Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 08/20/1993WATER BOARD MINUTES August 20, 1993 3:00 - 5:35 P.M. Water & Wastewater Utility Conference Room 700 Wood Street City Council Liaison Gerry Horak Staff Support Person Mike Smith Members Present Neil Grigg, President, Dave Stewart, Tim Dow, Tom Brown, Terry Podmore, Dave Frick, John Bartholow, Howard Goldman Staff Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Wendy Williams, Ben Alexander, Keith Elmund, Jim Hibbard, Curt Miller, Tom Gallier, Dave Meyer, Scott Harder, Andy Pineda, Jim Clark, Molly Nortier Guest George Reid, Citizen Observer Members Absent MaryLou Smith, Paul Clopper, Ray Herrmann President Neil Grigg opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Introduction of New Water Board Members President Grigg welcomed new Water Board members John Bartholow and Howard Goldman. Mr. Bartholow was appointed in July to a four year term, while Mr. Goldman will complete the term of Mark Casey who resigned from the Board in June. Board members and staff introduced themselves to the new members, and Mr. Goldman and Mr. Bartholow were asked to provide a brief introduction of their backgrounds. Mr. Bartholow works for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in a research job. He graduated from CSU with a Masters degree in Wildlife Biology, and he has been working in a biologically related field ever since; initially in terrestrial biology, and began in '81 with aquatic biology. Since that time he has been working with a group that was originally called the instream flow group. "In the process I've learned a lot about hydrology, ecology, negotiation, and water projects of 0 sorts," he concluded. Water Board Minutes August 20, 1993 Page 2 Mr. Goldman has been an attorney in Fort Collins for 10 yeas. His interest in water law and environmental law began in law school. "Since I began my practice here, however, I've been pretty far removed from that, but I continue to maintain my interest in water law, and hope to nurture it," he said. Mr. Goldman also has training in mediation, alternative dispute resolution and creative problem solving. For the benefit of the new members, Dr. Grigg gave a short history of the Water Board and explained how it operates. He also explained the function of the six standing committees. Minutes Dave Stewart moved that the minutes of June 18, 1993 be approved as distributed. After a second from Dave Frick, the Board voted unanimously for approval. Update: Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District John Bigham was not able to attend so there was no report. Conservation and Public Education Committee Proposal This item was moved up on the agenda because Dave Stewart, who was delegated to give the report, had to leave the meeting early. The Conservation and Public Education Committee met on August 11th to discuss the implementation of two measures from the demand management resolution. The first measure provides for the amendment of the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS) to award points for water conserving actions by developers of commercial, industrial, and multi -family residential properties. The second measure relates to the development of water conserving irrigation standards for all landscapes subject to City review and approval (commercial and industrial as well as multi -family residential areas). Dave Stewart pointed out the memo prepared by MaryLou Smith, the Chair of the Committee. Attached to the memo was the background information for the proposed implementation of Demand Management measures 8 and 9. Essentially, the Committee has asked that the Board review this and make a recommendation. Jim Clark, Water Conservation Specialist, said that the attachment was self descriptive for what the proposed policy is. He reported that the proposed policy is the result of a long process that involved working with a couple of committees comprised of local ldhdscape and irrigation company representatives. The next step will be to work with City staff, primarily planning, to devise specific options for administering the policy. "What you have in front of you is basically the content," Mr. Clark said. Staff now needs to develop ordinances and determine how the policy will be administered. Staff will then take that to the Natural Resources and P&Z Boards with specific requests for adoption and further comments. Following that staff is proposing that it will go to the newly created Council/Water Board Water Planning Committee prior to taking 40 Water Board Minutes August 20, 1993 Page 3 it to Council, hopefully late this year or early next year. Mr. Clark then asked for questions and comments. "What staff is looking for at this time is conceptual approval of the Board," he said. Dave Stewart recalled that the Committee also wanted the policy to be reviewed by Parks & Recreation. Mr. Clark aged. Mr. Stewart also pointed out that 40-45 % of our water is used for landscape irrigation, and of that 45 %, 35 % is used on commercial and industrial properties. "Even though this is a fairly small portion of the landscape use, it is probably something that is controllable and savings could be significant over a year's period," he commented. The committee thought this was a good start in trying to implement conservation. Dave Stewart moved that the Water Board conceptually approve the Committee's recommendation, and following the W & WW Utility staff and Planning staff input, that it go to the P&Z, the P&R, and the Natural Resources Boards for their review and comments, and then be passed on to the Water Planning Committee, and eventually to the Council. Terry Podmore seconded the motion. Dr. Grigg asked Jim Clark to explain how the joint Council/Water Board Water Planning Committee evolved. Mr. Clark said that a joint Demand Management Committee, comprised of 3 Council members and 3 Water Board members, met throughout 1990 and the first part of 1991. They began by assessing what the City