Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 03/11/1977WATER BOARD Regular Meeting March 11, 1977 - 3:00 P.M. Present: Ward Fischer Raymond Anderson Bernard Cain, Jr. Karl E. Carson Henry Caulfield Ronald Fulkrod Robert L. Brunton Absent: Norman Evans Harvey Johnson* Everett Richardson* James Waltz Staff members present: Bingman, Kaplan, Krempel, Lewis, and Liquin Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 25, 1977 Chairman Fischer inquired if there were any corrections to the minutes. At the request of Board member Anderson, the minutes of February 25, 1977, are to be corrected to reflect the following additions: 1. The cost of the construction of the water and sewer mains to serve Hewlett- Packard were reported as unknown in that the contract had not been bid. 2. The Hewlett-Packard Company is to furnish to the City 480 Josh Ames Certificates which will satisfy the raw water requirements for developing 60 acres of land. Each Josh Ames Certificate represents the annexation of 1/8 acre of land. 3. The comment of Board member Caulfield regarding Hewlett-Packard: "I am going to vote against the motion (to recommend to the City Council that permission be granted to Hewlett-Packard to extend sewer and water services to their property) not because I probably wouldn't vote for the connection of Hewlett-Packard under all the circumstances that have occurred, but I feel that before this Board acts on this, we ought to get a formal request from the Utilities Director and all the facts that have been discussed here put down in a very orderly, analytical form so we know exactly what is being discussed, what is being proposed. We don't have that in front of us here today. We have been drawing out a number of facts about the situation, and we don't have a formal proposal before us to actually consider and debate that has come from the Water Utilities Director. So this will be the reason that if this motion goes forward, I will vote against it." At the request of Board member Caulfield, the minutes are to be corrected to reflect the following: 1. On page 3 of the minutes, the following be added to the Status Report on ' Goals and Objectives to record Board member Caulfield's views: "Board member Caulfield stated that a simple request for replacement for the phrase 'as soon as feasible' for 'if and when practical' in C.2. (Section VI, Environmental Protection, Open Space Preservation) of the Draft Goals and Objectives would accomplish the practical purposes of the Board, and for discussion of the proposed letter 'maximum utilization' and maximum cost effectiveness' etc. was undesirable and unnecessary." 2. The last sentence of the second paragraph on page 4 be striken to indicate that the administration was invited to meet with the Board in regular or special session at any time it thought it was necessary and a request would be given a sympathetic consideration. Board member Caulfield suggested the following language: "The administration was assured that sympathetic consideration would be given to use of Section 112-124 or other means of coping with drought when the City Utility presents the Board with a strategy plan for dealing with the drought and times to request for action with the developing situation." Board member Caulfield made a motion, seconded by Ronald Fulkrod, to approve the above amendments. The Chair put the motion, which was unanimously adopted. House Bill 1314, House Bill 1351 and Senate Bill 4 Board member Carson stated that there are three bills under consideration in the Colorado Legislature that are of concern to the Water Board and he has checked with the Colorado Municipal League to find out the status of these bills. Dr. Carson read the summary of House Bill 1351 relative to Municipal Water Rights. He stated the comment he received from the Municipal League was that the Local Government Affairs Committee was leaning sympathetically toward this bill. He further stated "One comment that came up in the hearing was that this kind of an issue perhaps is a tough political issue in the local level, and that the state could mandate water meters, and that way it would get rid of the local political implication. Personally, I disagree with that. I think we can handle our own political situation locally." Another concern is the way this bill is drawn, it might require two years in order to meet all of the conditions. Board member Caulfield stated "Another, seems to me, is the implications that municipal water cannot be used for lawns and parks and so forth, and thus, it would, it seems to me that if Council comment, but raise the question of whether if we did ration, lets just say, to prevent lawns and parks and exercise the municipal water right, we could be sued to force the fact that we could only exercise our municipal water rights for drinking water, etc." He further stated, "I have been concerned about this for some time, not in connection with here, but in another context. And I actually tried to get a, what I understood was an opinion, opinion was available from the Denver Water Board on the subject of whether the municipal water rights were restricted to personal use. And I never did get that; or whether its any use that goes through the municipal water system, in fact. And I think that is an implication that is very serious indeed, if our water rights are really not for, we are told, municipal use purposes." Board member Carson stated that the Colorado Municipal League would like an expression from the Water Board in consideration of this matter. -2- Dr. Carson discussed House Bill 1314, relative to change of water rights. He stated the comments he received from Colorado Municipal League was that this bill has some very serious implications, it is still in committee, it creates a problem for urban as well as industrial and agricultural uses, and may be unconstitutional. They would like some comments from the Water Board on this issue. He also discussed Senate Bill 4 which provides that municipally owned utilities are exempt from Public Utilities Commission regulation only with regard to services provided to residents of the municipality. This is being opposed by the Municipal League. Dr. Carson stated that he thought the Water Board should make a recommendation to the Council and the Council would then forward it to the Colorado Municipal League Board. They in turn take a position based upon the information that they gather, and their lobbyist then takes this into the sessions and hearings. Board member Anderson stated "I have a comment on both of these. On first the House Bill 1351, if this goes through, wouldn't that affect the original water rights that we operate under? A good many of the urban areas at least in Fort Collins, in many areas, were originally irrigated farm lands and these water rights have been converted to municipal use, so the water was used on the land at one time. Originally it was given to the land and the town grows over it and you are still using it for both domestic and on the land. And furthermore, what says what is waste, and what I think they are really talking about there is water that disappears, through vapor, transpiration, etc., because alot of the waters that come back through the sewage system. So there might even be a higher return than originally was on the farm land, so you are really opening up a can of worms here." Board member Caulfield made a motion, seconded by Raymond Anderson, to recommend to the City Council that the Water Board opposes House Bill 1351, and that the Council communicate this to the Municipal League. The Chair put the motion, which was unanimously adopted. Mr. Krempel stated that he will distribute the full text of that bill to the Board. Board member Anderson stated "This House Bill 1314 looks like it is probably in response to these condemnation proceedings on Clear Creek, this is the clearest case of that, and it says that it diminishes the amount of water available to irrigation, because if those condemnations did go through it would reduce the amount of irrigation water quite substantially. But the cities now down there are trying to capture the waters and recycle to irrigation lands, and so I have sort of mixed feelings about this. One way it could impinge on the cities pretty badly, but if it encouraged them to