Scott Harder and Paul Clopper in response to the PIF study the Committee had received at their last meeting. Mr. Goldman thinks that there should be some kind of response to that letter that would be reflected in the minutes. Mr. Bartholow said he didn't necessarily expect a response. "I just thought we ought to revisit those issues to everyone's comfort the next time the sub -committee Water Board Minutes June 21, 1996 Page 14 meets." Mr. Goldman repeated that some of the comments were well -taken and need to be, in a formal way, in the minutes. Mr. Smith said that Mr. Bartholow's comments will be discussed when the PIFs are discussed in August, so it will be on the agenda. The Committee will receive a response from Wendy Williams to Mr. Bartholow's comments in the July packets. Conservation and Public Education No report Engineering No report REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY STRATEGY No report REGIONAL WASTEWATER SERVICE ISSUES No report OTHER BUSINESS Regional Water Supply Issues Mike Smith, in response to David Lauer's earlier comment about regional water supply issues, said that Mayor Azari shared with him some information about the meeting she had with County Commissioner Janet Duval, and Bill Brown and Mike Applegate from the Northern District. "There isn't any structure yet," he said. The Mayor feels strongly about what happened in the Arkansas Valley, and is concerned about something similar happening up here. She said a number of people have those concerns, and there are a lot of options and strategies to deal with it. "We left the meeting not knowing any more than that," he said. "I think she is trying to pursue that with some other people at her level and higher levels to see if there is some interest. I don't think her intention is to ignore the Water Board. If there is interest I think she will look to this Board for information." Perhaps Paul Clopper, as president of the Board could respond to the Mayor regarding the article in the newspaper, and ask her if she could use the Board's help. Mr. Smith acknowledged that the issue is quite complex. What happened in the Arkansas Valley is very unfortunate. "To look at what was there and is not there anymore is sad," he remarked, "but our regulations, procedures and statutes allowed that to happen. The land and water property rights there were handled in a legal way. This issue deals with elements that people become quite concerned about. Some groups might tell a farmer that they want him to remain in farming, and he responds, 'what right do you have to expect me to do that?"' He might also say,"why don't you buy it if you want it to remain green space?" On the other hand, many people like to have the farms there, not only for the green, open space, but for the products they provide. "It's a tough question," he concluded. 0 • Water Board Minutes June 21, 1996 Page 15 Robert Ward referred to the remark by Mr. Smith about a water crisis leading to the creation of the Water Board. "You can almost see that type of crisis facing us now, and maybe this call for a broader viewpoint is ultimately going to have a group of people looking directly at those types of issues. How do you trade off different concerns and needs of our society in a way that's beyond a particular individual organization. We have organizations that take that perspective; the Northern District does in terms of water supply and they are getting involved in water quality issues too. It is very complicated, but on the other hand, I am very glad that they are raising those issues," he concluded. Mr. Herrmann pointed out that perhaps the Larimer County Natural Resources Board is having this same kind of discussion, and asking why they aren't involved. Mr. Sanders stated that if Rocky Ford had a water board 20 or 30 years ago that had a policy of purchasing water and leasing it back to farmers, they wouldn't have the problems they have now. "That's why I keep pushing that option here," he reiterated. "That's about the only way you can keep that water from moving south. Whether further regulations will allow us to purchase more water than we need and lease it back is another issue, but that's what we must work for. We must buy water if we are going to control our destiny, and in the context of the farmers," he insisted. "Changing the supply need to a 1-in-50 drought from a 1-in-100 year drought was a major step backwards," he argued. Alison Adams remarked that the farmer is going to sell his water to whoever pays the highest price. "It really boils down to dollars," Mr. Smith contends, "and if you can afford to do what you want to do." Mr. Sanders believes we could buy more water if we raised the in -lieu -of water rate to $2000 instead of $1800. "We would be accumulating a little more excess capital," he claims. "That's such a small portion of what has to be done," Mr. Smith responded. "Fort Collins uses just a fraction of the water that goes into the River compared to the agriculture community." Ms. Adams asked, if there isn't a problem, why are people so concerned about it? "It's a concern for two reasons," Mr. Smith explained. "The area is concerned about having enough water for the people here, and also concerned about the farm community; some want water but don't care about the farms, and some people just want the farms." Mr. Smith said that staff has prepared a one page description of what the Mayor thinks she wants. Any new information will be shared with the Board. Mr. Herrmann thinks we are looking more at the broader picture, i.e. land use as well as water. "We need to decide exactly where we want to be in the year 2025 or whatever appropriate time is chosen, and then decide how to get there," he advised. Mr. Smith brought up another related issue, that of the Public Trust Doctrine. "You can't manage water independent of that," Mr. Herrmann contends, "and you can't manage the water if they continue to screw up the land." Water Board Minutes June 21, 1996 Page 16 Meadow Springs Ranch Tours Paul Clopper thanked Gale McGaha Miller and Molly Nortier for arranging the Meadow Springs Ranch tours this week. "It was a very valuable experience," he stressed. He added that it was good to be brought up to date about the additional work that is being done there. Inspection of Sprinkler Systems for Backflow Prevention Mr. Clopper had questions about inspections of residential sprinkler systems for backflow prevention. "What triggers the inspection process for existing homes? I know it is recorded in the files when the system is installed initially." "If you have a sprinkler contractor who installs the system, the permit triggers the system," Mr. Smith explained. The state requires that systems be inspected each year for backflow prevention. Mr. Sanders received a letter informing him that he needed to have his sprinkler system inspected to make sure that it has backflow protection, "which mine does." "Who does that?" Ms. Adams asked. "You can have any licensed contractor do it; it ranges from $15.00 to $20,00," Mr. Smith replied. He added that the City's emphasis is on residential, not commercial. Suggestion about Redirecting Discharge from DWRF Into Poudre River Dave Lauer wrote a letter, after the May Board meeting, in response to a discussion about the Drake Water Reclamation Facility (DWRF) discharging treated wastewater into Fossil Creek Reservoir. He asked about the possibility of redirecting water from the Drake facility into the Poudre River. He asked for a response from staff. Mike Smith said that this would be an agenda item for the July Board meeting. Board members will receive copies of Mr. Lauer's letter, and staff will present information on the subject. ADJOURNMENT Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. Water Board Secretary