was currently doing relative to demand management, and also what was desirable to be done. The result was a proposal that eventually went to Council, and had three parts: (1) Set specific goals for reducing demand management in per capita terms for annual and peak use; (2) Establish that the policy would be reviewed annually and adjusted as necessary to meet those goals; (3) Designate 12 specific measures that would be implemented in the following years. What the Board is considering today are two of those 12 measures. No. 9 deals with enacting minimum irrigation standards for all commercial irrigation systems, and multi -family, basically anything the City already reviews in its development process (not single family residences). No. 8 provides incentives (not regulations) for xeriscape or water conserving kinds of landscape measures. He said that progress continues on most of the other 10 measures in varying degrees too. Dave Stewart mentioned that these measures have the potential of adding one staff member, possibly a landscape architect, to the planning section. He added that there would probably be some impact to the review fees for developers, but the Committee "didn't have a handle on that yet." Mr. Clark said that staff will be soliciting Planning Dept. input on how it will be administered, what it will cost, who will do it, and how we're going to pay for it. "We'll be coming up with those options, and the Council/Water Board Planning Committee and City Council will make those decisions." Water Board Minutes August 20, 1993 Page 4 "When the letter was sent to professional contractors, was there anything controversial that came out of that?" Dr. Grigg wanted to know. "Unfortunately we didn't have any responses," Mr. Clark replied, "and I don't know if that's good or bad." There will be one more public review process; actually in this case, more directed to the development community, since they may be involved in terms of paying for it. That will probably be in a month or two. Mr. Clark stressed that the irrigation and landscape industries have been very supportive, at least as indicated by the committee members, but of course they are not directly paying for it. Most of the 99% who are already doing a good job, see it as a benefit. Tom Brown asked how the incentives will work for earning points. What was initially proposed was through the LDGS in the point charts that they use through the City's development review process, Mr. Clark began. "It's basically tied in with each category of development." A developer consults the point chart and must get a minimum percentage of those possible points; conceivably the incentive for water conserving landscaping would be another item on the chart. "If you did these sorts of things you would get these points toward getting the minimum percentage. The incentive in that case would be to get your development passed; it's not a financial incentive," he explained. "So someone would have to decide how many points would be awarded relative to the other things that can already earn points," Mr. Brown clarified. Mr. Clark said that's basically how it would work, "but we haven't made any recommendations on that at this point; that's the next level of detail." John Bartholow asked how much you can lean on what has happened in other places for ideas about what has and hasn't worked. "We do that a lot. There is a pretty tight network among my colleagues and myself. It seems that each City has a little different twist," Mr. Clark responded. Terry Podmore pointed out on p. 2 where it says "the following three assumptions," there are only two listed. Mr. Clark said it should be two. Further down on the page Mr. Bartholow asked about the sentence that began "At a marginal cost of $2.25 per gallon... Is that per day?" Scott Harder replied that it would be a capital cost of gallons per day of treatment plant capacity. Tim Dow said he likes the idea of coordinating this with the Planning Dept. by using the LDGS and developing some incentives for water conserving landscaping. President Grigg called for the question. The Board voted unanimously to recommend the policy in concept. Water Board Minutes August 20, 1993 Page 5 Recommended 1994 Water Fund and Wastewater Fund Budgets Water Board members received a summary of the recommended 1994 Water Fund and Wastewater Fund Budgets in their packets for their information and review. According to the memo, staff has focused on the City Council's objective of reducing and/or forestalling increases in utility rates in preparing the budgets. The recommended budget includes a 3.62% decrease in operation and maintenance (O&M) expenses in the Water Fund and a 0% increase in O&M expenses in the Wastewater Fund. Also, 1994 budgeted funds for minor capital expenditures were decreased by 4.74% in the Water fund and decreased by 7.24% in the Wastewater Fund. Several Payments & Transfers items are projected to increase in 1994. Most of these items are fixed costs. According to the memo, the greatest increase is for debt service (bond interest and principal) in the Wastewater fund. The increase in debt service is a result of the $24.5 million loan the Utility acquired in 1992 to fund the master plan improvements at the Drake Water Reclamation Facility (WWTP#2). The additional debt service will cause wastewater rates to be adjusted by 6% in 1994. "This is consistent with the Wastewater Treatment Master Plan adopted by the City Council in 1990. The master plan included rate increase projections of 6% per year for the 1992-1995 period." The memo concluded that the "good news" is that the previously projected 1994 water rate increase of 5% has been reduced to 0%. It is anticipated that there will be water rate increases during the 1995-1998 period to fund capital improvements associated with the Water Treatment Mast Plan (currently being developed) and to fund anticipated inflationary increases in O&M expenses. Along with this background information Mike Smith