Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 05/18/19844 MINUTES Water Board May 18, 1984 MEMBERS PRESENT Ward Fischer, Norm Evans, Ray Glabach, Dave Stewart, Neil Grigg, Tom Sanders, Ev Richardson, Mary Lou Smith (alt), Mort Bittinger (alt) STAFF PRESENT Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Curt Miller, Jim Hibbard, Andy Pineda, Ben Alexander, Paul Eckman, Assistant City Attorney GUESTS Pat Graham, Consultant for Rate Study Survey MEMBERS ABSENT Henry Caulfield, Tom Moore, Bernie Cain (all excused) Chairman Ward Fischer opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Minutes Tom Sanders said that the specific areas he asked about in the Anheuser-Busch agreement had not been covered in the minutes. He wishes the minutes to reflect his remarks that included when, how, and under what circumstances the water was to be acquired and the details of the timing and the financing of it. Mike Smith said that the answers to these questions are not specific in the agreement. However, the master agreement does speak to the different sources of water that could be available. Another item Tom Sanders said was not in the minutes was his request that Ward Fischer provide a statement before he leaves the Board, that reflects where the Water Board has been and where it is going. The minutes of April 20, 1984, were approved with the additions suggested by Tom Sanders. Discussion and Revision of Water Board Policies At the last meeting the Board had hoped to discuss the Water Board policies with a view to making certain that they were reflective of our present philosophies, etc. In addition to whatever thoughts the Water Board had, the Council did suggest at the recent joint meeting, some items that they think should be included. With the exception of a metering item, Chairman Ward Fischer asked the staff to redraft the policies incorporating the Council suggestions. The reason the metering item should be excluded is that we are currently in the process of a study on this matter. When the draft is ready, the staff will bring the document back to the Board for review and approval. Chairman Fischer perceived that another directive from the Council at the joint meeting was that the Council would look to the Water Board to make sure the rate and drought studies "go down the right road." Mr. Fischer got the impresssion that the Council would like the Water Board's overview, perhaps Water Board Minutes Page Two May 18, 1984 with Council members present. He proposed that the Water Board form committees for each study and inform the Council of these committees. The Committees will then work with or without Council members in the overseeing of these studies. He appointed the following committee members: Rate Study -- Neil Grigg, Chairman, Tom Sanders and Ray Glabach. Drought Study--MaryLou Smith, Chairman, Ev Richardson, Henry Caulfield, and Mort Bittinger. Norm Evans will serve as ex-officio member of both committees. Note: Ev Richardson wished the record to reflect that his son-in-law is directly involved with the drought study. However, the committee and Dr. Richardson will be looking at the study from a strictly technical point of view. Ev Richardson asked that the committees be given the right to seek additonal resource participants at no cost to the City. The staff did not object to this. Neil Grigg inquired if these would be advisory committees. Mr. Fischer said that they would act more in the role of steering committees. Mike Smith said his perception of what the Council wanted was different from Mr. Fischer's. He thinks it is the staff's responsibility to direct the studies with input from the Council and the Water Board. Mr. Fischer assured Mr. Smith that the steering committees would not interfere with staff management functions. Mr. Fischer went on to explain that there was some confusion relating to the rate study as to what was to be studied. It is hoped that the committee would help the consensus process of the Council and the Water Board to determine what would be studied, and thus aid the staff in that sense. Neil Grigg suggested a mode of working on the committees that would allow the staff to steer the studies and serve as the contact for the consultants. The roles of the Water Board and Council members that would be added to these sub- committees would be to review the studies at a logical point. The committees would have the responsibility to assess whether the studies were meeting the needs of Board and the Council in terms of the overview, the policy level, and the technical content. Mr. Grigg thought that this would be a comfortable working arrangement. MaryLou Smith agreed with one exception. She thought it might be necessary to have the group meet with the staff early on before each set of consultants does work, to determine if they are on the right track. Norm Evans advised that the Board should refrain from getting into the position of second guessing the staff decisions which are given to the contractor. It is within the framework to make suggestions. Thus, it is the committee's function to call attention and flag, not direct. Water Board Minutes Page Three May 18, 1984 Mike Smith reiterated that we hired a consultant, we negotiated with a consultant on that scope of work and contracted for that scope of work to be done. The intention was, after the rate study was completed, that the Water Board and staff would confer on developing a conservation program. They would take into account the information from the rate study and see what the cost and benefits were, based on the information. It seemed that the Council wanted the consultants to do some of that work in the course of the study which is a change in the scope of work. Mr. Smith said that we are going to have to decide if we want to change the scope of work and what the cost will be or stay with the original scope and