go ahead and capture the water that they had irrigation rights, recapture the return flow and turn back to irrigation, it might encourage a little more recycling than we have had before." Mr. Krempel stated that the League has taken a strong position against this bill because the League thinks it should retain the right to condemn water for municipal purposes if necessary. He stated, "I talked to City Attorney March on this and Mr. March said let the league take that position, that the City should not necessarily introduce itself at this point. However, the City of -3- Northglenn who has achieved this working relationship with FRICO, they are appealing to the municipalities through a letter to the Mayor, which I have a copy of, to support the bill, because they are saying that is the direction municipalities ought to go, and then I did get a copy of the League's answer to the Mayor of Northglenn." Chairman Fischer stated that if the bill means what it says, that water rights cannot be changed if it changes irrigation, it would foul up everything the City has done in the last few years. This would completely destroy any trade with North Poudre on the Southside Ditches, and make all that water useless to the City. Board member Anderson stated, "This is as I think irrigated lands, not lands that go into municipalities, so you have a little bit on each side of this thing." Board member Caulfield stated, "Wouldn't it also prevent any interbasin transfers. On the surface, it is an interbasin transfer just as it says here. Any interbasin transfer of water right for use of irrigation purposes to another basin would diminish irrigation purposes obviously means that type of interbasin transfer would be prohibited." Board member Anderson stated, "Most of the interbasin transfers have been with surplus water that has not been previously used for irrigation or any other use." The Water Board did not make a recommendation on House Bill 1314. Mr. Krempel stated that he would get a copy of that bill. Mr. Krempel stated that Senate Bill 4 authorizes or directs the Public Utilities Commission to control rates and utility service outside the City limits. This includes water, sewer, and electricity. Board member Fulkrod assumed the Chair. Board member Caulfield made a motion, seconded by Bernard Cain, to recommend to the City Council to oppose Senate Bill 4. The Chair put the motion, which was unanimously adopted. Consider Out -of -City Utility Requests Board member Fulkrod stated the next item on the agenda was the consideration of the out -of -City utility request for Nancy Bartran and Bernard Cain for property west of College, north of Willox. Board member Cain stated, "The described piece of property that we have obtained, our intent was to develop this into residential dwellings, zone it as it is in the County, before the County, in one of their residential zonings. It is the intent to build single and multi -family, when I say multi -family it could be duplex or four-plex depending on the lay of the land, but it is for family residences in the area. The parcel of ground is about 40 acres, plus or minus, -4- and at this time, it is a little hard to tie down an exact density, but we are somewhere in the neighborhood of probably maximum 250 units. That is still in compliance with RL zone; as an example within the City, you are allowed 6 units per acre, up to that. The plat as shown here, shows it going up to 287. The parcel has a small leg of that runs adjacent to 287 that would be excluded from that. It is in the contract in the legal description, but it is difficult to know what that is. It is about a 500 foot strip that is contiguous to 287, it will drop back about 400 feet. There would be a dedicated right of way off of 287 to the parcel of ground." Mr. Krempel stated, "We have examined the ability of the existing 12 inch sewer to serve this area. A basin shaped where the west line of this property extended south of the railroad track and sort of the north line extended over to 287 would be more or less the limits of the ability of that 12 inch sewer to serve that area. Topographically, we could take drainage all of the way over as far west as Taft Hill Road, it will all drain this way. But from the size of the sewer, it would limit the drainage to very nearly the limits of this property and everything between this property and the present City limits. This came in just a little bit late and we failed to get this one to the Engineering and Planning Department, so we don't have their comments on it yet, as far as densities or anything like that." Board member Caulfield stated, "I have been thinking about these things since our last discussion, and I note that in the letter from Cain, he says that 'All requirements of City ordinances will be met if the permission to connect to the City's sewer utility is granted, including annexation of the property when- ever possible and conformance to City requirements in connection with the subdivision and development of the lands.' And he has noted that he has not yet'gone before the County Planning and Zoning Board in respect to the new zoning of this property. I would just like to note though in connection with that, the requirements of Ordinance No. 96, mainly in Section 16, the last sentence, 'Until the Zoning Extension Plan', there is no such action now, 'is adopted by the City Council, any applicant for City utility service that is outside the city limits, shall obtain approval of the proposed use for the property to be served from the City Planning Director provided the applicant shall have the right to appeal to the City Council if not satisfied with the decision of the Planning Director.' Now I understand that the words Planning and Zoning Board should be properly substituted at least as a matter of practice if not a matter of form, for the words City Planning Director in here. By my understanding of that would be that he not only has to go before the Planning Board of the County, but if we were to give him this right, would have to agree with whatever the position is on the Planning and Zoning Board of the City in regards to the property. Is that your understanding too? Is there any ambiguity about this?" Chairman Fischer stated, "What you said is my understanding.." Board member Caulfield stated, "No ambiguity. So if we gave this approval, it would be with the understanding that whatever happens up there by way of County Planning and Zoning, or what have you, whatever actually happens is going to have to be in accord with what the Planning and Zoning Board of the City has in mind. I am not certain that I fully understand and therefore the implications of what we are doing sometimes about these things are unclear." Mr. Krempel stated, "In this category, and I was going to talk about that when we got further down the line, we are developing an application form that has a check list to see that each of the steps in Ordinance No. 96 is taken care of before we bring it to you. Also we are developing on this form a place to talk about city costs, if there is connection cost in making extensions outside the city, so that is one of the things that will come up later. These are normally referred to the Planning and Zoning staff, this one we just could not do it." Board member Caulfield made a motion, seconded by Ward Fischer, to recommend to the City Council to approve this request for sewer service subject to the provisions of Ordinance No. 96, 1972, and the waiver of water service. Board member Anderson stated, "It bothers me that this hasn't gone before the Planning and Zoning Board before it comes to us. The sequence of events here seem to be out of phase. I would like to see it go the other way first so we can have someone else looking at it and telling us how they feel about it. This is my feeling of uneasiness. I am not against it, I would just like to have it looked at and reviewed by the Planning Boards that are involved in this." Mr. Krempel stated, "We get into the chicken and egg situation. Should he go up and bother the County Zoning and the City Planning Board, when he can't even get sewer to it? He ought to know whether he can get City sewer, and he ought to know whether he can get Fort Collins water before he goes to the cost of preparing preliminary sketches and things