Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 08/21/1992WATER BOARD AlWUTES August 21, 1992 3:00 - 4:30 P. M. Water and Wastewater Utility Conference Room 700 Wood Street City Council/Water Board Liaison Loren Maxey Staff Support Person Mike Smith Members Present Neil Grigg, President, Mark Casey, Tim Dow, Terry Podmore, Dave Stewart, Tom Brown, Paul Clopper, Dave Frick slaff Rich Shannon, Dennis Bode, Ben Alexander, Andy Pineda, Jim Clark, Molly Nortier Guests Tom Shoemaker, Natural Resources Division Director George Reed, Citizen Observer Members Absent (all excused) Tom Sanders, MaryLou Smith, Ray Herrmann President Neil Grigg opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Minutes The minutes of July 10, 1992 were approved unanimously as distributed after a motion from Dave Stewart and a second from Tim Dow. Update: Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District A representative from the NCWCD was not present. WATER BOARD NE NUTES August 21, 1M Page 2 Recommendation on Natural Areas Policies Tom Shoemaker, Director of the Natural Resources Division, came to discuss one of the elements of the City's comprehensive land use plan, called the Natural Areas Policy Plan. "What I'm looking for today, if you feel comfortable doing so, is a recommendation along with your comments on the proposed plan, for the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Board," he explained. Natural Resources is hoping to take the plan to the P&Z Board on September 28th for their formal consideration, followed by City Council endorsement on October 6th. That time frame allows them to incorporate any recommendations from the Water Board and other relevant boards, before taking it to the P&Z Board. Mr. Shoemaker went on to explain briefly, the background and history of the plan. Water Board members received a copy of the draft plan in their packets. He also informed the Board of what has transpired since they discussed the plan at a previous meeting. In terms of background, this policy plan is an element of the City Council work program; something they have asked the Natural Resources Division to produce. Natural Resources has been working on it for about two years, so it has spanned the previous City Council and the current one. The purpose of the plan, in essence, is to look to the future areas of the City, broadly defined as the Urban Growth Area, "and we've also extended it to the west to the ridge of the foothills east of Horsetooth Reservoir," he added. They are looking at those areas that have some significance in terms of ecological values, paleontological resources, wildlife habitat, geological values, those kinds of things. "We've used the general term natural area knowing full well that the term 'natural' can be debated," he said, "and sometimes I say more or less natural." Two years ago they began with an extensive inventory process of "what's out there." Basically it was a compilation of various overlays of where these area are found within the community. Different data sources that have come into this inventory, included a vegetational mapping approach correlated to those habitat types which have special value for ecological reasons. It also includes recommendations from the Division of Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the "hundreds of naturalists in the community." He pointed out that the natural areas are primarily associated with the water features: the Poudre River, Spring Creek, Fossil Creek and its tributaries, and the human made water features, irrigation canals and storage reservoirs, etc. The foothills are also a source of ecological value and esthetics value in terms of a backdrop for the City. Of course there are some isolated areas scattered around the area. Those are primarily either small wetlands, or, in some cases, they are old farmsteads of mature areas of planted landscape, which have fairly diverse vegetational structure, and are attracting migratory songbirds and hawk nests; those kinds of things. WATER BOARD NIINUM August 21, 1992 Page 3 Natural Resources is a part of the City government structure that tries to capture the community vision for the future. "What this plan is about, is to try to set forth a vision for these types of areas, and provide some long term direction for City programs relative to natural areas," he stated. "It is not radical, and it is not new in a lot of ways," he stressed. The plan brings together the considerable input that has occurred in past planning documents, and attempts to consolidate it and set some new direction. When the inventory process was completed, a draft policy plan was prepared in April of 1991. "We've been involved in a very extensive public outreach program during that period of time, and are finally ready to come back and ask for formal recommendations from the Water Board, and several other boards." What NR learned in the public outreach program was that generally they were "on track" in terms of the approach. "We believe we heard from the community that it values these types of areas; and that the approach we are using of putting together a 'tool box' of conservation techniques, is an appropriate way to go." This plan deals with public land acquisition, and proposes that we add some areas to our open space inventory for natural area conservation purposes. It deals with private land management and says that we need to continue the past policy of using land use regulation and land use planning to influence what happens in all these areas. Furthermore, it underscores a new policy direction which Mr. Shoemaker thinks is very important, "that