Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 10/16/1992L7 11 WATER BOARD NE NUTES October 16, 1992 3:00 - 5:02 P.M. Water and Wastewater Utility Conference Room 700 Wood Street Cily Council/Water Board Liaison Loren Maxey Staff SoWrt Person Mike Smith Members Present Neil Grigg, President, Tom Sanders, Vice President, Ray Herrmann, Paul Clopper, Tim Dow, MaryLou Smith, Mark Casey, Terry Podmore, Dave Frick, Tom Brown Staff Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Ben Alexander, Wendy Williams, Jim Clark, Scott Harder, Molly Norder Guests Brian Werner, Public Information Officer, NCWCD George Reed, Citizen Observer Bob Smith and Kevin McBride, Stormwater Utility Members Absent Dave Stewart (excused) President Neil Grigg opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Minutes Ray Herrmann moved and Tim Dow seconded, and the vote was unanimous that the minutes of September 18, 1992 be approved as distributed. VA&: Northern Colorado Water Con=y=y District Brian Werner announced that the District plans to institute the carryover program again for next year. Details of that are included in a letter being sent to all participants. It is estimated that there will be about 80,000 Ac-ft included in the carryover water; a lot more than was anticipated in April because of the abundant moisture this summer. Water Board Minutes October 16, 1992 Page 2 A meeting has been tentatively scheduled for December 4 dealing with water quality concerns in the CBT project. John Scott, from the District has been working with Water Production Manager Ben Alexander during the preliminary stages. Horsetooth Reservoir is one of the areas of concern, as well as some of the west slope collection systems. Next week the District is going to begin a study with the Division of Wildlife and CSU to look at the algae control program. More information will be forthcoming. The NCWCD fall water users meeting is scheduled for November 18th in Greeley. Mr. Werner distributed copies of the fall issue of "Water News." He pointed out the article on the Children's Water Festival held in May. The District, the City of Fort Collins, Poudre R-1 and CSU cooperated on this very successful event. Plans are already in progress for next year's festival. Dr. Grigg related that when he was in Japan recently he was impressed with how much money they spend on public education related to water and the environment. His group visited a very impressive $20 million water education center there, he said. Mr. Werner hopes to talk about some of those ideas with Dr. Grigg as plans are made for future water festivals. Mr. Werner brought along several copies of the long awaited history of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the Colorado -Big Thompson Project. Dan Tyler, a Colorado State University historian began writing Last Water Hole in the West six years ago. Mr. Werner has copies to sell, and they will also be for sale at the Stone Lion Book Store, where a book signing session with Mr. Tyler will be scheduled. The book has one of the best water bibliographies for Colorado that Mr. Werner has seen. He added that he is certain Mr. Tyler would be willing to come to a Water Board meeting to sign individual copies. Annual Election of Officers President Grigg opened nominations for president and vice president. MaryLou Smith moved that the Board retain officers as they currently stand for another year. Neil Grigg is president and Tom Sanders is vice president. Dr. Grigg asked if there were further nominations or more discussion. Ray Herrmann called for the question. Neil Grigg and Tom Sanders were unanimously re-elected as president and vice president of the Water Board for one year. Presentation on Cily's Stormwater Utility Bob Smith, Stormwater Utility Director and Kevin McBride, Water Quality Specialist, discussed recent projects of the Utility and the water quality aspects of the Stormwater Utility. A number of maps, displayed in the room, were used as references. Bob Smith began by saying that on June 24th of this year Fort Collins was hit by a severe rain storm which particularly impacted the Old Town section of the City; basically the worst place you could have a storm of that magnitude. The weather conditions were ideal for a large volume of rain, and three inches fell within a half hour and 45 minutes. The City Park area L Water Board Minutes October 16, 1992 Page 3 received about 2 inches. Further east, amounts between an inch and an inch and a half occurred. The infrastructure in the Old Town area is at about a two-year capacity, and the storm was classified as a 20-year storm. It could have been far worse had the storm remained longer with that intensity, he said. Next he pointed to a map generated with the Old Town master plan which was developed in 1988. The Utility sought public comment on it in 1989. He indicated on the map how different areas in Old Town appeared during the storm. Many of the higher areas act as dams, he explained, and a significant number of houses are below the crown of the street. The majority have basements, and in some cases, the water reached the first floor. Many of the houses are old and do not