of this sort to go to these zoning bodies. This is the logical procedure." Board member Anderson stated, "According to the ordinances, it says it should go to the zoning first." Board member Caulfield stated, "No it doesn't. It might be desirable, but it doesn't have to be." Board member Cain stated, "You simply cannot take a parcel of ground and go before any planning commission when you don't event know whether you have your utilities. You have to put your horse before your cart, and you don't go to planning expenses, before you know your going to have utilities. Just a very logical sequence of events." Board member Anderson stated, "I am still bothered about what the planning and zoning people think about this kind of development, proposing it that way." Chairman Fischer stated, "They have every right to turn it down in their proper sequence." Board member Caulfield stated, "This is the point of my bringing out what I did, namely that there is no way that this property can be developed under the terms of the motion that I made without it being done in accordance with the views of the Planning and Zoning Board of this City, not the County, and thus which comes first, the chicken or the egg, is somewhat immaterial. The Chair put the motion. Yeas: Fischer, Carson, Caulfield, Fulkrod, Brunton. Nays: Anderson. (Board member Cain abstained) go Chairman Fischer assumed the Chair and stated that the next item on the agenda was out -of -City utility request from Reid Rosenthal for property south of Warren Lake. Mr. Krempel advised the Board that Mr. Rosenthal is developing property currently served with sewer on Horsetooth Road and has requested information on the availability of sewer south of Warren Lake and west of Lemay Avenue. If there is a way to get sewer to him, he wants to annex and develop within the City limits, but if there is not a way to get sewer to him, there is district sewer available to him immediately on the south side of Harmony Road. Mr. Bill Tiley has also requested availability of sewer east of Lemay Avenue in the same vicinity. Mr. Krempel stated, "A very preliminary sanitary sewer basin design study has been done, completed to the extent that we have no problems in serving these two tracts of land except the expediency of how it would be done. In this particular instance, we think that the City should give consideration to serving as the developer, extending the sewer line as far as Lemay Avenue and writing repay agreements, so that those abutting developers who would avail themselves to this sewer would repay just as though the line had been extended by a developer." He further stated, "Our recommendation is that we study sewer service to the basin further and advise the parties accordingly." Chairman Fischer stated, "Without the Board taking any action on a specific request at this time?" Mr. Krempel stated, "Yes, just giving them assurance that this is the direction we are attempting to pursue. We think we need to develop more cost information ourselves. " Board member Caulfield made a motion, seconded by Ronald Fulkrod, to recommend that the administration be instructed to proceed with investigations of sewer service to this basin. The Chair put the motion, which was unanimously adopted. Consider Trade of Raw Water Stock - James Brinks Chairman Fischer stated that Mr. James Brinks would like to trade shares of North Poudre water for one share of Water Supply and Storage owned by the City. He stated, "I did some rough computations on the amount of water to be produced from the trade that he suggested and the City would come out short on it." Board member Anderson made a motion, seconded by Bernard Cain, that the Water Board recommends denial of Mr. Brinks' request. The Chair put the motion, which was unanimously adopted. Review Ordinance No. 96, 1972 City Manager Brunton stated, "Mr. Chairman, in regard to Ordinance No. 96, I think we should work in two areas. One, individual lots that come in for either water or sewer taps ought to be handled administratively without haveing to go to the Water Board or the City Council if they are in conformance with Ordinance No. 96. I would also think that any major development within what is normally called the Fort Collins urban service area should be referred to our conceptual review committee with a recommendation to the Water Board. -7- Board member Caulfield stated, "Just to make something eminently clear that what you said in the first part of your statement is that last time I made the point, and I used Rue Jensen as the case, that if you get an inadequate request and it is a routine request, no real big hassel, except that the fellow didn't volunteer all the statements about Ordinance No. 96, if you went back to get him to rewrite his letter so that he did it, I am perfectly happy not to take up the time of the Water Board and be handled administratively like you are suggesting. I see no reason why the Rue Jensen has to come in at all. Now exceptions under Ordinance 96 are something else again. But it was clear that he was willing to abide by all of Ordinance No. 96 in this case, except that he didn't request it in that form. The letter didn't cover it." Chairman Fischer stated, "I think that the first thing that we ought to do is to request the administration to tell us what suggestions, if any, they would have to the Water Board concerning changes or modifications, additions, or deletions to Ordinance No. 96." Board member Caulfield stated, "Let me say, if I might interrupt you, because I think you are concerned with more than I intend on my intervention on that subject, and therefore, I don't what any subsequent discussion of Ordinance No. 96, because all I would want to propose is that a Water Board committee look into the whole question of Ordinance No. 96 in terms of the merging goals and objectives of the County and the merging goals and objectives of the City and the common provision of both of them that there should be an urban service area . In other words, what I want is for us to agree that we are going to establish a review in light of this changing situation that is coming up, and the Water Board be prepared to participate with the Planning and Zoning Board and anybody else, including this Director of Planning that is going to be common to both the County and the City, on the question of how we should have an ordinance that will relate as far as water and sewer is concerned to, with this urban service area. Its undefined, it has to be defined yet in terms of the negotiations within the County and the City. Therefore I am not prepared at this time, Mr. Chairman, to challenge any of the provisions in Ordinance No. 96. I merely want a study of the matter in the merging context in which changes. . ." Chairman Fischer stated, "I understand that, and I didn't mean any of my comments to indicate that I misunderstood you. We did say that there may be some matters of, we could call them technical or philosophical when you kind of overlap, that have to do with what matters that might come to us like these little ones that Bob was speaking of and the administration might want to make some recommendations in that regard too. I don't know what the administration's view is, so I do understand you." Mr. Kremoel stated, "We have about three areas. First of all we think Ordinance No. 96 is a good ordinance. It is a workable ordinance. We haven't been using it as effectively as we should have. We should have a check list that every application that come in, that every letter that comes in, that we have a check list that we run down the 16 or so items that are in Ordinance No. 96 and check them off. So we should build a check list, and I am part way through one of: these, but it is one of those that I have on the back burner because of other things that come up. The other thing is that if we think we should have a standard letter of application, we should provide the kind of letter that this person applies, and he should understand what Ordinance No. 96 covers and this should be in his letter of application and he should agree to these provisions when he comes in. So there are these two aspects of it. If his application meets all of the 16 items, we ought to be able to pass on that administratively and only report to the Water Board the number of