we be more proactive by going out and working with people to try to forge partnerships." He added that there was not a single comment from the public that "this is crazy and we shouldn't be spending time on it." However, people are interested in the kinds of regulations that will be involved, and of course how much it is going to cost. A chapter 6 has been added to the document which is an action plan that lists some of the things we can do. The goals can be summed up in two phrases: 1) Habitat for conservation and 2) Habitat for people. "It's almost a slogan," but it recognizes that we have some resources that have some importance on a local, regional and national scale in terms of conservation value. It also recognizes that these areas are important for human use and add to the quality of life in the community. Objectives: 1) Establish a system of publicly owned natural areas. Mr. Shoemaker wanted to be clear that they are not talking about a new bureaucracy for land management in the City. "We are talking about overlaying natural areas and recommending some additions to the Parks & Recreation open space system," he emphasized. It would be incorporated into existing land management systems. WATER BOARD MINUTES August 21, 1992 Page 4 2) Integrate natural areas into developments. "We are not talking about a program that puts a ring around the community." It will be a program that consciously says, "we want to do the best we can to integrate these types of natural areas into the developed landscape, knowing full well that there will be trade- offs, both in terms of natural values and in terms of planning and design of the areas." 3) Provide education, interpretation and recreational opportunities. 4) Develop effective partnerships There are a number of examples where that has been done in the past, "but I can't underscore enough how important I think the partnership approach needs to be incorporated in this community." 5) Maintain a good quality data inventory This is important because we must have knowledgeable decisions so that we can assess how we are doing. Mr. Shoemaker went on to explain how the plan would affect the Water Utility. One area is in integration. A policy statement says: "Coordinate natural areas and other open land programs within the City to maximize public benefit and explore ways of integrating natural areas protection within ongoing City programs." That says that we should continue with what we have started in the form of river and open lands guidance teams to work together, and that's already occurring. Integration benefits the Water Utility in that it adds another public benefit to some of the things that the Utility is already thinking about; such as additional buffer land at treatment facilities. It underscores what he thinks is an ethic that is held that the Utility is an environmental agency, if you will, of the City. It also underscores the interest in maintaining the integrity of some of the natural systems which support water supply. It provides opportunities for cooperation. For example, because of the Natural Areas Policy Plan, "we now have wildlife and wetlands expertise on the Natural Resources staff, and that staff is available to the Water Utility as needed, and we are assisting the Utility in the Meadow Springs Ranch investigations. Our staff will be available for other types of collaborations as well," he said. It goes the other direction too. One of the things in the plan states that "we need to understand better the ramifications for water augmentation requirements as it relates to future acquisitions of mined out gravel lands." Dennis Bode, from the Water Utility, has already contributed expertise on this matter. Another example of collaboration is the wetlands and water quality pilot project that Tom Gainer is proposing, which will allow us to look at the opportunities for using created wetlands for WATER BOARD MINUTES August 21, 1M Page 5 water quality tertiary treatment. Natural Resources may be able to provide some help with that in terms of issues related to wildlife, etc. It's also a chance to look at the possibilities for creating additional habitat. Mr. Shoemaker thinks that there will be some changes proposed in terms of standards and requirements within the city that may affect some of the Water Utility's future projects. "I don't expect those to be severe in the sense that any particular project wouldn't go," he stressed. This doesn't change the need for a good water supply, and to have those necessary facilities. What it might do would be to provide some additional direction in terms of how to integrate some of those changes into the system. Both the Utility and the Water Board will be integrally involved in considering whatever those changes might be. This plan itself does not make those changes. Those would need to be developed during the implementation process, he concluded. Mr. Shoemaker closed by saying the plan is new and yet it's not new. The values that are discussed have been recognized by the community. What's new is underscoring those values and bringing them together in one place, and hopefully consolidate the program and provide additional emphasis. He then asked for questions and comments. Dr. Grigg asked Rich Shannon if staff has taken a position on this from the Utility's standpoint. We have talked about this in past Board meetings, but it's been a long time since we heard from staff. W. Shannon said he doesn't know that the Water Utility staff has taken a position that the plan is okay or it's not. "I think it's more a matter of looking at what are a lot of individual elements