have downspouts or eves, and the lawns often slope towards the buildings. Staff from the Stormwater Utility presented the plan to the Storm Drainage Board last Wednesday. The plan is to get public comments and reactions between now and December, and go to the Council by the end of December. Mr. Smith drew the Board's attention to another graphic which indicated how they hope to solve the problem. When the original master plan was prepared in 1989, they looked at various scenarios keeping in mind what was the least expensive and the best benefit/cost ratio. The scenario that they chose was regrading the streets with storm sewers in selective areas; basically a lower crown to allow the water to escape so it doesn't pond. One change they have added between the old and new master plans is doing select intersection improvements to provide a corridor for the water to travel through. There are also additional improvements planned for selected areas which have exhibited major problems through the years. The estimated cost of the project is $5 1/2 million. The questions that the Utility will present to the public are: What's the best method of financing this (bonds, pay as you go, accelerated pace, etc.); How much are we willing to spend; and "Should we even do it?" When the public meetings are held, questionnaires will be distributed containing an elaboration of those questions. Mr. Smith then explained the methods of financing. How you approach the timing tends to drive the fees, he said. If pay as you go is the method, and it is based on a 20-year program, the cost will be about $3.25 a month for an average lot. If an accelerated program is chosen where there are no bonds, but all the work occurs in 6 or 7 years, the estimated cost would be $8.00 a month. The difference is significant. During the public information process, the Stormwater Utility sent about 5,000letters explaining the project, and notifying people of the open houses. They held three public information sessions, on weekends, evenings and during the day to be able to reach as many citizens as Water Board Minutes October 16, 1992 Page 4 possible. Approximately 40 people participated in these, and another 40 either called or stopped by the office. Of those about 75% said "don't do anything; we can live with what we've got." Of those who wanted to do something, most opted for "pay as you go, saying proceed slowly to minimize the impact," which generally means a 20-year time frame. For the upcoming public hearings, the Utility will be following the same procedures. Judging from the public sentiment so far, there is far more awareness out there this time, he emphasized. The Utility plans to distribute brochures that advise people in flood prone areas about flood minimization measures they can use in their homes, and on their property. Mr. Smith then asked for questions and comments. "When you mentioned the cost per house for two scenarios," Tom Brown began, "is that within the stormwater district?" It's strictly the drainage basins, Mr. Smith replied. It would be the same as what is used for the other basins in town. It would include what is called the "Old Town" basin. The other basins are paying for capital improvements. Tim Dow asked what the extent of the damage was for the Old Town flood. "We are finding that a significant number of people didn't report their damage," Mr. Smith replied. Only about 20 households responded to the questionnaire printed in the newspaper. From what was reported, it was estimated that there was about a half million dollars worth of damage for both residential and commercial. "If a lot of the houses are built below grade, are there any construction regulations to keep that from happening?" Ray Herrmann wanted to know. "Currently there aren't any," Mr. Smith answered. Once the master plan is adopted, it will include this flood plain, so "we will have some control over that." Mr. Herrmann also asked if there are any plans to prevent people from building in the floodway. Part of the reason for adopting a master plan, is "so we can preserve the floodway." When we have a financing plan, we can purchase a right-of-way. Without a master plan there isn't a funding source to do that. Mr. Smith indicated that the green areas on the map will become wetlands in the future that will treat the run-off before it flows back into the river. "In other words, the wetlands will be doing the cleansing for us." "Is that part of the NPDES?" Paul Clopper asked. "Yes," Mr. Smith replied. He said that Kevin McBride will discuss what has been discovered so far in the water quality testing. Next Bob Smith presented information about the Poudre River which he said the Storm Drainage Board hasn't yet seen. Stormwater Utility staff is currently gathering data to determine what is already "out there." He referred to maps prepared by Resource Consultants, a firm they hired to do the flood study. On the map the blue area is the flood plain, the purple areas are places where flood damage occurred. The red and orange areas are where there are stability problems. Water Board Minutes October 16, 1M Page 5 According to the study, 20% of the River has some