Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 05/17/1991WATER BOARD MINUTES May 17, 1991 3:00 - 5:17 p.m. Water and Wastewater Utility Conference Room 700 Wood Street Members Present Henry Caulfield, President, Neil Grigg, Vice President, Tom Sanders, Mark Casey, Ray Herrmann, Terry Podmore, Tim Dow, MaryLou Smith, Tom Moore, Paul Clopper (alt.), Dave Stewart (alt.) Staff Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Linda Burger, Keith Elmund, Webb Jones, Gale McGaha-Miller, Andy Pineda, Molly Nortier Guests John Bigham, Agency Coordinator, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Tom Shoemaker, Natural Resources Division Administrator George Reid, Citizen Observer, (Applicant for Water Board) Member Absent Tom Brown President Henry Caulfield opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Minutes The minutes of April 19, 1991, were approved as distributed. Update: Northern Colorado Water Conwaz= Dietrirt John Bigham began by saying that the snow pack continues to improve. The District Board is discussing the possibility of operating 2 pumps at Windy Gap. The District is particularly assessing the costs involved in doing that. He reported that reservoir storage is still less than 50 % of average on the west slope. However, the District is making some deliveries on the east slope, but the real run-off hasn't begun, so he isn't sure where "they are going to end up." If the 60% quota is continued, which Mr. Bigham thinks the directors will do, CBT storage at the end of the year, should be at about 77% of average, and the ditch company storage should end up around 56%, "so we will have gained in storage from last year," he said, "but it's a fairly slow process to make up the storage." Water Board Minutes May 17, 1991 Page 2 He reported that the District Board, at the last meeting, included the Town of Erie into both the District and the Sub -district. There are indications from a number of the smaller towns in the areas where the Health Department has red -tagged their water systems and given them a short time to correct the problems, that these towns will ask permission to obtain water that will be delivered to them by exchanges or some other means. The District anticipates that there will be numerous inclusion activities in the coming months. Another major item for the Board was the first approval of the Broomfield contract to begin the study of the proposed pipeline from Carter Lake down to Broomfield and other points in between. The negotiation process on this contract has taken considerable time. As soon as the District receives some data on this proposed project, Mr. Bigham will have more to report. Neil Grigg reported that Karl Dreher, from the District, gave a presentation on the Regional Study on April 26th to a joint Water Board/Chamber of Commerce meeting. "We had an excellent discussion of what the District has concluded from their study," Dr. Grigg said. There will be follow-up on it from the Chamber Committee, he added. Review of Natural Areas Plan Water Board members were sent copies of the preliminary draft of the Natural Areas plan to review prior to the meeting. Tom Shoemaker, Administrator from the City's Natural Resources Division, gave a slide presentation on the plan. He began by saying that one of the projects the City Council assigned to Natural Resources, was the development of a natural area policy plan to define the future vision for conservation and natural areas within the City of Fort Collins. Natural Resources is currently in the midst of a public review process. An important part of that review process is obtaining the comments and questions from the Water Board, as well as 5 other boards, and the Community. The Division is not looking for a recommendation from the Water Board today, he said. They will ponder the comments, questions and concerns of the Water Board and others, address them, and return in the next couple of months with a revised plan. At that time, they may be seeking a recommendation. Mr. Shoemaker then began his slide presentation. He explained that the plan has two major thrusts: conservation of natural areas, wetlands, riparian areas for people as part of the habitat that keeps Fort Collins a desirable place, as well as a habitat for wild life species, for plants, and for the communities that form part of the natural areas. Purpose of the Plan 1) To identify and inventory those areas that might be considered valuable natural areas; Water Board Minutes May 17, 1991 Page 3 2) To look at those values; 3) To look at needs and opportunities; 4) To determine what we want to do about these areas, if anything When he completed his slide presentation, Mr. Shoemaker emphasized that this is not just a project for the Natural Resources Division. Many City departments have a role to play, he said. Henry Caulfield said that he went on the tour on a recent Saturday that the Natural Resources Division had organized. The only area they visited which he believes will impact the Water and Wastewater Utility, was the Larimer No. 2 canal that crosses Rolland Moore Park. Staff provided a memo for Board members with staff comments on the Natural Areas Policy plan, and how it could impact the Utility. The memo began by pointing out that many of the City's water and wastewater facilities could be impacted by the proposed comprehensive plan, and any regulations or review processes adopted in support of the plan. Natural area designations affect Water Treatment Plant No. 2, both wastewater treatment plants, portions of the Resource Recovery Farm, and numerous water and sewer lines throughout the City. These facilities will need to be expanded, replaced or improved as needed in order to continue to provide Utility services that protect the environment and meet the requirements of applicable state and federal laws. At the conclusion of the memo, it states that the plan lists numerous previous