and being able to say to you, as Mr. Shoemaker has stated, that there is a potential impact here or there." This plan is very consistent with what the City Council is asking for. "I don't think there is anything in terms of major policy direction that is counter to what the Water Utility has endorsed." At the same time there are some pieces of this that may impact us in the future, and have some costs associated with it, "and we all need to be aware of that," he advised. He asked Utility staff present if they remember staff taking any kind of a position. Mr. Bode said he didn't know of anything. Mr. Shoemaker said that all of it has been reviewed by the Water Utility staff, and most recently chapters 5 and 6. He received a few comments from Mike Smith who basically said it looks fine. Mr. Shannon added: "Certainly there are no surprises here." With regard to land development, Dave Stewart began, which has a direct relationship to water and sewer, (if we don't sell taps, we can't pay off bonds, etc.) does the implementation of this plan have any impact on this? He went on to say that there are some real opportunities, for example, if you use the Poudre River Corridor and some of areas especially around Prospect to do some wetlands banking, so if we can develop areas internal to the City that have marginal wetlands, there is a real opportunity for growth to occur, thereby supporting what the Utility wants to do, sell water taps. Mr. Shoemaker responded that there hasn't been any kind of WATER BOARD NHNUTBS August 21, 1M Page 6 impact study in that regard. In terms of the additional open space, recommendations that are being made, are for about 2200 acres of additional acquisition. In terms of the additional impact, that would be reviewed as we look at changes in the LDGS (Land Development Guidance System) and the subdivision regulations. It's hard to say right now how it would go, because you could take an approach of higher density development as a strategy, or lower density, and both might end up being in the strategies. "I think the general guideline of keeping the same relative density City-wide is not going to be changed," he said. Dave Frick said he hadn't had a chance to read through the entire plan, but from what he saw, it emphasizes developing a lot of wildlife habitat. "I know where I live we have a wildlife problem in that natural predators have been nearly eliminated by development. I can see more wildlife habitat could become a problem. We're in a position now where the DOW is taking steps to eliminate habitat to discourage the geese, and I know that's happening elsewhere around town." How is that consistent or inconsistent with the plan of trying to develop more habitat? Mr. Shoemaker said they were very cognizant of the issue. There are a couple of area in the plan that speak to what the approach will be. "First, I don't think it would be misrepresenting the plan, to say we would be adding a lot more wildlife habitat to the base, because it is really aimed at determining where the important areas are now and doing our best to maintain those areas." There are certain elements of backyard habitat and school yard habitat in the plan, and the key in those is design, in terms of which wildlife you are trying to attract. The other part of it is that we have a project underway to prepare a design and mitigation. That will be completed by the first of January. Some of the techniques that will be included in there, will be, for example, if you are going to design a pond, you can do it one way and attract a lot of geese and add to our problems, or you can do it other ways and maybe attract ducks, which aren't going to be as big a problem. Finally, we will be working cooperatively with the DOW and landowners to try to get out ahead of some of those nuisance concerns, and be clear what techniques we have available to us to deal with it. Mr. Frick emphasized that 20 years ago the City was doing a number of things to try to attract geese, and now they have become a problem because there is no natural control for them. "I would be a little concerned about attracting other wildlife without having natural controls to limit the numbers. It's not a criticism, it's just a matter of thinking ahead about control," he added. Paul Clopper asked about the acquisition program of setting aside natural areas. "Are you looking at public access for all the areas that might be set aside?" Mr. Shoemaker said he can't think of any sites they have identified that would be entirely restricted to public access. More attention has been given to how the public access is designed, so that the resources are protected, but to make sure that they are accessible to the public, he said. He gave an example: In the existing River Bend Ponds open space area, a project that was completed this past summer was to develop a boardwalk across the wetland that leads into the gravel pits. There was no defined WATER BOARD MINUTES August 21, 1992 Page 7 trail previously, so folks went wherever they could find the driest place. As a result, we provided a place for them to go, and the resource damage is now minimized. There is one property adjacent to the Environmental Learning Center that has a heron nesting site. We would want to locate the trail there at a sufficient distance from the Heron so the birds would not be disturbed. Of course signage would be provided to inform the public of that. Neil Grigg asked about the River and Open Lands Guidance Team. The Plan says the team consists of service area directors from different departments. It mentions Utility Services. Who is representing