took the Board step-by-step through the recommended budget using overheads. He began with a summary of the water fund which included O&M expenses, Minor Capital Outlay, Payments and Transfers, Total Budget, and Staffing, comparing the 1993 budget with the proposed 1994 budget. Mr. Smith explained that minor capital outlay is a term used for minor capital projects, replacements, main replacements, purchase of equipment, vehicles, tools, laboratory equipment, etc. "It is not major capital projects," he stressed. Payments and Transfers are items that are basically fixed costs, he explained and include: payments to the general fund; capital projects; PILOT (a payment in lieu of taxes that we pay to the general fund and is 5 % of our gross operating budget); General fund admin. (a predetermined figure that we pay the general fund for services we receive such as City Attorney charges, City Manager's Office, Personnel, Finance, etc.); Utility billing expense (paid to Utility billing office for generating bills); meter reading expense (what we pay Light & Power for meter reading); water assessments (paid to irrigation companies for assessments for their water stock we own; that's usually offset by water rental); bond interest and bond principal; other (last year Water Board Minutes August 20, 1993 Page 6 included money for National Heritage Corridor designation); and contingency (operating contingency for emergencies). "The proposed water fund operating budget decreased by about .91 % for 1994," he said. Staffing, which includes permanent, seasonal, hourly and contract positions, is staying nearly the same as in 1993. "Basically this is a status quo type of budget," he concluded. Tom Brown asked what the difference is between bond principal and interest versus capital projects. Mr. Smith explained that those are interest and principal payments on bonds that we have already issued. The dollars for capital projects is money that we will appropriate next year to fund new capital projects. "We aren't projecting any new bond issues, so we don't have any new debt showing," he said. Mr. Brown also asked about PIFs. "Any PIF income from developers goes into the water fund reserves and is allocated to growth related capital projects," Mr. Smith replied. The next graph compared various items on the proposed water fund budget with the 1993 budget. The graph provides a sense of the magnitude of various categories. "You can see it's a pretty labor intensive operation," he pointed out. Also with the debt service it's a capital intensive operation; building water plants, distribution lines, treatment reservoirs, etc. Dr. Grigg asked if it is possible to estimate the lifetime of distribution lines to get an idea of when they need to be replaced. "It various quite a bit," Jim Hibbard replied. "We have some that we are replacing now, and others that have been in operation longer, and are still in good shape. It depends on the type of material that is used and where it was installed," he explained. "On the average an 80-100 year life is usually pretty good." "Hot soils" that cause rapid deterioration are relatively rare, he stressed. A pie chart graphic showed the percentage of each expense category in the water fund budget. Mr. Smith again pointed out that staff is projecting a 0% rate increase in the water fund budget. "That's different from last year when we were projecting a 5% increase for '94." The wastewater fund budget is very similar to the water fund, Mr. Smith began. There will be a 0% increase for O&M expenses and a small decrease in minor capital outlay. In fixed costs there will be a small increase in capital projects. Bond interest and bond principal show a substantial increase because of a 1992 loan which we are just beginning to pay off. The 12.63 % increase in the total operating budget is all in the bond and principal area. There basically will be no change in staffing. Comparing the 1993 budget and the 1994 projected budget, there is a large jump in bond interest and bond principal. According to the pie chart graphic, bond and interest make up over 30% of the budget. Last year staff projected a 6% rate increase for '94 and that's still what will be Water Board Minutes August 20, 1993 Page 7 needed to cover the bond interest and principal increase. For a typical family residential customer this will mean an 86 cent per month increase; .52 for principal and .34 for interest. These increases were projected when the Wastewater Master Plan was approved. The 6% is right in line with what was projected then, "and that's what we are presenting to Council," he added. Mr. Smith next showed a graphic of the total water debt service from 1992-2010. The different colors were the various currently outstanding debt issues. There are projects on the horizon that will require additional bonds to be signed. "Last year we refinanced some debt at a lower interest rate." On the wastewater side there aren't as many issues because "we haven't borrowed money as many times as with water. One issue occurred when we borrowed a lot of money to finance the Anheuser-Busch improvements, but A-B pays us those debt service payments every year. He indicated on the graphic the loan that was taken out last year which resulted in the 6% rate increase. Another 6% rate increase is projected for 1995. Mr. Smith displayed a chart of the Water and Wastewater growth related capital projects paid for with PIFs. Listed under water fund projects recommended for 1994, are automated mapping, Harmony Transmission Line, meter conversion program, raw water intake, Southwest system improvements, treated water reservoir, water treatment expansion and water supply development. Expenditures were projected thorough 1998. The total recommended for 1994 is $1,925,000. He pointed out that water supply development (in blue) is the one area financed with Raw Water Requirements development fees. On the Wastewater side, the growth related projects are in green. Mr. Smith explained