actions we perhaps have taken, and report to the Council the number of actions that we have taken. Those are administrative things that we ought to get a handle on. "There is a tougher thing in regards to Ordinance No. 96. Ordinance No. 96 creates almost unliveable situations for us. An example of this would be the gas station on Taft Hill Road and LaPorte Avenue. They are on a district water system, but they have our sewer. Now we should get them hooked onto our water, because we have water there and this is also true for 6 or 8 or 10 customers on the south side of the City. Those are actually now in the City limits, but they are still on district service. But our ordinances say to connect to our water system, they must pay a utility investment fee. It also says that they must provide the water rights. Well, they have already paid a utility investment fee to the district. They may have already paid to a district water rights. There is no incentive for them to come onto our system facing these burdens of costs. And yet by ordinance we cant waive these costs administratively. And that is the problem that we need to address. And it is what we need to do to clean up alot of overlapping of services where there are district lines within the City limits. We discussed this about two months ago. It is one of those things on the back burner where we hope to come to you with proposed changes, with proposed policy to administer these things. We think it will mean waiving the utility investment fee. We think it will mean waiving the water rights in these instances." Board member Cain stated, "We have seen the problems that existed with the districts in the past and some of the mishandlings or some of the dealings that went on, and I think that sooner or later we are going to have to come to fronts with the problems that exist and there is going to be alot of give and take and we may see that it is going to mean giving up some revenue that normally we would take. But there is a lot of cleaning up that we are going to have to do. We have to address ourselves to that." Chairman Fischer stated, "Now, I take it you have no specific recommendations at this time. " Mr. Krempel stated, "Thats correct." Chairman Fischer stated, "The Water Board does have a Utilities Committee that Bernie Cain chairs, which is involved among other things with such questions as you raised, what our policy ought to be concerning outside the City service, urban service areas, to what extent they are desirable, and where they should be, and all of the water district/city conflicts or potential conflicts, and means to resolve them. I think the committee has made it clear many times, and I am sure it is understood by the administration, that the committee will meet with water districts, administrators, County and City planners, or others at any time to explore these matters, and that was the reason we set up the committee so that they could be called on short notice and that they could meet. And I am sure that committee is available at any time you want to explore any of these other items or any of these things that come up. We are anxious to have the Water Board through that committee involved in these questions before they are presented before the Board. In other words, we said before anything does come to the Board at least philosophical questions, we would like our committee to be involved so that it could have a recommendation to the whole Board on those things." Mr. Krempel stated, "In relation to this, we have a two county 208 wastewater management plan in the development stages. That may very well dictate the urban service areas as far as sanitation is concerned. However, this committee can't offer input into the 208 plan in this regard." Board member Anderson stated, "One small comment, you are only talking about individual things, but when you get into larger subdivisions, like this Osprey thing, it has quite an impact on what Mr. Kaplan talks about, the lowering density in the City, as the City gets bigger and bigger, we have fewer and fewer people per acre, and this has been accelerating over time, and cost of getting some disbursement of population is quite costly to us. These are the kinds of things that bother me." Chairman Fischer stated, "Now, we do not have a specific Water Board committee that deals with the particular question and I don't know how it would be best on approaching, when the administration is in a position to make recommendations, or if that should be discussed with the whole Board, or if we should have the committee explore that." Board member Caulfield stated, "Mr. Chairman, I don't see why you say that, because I think it would be meaningful here, this committee is going to have to relate itself to the Planning and Zoning Board which is very much concerned with that sort of question, and in relating to the County goals and objectives question, it is very much that sort of question that is involved." Chairman Fischer stated, "Your view is well taken, and you are right, and I think that the committee is by previous action charged with that responsibility." Mr. Krempel stated, "A little bit on the same vein, can we talk about the effect of the blue line which is part of the Ordinance No. 96. A map was distributed to the Water Board labeled Brown Farm -Herring Property. We do not have a letter of request in this particular case, but we promised these people that we would bring this to the Water Board. The Wheeler Realty Company wants to annex 100 acres on East Overland Trail and north of Drake Road, practically all of which is outside the blue line and would not have adequate water pressure. We have not been favorable to their request because of this low water pressure situation. They, however, in the proposed water service area want to connect the existing Brown Farm with the future Brown Farm. They want to have streets and a water main pass through the proposed water service area. Now that small area would have a minimum water pressure of about 35 pounds. We could live with that situation if they develop that small part of the Herring Farm. So they are asking whether the Water Board would be amenable to recommend to the Council that the blue line be changed to the south of the west line of this small tract of land so that it could be annexed and developed to the extent of running a street and a water main through there to get to the future Brown Farm. There has been one more change to this request. Their attorney got in touch with Art March and said that if they wrote an agreement not to proceed with development of the 100 acres, but to annex it, and not have any responsibility to provide it with water service, couldn't they still annex the 100 acres. Art told them that such an agreement could be entered into. They want to enter into an agreement with the City to annex the 100 acre land, but that the City would not be obligated at this time to provide water service." -10- Chairman Fischer stated, "The reason for the blue line in part was the consultation of the Planning staff to try to prevent development to the west, of the blue line. Does this agreement that you are talking about contemplate that they would annex, if we would furnish water service for the little piece, that they would bring in the bigger piece, and we would never have development on it." Mr. Krempel stated, "Until the City could serve them with adequate water pressure." Chairman Fischer stated, "The point of my question was that the purpose of the blue line was so that we would never serve water up there. In part, that was part of it." Mr. Krempel stated, "They have a proposition where they would maybe add to the cost of their property a $100 a lot or something like that to provide a booster station." Chairman Fischer stated, "I am not making my point obviously. We thought that the Planning and Zoning people thought that it was undesirable to have development over there, not to build water tanks and not to have development, and that was one of the reasons for the blue line, not the only reason. And if that were the reason then the purposes of what we thought was the planning staff's view would not be accomplished by contemplating future development there." Board member Caulfield stated, "Mr. Chairman, that may well have been at the time you drew this