the Water & Wastewater Utility? Rich Shannon said that Storm Drainage and the Streets Dept. are represented. "I know Dennis Bode from the Utility comes from time to time as needed for some augmentation decisions." Mr. Shoemaker said occasionally Mike Smith attends the meetings. He added that the need hasn't been great so far for the Utility to be represented every time. "In my perspective, the bigger ongoing utility issues are actually in storm water and streets," Mr. Shannon related. Dr. Grigg pointed out a table in the plan about the allocation of roles on p. 6-2. The W & W W Utility has been very active in environmental education and should be recognized as such in that table, he said. Rich Shannon wanted to emphasize particular areas of the plan to make everyone aware of them. Dennis Bode is being very instrumental in helping other staff people understand water augmentation issues. The whole area of gravel mines and new laws that are going into affect now concerning those ponds, is really important to the City in terms of its open space corridors and our ability to work with "the Flatirons and the Western Mobiles of the world." From time to time we wrestle with, is the City an agency, with perhaps some private funding from the private sector, to do an augmentation plan for the entire stretch of the River; not pond by pond. It's not a huge expense, but it's a real key. Regarding the management of open spaces, Mr. Shannon said he thinks the Water Board is aware that from time to time the Council has said they would like to see any public lands get as much multi -use as is reasonable and appropriate. You think immediately of the types of land the Utility has: for example, the Meadow Springs Ranch and the Resource Recovery Farm in the future could be viewed as assets in terms of open space that the Wastewater Utility could get a return on; also Wastewater Treatment Plants 2 and 3, and their surrounding open space. Another item on the agenda today is Water Treatment Plant No. 1 in the Poudre Canyon. There is clearly some policy direction in this document that says "unless proven otherwise, we are looking for multi -use of any of those open spaces." The wetlands demonstration project, which Mr. Shoemaker has already mentioned, is another. Two broader issues which we don't necessarily have something in front of us to talk about, that will come into play in the years ahead, are the water quality issues in the River. That came up WATER BOARD MINUTES August 21, 1992 Page 8 often in the National Heritage Corridor discussions. A plan like this may be able to do something in the long term that prevents types of pollutants getting into the River because of certain development activities. "There may be some trade-offs there." Lastly, one issue that perhaps is more speculation at the moment, is a reference to getting new water rights for instream flows. There are communities around the country, and I believe in Colorado, where the water utility is the source of funds for some of those instream waters. For example, what would happen if a citizen's group decided to carry a petition that said that the Water Utility should change the City Charter to allow the Utility's charge to include acquisition of water rights for that purpose, and that a certain percentage of the rate structure would allow that to happen? "I share these thoughts because, in my mind, these might be the kinds of things that could be out there on the horizon as plans like this are adopted, Mr. Shannon concluded. Dr. Grigg referred to a table on p. 6-6 which shows the Water Utility in 1995-96 and on getting involved in some of the action strategies that Mr. Shannon has eluded to. "I personally like the idea," he said, "but when it comes to raising the rates to do it, I suppose that's another matter." Mr. Shoemaker agreed that as those situations emerge, the question will come up as to who will provide the funds. There is no policy direction in the plan that changes the Charter with regard to the Water Utility, and unless that happened, "my expectation would be that the City would find another way to do it." That isn't something we need to address today, Dr. Grigg said, "but it's my opinion that's the only way you're going to augment instream flows in general, is for somebody to buy them and get them into the management system." Tom Brown wanted to be clear about the action the Water Board would take today on the plan. "Are you asking us to endorse the plan to the P&Z Board or are you really requesting that the Board document that it finds no problems with this?" Endorsing to the P&Z Board seemed rather odd to Mr. Brown. "On the other hand," he said, "we can certainly say that we have carefully reviewed it, and find no problems, and recommend that Natural Resources go on through the process of obtaining all the approvals that are needed." "The other thing we need to be cautious about, although I am very much in favor of this plan," Dave Stewart began, "is that sometimes in the past the Council has said, you have approved this, so the ordinance we are now passing, you've also approved, and I don't agree with that at all." If an ordinance is proposed, he would insist that the Water Board be involved on an ongoing basis. Mr. Brown said he is also very much in favor of the plan. "I think it's well presented and a very even, and positive document, so I don't want to leave the impression that we don't think that. It's just a matter of the appropriate way to voice our approval." Mr. Shoemaker said that under state law the P&Z Board is the adopting agency for an element of the City's comprehensive land use