that some projects are difficult to categorize because they are a combination; part are financed with PIFs and part with fees. The Regional WWT facility is obviously growth. Treatment plant expansion is half and half. Improvements at the Mulberry Wastewater Plant are half and half. Dr. Grigg asked if there was anything related to regulatory requirements where there are "hot spots" in either the water or wastewater areas. "When we get into the water treatment master plan discussions, we'll be hearing a lot about that," Mr. Smith predicted. He added that the major policy issues coming up in a year or so are going to be in that area. "We will be spending a lot of money for improvements," he said. John Bartholow asked about Mr. Smith's comment about the $100,000 a year for water supply development not being related to growth. "Is that because of a perceived deficit for that part of the policy to catch up?" "It is growth related but PIFs are not used for that," Mr. Smith responded. He explained that there are two different development fees; one is a Plant Water Board Minutes August 20, 1993 Page 8 Investment Fee (PIF) which generally covers pipelines and treatment capacities, and the other is Raw Water Requirements (RWR) which is generally used for raw water supply. "We either get water or money, and we use some of the money to develop supplies." Tom Brown asked if the bond interest and principal are partially paid for with PIFs as well. "Theoretically, yes," Mr. Smith said, "because some of the bond proceeds are for capital projects that are growth related. The bottom line though is if development stopped cold and we didn't have PIFs, we would still be obligated, so the rate payers would be responsible for paying those." Over the past 10 years the Utility has collected nearly as much money as we have spent for growth related projects. Dr. Grigg asked what is the average per year we collect in PIFs. "About $1.5 million for both water and wastewater," Mr. Smith estimated. In boom times it's been over $2 million and in slow times, less than a million dollars. President Grigg concluded that overall it looks like the Utility is in pretty good shape financially. Dave Frick asked how we compare with other utilities' rates. "Our monthly water charges are competitive (right in the middle), but wastewater fees are on the high side," he said. "We seem to be on the leading edge when it comes to needing improvements and being impacted by regulations," he said, with a 'tongue in cheek' smile." "Does Amendment 1 affect us in any way in our 6% wastewater increase?" Dr. Grigg asked. "No," Mr. Smith replied. "As a matter of fact the utilities are basically exempt from Amendment 1, and also the people of Fort Collins voted to allow the Council to name the Utilities as enterprises, so the 6% isn't subject to the limitation. The author of Amendment 1, Douglas Bruce, said when he proposed the TABOR Amendment, that he did not intend that utilities be included, because of their demand side nature. "If they don't want to spend as much, they don't use as much. In our projections we have shown that demand really controls things." Tom Brown said that would be true for water use for people on meters, but not for the wastewater or storm drainage fee because they are flat fees. "All the commercial customers are based on metered water use for wastewater," Mr. Smith pointed out, "and eventually all the single family homes will be based on winter quarter metered water use." Within the next three years, as soon as enough people are metered, staff will look into creating a winter quarter single family metered rate. "That may be more incentive for some people to convert to meters," he said. "I think it's a very good idea," Mr. Brown said. "Do you anticipate any flack from the rate payers when this is introduced to the public?" Dr. Grigg asked. "Ten to 15 years ago we had some significant increases, and we didn't hear a word from the public," Mr. Smith recalled. Recently there have been fairly low rate increases and people have complained. "This year is pretty straight forward, so I don't expect a lot of controversy," he concluded. Water Board Minutes August 20, 1993 Page 9 Tom Brown observed that of the total amount of money, about 1/3 of the $1.9 million of the, capital projects is growth related (2/3 is not) which isn't what one would expect. Mr. Smith explained that it basically goes in cycles. "We can show you five year projections in other time periods within the last 10-15 years, when it is heavily weighted the other way; when we were expanding the water treatment plan, for example." On the wastewater side, when we need another wastewater treatment plant, or more expansion, that's a $40 million project, and "will certainly tip the scales considerably." Mr. Smith related that the Council will have a work session in September where they will review the City recommended budget including the Utility budget. The work sessions are generally on the second and fourth Tuesdays, and the budget is adopted in October. Mike Smith asked the Board to take action on the budget. Tim Dow moved that the Water Board recommend to the City Council, approval of the Utility Water and Wastewater proposed 1994 budget. After a second from Tom Brown, the Board voted unanimously for approval. Dr. Grigg asked that the Board be kept informed about the budget "because it helps us understand what's happening in the Utility." Moreover, Council might ask the Board's advise on Utility financial matters. AQoointment of Water Board Members to Serve on Consolidated Water Planning Committee Established by City Council At its April 20, 1993 meeting, Council determined that the functions of the previously established Water Demand Management Committee and Water Quality/Water Treatment Master Plan Committee should be consolidated into one committee responsible for addressing water related issues. On June 1, 1993, Council adopted Resolution 93-78 establishing a consolidated Water Planning