blue line, and I don't want to speak for the Planning and Zoning Board, but this is east of Overland Trail and all of the proposals for open space, green space, purchased by the City and everything else is west of the Overland Trail, not east of Overland Trail and I know of nobody, the Greenbelt Association or anybody else, that talks about the City say purchasing that land in order to keep them out of production." Chairman Fischer stated, "I thought that was the purpose. I thought we drew this blue line because the Planning Department thought that we should not have development." Board member Caulfield stated, "One time I made an inquiry about this, and I understood the line, it may well have had these other offsets, but the actual line was drawn for the purpose of, with respect to this 35 pound standard, was exactly where the line went, this relationship with 35 pound standard." Mr. Krempel stated, "It turned out it wasn't quite that accurate because of the limited amount of information available. The blue line is along governmental survey lines. The 5140 contour you see we have sketched on the map. They are not coincident. We have land already developed east of Overland Trail, south of Prospect within the blue line that we don't have adequate water pressure to. It is existing development and in the summer time, water sprinklers only rise three inches. So we already have a water problem where we are going to have to do something to boost their pressure." Mr. Liquin stated, "To take a little of the responsibility off the Planning, I worked with the Water Board for two years requesting a blue line, and the blue line basically was for water pressure, so that by Council action and by Ordinance, you cannot develop beyond that line and it kept all of these people off the front door. -11- Mr. Krempel stated, "The other thing is that there are water mains with adequate pressure there to serve this property, except they are in the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District. They do have elevated storage west of Overland Trail that could serve this property." Mr. Les Kaplan, Planning Director, stated, "The Planning and Zoning Board interprets the blue line as the desirable limits of growth to the west, which coincidentally happened to be concurrent with the existing feasible limits of growth according to the limitations on water pressure. Now if the water pressure is improved, it means that we have extended our feasible limits of growth, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is going to change in terms of desirable limits of growth to the west. Now the problem comes into play with whether or not we have the luxury of being able to speak in terms of what is a desirable western limits of growth if there is a competitive utility district which can serve it. So that is the position the Planning and Zoning Board has on the blue line. It is coincident that what we are talking about as being desirable at present is what is feasible. If we change the feasibility of it, I think we should readdress of what really are the desirable limits of growth, but we have limited luxury in doing it, because of the district which is nearby." Board member Carson stated, "I think we are faced with a sort of a dilemma if we say that we want to preserve prime agricultural lands, and yet some of this land which is way from being prime agricultural is being denied development because of utility services. I think we have to weigh that against the use of prime agricultural lands in other areas. I personally feel that there ought to be serious consideration given on the costs of supplying services to supplying some of this on productive agricultural land." Chairman Fischer stated, "I am in a dilemma as to what the Water Board should consider at this time. We have planning problems, and here we go to the chicken and the egg type of thing, and I wonder may be if we should have some kind of a consultation between departments to figure out what the City's goals are and then see what the problems are in reaching those goals and see what the City should do under those circumstances." Mr. Krempel stated, "My recommendation would be to change the blue line to embrace the proposed water service area, which can adequately be served by the present water system. It allows continuity between the existing Brown Farm and the land they want to develop, the future Brown Farm, and it ties in with another street. It gives you street connection for fire protection, for travel, for police surveillance through the area, it is a very logical and it is not an undesirable extension of the blue line." Board member Caulfield stated, "In the absence of the City Attorney, I would like to ask the Chairman a question. If we go for the proposed water service area, and also there is the Herring Farm they want to bring into the City, the problem of our in effect committing ourself under the Boulder decision, actually to serve in this case beyond the blue line, if you allow that solution." Chairman Fischer advised, "The Chair wisely does not give legal advise to the Water Board." Board member Caulfield stated, "Would you grant that that is a question." -12- Chairman Fischer stated, "I surely would." Board member Caulfield stated, "I think it is a good question about what the City's responsibility might become." Chairman Fischer stated, "Of course I suppose we got the same problem even as it sits now. With your recommendation, would you also expect that the Planning Department, the Water Utility Department, the Council, and the City Manager try to figure out what our long range goals and likelihoods are for the rest of this or would we just leave that in limbo until somebody tried to build some kind of pumping station. We ought to know whether we should serve it because of the water district be competition or whether we can work something out where we just say we don't serve it so that it will stay agriculture or at least bare." Mr. Krempel stated, "All I can say in that regard is that Art felt confident that he could draft an agreement with these people that would protect the City from the obligation because it would be a contractual binding type of an agreement to serve it prior to its feasibility to be served by the City." Chairman Fischer stated, "It would solve the question that Henry raised at least about being required to serve over there under the Boulder decision." Board member Anderson stated, "Part of the problem here is probably economics. Like you said that the water district can serve these people, which means higher water costs for them. Like with the Scavo thing that we got hung on, they can decide to go with the water district and then come back and say give us sewer because you have the sewer lines there and so they can violate the blue line almost at will it seems like and we are backed into a corner and you got to serve them." Mr. Krempel stated that they can get sewer service only from the City. Chairman Fischer stated, "What position would that put us in about refusing service there. Could we legitimately refuse sewer service if it was the goal of the City, which I am not saying it is, to prevent development there?" Mr. Kaplan stated, "That gets back to the Boulder decision. If utility service is readily available and it can be determined legally to be a public service because it is the only utility service in the area, I guess the City might be obligated to serve it." Chairman Fischer stated, "Seems to me the Board needs legal advise before it gets too deep in doing something." Mr. Kaplan stated this matter is scheduled to go to the Planning and Zoning Board Monday, March 14, but the way it is going to be presented to the Board as it stands right now is only for that piece which is contiguous to the developed portion of the Brown Farm, not the question of the entire 108 acre site. In the context of discussing what their amended petition is, that being just the smaller section, the question of whether or not the Planning and Zoning Board feels that the larger area is desirable as an annexation into the City can be brought up. -13- Chairman Fischer stated, "I think you ought to seek legal advise on that sanitary sewer question, and if you can, is it a good idea, or should we look at what Karl was saying. Should we promote growth over