plan, of which this is one of many elements. Under state law again, WATER BOARD MINUTES August 21, 1992 Page 9 the City Council approves that. "What I'm asking for, are your comments and recommendations to both of those bodies. "You could say, as you implement this,' make sure you come back to us with any proposed ordinance changes.'" Paul Clopper agreed with Mr. Brown that it would seem strange to tell another board what we think they should do. He thinks it is best to let them know how we feel about the document. Tom Brown moved that after careful review, the Water Board expressed their approval of the positive direction of the proposed Natural Areas Policy Plan, but as the plan is implemented the Board requests that they be given the opportunity to review any proposed ordinance changes on a case by case basis. Dave Stewart seconded the motion. The Board approved the motion unanimously. President Grigg thanked Tom Shoemaker for a good presentation. Staff Reports Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported that for the month of July the City used 2,916 Ac-ft, which was 68% of what was projected. That was due largely to about 2 inches of precipitation, which was above normal, and temperatures much below normal. Over the year now, we are at 85 % of the projected water use as of the end July. For August it has turned around somewhat "because we are running close to average." "How is lease water going; do we have any additional water we can lease?" Neil Grigg asked. Not much water has been leased since early in the season, Mr. Bode replied. There hasn't been a lot of demand. "I think a lot of people have water leftover." Andy Pineda reminded the Board that the year actually started off pretty dry. Stormwater Problems Tim Dow brought up the subject of stormwater drainage in light of the recent heavy rains which caused considerable flooding, particularly in the downtown area. "Where are we in terms of stormwater capacity?" Mr. Dow wanted to know. "That would be an interesting presentation," Dr. Grigg acknowledged, "but we as a Board have very little information on it, since it is not a part of the Water Utility operation." President Grigg requested that staff arrange for an overall briefing in the near future on the stormwater situation. George Reed, a regular Water Board citizen observer, said he is a member of the Stormwater Board, and agreed to pass the request on to that board. Mr. Reed explained that what occurred downtown was about a 20-year flood. Dave Frick related that his firm prepared a drainage master plan for what's called the "old town" area, and it is in a draft form. The firm had identified potential flooding areas, and based on that storm, "we hit it pretty close," he said. He went on to say that the downtown area is the worst. The stormwater system there handles only about half of a two-year storm. That's WATER BOARD NIINUTFS August 21, 1992 Page 10 the first area targeted for improvements under the plan. As a result of that, his firm is doing some additional work to finalize that plan. "As far as I know, it's supposed to go to Council yet this year for adoption. Then some of the improvements will begin to be implemented. Rich Shannon added that the adoption of the plan also triggers a collection of fees, and the old town basin is one of two where fees are not being collected on a monthly basis. That would then set the stage for whether part of the question in that master plan adoption will be a pay-as-you-go basin or whether those fees will be set where some debt financing could be supported also. "I'm sure it's a question of how fast people want the improvements done." Mark Casey asked if the old town area stormwater system was undersized when it was being developed. "I don't think it's ever been re -developed," Mr. Shannon replied. What's there is what has been there over the years. "As things started to develop," Dave Frick continued, "they started at the downstream end and worked up." As a result, as more development occurred to the west, it taxed the system more downstream, so that this system downstream was undersized as development kept occurring. "Also west of where all the canals are, all of the original development out there just dumped into the canals. It's to the point now where those canals can't handle the water. In fact I think in one or two cases, specifically during that storm, the canals did overtop and flooded areas below them as a result." Dr. Grigg will anticipate a presentation on this subject at a future meeting. Ideas for Use of Old Water Treatment Plant Site (NRB) Tom Shoemaker was asked to provide information about this since the Natural Resources Board has taken this on as a potential project. Will Smith, President of the board, prepared a background letter, a copy of which was sent to Water Board members and staff. Mr. Shoemaker reported that what is going on is simply an interest on the part of the Natural Resources Advisory Board of resurrecting the movement that was occurring a couple of years ago to look at options for future use of the old water treatment plant site. The Water Board, the NR Board and both staffs were both interested in the concept, and there was some movement towards the state and some road improvements. It was the sense of the NR Board that the state is probably not going to do anything anytime soon. They wanted to see if some energy could be generated. They started, as is evident from the list attached to the letter, by including nearly everybody they could think of that might have some interest in it. Their next goal was to get together and get familiar with the