Committee and appointing Council members, Alan Apt, Gina Janett, and Bob McCluskey to serve on the Committee. Resolution 93-98 amends Res. 93-78 to establish that the Water Board shall select three of its members to serve on the Water Planning Committee. President Grigg opened the discussion to select three Board members. He commented that for _ this joint Planning Committee, it would be advisable to have experienced Board members who have previously served on joint Council/Water Board committees. He said he had already asked Dave Stewart, an experienced member, if he would be willing to serve, and he said he would. Terry Podmore suggested that MaryLou Smith would be a good choice. Dr. Grigg asked Tim Dow if he would be willing to be on the Committee and he agreed to do so. Terry Podmore moved, and Dave Frick seconded the motion, that MaryLou Smith, Tim Dow and Dave Stewart be appointed to serve on the Consolidated Water Planning Committee. The Board approved the motion unanimously. Water Board Minutes August 20, 1993 Page 10 Discussion of Committee Assignments and Election of Officers Along with the appointments to the Water Planning Committee, President Grigg also wanted to discuss appointments to the Water Board standing committees, although he wasn't thinking of making those appointments today because of the two new members, so with the permission of the Board he delayed appointments to the standing committees. He did, however, ask if one of the new members would be willing to serve on the Cost of Service Committee because they are in need of an additional member since Mark Casey resigned from the Board. They plan to meet on Monday September 27th. Howard Goldman agreed to join that committee. Dr. Grigg also reminded the Board that election of officers, president and vice president, will occur in October. He will miss the September meeting, and since there is no longer a vice president because of the retirement of Tom Sanders, he asked Dave Stewart to chair the meeting in September. Dr. Grigg may also miss the October meeting because he may be out of the country. He announced that he would be available for re-election as president. However, if there is someone else who wants to run "that's fine. Please don't feel as though you have to defer to the existing leadership," he said. We also need to be thinking about candidates for vice president, he added. Industrial Pretreatment - Local Limits Water Board members received a summary in their packets explaining the reasons for the proposed changes in the Industrial Pretreatment local limits. Staff also provided a table comparing current and 1993 calculated local limits, the rationale for not developing local limits for certain parameters, and the local limits as proposed for the City Code. Keith Elmund, Environmental Services Manager, said that staff provided information for the Board to review and hopefully the Board will recommend approval of the local pretreatment limits today. "This project has been in the works for about two years," he began. Federal pretreatment regulations require the City Wastewater Utility to develop technically based limits for pollutants discharged by industry to the wastewater treatment system. The Utility has developed these limits using EPA guidelines. Fort Collins has had a pretreatment program for many years. Dave Meyer Industrial Pretreatment Supervisor, has overseen the program for several years. "Just this spring he and his program were nominated at the national level for excellence by Region VIII of the EPA," he said. As part of that program the City is required to develop and implement local limits to ensure that our industrial, commercial and residential customers comply with local IP regulations and discharge limitations at our wastewater treatment facility, he explained. "Dave Meyer will explain the status of the program, and seek your approval," Dr. Elmund concluded. Mr. Meyer continued by saying that in addition to answering questions, he wanted to take the Board through what was a rather lengthy and complex process, and provide a brief explanation about and some understanding of how local limits are developed. He mentioned that there are a couple of aspects with respect to our local limits that are rather unique. Water Board Minutes August 20, 1993 Page 11 The first step in the process is to collect samples of the wastewater influent and analyze that for what seems to be virtually any pollutant "that anyone could possibly think of;" anything that's on any state or federal regulatory list or any parameters that were considered to be of concern for a wastewater utility. Once the initial screening analysis is completed, "we look at those results and then we are required to develop a list of what are known by the EPA as pollutants of concern." Those are pollutants that are present in the influent and also found on a regulatory list, and other pollutants that we might identify as being of specific concern to the local treatment plant. Once the more reduced list is prepared, we develop a sampling plan of both influent and effluent samples in order to track the fate of those pollutants through the treatment process. The main product of that analysis is determination of removal efficiencies through the treatment plant, identifying what percentage of a given pollutant ends up in the wastewater effluent and what percentage ends up in the final solids to be disposed of on land. "We use those removal efficiencies and a variety of other factors in the equations to calculate what is known as allowable head works loadings," he continued. The principal factors that drive those are individual state stream standards, federal water quality standards, and any other applicable regulations. Also a big one that came on line recently is the 503 of the sludge disposal regulations. He explained that at this point they have perhaps 2-6 different allowable head works loadings; that's the amount of a given pollutant that the treatment plant can handle, and