planning documents that the Natural Resources Division has consulted in developing the Natural Areas Policy Plan. Water and Wastewater Utility staff requested that the Water Supply Policy adopted in 1987 and the Wastewater Master Plan adopted in 1990 be included in that section. These plans contain the City's commitment to protection of the environment through providing high quality water supplies and wastewater collection and treatment facilities to the community and adjacent areas. President Caulfield asked Linda Burger to summarize the reactions to the plan from the Utility's point of view. Ms. Burger said if you review the various maps included in the natural areas plan, you will notice that several of the designated areas are ones in which our water treatment and wastewater treatment plants and the resource recovery farm are located. In addition, we have a number of pipelines that cross some of those areas. The plan is not very clear on how some of those areas might be impacted, she said. There is reference to using City -owned properties for natural areas protection and requiring mitigation for projects in natural areas. Given that a number of facilities are in those areas, she deduces that means "we would be required to provide protection." Water Board Minutes May 17, 1991 Page 4 As far as the plan itself, there is not a problem other than one of money: to the extent that we have to re-route pipelines; to the extent that we have to do mitigation when we are doing plant expansion, or if lands purchased by the Utility are used for natural areas protection. If these occur, we can expect costs of the Utility to go up; primarily Plant Investment Fees (PIFs), but monthly rates could go up as well. She said that the City Council has expressed a considerable amount of concern these past few months regarding how our PIFs and rates compare with those of other communities, particularly along the front range. With the Wastewater Master Plan, which the Utility is now implementing, our wastewater PIFs are quite high compared to other communities. She added that our wastewater rates are on the upper end as well. Ms. Burger believes that the financial impacts of this plan need to be brought to the Council's attention. There are certain provisions in the Charter, the Code and in State law referencing how impact fees as well as service fees are developed. She suggested that the City Attorney's office be consulted to determine to what extent Utility resources can be committed to something like a natural areas plan. If there is a mitigation requirement that applies to utilities as well as to all other development, she would not see a conflict there. However, if utility uses of lands purchased with utility funds are to be reduced or eliminated to accommodate natural areas protection, then there may be legal hurdles. Tom Moore pointed out that the City is a major stockholder in a number of ditch companies, and there is a huge impact there. "We must protect our assets there," he contends. He went on to say that the plan is really nice, but there is much more to it then the "warm fuzzies" it gives you, he insisted. He hopes that others will make their concerns known about this plan, because he has some serious reservations about it. Tom Shoemaker offered to spend a couple of hours with Mr. Moore to go further into some of the details and try to alleviate some of his concerns. Tim Dow thinks it is important to tie this into the Land Development Guidance System. There have been 2 or 3 development proposals in the last few years that have raised significant natural resource questions: Mail Creek and the development of the Wal-Mart area was one, and the other was PACE where there was considerable impact on Fossil Creek. Dave Stewart commented that "if you were proposing a $100,000 project and you had to move it 100 yards and it would add $2,000 to the cost, I don't think Council would consider that a big deal. However, if it added $20,000 to the cost, they would be concerned about it." How are we planning to communicate that to the Council?" he wondered. Water Board Minutes May 17, 1991 Page 5 "I think that is extremely difficult to communicate," Linda Burger responded, "because until you actually get into choosing a route for a pipeline, and getting engineering estimates it is hard to say what the costs will be." Recently, the Utility installed a Lincoln Street sewer which we had hoped could include rehabilitation of the Poudre River bank near the Pickle Factory. The costs that would have been involved in that restoration project were in the neighborhood of $300,000, in addition to approximately that amount for the project to begin with. Henry Caulfield wondered if, in the next draft of the document, there could be a section that Utility staff could draft, which describes the potential for impact on the Water & Wastewater system from different kinds of things that are suggested in the plan. Tom Shoemaker explained the direction Council has given about the plan and what Natural Resources' current plans are. So far the responses they have received are in the range of. "Yes, there are some good ideas and some good vision here, but the main thing is, how are you going to do it?" These came from the Council and the development committee. The developers wanted to know how it would impact their property, although they like the plan. Mr. Shoemaker acknowledged that they have a lot of work to define the specifics. Therefore, their plans are to develop the specifics in terms of what it would mean, and in terms of acquisition programs, so the Council can determine what their commitment to acquisition is. "We are not looking at taking anyone's property," he stressed. Second to that would be the land use regulations, he added. He believes they can incorporate into the implementation plan, the concerns that the Utility staff has expressed. Mr. Shoemaker explained further