site, and generate some brain storming ideas. The intent of the effort right now is simply to take it far enough to be able to prepare a short proposal to the City Council giving them the choice of putting it on their work program to investigate the options. Mr. Shoemaker stressed that this is not something that is either on the Natural Resources work program or the Water Utility staff s work program. "We're being very cautious to take it only as far as a memo with some ideas, and to determine whether there appears to be support or there isn't support for doing something about it." If it becomes an r I L i WATER BOARD NE NUTES August 21, 1992 Page 11 element of the Council work program, after the elections, "I really don't expect that my department or the Natural Resources Board will have the lead on it," he assured the Board. "I expect that the Water Utility will likely take the lead perhaps as a project either from the inter- departmental team, or Parks & Recreation Dept., if it goes anywhere at all," he concluded. President Grigg commented that the Natural Resources Board is to be commended for taking the initiative and getting some discussions going. The Water Board has had a number of discussions on this subject in the past few years as well, he related. "We're interested in the concepts and we hope we can find a good multi -purpose use for that site. Since we all received letters from the NR Board president, it will be up to us to respond to them individually." He announced that a tour is scheduled for Saturday, Sept. 12th, and a meeting will be held on the evening of Sept. 16th. Dr. Grigg asked if anybody had any ideas about how the site should be used, or have any feelings about it. Dave Frick said he was somewhat in the dark about what the current status of the site is. Ben Alexander explained that the Utility abandoned the treatment portion of the site in 1987. There is an intake and a pre -sedimentation facility up there which are on the far west side of the ox bow. That area is all secured and tied in through tele-communications to Plant No. 2. The houses and the old chemical feed buildings and some of the old storage ponds, and the plant itself are all outside of that area. "We have been trying to keep the site in the same shape it was when we 'mothballed' it," he assured the Board. We are irrigating the landscaped areas, and are doing some maintenance. Some groups that were not trying to profit from it and some connected with the City, have used the site occasionally, but basically it's "locked up tight." We're trying to maintain it until Council decides what they would like to do with it. "It's costing us about $20,000 a year just to maintain and heat it, etc. We get a lot of pressure from special interest groups to use it; for example, the commercial rafters would like to get into that site for their operations." Tom Brown asked the acreage of the site. "I believe there are about 400 acres of total ownership up there," Mr. Alexander replied. "How large are the buildings?" Mark Casey asked. "There are several buildings and we have a report that has all of that information which we can make available to Board members," Mr. Alexander responded. There are three houses, a main water treatment building, and two outlying structures that once were chemical feed facilities. Dr. Grigg remarked that some kind of educational use of the facilities would be wonderful "if we could work it out." "I'm interested in how it's going to tie into the educational efforts that focus on the Poudre River and the Heritage Area designation," he added. "Coming up with a practical idea of how it's going to be used is the obstacle I see right now." Mr. Alexander said WATER BOARD MINUTES August 21, 1992 Page 12 there have been a number of good ideas generated through the years for the use of the site, but coming up with funding appears to be the deterrent in most cases. Tom Brown wondered if anyone has considered the possibility of trading it, perhaps with the state, if the state had natural areas type land around the City that would be more valuable to the City. The site up the Canyon might be closer to state recreation locations. "We have included it in some of our land trade discussions with the state, and also with U.S. Forest Service; not for exchange for natural areas, but for properties that the Water Utility would like to have for its purposes," Mr. Alexander replied. "To me it makes sense to lease it," Tim Dow suggested. Commercial rafting and kayaking type operations lend themselves well to that area. It costs us money to maintain it; why not lease it and try to cover the maintenance costs? Mr. Alexander agreed that leasing is a possibility. Mr. Dow added that leasing it also would be a good safety feature because rafting and kayaking could have access off the highway. "All along the River in that area there are some really bad spots." Those types of uses would probably create little impact on the site. Dr. Grigg pointed out that one issue is that the treatment plant is still an asset; it could be restored for use. All the potential hazards on the site create a liability problem. "It's an either or situation." If it is opened up for general use, some of the hazards would have to be eliminated. It's going to be a big decision to do it, because "we will be putting a potential asset out of business." He asked what the treatment capacity is. "It's 20 mgd," Mr. Alexander replied. "But is it usable, even with the raw water line?" Dave Stewart wanted to know. Mr. Alexander said they left it so it could be restored to use if some kind of disaster occurred at the other