still meet applicable environmental regulations. "We take the most stringent of those allowable head works loadings and subtract background levels, what we see from domestic and non -regulated commercial sources, put in a safety factor and a growth factor that is dictated by the EPA, and end up with a single maximum allowable head works loading." This is what has been determined the plant will be able treat without violating any environmental regulations. They then take the pounds per day quantity and allocate that to the permitted significant industrial users, and that number is converted to a concentration limit, the local limits that are - listed on a sheet in the packet. A number of those have changed from the existing limits and some of them have gone down, some have gone up, and there are some new ones. The proposed limits are subject to final approval by the EPA and City Council. "I hope this summary gives you a feel for how those numbers were developed," Mr. Meyer said. He then asked for questions. Tim Dow asked if these limits are going to have a major impact on current operators within the City. Are there people who would be in substantial violation at this time? "We looked at that," Mr. Meyer replied, "and we don't see any problems with compliance." However, there will be Water Board Minutes August 20, 1993 Page 12 some people who will be impacted, mostly by some of the aspects of the program "that I'm going to talk about next." "When you say you don't see any compliance problems, do you mean you didn't see any reason why they couldn't comply?" Mr. Dow continued. "I'm curious about the current extent of deviation from these standards," he added. "Based on historical data, we saw no violations," Mr. Meyer responded. "There may have been one or two on a rare occasion." Mr. Dow asked if there is a list of known dischargers. "Yes," Mr. Meyer assured him. "If this is adopted would it be part of your program to contact them separately, or notify them so they are specifically aware of these standards?" Mr. Dow asked. "About two days ago we sent out letters to the main dischargers. asking them to meet prior to the adoption of this," Mr. Meyer responded. Tom Brown noticed that the limits have gone down quite a lot for arsenic, mercury and nickel. "What caused that, EPA standards?" "That's certainly the case for mercury," Mr. Meyer replied. "We have a very stringent limitation that our wastewater treatment plant has to meet based on very strict stream standards; for some parameters it's a matter of changes in the 503 sludge regulations." Changes in arsenic are being driven by the new sludge regulations. Mr. Meyer couldn't remember specifically the change in nickel. He said that there are also some cases here where the original local limits were developed a decade or more ago, and the documentation of where those numbers came from and what drove them, doesn't exist. "I was pleased to find that in a large number of cases, the limits didn't change or didn't change very much," he pointed out. Terry Podmore asked why some limits went up, some of them substantially. The ones that increased are mostly the result of how the original numbers were set, Mr. Meyer explained. "I'm not sure there was always a strong technical basis for establishing those 10 or 15 years ago." Now there are very definite environmental regulations that we are required to meet. Dave Frick wanted to know if there were cases where raising these limits help people out. Right now we don't have any industrial users that are regulated for aluminum; iron is another one, Mr. Meyer replied. We're required to develop limits because of the water quality standards. "I don't expect we will see a real impact either way," he said. "You mentioned a safety factor and a growth factor, what's the growth factor?" John Bartholow asked. We are required to periodically review these local limits, at least every 5 years. The EPA has published a policy that requires us to consider development. In this region they have dictated a minimum growth factor of 15%, Mr. Meyer explained. "I looked at our historical growth and determined that based on increases in wastewater discharge volumes, mainly based on water use numbers, that 15 % would be adequate to cover any changes that we anticipate over the next few years," he related. "We also use kind of a fudge factor (safety factor) to make sure we don't cut it too close, EPA requires a minimum of 10%," he added. Water Board Minutes August 20, 1993 Page 13 John Bartholow said that he could see on one hand why it makes some sense not to have a local limit if there is no current discharger, but is there any kind of message that needs to be there in case a company located in the City and would discharge a pollutant for which we have no current limits? "Generally if a discharger were to be considered large enough to have an impact on our facility, we would ask what to expect from them, and we would ask them what they expect to discharge to us and if there are any concerns there. If it's a pollutant that we haven't seen in the past, we would have to go through this same process which wouldn't take a great deal of time now that we know how to do it," Mr. Meyer responded. Moreover, the EPA will require that the City develop a limitation for that pollutant. Mr. Bartholow was surprised by the list of compounds and elements that do not meet the criteria of "pollutants of concern." "That's scary to me," he asserted. "That is a matter of the definition the EPA told us to use as pollutant concerns," Mr. Meyer explained. "If we don't currently see it in our influent, we don't have to worry about it. If we would have found PCBs in our influent, for example, we would have developed a local limit for it." He stated that the list could be miles long if we wanted to develop a limit for everything. He mentioned that there were some things on the list that had been on our original list of local limits for which there was little or no basis. Mr. Bartholow