kind of stability problem with the banks. From the inventory and assessment, there is another 20% of the River where there are car bodies etc. that keep the areas stable, but are an eyesore, so the next step is to make those look a lot better. Relating to the flood hazard assessment, "it is a lot better than we thought," he said. He pointed out a few areas where it is a problem. Another function of the plan would be to use the information for infrastructure improvements. Tim Dow asked if those improvements had been implemented in the downtown area, what would that have accomplished in this last storm? "You wouldn't have seen the damage that you see now," Mr. Smith replied. For example, the Stone Lion Bookstore and the businesses on that corner would have been spared, but it's not going to solve the problem entirely, he added. There are still going to be some improvements that people will need to make for themselves. Mr. Smith listed some of the flows in different parts of the River that occurred during the storm. On the map the light blue is the 100 year flood and the dark blue is the floodway, he explained. Tom Sanders asked if any improvements have been constructed since the flood a few years ago that caused damage at Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 2. Mr. Smith indicted on the map the improvements that have taken place since then. The future Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 3 will also be in the flood plain, but there are plans to design for that, he said. Water Quality Specialist Kevin McBride distributed a memorandum relating to the strategic stormwater quality 3-year plan, which Stormwater Utility staff just took to the Storm Drainage Board for review. He began by saying that erosion control criteria have been adopted. Also, a water quality ordinance was passed recently which brings into focus what the Utility can do if they find someone is polluting the storm drainage system and impacting the streams. They have a monitoring program which is being implemented now, but he stressed that it is premature to provide any detail about what they are finding, "because everything isn't in focus yet." Essentially what they have found is a wide diversity of problems potentially with nutrients, coliform bacteria in certain areas, but there is not really a pervasive overall problem. The problems vary between dry and wet weather flows. "We are trying to get a handle on where those are now," he said. They recently converted a pumping station that was used by Light and Power, into a water quality station at the lower end of Spring Creek, which gives them the ability to develop data over the years. He went on to say that the Water Quality Program is divided into three major areas: 1) The Management Plan This is the technical aspect of the program in which they determine what the problems Water Board Minutes October 16, 1992 Page 6 are and come up with possible solutions. One of the reasons they need to set this apart from the NPDES permit is that Fort Collins is not required to meet any permitting requirements yet, since it is under 100,000 in population, and there is also not much guidance in the existing permits and requirements. The permit requirement is to limit stormwater runoff impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Because that is yet to be defined, the big cities are in a quandary as to what it's going to mean as far as improvements they are going to have to make from a water quality standpoint. 2) NPDES Permit This is the administrative connection to the state and federal programs. 3) Education This includes the public participatory mechanism. The memorandum explains how each part of the program can fit together, he said. The management plan, for the next several years, will involve planning for the program. There will be a water quality monitoring program each year, along with an assessment of what that is telling them. First off, the Stormwater Utility would like input from the Water Board in setting goals for what the final program should accomplish. This is particularly true on the small creeks like Spring Creek and Fossil Creek where the state doesn't have much in the way of standards and criteria. Mr. McBride pointed out that Natural Resources has identified those areas as sensitive areas, and has goals for them in their Natural Areas Policy Plan, but those don't delve into water quality. The Stormwater Utility would like to set some internal goals, so that they can assess the data they get back against those goals. After assessing the data, they hope to establish the causes for the various problems they find, develop alternatives for how they plan to solve the problems, select the alternatives, and implement those in mid-1994. As they do that they will be developing the data for the NPDES permit, and involving both the public and private sectors in an education process. Other than the wetlands areas that Bob Smith showed as part of the Old Town drainage, what sort of best management practices are surfacing as a result of your first two years of monitoring? Paul Clopper wanted to know. "The erosion control is probably number one," Mr. McBride