provide input as that goes along. Ev Richardson proposed that the committees could interact with the staff and the consultants to set up some scenarios. Mr. Smith thinks that setting up the scenarios we want the consultants to look at may be a bit premature. We may want the consultant to do it, look at the results and then direct him to do something different. Ray Glabach pointed out that it is important for the Water Board, having initated the studies in the first place, to have a second input. Mr. Glabach is not certain that he would endorse some of the things that were mentioned at the joint meeting. He would have some opinions on the kinds of things we should study. Sometimes municipalities have consultants do studies that end up resembling "the Denver phone book" in terms of volume as well as content. He is concerned about the average person in the community who is not technically oriented who reads about the study. He may think, "Now that Busch is coming, the City is putting a meter on my house." Mr. Glabach added that it is important to study the things that matter and make them concise and understandable. He is concerned further about the "green lawn" concept in the rate study. He stressed that Fort Collins is not an island. "Areas outside Fort Collins aren't deserts because they are metered. We have a data base that surrounds us. Let's ask questions of other cities. Let's implement some simplified approaches that people can relate to!" Mike Smith responded that many of Mr. Glabach's concerns are being addressed. It is the consultant's intention to include most of Mr. Glabach's suggestions. Ray Glabach's observations about the Board's input into the study will be realized by Mr. Stewart's plan to return frequently to the Water Board and Council for their review of the study. Mr. Smith added that, as a staff, they are very aware of the need for Council and Water Board input, as long as the staff is allowed to fulfill their function as directors of the studies. Norm Evans, director of the Colorado Water Resources Research Institute located at CSU, offered his organization's research as a resource. They have done research related to rate and drought studies, he said. The results are there to be used. Mike Smith related that, as part of the Department's budget process each year, the staff surveys other communities along the Front Range. "We need to see where we stand with existing rates, as well as with proposed future rates." Water Board Minutes Page Four May 18, 1984 Mr. Fischer emphasized that the Board has no intention of interfering with staff functions. Nevertheless, the body that ultimately makes the recommendation, in this case the Water Board, is the one that will be called to task, not the consultant who did the study. Therefore, the Water Board has a real interest, through the steering committees, in seeing that the study is properly done. If the Board is involved in the studies, and can say these are valid studies, then the Board can make its recommendation based on that. Ev Richardson added that the committees have specific assignments which will spread the work load around a little, and when they make their reports to the full board, all aspects will have been studied more thoroughly. Mary Lou Smith had three procedural questions: How does each of these committees secure a member of the Council, and would these committees be involved at the beginning or will they wait until the middle of the studies? Also, will the staff contact the committees to tell them when they want their input or will the committee contact the staff? Ward Fischer said that he would contact Council members. Mike Smith replied that they would rely on the consultants to ascertain the logical break points, and inform the committees at those times. In addition, Dennis Bode will distribute information to the committees that will outline the scope of work. Mike Smith reminded the Board that the staff and Water Board had previously established the scope of work and the limits which the Council approved. That had been a few months ago so the Council and the Board may have forgotten some of the direction and limitations of the studies. Ward Fischer pointed out that he hopes the committee working on the rate study will keep the following points in mind: Often the consultant relies heavily on whatever the American Water Works Association developes as the cost of service as the equitable way. To conclude that anything else is inequitable is false. For example, the present City rates were adopted by the Water Board because they thought, under those circumstances, the rates were equitable. The Water Board should use its own judgement as to what is fair and equitable for Fort Collins. Neil Grigg asked what was the point upon which the Water Board based its decision on why the present rates are equitable as opposed to a cost of service approach. Ward Fischer explained that, basically, the Board thought turning on a tap in your home was worth more than putting the water on your lawn for a number of reasons. You are guaranteed water from your tap inside the house. They further felt that people who watered their vegetation were serving those who observed the beauty of lawns and trees as well as the owner. Therefore, the Board concluded that the homeowner didn't necessarily have to pay the full cost. Of course, they took into account that if the City went to water rationing, the first place the water would be restricted was lawn irrigation. They looked at what it would take to keep a pleasingly green lawn without waste and concluded that the rate should be cheap because it benefits everyone. Beyond that, when it becomes wasteful, the cost goes way up. 0 • Water Board Minutes Page Five May 18, 1984 Mike Smith said that he doesn't see a conflict between what is called cost of service now and what Ward Fischer is saying. "We don't