asked if staff periodically monitors some of these things that are not checked on a regular basis. "Yes," Mr. Meyer replied. "We are going to be required to monitor this very sensitive list every three to five years, or every time our discharge permit comes up for renewal. We also do some other analyses that would raise a flag to us. For example, we analyze the sludge for PCBs on an annual basis. We are also required to periodically (once or twice a year) to monitor for pesticides and herbicides," he concluded. Mr. Meyer went on to discuss two other aspects of the local limits. One of those is the end of process limitation for silver. That is probably going to affect the largest number of users in the wastewater utility; a large number that had not been directly impacted in the past. The purpose of that limitation is to regulate the component of silver that we see at the wastewater treatment plant that comes from a large number of small dischargers. There are also a few dischargers that discharge large amounts of silver and are having a significant impact on the silver load into our plant. Silver is one of the pollutants that we have a very stringent discharge limit on it. "The way we propose to regulate that is to set a limitation that would apply at the _ end of the photo development process which are the types of users that discharge silver; anyone who is developing x-rays, large and small photographic developers, print shops, medical facilities and dentists." Applying this limit will allow us to very easily go into a facility and sample the effluent from their development process after they have had the opportunity to do any pretreatment. There are two basic types of pretreatment for silver removal: the electrolytic system and a very simple ion exchange based system that can be done very easily and relatively cheaply. "We will try to regularly visit those small dischargers and encourage them to comply with the procedures." Water Board Minutes August 20, 1993 Page 14 The other aspect of the local limits is regulation of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) based on their potential to result in toxic fumes in the collection and treatment system. The limit will be based on industrial exposure standards and will result in specific numeric limits for individual compounds that will protect not only the worker's health and safety, but also the environment. They tend to be more stringent than the traditional way of developing limitations of this kind, mostly because the pollutants are volatile. There are discharge limitations, but the head works loadings can be very high because the treatment plant, although it doesn't treat them very well, blows the compounds into the air and they don't go out in the effluent. The EPA and other regulatory agencies are moving much more towards a multi -media approach. Tom Brown moved that the Water Board recommend approval of the local pretreatment limits to the City Council. John Bartholow seconded the motion. Dave Frick asked about the $7.00 per month to reclaim silver for a small volume discharger. "Does that include capital costs." Very small users would normally contract with a provider of the service to remove the silver, and the $7.00 would include all their costs according to an estimate Mr. Meyer received. President Grigg called for the question. The motion to recommend approval of the local pretreatment limits to the Council passed unanimously. Staff E oorts Treated Water Production Summary Andy Pineda reported that year to date treated water use is about 87% of what we projected. In response to a question, Mr. Pineda said that part of the lower use is because the Anheuser- Busch Brewery is using less water than expected. Response to Question about Water Supply Projections Dennis Bode began by saying that several meetings ago MaryLou Smith had a question about how our water supply projections that were made in 1988, have developed over the years. Mr. Bode prepared a table and some graphs to explain those numbers. In 1988 staff was developing the water supply policy, and during that time some projections were made about our water supply. The table was divided into three blocks. The first shows the service area population. In 1988 we made a projection of population based primarily on some of the planning numbers that were being used at that time. The second column represents the population number that we estimate each year and which "hopefully is pretty close to what we serve," he said. The second block shows the treated water demand, and the 1988 projection is in the first column. We make a projection each year. "You can see that because of the smaller population than we expected, that projected demand has declined," he pointed out, "and this is based on average climatic conditions," he added. The third column indicated the actual demand and reflects the variations we see in demand due to weather conditions. Particularly in the last two or three years we've had fairly cool and wet summers, so that demand has been lower than the average projected. Water Board Minutes August 20, 1993 Page 15 The right block shows the comparison of the water supply that was projected. The first column shows the projection that was made in 1988 based on our old raw water requirements policy before it was revised. The second column reflects the new policy that was adopted which included a 20% increase in the raw water requirements and also included a purchase of about 10,000 acre feet of water, and was based on the 1988 projected population. Mr. Bode revised that somewhat to show what it would have been had we been able to project the population precisely at that time, and that's reflected in the third column. The last column shows the actual amount of water that we have on hand as of the end of each year. The graphs illustrate these numbers far more clearly. The first graph shows the service area population. We have seen a downturn in population growth, so the actual numbers are