there to keep it off of prime agricultural and all that. And as Karl so often said, the planning functions around here shouldn't be the Water Board, which I am sure nobody agrees more than you with that, but they ought to be addressed by somebody who is competent. I guess your the body." Board member Caulfield stated, "And then they can take up the question about so-called violation of blue line and their own views on the subject. Chairman Fischer stated, "I would suppose that we wouldn't be in trouble if we recommended this proposed water service area as moving the blue line around there, with the cautions that Planning and Zoning should consider the development of this thing, should seek good legal advise before it allows annexation under any agreement." Mr. Kaplan stated, "What makes this diametrically different from the Rosenthal question is that it is not a race to get a piece of property within the auspices of City control vis-a-vis utility extension, because there is no competitive sanitary sewer district in the area. Clearly in the Rosenthal question, the South Fort Colins Sanitation District could serve it, and that makes it increasingly desirable to the City to be favorable in terms of utility extension. And this is an important distinction between the two. Also, I think when you consider, we have quarter sections of land in Fort Collins that haven't even been subdivided yet. Board member Caulfield made a motion, seconded by Karl Carson, that the Water Board refer this matter to the City administration and the Planning and Zoning Board for its consideration before the Board finally takes action on this matter. The Chair put the motion, which was unanimously adopted. Report on Storing Surplus 1977 Water Mr. Krempel stated that two of the people that would have storage facilities on the Poudre River that the City might consider using have been contacted. Mr. Liquin stated, "I got in touch with Harvey Johnson, Water Supply and Storage, and asked him about additional quantities of storage. He did not feel that they would be receptive to a big chunk of water. He has every year authorized us to send 1,000 acre feet of water up to Chambers Lake to subsidize the river plant and then last year we transferred 1,100 acre feet up in September and that is the water that we are using now out of his system to supply Plant No. 1. There isn't enough water in the river. He would be receptive to continueing on that basis, however, he recommended that we reserve, hold heavy, in the City until we see what things are and then next fall, we will take another look at it. He was not receptive. Harlan Seaworth was not receptive at all. He feels that the runoff even though it is low will be adequate to fill their reservoirs and if he had a couple thousand acre feet of our water up there, he would automatically have to dump it to make room for his own water. So we have never, to my knowledge, used North Poudre storage, but they do have high storage." -14- Chairman Fischer stated, "It just happens that I talked to Harvey Johnson too. He had called me on some other matters shortly after he talked to Chuck, outlined some of his thinking, and requested that I give the Water Board his thinking. His thinking was basically this. He felt that the Water Supply and Storage Company would not be receptive to transferring waters up as opposed to having the City take those surplus waters and rent them to the farmers, because he thought that, in his view, the City, if it had surplus waters, ought to rent them to farmers, but that did not mean that he didn't think that the City should have a good reserve to meet future needs, and if we ended up with extra water, he said that he was sure that then the Water Supply and Storage Company would be glad to cooperate to the fullest extent and put it in high mountain storage. But he was not receptive to the idea himself of not renting to agricultural users and storing that water someplace. He also said that he felt that when we do get down to considering water rental rates, I am sure that he will be here at a meeting when we actually consider them, he felt that we should keep the water rental rates not substantially different than they had been in the past. That was his view." He further stated, "We have basically three potential places to store waters. That would be North Poudre, which said no; Water Supply which says they will accommodate us on enough water up there to run our plant, and if we ended up the year with some extra water, he thought that he could get 2,000 feet up to his reservoirs. Even at the end of the year, he thought if the conditions would justify, maybe even 3,000. "The administration also has written to the Water Conservancy District and requested a review of their policy concerning of the water allotment contracts at the end of year. The Board declined to change their policy and I put down the reasons for it and I, they did discuss at some length and I think that their reasons are important enough to state so that there is an understanding of why, and I don't think that it is an arbitrary decision on their part. You can come to your own judgement on it. Their first point is that they feel that, I guess kind of reflecting what Harvey Johnson said, from a social and economic standpoint, it is desirable that entities with waters in the reservoir that they do not need in years like this, rent them out and not hold them, so that the water does get out of the reservoir and is used for some useful purpose, because the purpose of the project is to bring waters over here, and the drier the year the more they want them used. So they think it is good policy to cancel it out to force people to, if they can't use the water themselves to give it to somebody who can and make beneficial use of it. Related to that, but as a separate reason, they said that they feel that this is particularly true in the case of the cities. That cities, unlike any other allottee of the waters, does not have to show to their satisfaction a present ability to make full beneficial use of their waters. If a farmer gets so many units, he must show that he can beneficially use those units on his land. The cities are an exception and water districts are, such things like this. They can plan for future use and under the policies of the district can get even up to a 100% more than they really need in anticipation of growth. But the district had adopted this more flexible policy in regard to munici- palities and water districts with the assumption and the theory and the under- standing really, that even though the cities would have these allocations in excess of their present needs, they would be unable to use them and would make the surplus undoubtedly available to agriculture, which therefore would not hurt the agricultural interests to not follow the same policy as the City. -15- "Then a third point was that even if these two reasons were not good enough, which they felt that they were, anything we did would have to be a very short term thing anyway, because with Windy Gap coming on line in the next few years, the excess capacity that might otherwise hold storage over would be utilized by the additional waters brought over by virtue of the Windy Gap Project. So I thought that they really did consider the request, and I thought that if one can't agree with their reasons, at least they are reasons that make some sense, and that is their view, so we cannot hold over storage and will have to exchange it out to Water Supply if we are going to hold." Chairman Fischer had distributed some sheets to the Water Board members that he had picked up at the Conservancy District office. On the first one called "Snow Pack, Stream Flow and Storage Comparisons", the District staff attempted to make some projections as to what kind of water can be expected within the District as a whole. Under the Stream Flow Forecasts, March 1, 1977, Poudre River, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Soil Conservation Service forecasted 48% flow, for a total flow in the Poudre River of runoff of 148,600 feet compared to the average 1957-1976 flow of 309,000. On the second sheet, "Water Supply and Use Comparisons", under the Water Use column, if some assumptions were made within the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, there