replied. Since January, the development review process has incorporated the erosion control criteria into what developers do. "First we need to see what kind of impact that is making." Other kinds of treatment mechanisms on the system itself, are probably retro-fitting the ponds for extended detention, and where practical, converting them to wet ponds or wetlands. For dry weather flows there is potential for some people being connected into the stormwater system Water Board Minutes October 16, 1"2 Page 7 where they should be connected to the sewer system or not being connected at all; perhaps using some other kind of disposal option. Another good public education tool is the stenciling on the catch basins about dumping, Mr. Smith said. "We are finding that to be very effective." People frequently call to report someone dumping into the storm sewers or the presence of a substance there. How do you define your erosion zones? Ray Herrmann asked. "Is it purely someone's property being threatened?" From the Utility's standpoint, erosion control is limited to a development review, so it's related to construction activities. There is overlap because the state is requiring stormwater permits from any construction site of 5 acres or more. "We're working with them to try to reduce that duplication." Mark Casey asked what the metals problems are. "Most of those are wet weather problems," Mr. McBride replied. Zinc, copper and lead have surfaced in certain spots during storm events. Samples will be taken during dry weather to see if the chronic ones are really long term, which is probably unlikely, or are problems just during storms. "I would hesitate to say that we have identified that there is a problem with zinc everywhere when there's a storm," he stressed. Tom Brown referred to page 3 in the memo where setting goals is discussed. "When you use the word goals, do you mean standard?" "No, I don't think that would necessarily be a standard, and in fact all the cities have been trying to keep EPA away from setting standards for stormwater runoff because we don't have technologies to treat to any particular standard," Mr. McBride explained. What the Utility is looking at for goals could be a narrative statement about protecting the ecological health to the maximum extent practicable, and leaving it rather vague, or they might want to say they would like to meet class 2 warm water fishery standards in all the streams. The latter would give them an idea of what it's really going to cost to meet a particular goal, while maximum extent practicable doesn't give them anything to focus on. "This is where we would like input as to what the goal should be." "The goal depends somewhat on what it's going to cost to meet the goal," Mr. Brown remarked. Mr. McBride said that the goal doesn't necessarily have to be realistic and drive everything else. Tom Sanders asked if their plan was compatible with the fact that perhaps in the future, "we may have to treat it to meet a standard?" The way Mr. McBride understands it is that the NPDES permits for stormwater will be set up similar to the time frame for wastewater plants. "We will get a five year permit; right now we don't know what maximum practicable will be." Dr. Sanders thinks the effluent from discrete points might, in the near future, be something they may have to treat. However, flowway waters that go through wetlands and control drainage in grass swales, may not be. Water Board Minutes October 16, 1992 Page 8 Mr. McBride stressed that one of the reasons they want the management plan separate is because they haven't heard from the state what will be a receiving water. It might be that the Poudre River is the only one they consider a receiving stream. What they have done in Denver is call it a receiving water if it's had metal standards set for it. Dr. Sanders asked if there is any plan where we could begin having documentation on the deeds of the property that are in the flood plain, which should be available for future buyers. The County regulates off a map that was adopted and broken down by township and range, Bob Smith explained. The City operates differently. When a map is adopted, as part of the regulations, the flood plain has to be targeted. In order to document each deed, it might be necessary to work with each individual property owner to include that restriction. Dr. Sanders contends that most people don't even know it's a risk when they build in flood prone areas. Mr. Smith said that next year the Stormwater Utility is going to send out a mailing to everybody who is in a flood plain, whether it's the Poudre River or Old Town, and inform them that they are located in a flood plain, and advise them to come into the Utility and talk about what they can do to protect themselves, and what the implications are of the regulations that already exist. "That's one way of following up and educating those at risk." Ray Herrmann observed that everyone in the 100 year flood areas are pretty much on their own if they get flooded. Supposedly they have flood insurance. What happens with the new wastewater plant? Are the liability and responsibility shifted to the City? "In a way they would