get involved in rate structures," he added. The cost of service concept says, basically, do the residential, commerical and industrial customers pay their fair share? Ward Fischer contends that there are different views about what is fair. Neil Grigg explained that it appears what Mike Smith is referring to is the methodology, whereas Ward Fischer is referring to the overall approach. In essence, they are in agreement. Tom Sanders recalled that the Board couldn't look at scenarios until both studies are done. Mike Smith agreed that in making a conservation plan, both studies should be completed. Staff Reports A. Out -of -City Service Request, Jim Hibbard The Water Utilities staff received a request for out -of -City water and sewer services for property at 2407 West Drake Rd. owned by Mrs. R. W. Horton. Water Board members were given copies of Mrs. Horton's letter and a map showing the location of the property. Sewer service is becoming available with the Dixon Creek Trunk sewer and water service is available from Drake Road. The staff recommended approval of the request in accordance with standard City agreements and procedures. It was noted that charges mentioned in Mrs. Horton's letter should be disregarded. After discussion, Ev Richardson moved that the Water Board authorize water and sewer service to this property subject to the normal criteria, excluding the charges proposed in the letter. Tom Sanders seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Dave Stewart raised two questions about the boundaries in general. Does the urban growth boundary correspond with the City limits on the west side of town? Shouldn't the 5200 foot limit for water service be the boundary? The staff will ask the Planning Department about these questions and return to the Water Board with the answers. New Business Tom Sanders said that, although the Board receives a treated water production summary each month, he would like to be kept up on the number of new water shares the City receives. Dennis Bode suggested looking at the summary in the annual report which all Board members had received. Mr. Bode added that there usually aren't many transactions in a year. Jim Hibbard's area keeps a record of plant investment fees and in -lieu -of water rights. t s Water Board Minutes Page Six May 18, 1984 Neil Grigg suggested that staff could provide the Board with certain aspects of the annual report near the end of the year. It would be a good way to examine figures and could become a part of the "blue notebook." Tom Sanders also proposed, in light of Ward Fischer's choosing not to renew his application for Water Board, that the Board ask the City Council to make an effort to appoint someone who has expertise in water law; preferably a water lawyer. Because Ward Fischer is a renowned water lawyer, and has served for over twenty years, the Board will be deprived of that expertise in the furture. Tom Sanders moved that the Water Board request from the City Council that one of the new appointees to the Board be an attorney knowledgeable in water law even if they must go out and seek one. Ev Richardson provided a second. Ray Glabach concurred with Tom Sander's idea, but was also concerned about continuity. Perhaps the alternative is to develop this expertise in the City attorney's office if it doesn't already exist. Ward Fischer acknowledged that Assistant City Attorney Paul Eckman is quite knowledgeable in water matters as they affect the City. He also attends most Water Board meetings. However, the motion is still appropriate --just as the Board has qualified engineers, it would be helpful to have a person qualified in water law as well. Chairman Fischer called for a show of hands on the motion. It passed unanimously. The next step will be for Mr. Fischer to call the mayor and inform him of this recommendation. Norm Evans related that he is concerned about the survey questionnaire associated with the rate study. Are we going to have sub -committee input before the questionnaire gets used, he wanted to know. Mike Smith said that we need input, but the committee needs to get together soon. Dave Stewart also stressed the need for input as quickly as possible. Pat Graham consultant for the survey, attended the meeting to answer questions. It was suggested the Board offer comments for Ms. Graham then. However, most members did not feel prepared to discuss the questionnaire until they had gone over it more thoroughly. Thus, Pat Graham and Dave Stewart will meet with the sub- committee on Monday at 2:00 in the Water Utilities Conference Room. Board members other than those on the committee are welcome to make comments too. Pat Graham gave an overview of the questionnaire. She suggested questions of a general nature about the kind of information that would be useful to have, not so much about the design of the questionnaire itself. Dave Stewart explained the reason for the survey. The Water Board and City Council have ideas about what the rate structure should take into account. The Water Board feels lawns and trees are very important, he said. The reason for the questionnaire is to ascertain our customer's feelings. The Council gets their Water Board Minutes Page Seven May 18, 1984 input from very vocal people who are willing to get up at a Council meeting and express their views. Most people don't feel comfortable testifying at Council meetings. Hence, the questionnaire is a way of reaching those people. Ev Richardson announced that beginning Monday, May 28, CSU will be hosting the International Congress of Irrigation and Drainage. Fifty-five countries will be represented including the USSR. Each country has its own commission on irrigation and drainage. Dr. Richardson invited staff and Water Board members who are interested, to attend any of the programs. Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m. Water boarO Secretary