will be an average supply of water this year. Their assumptions are, first, the stream forecasts they have anticipated will come true. Second, the ditch companies will be able to use and will use all of their active storage. This is probably the figure that is most likely to be the most questionable, because they said that the most that was ever used in any one year was not 222,000 acre feet out of storage, but about 175,000 acre feet. Nobody really knows how much active storage there is, because nobody has bothered to investigate. So that figure would probably be 180,000 acre feet or could be. But even with that figure, there would be 840,000 acre feet according to their forecasts, which would be 95% of normal in their anticipated runoff. He stated, "I think all of us were a little surprised with the figures that they gathered to find a water supply within the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, not due to them, but just considering all things, which includes ditch companies, carryover storage, river flow and the District of a good water year." The final assumption was that the District would declare 100% quota. The quota will be established at their meeting on the first week of April, before the April Water Board meeting. Chairman Fischer further stated, 'One of the things that I am sure that the administration will check, because they have told me they will before our April meeting, will be, the administration won't be having time to make any real hydrological analysis like Bill Hansen would make if we had the time to do a study, but they will talk with the Water Commission, the Division Engineer, and try to get his feel for the extent to which our direct diversion rights will be filled by river flows. Which will make some difference. We have an average 10,000, will it be 8,000 or 6,000 or whatever. But they will come up, and Jack Neutze's guess will be very very close. So I would think that by the April meeting we would have a real good handle on just what waters we do have." The Water Board deferred the decision as to how much water should be leased for 1977 to the April meeting. -16- 0 0 Mr. Liquin stated that the people are requesting to lease much more water this year than what they have requested in the past. He stated that he thought the recommendation will be that requests would be honored up to what was rented last year. That way, the City will be able to pay the debt to North Poudre Irrigation Company of 431 acre feet with their own water and then the City will have a little more flexibility with the Horsetooth water. Chairman Fischer stated that he thought the City should plan not to get any water from the Michigan Ditch. He stated that if the recommendation is to keep the water rental rates the same as last year, there might be the problem of how does the City know that the water is going to the highest use. If the recommendation is to keep the rates relatively low and there is a problem of highest use, then the administration might consider discussing with the Cache La Poudre Water Users Association representatives as to what they think is the best thing for the valley as a whole. Board member Caulfield stated, "I appreciate Harvey's views, but I wouldn't want the staff to feel that we are not interested in what the competitive rates with this would be as to just charging the assessment. I say that now without any idea of saying that we are going to gouge the farmers this year." Chairman Fischer stated, "I second your remarks, and I tried to make it clear that Harvey asked me to express his views." Board member Caulfield stated, "I almost have to take the view that we are abandoning that notion, and as far as I am concerned, we are not going to take any gouging rates regardless, but we want to get to this question of some kind of competitive rates that the private people would charge each other for these rentals. I think the City should be in the same sort of position. Now how you do that administratively finding these prices, we discussed last time, but I think we still want to aim in that direction, as far as I am concerned." Board member Anderson stated, "One of the things that might be self correcting, in the North Poudre, they make sure that they have to deliver certain volume by a period of time or they cancel. They usually do, you have to take 50% by July 1 or July 15 and so if you buy it and avoid it, they keep chopping away at what they are going to deliver if you don't accept it throughout the season." Mr. Liquin stated, "Water Supply does that. If you aren't Water Supply, that gives you so many inches of water in the ditch for so many days, and if you don't get this transferred in time, you have lost these many days and you still suffer so many inches." Board member Anderson stated, "North Poudre just cancells it off the books, because they have all these reservoirs. In that paper I did, there are some marginal values that are really quite high for an acre foot of water, but given the farming situation, they can't really pay those kind of prices, because some of these guys are right near the margin. So its one reason for probably keeping it down, but the idea of watching for whatever they rent between each other I think should guide, as Henry says." Mr. Krempel stated, "We did discuss this with the people at the Conservancy District and they would be very much opposed to anything but a very minimum rental rate. In fact, I think this prompted the news release that the District did make." -17- Board member Anderson stated, "We should be in line with what the companies rent, the farmers and the companies. Rental within like say the North Poudre, renting some shares from one farmer to another farmer within the North Poudre District. Renting water rights out at Eaton on the Eaton Ditch, you know, they have prices for that, and the same with the one down at Greeley." Board member Caulfield stated, "That's all we are talking about is one farmer to another. We are not talking about that the City should have some kind of a super rate. We are just talking the City should have a rate just like any private exchange that you see. No reason why the City should subsidize, or give a lower price than what the farmers would sell it back and forth to each other, as far as I am concerned. If the Conservancy District views that we should sell it at the assessment rate, but everybody else can sell it at something above the assessment rate, I don't see what the basis of that position, the logic of that position, other than just protecting their own interest." Mr. Krempel stated, "The basis for that opinion is that they allow us to own more water than we can beneficially use. That is the basis for their decision." Board member Caulfield stated, "I heard that in this other argument. I would just like to make a comment on the three reasons that you sited, Mr. Chairman. Seems to me the last one is irrelevant, because all we are talking about is an emergency, say next year during drought season, we are not talking about anything that would be coming with Windy Gap. So the only two reasons that we have to deal with really that are serious are the first two reasons, and I am not prepared to argue further about the matter at this time." Chairman Fischer stated, "I would appreciate your thoughts, but I don't know whether your argument will change the views, because that is their position." Board member Caulfield stated, "The thing that bothers me about it of course is the fact that this leaves us in the position of not having a good place to store water for next year. My concerns are with next year, not with this year. I agree with these analyses that are available. We are not likely to be in real serious trouble this year. The question of whether we do or not conserve water in the City, whether we have any admonishment for our citizens to save water, to make it real, we have to have a place to save the water. Right now, we are not in the position to store it some place or save it for next,year. And that is my main concern here, but I think we need to reflect on this more." Chairman Fischer stated that at the April meeting, the Board will set water rental rates and see how much reserve the City ought to take. Report on Class "C" Hearing Mr. Krempel stated that he had distributed a chronological