be," Mr. Smith replied. "If you had a plan to protect somebody and you are moving them out of the 100 year flood plain, you are basically shifting the responsibility whether it is to the City or County or whatever, to make sure the property is maintained properly." "It seems to me that the City is spending $20 million to protect Old Town from a half million dollars worth of insurance damage," Ray Herrmann asserted. "That's part of the benefit/cost ratio," Mr. Smith stated. With Old Town you take into account all of the storms: 500 year, all the way down to the 2 year. "We came up with a benefit/cost ratio higher than 1, so it looks like it's cost effective. However, I can't tell you what it's going to be on the Poudre River because we don't have those numbers yet," he said. Overall, Mr. Smith believes that the City is doing a good job of discouraging people from building in the flood plain. Tom Brown returned the discussion to water quality. "I am having a hard time thinking about goals without some basic data on what the water quality is," he began. "Are you already assessing the water quality to the extent that you have a pretty good idea of the quality of the water for which you are going to set goals?" "The problem is it's very different when it's base flow conditions and when there is a storm; and it's also highly variable from place to place, and from storm to storm," Mr. McBride responded. He pointed out that there hasn't been a fish kill on Spring Creek to their knowledge; there is no particularly acute problem from that standpoint, 0 • Water Board Minutes October 16, 1992 Page 9 but they also know most of the ponds are very eutrophic. One goal could be to meet the regulations, whatever they end up being, he suggested. Mr. Brown thinks the first goal should be to collect more basic data on what the situation is. He admitted that it takes time to do that. Dr. Grigg observed that the Stormwater Utility is becoming more involved in the water quality business. "We have a number of water quality experts in the W&WW Utility. Is there a place for cooperation to make both groups work better?" Mr. McBride acknowledged that there are certainly places for cooperation, and there are actually places where it will be required, particularly when the Poudre River becomes the subject for testing. He pointed out that their utility has been working with the Industrial Pretreatment people on dye testing, etc. Laboratory work is being done separately because the W&WW Utility has been overloaded with their own requirements. Bob Smith mentioned that Water Board, Natural Resources Board, and Storm Drainage Board representatives met a couple of years ago to discuss common issues. He suggested that perhaps the Boards could exchange work plans, which will be prepared for the Council in November. Dr. Grigg thought that was a good idea. "We're particularly interested in anything that has to do with the Poudre River," he said. He thanked Mr. Smith and Mr. McBride for coming and expressed the hope that we will continue to work together and share ideas. 1993 Recommended Water Fund and Wastewater Fund Budget Mike Smith recommended that the Board focus first on two pages of the budget document distributed to Board members in their packets. Those two pages provide a summary of the current budget compared to the 1992 budget. He also suggested they concentrate on the first green page which discusses W&WW rate changes. President Grigg said that Tim Dow and Tom Sanders, members of the Legislative and Finance Committee, met prior to the Water Board meeting to review this, and they may have some comments about the highlights of the proposed budget and the issues they may want to focus on. The action staff is looking for from the Board is to endorse or not to endorse the proposed budget before it goes on to the Council. "We recognize that the Budget is complex document, so it is unlikely the Board would be able to do a full review of all the issues," he said, "so we aren't looking at that kind of a financial review." It will be more of a policy overview of the budget and any policy issues the Board may want to comment on. Tim Dow, Chairman of the Legislative and Finance Committee, said that he thought a point of interest for the Board was the fact that water rates are projected to increase about 5 %, and the wastewater rates about 6%, which is more than the inflation rate. Mike Smith will address the reasons for that. Water Board Minutes October 16, 1992 Page 10 He also pointed out that around $2 million of the Utility budget is transferred to the City's general fund under the PILOT and administrative charges programs. "There isn't anything we can do about that; it's just interesting because it comprises about 9% of the budget," he commented. Mike Smith explained that there is a total budget of about $30 million for water and wastewater. PILOT stands for payment in -lieu -of taxes, which is generally 5 % of the gross operating revenue. Administrative charges are calculated by a somewhat complex formula developed by the general fund that takes into account the ratio of number of employees in the Utility versus the number of City employees, and