that the direction the Council told them to take is to develop an implementation strategy and to develop the specifics in at least two areas to go along with the initial document. One of the reasons Council made those suggestions is that there are consultants already working on what the land use changes may be, etc. Linda Burger thinks it would be helpful to have the Water Supply Policy and the Wastewater Master plan included in the document. Those documents address how the Utility works with the irrigation community, and the environmental purposes of the Utility, which are somewhat different from protecting natural areas. Neil Grigg observed that what is being looked at cuts across the objectives of so many different agencies, there is going to be a great deal of conflict resolution needed down the road. "We are going to get nervous if we hear that you are going unilaterally to the Council to develop implementing regulations that include land use controls etc.," he asserted. It would be advisable if there were something in the plan that spells out in detail the process that must be followed before something that goes against our interest would be approved. Water Board Minutes May 17, 1991 Page 6 Mr. Shoemaker assured the Board that Natural Resources is going to work on the implementation strategies addressing these issues at the staff level across departments. "Then we intend to come back to the community and each board and go over that before we go back to Council," he stressed. Natural Resources went to Council in work session only to see if they were on the right track, he said. President Caulfield summarized that he understands Natural Resources is going to work on two specific implementation areas and when those plans are developed according to the direction of the Council, they will return to the Water Board and other Boards for recommendations. Tom Sanders wondered if Natural Resources had looked at the negative impacts of wetlands, i.e. mosquitos and encephalitis, as well as the potential for bubonic plague with the prairie dogs. Mr. Caulfield suggested that there ought to be a section in the report that reflects the concerns of various boards, in which the potential problems are outlined; somewhat like what is in the staff memo. The Council will than be aware of these concerns, but he added, not in terms of specific areas, but in the general context. He then thanked Tom Shoemaker for his presentation and for allowing the Water Board to express their concerns and ask questions. National Wetlands Legislation Mr. Caulfield drew the attention of the Board to the National Wetlands bill in their packets. He stated that he looked over the bill and concluded that he would be surprised if this is the final bill, "because it has a long way to go." He pointed out that elsewhere wetlands are defined as those in which the ground water comes within 14 inches of the surface for a certain number days. He related that on p. 29 of this bill, it is a very different definition; namely that the water has to come to the surface and remain for 21 days or more. Mr. Caulfield believes that the definition of wetlands is of critical importance to the amount of acreage that could be involved. Ray Herrmann agreed with Mr. Caulfield that this bill will not go anywhere in it's present form. Linda Burger explained that her reading of the literature tells her that she would agree with Mr. Caulfield and Mr. Herrmann that this particular bill probably will not pass in the form that it's in, but there appears to be enough controversy about how wetlands are currently being regulated, that she expects some language to be adopted if not this year, perhaps next year. Ms. Burger said she would continue to watch the issue. Discussion of Procedures for Election of Officers Henry Caulfield explained that since 1962, when the Board was founded, there has been no change in the way it has operated in the sense that the first president held office for approximately 20 years, the second for about 5 years and the third about 4 years. The idea of Water Board Minutes May 17, 1991 Page 7 keeping the president and vice president on a continuous basis has been a tradition in the past. The idea of having the election in October was to wait and see who the new Board members would be so they had some basic knowledge when they were asked to vote. According to Council Liaison Loren Maxey, other Boards elect their officers shortly after new members have been appointed in July. Recently, a change in the ordinances limits the terms of Water Board members to three or 12 years. Previously there was no limit. Mr. Caulfield asked if there should be a fundamental re- examination of how the Board operates in the sense of all the issues he talked about. He pointed out that any changes in the procedures need to be amended in the bylaws which will require two consecutive meetings. Mr. Caulfield's term ends on July 1st and he will not be returning to the Board, so someone needs to assume the presidency in July. After a brief discussion, the Board decided by consensus that having elections in October continues to make sense for the Water Board. As for the current situation, Vice President Neil Grigg will assume the presidency beginning with the July meeting until the election of officers in October. Neil Grigg's term ends July 1st, so if by some remote possibility, he was not re- appointed, the Board would then be required to have a special election. Uodate on Wilderness Legislation Mike Smith distributed drafts of 2 Wilderness bills which staff had received just that day. For that reason Linda Burger did not have the opportunity to review them thoroughly. Ms. Burger explained that three bills have actually been drafted: one introduced by Campbell in the House; one introduced by Allard/Shaefer in the House; and the Wirth/Brown Bill in the Senate. The Campbell bill does not have any water language in