plant, and convert those raw water lines back to treated water usage. When was the plant built, and when was it shut down? Mr. Casey asked. The early structures were erected in about 1908, and the fast filters were installed in 1914, Mr. Alexander responded. It's been continually expanded since then until it was abandoned in 1987. Mark Casey pointed out that Colorado State has a project they are participating in through Industrial Science which involves the stabilization of historic structures. "I don't know if they are involved in this, but I think there is some talent over there that could be utilized. There is an article about the group in this week's Triangle Review." he related. President Grigg thanked everyone for their questions and contribution of ideas. He will go to the meeting on the 16th, and he welcomed anyone else who would like to attend. Memo of Poudre River Landscape Opportunities Study Molly Nortier announced that this was merely an informational memo sent out from Kari Henderson, Senior Planner for the City, to inform Board members of the meeting which took WATER BOARD MINUTES August 21, 1992 Page 13 place two days prior to the Water Board meeting. Rich Shannon explained that the project began as a result of the Mayor's "Year of the River" proclamation. A joint effort between the City and CSU evolved to try to look at a study area, and try to create some images of how the community would like the area along the River to look. At this point it is primarily a brainstorming undertaking with the hope that something positive will emerge. The first meeting was held on August 18th with a nice cross section of participants. Water Board member Paul Clopper attended the meeting and described some of the activities. Dr. Grigg commented that he hopes something concrete will be generated from the meetings this time, and not be put on the shelf, as has often been the case in the past several years. This can be discouraging to those who contribute time and effort to these kinds of undertakings, he concluded. Committee Reoorts Water Supply Chairman Mark Casey referred the Board to an item in the Water Intelligence Monthly publication on p. 6. There were 354 CBT units that changed hands from a private investor to North Weld County Water District and Fort Collins -Loveland Water District, and the price was just under $1400 a unit, which "makes us look pretty smart." Back when we were buying, it was around $700. "That was a good sized water transaction," he stressed. Legislative and Finance No report Conservation and Public Education Since MaryLou Smith, the chair of the committee was absent, Molly Nortier announced that Ms. Smith has set up a meeting for 2:00, prior to the Water Board meeting, on September 18th in the small conference room. Engineering No report PUIAKVJI oil Briefing on Regional Wastewater Service Issues There was nobody present to give a briefing, but President Grigg emphasized that the situation with the Boxelder Sanitation District is too important to allow it to be dropped. Dennis Bode said that Mike Smith is in a position to discuss the issue, and will probably give an update at the September meeting. WATER BOARD NEWUTES August 21, 1992 Page 14 Other Business Field Trip to the Meadow Springs Ranch Paul Clopper accompanied Tom Gallier and Dennis Bode to the Meadow Springs Ranch for a very interesting tour this morning. He felt extremely positive and enthusiastic, not only from the standpoint of the acquisition in general, but from the baseline studies and research that the City is conducting up there. The runoff test plots and the initial application at the various rates were also impressive. Molly Nortier announced that Channel 9 also toured the facilities and a report will be aired Saturday night on the 5:00 news. Dave Stewart pointed out that the state is trying to introduce legislation that would require the Winter Part Ski area to pay state taxes. Currently they are not taxed because they are owned by the City of Denver. Mr. Stewart wondered if the City of Fort Collins should be concerned about a similar situation with their Resource Recovery Farm because it is an out -of -city owned piece of property. Mr. Shannon asked if Mr. Stewart recalled if it was out -of -city or out -of - county. He said he did not recall. Mr. Shannon said that PRPA had the same issue with their share of the Yampa project in Craig. "I think that was killed," he recalled. Dr. Grigg commented that he thinks it should be negotiated as an in -lieu -of taxes kind of situation. Mr. Stewart concluded that "we might want to watch for any discussion of this." Tax Limitation Ballot Issue Rich Shannon reminded the group that Douglas Bruce's Tax Limitation Amendment will appear on the November ballot and if passed could create some problems for the City. The part that is troublesome for the utilities is that the language, as in past proposed amendments, is not clear. "I don't want to sound reactionary, but the impact from that could be significant." It's not only a taxing limitation, but a revenue limitation proposal, depending on the interpretation. It certainly leaves more questions than it answers. "It can get really bizarre, and I just wanted to make sure the Board was aware of that," he warned. He hopes to find out more about the interpretations as they become available. "It will be the courts that will eventually interpret what that constitutional amendment really means and how it is to be implemented if it passes." We need to study the issue very carefully and act accordingly, he concluded. Adjourn Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.