Utility budget vs. City budget. "They try to split up the general fund costs to various enterprise funds," he said. Mr. Dow continued by indicating other items he thinks are noteworthy from the Board's standpoint. Basically, in terms of personnel, the number is essentially the same; perhaps one or two new positions, so growth is not significant from the staff standpoint. The primary growth is in the capital expenditures budgeting for the wastewater treatment plant expansion and water acquisition. Most of the general overhead type expenses are holding the line fairly well, he said. At this point Mr. Dow moved that the Water Board recommend approval of the proposed budget to the City Council. Dave Frick seconded the motion. Dr. Grigg called for discussion. Tom Sanders, the other member of the L&F Committee, had a few comments. He said there is currently about $2.5 - 3 million in the Utility water fund to purchase water rights when they become available. The good news related to the volunteer metering program, is that most people who have had meters installed are saving money, and they have saved about $100,000 this last fiscal year. Because of that the revenues to the Utility have been lower than expected. Whether the metering program is saving water is yet to be determined. He wanted to point out that the Utility is spending about $510,000 a year on the volunteer program. "All I can say is we are lucky that the state forced us to meter," he asserted. "However, I think it's significant that people are saving money, so we are going to have to increase the rates to make up for the shortfall." He went on to say that he thinks it's "fantastic" that the Utility was able to re -negotiate some of its loans for better rates. In fact there will be savings of about $300,000 to keep the water and wastewater rates from going up as high in the future as they projected. He also pointed out in the green pages, evidence that our wastewater debt service is "going to take another jump" to about $10 or $12 million annually. If we could put it off until about the year 2011, "the politicians would love us" as far as capital expansion, but "I don't think we can put it off that far," he predicted. Our growth is such that we need to keep on increasing capital investments, and it's getting a lot more difficult to do that and keep the costs down. He added that because of the volume of meter installations, the Utility will probably be hiring more staff because it's such a long term program, but currently, most of the new employees are contractual, which saves the Utility money. Water Board Minutes October 16, 1992 Page 11 Tom Brown said it is hard to tell the percentage that some of it is increasing. "My guess it's something like 7%?" Tim Dow said the Admin. is up 15%. "So the average is around 7%, which seems a little high," Mr. Brown said. The admin. charge is driving that, Mr. Smith responded. The formula is based on a number of criteria: the number of employees the City has versus the number of City employees, but that isn't changing much, so it's not a problem. "What's changing is the budget. When we hit a heavy duty capital project and the budget increases by $20 million for a year, the formula changes," Mr. Smith explained. "Even though it is averaged over a three-year period, it still means your department has a larger proportion of the City's budget, so you pay a larger proportion of the general admin. charge." "So general admin. charges for the City are not necessarily going up by 15%, but the Utility's share is," MaryLou Smith observed. "Just looking at the percent of rate increases," Ray Herrmann began, "it looks like, since 1980, not counting 1993, that rates we have been paying have gone up 110% or so. How does that compare to inflation, etc.?" Mr. Smith provided information about this using an overhead projector. He indicated that one of the headings is Consumer Price Index and Water Service Charges. "If you would convert these to 1980 dollars, it would probably cost you just a bit more now than it did then. Next he showed what items are the "big expense" items in the budget. This is where most of the money goes, he said. He emphasized that labor and debt service are substantial items in the budget. He also pointed out that the Utility was able to re- finance at a lower interest rate. Next Mr. Smith showed a graphic indicating the percentage increase in water revenue in actual versus projected. He defined projected as taking the previous year's revenue and increasing it by the rate increase, plus the growth rate, and it should be what you receive, "but you don't always get what you project, because the weather and the metering program have an impact," he stressed. The longer term revenue projections for water are "a little soft, meaning we might need to be a little more conservative." Perhaps this means that we need to start looking sooner at rate changes, MaryLou Smith suggested, "because we have put that off until we have some sort of track record to look at." Mr. Smith agreed that "we are now beginning to see the track record." Mike Smith said that a major part of Scott Harder's effort will be to create cost of