it, only designation for wilderness areas, so Ms. Burger did not duplicate that one. The other two bills were copied for the Board. The only issue that concerns staff is how the water rights language concerning the North Platte Wilderness area might impact the Utility's Michigan River water rights. Her reading of the situation is that if a bill goes forward, it will probably be the Wirth/Brown bill, and Rep. Campbell plans to attach whatever water language is in that bill to his bill on the House side. Henry Caulfield directed the Board's attention to a memo in their packets from him, directed by the Water Board, alerting the City Council to this issue and suggesting that the City engage legal counsel to protect our interests, in view of what our investments are in the Michigan Ditch, Water Board Minutes May 17, 1991 Page 8 Joe Wright projects. He presumes that what we will be doing now is following up on this with the City Attorney and whoever else has to make a decision as to how we are going to do this. "We need to have language that gives us full protection, not just to the compact, but so we won't be sued by the United States for the water rights we have up there, he emphasized." Mr. Caulfield related that after last month's meeting, he spoke with Loren Maxey, the Board's City Council Liaison, and he saw no reason why the Board shouldn't go forward with the memo which reflected the Water Board's discussion. As yet, there has not been a response from the Council. Staff will review the bills thoroughly, talk to the City Attorney and the Utility's counsel, and get back to the Board. Neil Grigg stressed that the Water Board needs to track the issue closely since there are several complex issues involved here. Update on Demand Management Committee Committee member MaryLou Smith reported that the Demand Management Committee is continuing to look at possible demand management options other than metering, to encourage conservation of water. The Committee will then narrow down the list to those measures, if any, that might be best at this time. Ms. Smith mentioned that a significant amount of time at their last meeting was focused on ultra low flush toilets and they reached the conclusion that, at this time, there doesn't appear to be enough information about performance and the impact on the wastewater system to promote that option yet. Henry Caulfield suggested that staff may want to conduct a study of the flows that would be necessary to move the solids, so they would know beforehand what impact a conversion to those toilets would have. Tom Sanders brought up the controversy about disposal diapers versus cloth diapers. Apparently there has been research that indicates that, particularly in the west, disposal diapers may be preferable because of the considerable amount of water that is needed to properly wash and sterilize cloth diapers. He thought that might be of interest to the Committee. Mr. Caulfield pointed out that the per capita use figure for Fort Collins of 230 gallons per capita per day (gpcpd), is rather deceptive because it includes total water use except for Anheuser- Busch. Dennis Bode related that if you just took household residents, the per capita use would be about 140-150 gallons. Henry Caulfield noticed in the Demand Management Committee minutes that in the policy statement, there was no mention of preserving the "green" environment of Fort Collins. That has been a traditional quality of life concept through the years, Mr. Caulfield stressed, and he thinks it should not be neglected in the process of trying to reduce water use. Ms. Smith Water Board Minutes May 17, 1991 Page 9 assured Mr. Caulfield that the Committee has agreed to emphasize that in the revised policy statement and also in the goals and strategies. Marylou Smith concluded her report by commending staff for the excellent information they have provided for the Demand Management Committee. Cache La Poudre National Water Heritage Area Henry Caulfield was invited to attend a meeting of the Fort Collins and Greeley City Councils to discuss the proposed Cache La Poudre National Water Heritage Area. As you can see, he said, the name is no longer the National Heritage Corridor. Area is defined as the entire basin. It was quite clear that the Greeley City Council was quite favorable to the idea, he related. What they were particularly pleased about is that this celebrates the history of irrigation development in the Fort Collins and Greeley area since about 1850. There will be educational programs developed in both cities. The only tendency for concern was expressed by irrigation companies who wanted to know how the designation would affect them. It has no impact, Mr. Caulfield stressed. Irrigation will continue as it is now. The education programs will describe the evolution of the irrigation culture in this area. The one constructive suggestion that came out of the meeting was in terms of membership on the commission, and that was to specify in the law, that a representative of the Poudre Water Users Association be specifically designated as a member of the commission. That clearly makes the irrigators a participant in whatever happens. The only other concern, and a rightful one, is as this goes through the U.S. Congress, somebody may get the idea to put some language in the legislation that could be disturbing to, for example irrigators. If there were such language, the designation could be abandoned. Henry Caulfield had submitted six questions to staff earlier to give them the opportunity to ponder the answers for the Board meeting. He wanted to make it clear that his questions are for further development and in no sense a condemnation of what we have. "I think it is a very good report," he said. It seems to him, however, that there are a few things that could be illuminated more. His first question was: Have you tried to develop tables that show adequacy of