sequence of events in the Class "C" Hearing. Board member Caulfield stated, "I would like to compliment our Chairman as Counsel for the City. I think we had some very good witnesses, at least what I heard through the noon time, made a very persuasive case. But it seems to me that if I understand correctly that the press reported incorrectly of the City's position. -18- The Coloradoan on 3/9/77 spoke of the City's position was to be, we were asking for the permission of reference to Greeley's, from the Greeley diversion structure to the river's confluence on the South Platte. And similarly in the Fort Collins Journal of CSU, there is the same statement. Now in the actual City position, it was stated by the active Mayor, the opening statement was I heard speak on behalf of the City of Fort Collins in support of temporary Class C exception proposed for that stretch of the Poudre River from our Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1 to the South Platte. Now is this not correct, Mr. Chairman, that that position of the City with respect to the temporary Class C exception." Chairman Fischer stated, "Let me answer it this way. The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission had defined the Cache La Poudre River in various reaches. One of the reaches went from the City of Greeley intake below the mouth of the canyon to the confluence of the Cache La Poudre River. When the Commission sent out notice of its hearing, it said the question would be the reclassification of the river between the Greeley filter plant and the confluence of the river. Peggy Reeves said exactly as you said, that it was the position of the Council of the City of Fort Collins that they were interested in the reclassification from the point of, just at the City and down. As Counsel for the City, I did not make a point of that, and I did not speak for the Water Board, but as Counsel, and take full responsibility for it. I spoke of the Lower Poudre and did present evidence that had to do with the river all of the way up. I did this in consul- tation with our consultant, Carl Houck of Black and Veatch, who felt that we would make a great tactical mistake if we attempted to take the Commissions own question, and attempt to modify it. I agreed with him. We also did not want to seemingly put the City of Fort Collins in a position which might be construed by the Commission as being contrary or at least not aware of the concerns of our sister City of Greeley, who have problems themselves upstream. So the presentation on behalf of the City was necessarily a little nebulous because of this statement of the question by the Water Quality Control Commission them- selves, but the position of the City as expressed by the Deputy Mayor was exactly as you say. Does that answer the question?" Board member Caulfield stated, "I guess I don't have any difference with what you say. However, it is my understanding that there was some problem within the Water Quality Commission itself about what was going on. And the Hearing Officer at one point made it clear that the only thing that was under discussion was the request of the City of Fort Collins for an exception that took the form of temporary Classification C with regard to ammonia and they even suggested that as you properly questioned about whether that relates to chlorine. Now, but that was the subject of the hearing. Now that only relates to that which comes into the river at Plant No. 1 and possibly Plant No. 2, it has no bearing on what happens at the Greeley diversion, if that is the subject of the hearing. The Plant No. 2 where we cleaned up our waste at our water treatment plant, I understand, Greeley has not cleaned up its waste, the waste that derives from filtration at their plant, and one of the implications of the way it was going, as you correctly stated, would be possible that they wouldn't have to clean up their waste, their treatment plant at the mouth of the river. Now I think that as far as I am concerned, you made your case, your witnesses made the case with your help, very persuasively that certainly by Fossil Creek Inlet where the river goes dry several times before it gets down there, you made a very persuasive case not only for whatever the temporary classification is, but ultimately I would hope and suspect and support under certain circumstances of that kind, -19- you actually get a necessary modification of Public Law 92-500, the Federal Government, to make it a permanent possibility. But I don't think, at least at the morning session, and I say the morning session because I didn't hear your witnesses in the afternoon, that the case was equally good or clear, I mean I wouldn't think it would be equally good or clear, for the area above Fort Collins, that is above Waste Treatment Plant No. 1, and I would hope that the City will review very seriously the question of what our policy should be with respect to the area above Sewage Treatment Plant No. 1 in proceeding further on this matter, and I would hope that we would take this matter up for further consideration and staff can consider this question more thoroughly, because I don't think we are indifferent, I am speaking of the Water Board now, I am speaking of the City, the Planning and Zoning Board, the uses of the Poudre River within the City to just a casual going into the question of the area above Sewage Treatment Plant No. 1. It seems to me, I am not saying that I would be even against something like this, but I think we could seriously look into that as a separate question." Chairman Fischer stated, "I think it is a separate question. They had promised us that they would hold a subsequent hearing on an agricultural classification of sections of the Poudre and I think that at that time, the City of Fort Collins should definitely take the position and should be a thoroughly examined and well thought out position, well documented, and where the line should be debated." Board member Caulfield stated, "Well, I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that there is no question of what will bring this type of position back to the Board for consideration at an appropriate time along those lines. You made the case very persuasively. It makes it very persuasive that below the Fossil Creek Inlet there is one set of circumstances and above the Fossil Creek Inlet or above this area is another set of circumstances with regard to the river regime." Chairman Fischer stated, "I think that is right. I think from the comments of. the Commission that that is where they are going to draw the line. The City of Fort Collins from the presentation of its case, was perfectly happy to confine the majority of its evidence on that question, because that is what solved the City's question. We merely tried to avoid getting into conflict with either the Commission's own question, to confuse it or to go out of way to get into conflict with the sister City of Greeley, on questions we had very little information." Staff Reports Mr. Krempel stated, "On Joe Wright, we have pretty well determined that we want to proceed with the construction of the reservoir as early as possible with the City putting up more front end money so construction can start this year, and to try to fold this into the Small Loans Program just as we have previously planned, but to a lesser amount of loan. It is not an easy proposition, but we are moving in that direction and we could give you copies of some correspondence, but I don't really want to take more time. That is our procedure at this time. "On Soldier Canyon, we are proceeding with the preliminary design of the connection from the outlet to the plant. Hewlett-Packard has taken their bids on their sewer, and when the alternatives are finally selected or should be decided, the cost will be between $24,000 and $35,000, in the oversizing costs for the H-P sewer. They have not taken bids on the water main, do not know what that will be as yet. -20- "At the request of the Council, we are proceeding on water conservation type measures. We are going to participate in a research project at the request of Norm Evans to address the subject of water requirements for urban lawns. That I think would constitute the staff reports." Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned. Charles Liquin KayEK Imel see