service models. Mr. Harder commented that one thing that's becoming popular among utilities is the idea of a rate stabilization fund as municipalities are moving away from a cost of service based rate, towards a rate that meets some sort of conservation goal. As a result, "the revenues tend to fluctuate" as the graph indicates. "Some municipalities are implementing stabilization funds that help balance out those revenues year to year," he said. Mr. Smith went on to the wastewater side of the budget. He began by saying that when staff started out with Anheuser-Busch, they tried to guess what impact A-B would have, but the Water Board Minutes October 16, 1992 Page 12 estimates weren't very accurate. "Now we're beginning to get the idea," he said. Neil Grigg asked if the Utility has current information on how many gallons we are using per capita per day, and dollars per 1000 gallons. Dennis Bode said the per capita use is about 230 gallons. He qualified that by saying that this year we have had above normal precipitation, and also the number varies from year to year. Mike Smith said that "we have a rate structure for dollars per thousand gallons, but that's after you have cranked in a base or fixed cost." "At 10 billion gallons, that's $1.30, Mr. Bode calculated. Mr. Smith said Fort Collins water rates, compared to the other large Colorado communities, are in the middle of the pack. Many small communities "are feeling the pinch," so their rates are pretty high. Mr. Smith related that on the wastewater side, Fort Collins is leading the pack, but "the curve is quite flat. We're not the highest, and the other utilities are close behind." He explained that the staging of your improvements has an impact on where you are on the curve. If you are in more of a growth pattern you tend to be higher up on the curve. Referring to the rate history chart, Mr. Smith explained that in the early '80s, neither the water nor the wastewater fund was producing a positive net income. Those who were watching the numbers thought the Utility was not using good financial judgement, so Council adopted new financial policies. "That's why we had some 27 and 28% increases," he pointed out. Now the rates are fairly competitive. Tom Brown asked about the PILOT in the General Fund Admin. charges. Is there some way to know whether the Water Utility is paying its proportional share of the total City government costs? In other words, is there a way to assess what we're getting compared to what other departments pay? The formula they use is supposed to do that, in a general sense, Mr. Smith replied. "The way I look at is different from the way the City Manager looks at it. He thinks we should be paying more." If you look at just the admin. charges which are nearly a million dollars, and think of the services you get for that, you could say, "if I had to replace that, would it cost us a million dollars? I would say, probably not." "If you had to pay a tax to the City, it would probably be even more," Ray Herrmann observed. "That's what the PILOT is supposed to take care of," Mr. Smith said. Mr. Smith concluded that nobody is very happy with the admin charges. The Utility believes it pays too much, and the general fund accounts think we don't pay enough. Unless there were a fine tuned cost accounting system where people in the general fund could assess their direct costs to whomever they were serving, you could come up with some answers, but now it's just a general formula. Dr. Grigg said that one way to look at that general fund admin. charge, is in terms of all the various services that the City provides. We could look at how much that would cost us if we weren't part of the City. "My sense is we would be paying more than that." "We might," Mr. Smith acknowledged. Water Board Minutes October 16, 1992 Page 13 Tom Sanders asked if most of the City Departments are now being charged for their water. Mr. Smith said that "we are phasing it in over the next few years to get it all paid." Most of them are now metered, but the problem is getting the money once they are metered. Mark Casey asked if new City facilities pay plant investment fees. "Yes," Mr. Smith replied. The question was called for approval of the budget. The motion carried unanimously. President Grigg complimented staff on a very well prepared document. Mr. Smith pointed out that next year Wendy Williams will be in charge of the budget. He announced that her new title is Customer and Administrative Services Manager. Staff Reports Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported that for September the City used 3093 Ac-ft. For the year to date we are 87% of what was projected. He referred the Board to a graph on the back page of the summary which showed the monthly water use and how it varied over the summer. The significant rains in the summer months decreased the demand, he pointed out. Report on Boards and Commissions Workshop Molly Nortier represented staff at the City workshop for boards and commissions on the topic, "Your Legal Rights, Risks and Responsibilities." Ms. Nortier included, in Board packets, the handout from the meeting to be kept as a reference. She discussed