revenue (i.e., rates, PIFs, etc.) to meet "total costs"? Could you relate rates and revenue to our amortization obligations for our bonded indebtedness? In other words, a chart that would show that our costs are being held in check and our revenues are going up, and we are improving our situation vis Water Board Minutes May 17, 1991 Page 10 a vis our bonded ability, or we are narrowing such that our rates are coming close to what we need to indicate that we may be required to change our rates to improve the security of our bonds. Mike Smith acknowledged that staff has not been totally pleased with the way the information is evolved, because "it's not a really clean way to do it." They have been discussing some of this during the current budget process. Mr. Caulfield pointed out that when you go to the bonding companies you have to show to them the relationship of your rates and revenues to the annual principal recovery and interest. "Yes, it's called bond coverage," Mr. Smith replied. At least that would be good to have in the report, Mr. Caulfield suggested. "That's easy to show, and it is already something we show to the Council," Mr. Smith added. Neil Grigg has been associated with classes at CSU that study annual reports. "What you notice about our water Utility report when you contrast it with other reports, is that this is an operating report; it's not an annual report that intends to overlap financial information," he observed. It seems awkward to have the financial information in the Utility report unless it can be complete. Because the Water Utility is not a self-contained entity, with financial management completely under its control, "I think it makes sense not to try to produce this like a report of a self- contained district," he concluded. "Given that we are seeing municipalities defaulting on municipal bonds," Mark Casey began, "attention to the whole issue of debt coverage ratio and our bond rating would be very timely and something that we need to look at closely." He thinks that both individuals and companies looking at the City, will want to take that into consideration. He concurred with what Mr. Caulfield proposed, that some elaboration on our bondability would be good. Mr. Caulfield stated that during the 17 years he has been on the Board, they have not received a statement on the bondability question. Linda Burger pointed out that staff has distributed the annual budget to the Board, and that document contains the bond coverage information. Mr. Caulfield continued with his second question. Don't we need to relate "satisfaction" of our water requirements (p. 15) to our purchases of raw water in recent years from bonded indebtedness to total water supplies from year to year? The table on p. 30 should be related to this, should it not? Mike Smith pointed out that the chart on p. 30 shows our raw water acquisitions. Next, Mr. Caulfield asked why the disparity between percentages for water use and water charges for non-residential and multi -family on pp. 14 and 15? Webb Jones responded that residential rates are largely a function of rate of use rather than total use. Commercial customers' peaking requirements are not as significant as a residential customers because of the Water Board Minutes May 17, 1991 Page 11 lawn watering requirements of residential customers. He pointed out that 30% of what a commercial customer pays is a function of rate of use, while a residential customer's is more like 52%. Unaccounted water use and water used by City -owned facilities is included in the unmetered category in the chart on page 14. Mr. Caulfield also asked what significance should be attached to complaint records. (p. 62) Keith Elmund, Environmental Services Manager, replied that time will tell if they are significant. "There are a couple of trends we are watching," he said; one is that the lab is seeing a gradual overall increase in the number of complaints that they get each year. He thinks it is related not only to population growth, but also to the fact that people are more aware of any change at all in their water, and are willing to report it. The other thing the lab is noticing is the predominance of taste and odor complaints in the late summer and fall, which is primarily related to normal biological activity in Horsetooth Reservoir and the Poudre River, he concluded. Dave Stewart asked if the lab has had many complaints or inquiries about lead. There have been inquiries about lead, Dr. Elmund replied, primarily because of all the recent publicity about it. In addition, the lab gets requests from pregnant women and mothers of young children, to have their water tested to make certain it is safe. Mr. Stewart observed that 114 complaints for a town the size of Fort Collins doesn't seem excessive. Committee Reports Legislative and Finance Committee Linda Burger drew the attention of the Board to an article from the Water Pollution Control Federation Journal outlining the kinds of changes that are being anticipated in the Clean Water Act re -authorization that is under consideration by Congress this year. She provided this information for the Board to keep them informed about this, although there isn't any bill language to look at yet. She assumes the Committee will want to take this up as the legislation progresses. There are some issues that may impact us, she said, "but it's difficult to react to it until we see some actual language." She brought up a second item that wasn't totally legislative. At the last meeting someone asked for an update on the lease of the old Water Treatment Plant No. 1 site in the Poudre Canyon. She reported that State Parks and Recreation informed the Utility recently that they did not receive the funding they needed to improve the access, and as a result, they will not be proceeding with that project this year. Since there was not further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:17 p.m.