some of the new items under conflicts of interest, open meetings, and executive sessions. If a Board member anticipates a conflict of interest he/she should file a conflict of interest disclosure statement at the City Clerk's office, with a copy for the president of the Board. If a Board member has a conflict, she/he should not participate in the meeting. It isn't enough to excuse one's self from the discussion and refrain from voting. Anyone with a conflict must leave the room. The only exception is if you are there to maintain a quorum, you may stay so the Board can conduct business. The rule of thumb is: "When in doubt, ask. If you are still in doubt, don't do it." A meeting is defined as a gathering of a quorum or 3 or more members. If a committee gathering meets that definition, public notification must be made. The Water Board secretary takes care of posting notice at City Hall. All meetings are open to the public unless an executive session is declared for personnel matters, legal action or land or water acquisitions. The City attorneys say it is preferable not to give legal advice in open meetings. A new rule states that in order to go into executive session, there needs to be approval of 2/3 of the quorum present. All decisions from an executive session must be made in an open meeting. Ms. Nortier urged Board members to contact John Duval or Paul Eckman at the City Attorney's Office, if they have any questions about any of these matters. She said that the City Attorney's Water Board Minutes October 16, 1992 Page 14 office plans to conduct more workshops periodically for board and commission members. Committee Reps Water Supply Chairman Mark Casey shared an article from The Wall Street Journal dated October 9, 1992. It discusses water legislation that passed the U.S. Congress, but "I don't know if it was vetoed by Pres. Bush," he said. He thinks it does affect water supply. Initially it will affect California, "but those things tend to find their way out here too." He read the following excerpts from the article: "Congress approved land mark water legislation that for the first time shifts water in the and west from farms to cities and the environment. After several days of frenzied political maneuvering, highlighted by filibuster by California Senator John Seymore, the Senate yesterday passed a $2.4 billion omnibus water bill maintaining provisions that will force drastic changes in the way the federal agencies operate certain federal dams and reservoirs in the west; especially in California. The bill requires significant amounts of cheap subsidized water, heretofore reserved for agriculture, set aside for environmental uses." The article concludes with this editorial comment: "Some water experts believe the passage of the bill signals the end .of the long-lived era when farmers and their powerful political allies could virtually call the tune on western water policy. 'Agriculture doesn't have the sway in Congress it once did,' said Berry Nelson, head of the San Francisco based coalition of environmental groups." Ray Herrmann thought the bill was signed by the President, but he wasn't sure because he hadn't seen anything written on it. Neil Grigg said the last thing he saw on it was that one group was pushing for a veto. On the other hand, many people were saying that if the President didn't sign it, legislation like some of the pending wilderness bills, where differing factions had finally reached some compromises, "would go down the tubes." Mr. Casey said the article states that it would be very difficult for the President to veto the legislation. However, at this time it would affect the Central Valley Project in California the most by requiring them to set aside 10% of the water for in stream flows and environmental uses. President Grigg suggested that the Board may want to have a briefing session sometime on those issues because the CBT project may have some similarity to some of the California projects. Scott Harder added that the bond buyer picked up on the fact that discussions and evaluations are underway to transfer the Central Valley Project to the state. "That would make it even more similar to the CBT," Dr. Grigg observed. Water Board Minutes October 16, 1992 Page 15 Committee RQ= Conservation and Public Education Chairperson MaryLou Smith reported that her committee met prior to the Board meeting, and they are making progress on the issue of zero interest loans. "Soon we will have a report," she said. Legislative and Finance No report Engineering No report Regional Water Supply St_rategy1jpdare and Regional Wastewater Issues Mike Smith said there was nothing new to report. Other Business Tim Dow announced that the final arguments for the Thornton case were held on October 8th. Judge Behrman has that under consideration now, and "we expect some kind of a preliminary legal ruling by him as to whether Thornton is going to be entitled to take any water, and if so, how much?" A ruling may be forthcoming, probably the first quarter of next year, he would guess, but he doesn't think it will be before the first of the year. Adjourn Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:02 p.m.