significantly fewer than was projected in 1988. The second graph shows the treated water demand. The white squares show what was projected in 1988; the dark triangles show the annual projection that was made when staff projected the population, so that projection is somewhat lower than the 1988 projection. The actual numbers are the dark squares, and those are actual water demand numbers for each year. He pointed out once again the decreased demand in the last two years because of the cooler and wetter summers. In 1988 we had one of the drier years, so that number is higher. "It's interesting to see some of those trends." The third graph indicates the available raw water supply. The dark triangles show the projection made in 1988. After the raw water requirements were revised and staff projected the raw water to be purchased over the next 5 years, those numbers are reflected by the white squares. "You . will recall that that included the population projections of 1988." The white triangle in between is adjusted for the reduced population growth. The dark squares show the actual water supply and how that has developed over the years. "You'll recall that when we purchased water, we had planned to do it over five years, but we were able to accomplish most of that in one year; primarily in 1989," he related. "We had also purchased some in both 1987-88, so we see a three year period where our supplies jumped significantly." Looking ahead to 1993, Mr. Bode indicated that the Utility's actual supply will end up right on top of what that would have been if it's adjusted for the change in population. President Grigg appreciated Mr. Bode's excellent report. "It shows how difficult it is to project sometimes," he said. Dave Frick asked if any of the downturn in demand is the result of water conservation. "I think there may be a little of that," Mr. Bode replied. "That's one thing we will be working on to try to track a little more closely and remove the effects of climate in our water demand Water Board Minutes August 20, 1993 Page 16 projections." Conservation Specialist Jim Clark has spent considerable time with water conservation. "I think he has raised the public's awareness about conservation quite a lot." Mr. Bode concluded. Update: Forest Service Special Use Permit Mike Smith reported that the Forest Service (FS) has issued their biological assessment and passed it on to the Fish & Wildlife Service (F&WS), and F&WS is trying to reach a biological opinion, but are having a difficult time doing that. They have had one extension, and have asked for a second extension which they didn't get, "but they're going to take the time to do it anyway" which probably will take until October, Mr. Smith related. The major problem is what to do with Nebraska, he continued, because some of the endangered species they identified are in Nebraska, and the people there can't make up their minds what kind of mitigation they want. The Colorado Fish & Wildlife is having a hard time getting the Neb. folks to make up their minds. Once the assessment is completed the FS will continue with their process of reviewing the Forest Management Plan and some of the legal processes of the National Environmental Policy Act. They have decided, maybe somewhat arbitrarily, that they need an environmental impact statement for Joe Wright. An EIS on our permit will be required as well as for Long Draw Reservoir, and for the Public Service Company's permit," Mr. Smith related. "In the same breath the FS says they will be issuing a new permit by January of '94, which is looking pretty dim right now," he contends. At this point staff is waiting for what the biological opinion says, because that may require some kind of mitigation to offset the potential effects on the endangered species. The greenback cut-throat trout is one of the species which exists in Colorado, and the F&WS is also worried about the roosting habitat of the whooping crane in Nebraska, as well as a plant in Nebraska called the Western Prairie Orchid. They also don't know what the impact will be from Joe Wright on the Pallid Sturgeon because they don't have that information yet. So the impasse continues. Dr. Grigg asked who the negotiating party is for Nebraska. Dennis Bode said that it's the Nebraska office of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Dave Frick thinks that we're going to _ have to essentially mount an information campaign to inform the publics of the facts of the situation and "not let the FS try to represent the facts because they have a very distorted view at this point. Most of the staff of the FS have never even been to the sites, and they are making comments on the impacts of these projects. These comments, including the fallacy that these projects will dry up the stream, are being fed to the Sierra Club and other organizations." Of the different groups that are involved, is there anything organized going on at this point? Dr. Grigg asked. "Not yet," Mr. Smith replied. It's been a rather one-sided process so far. "We have been providing a lot of information to the FS, and they appear to be painting a picture that isn't quite accurate." Mr. Smith said the Utility is doing some of its own studies, "so we're Water Board Minutes August 20, 1993 Page 17 waiting to examine some of the data that we generate." Although the FS personnel will deny it, they seem to want to make decisions based on letters from the public. He concluded that it has been a frustrating process. Tom Brown thinks Dave Frick makes a good point. "Maybe we do need to take a more proactive stance on this." He suggested that since the Water Supply Committee isn't focusing on any particular issue right now, perhaps that Committee could begin to get back up to speed on what's been happening and look for opportunities to shed some light on the issue. They might ascertain what would be reasonable for the Water Board or a member of the Water Board, or the Water Supply Committee to be saying with letters to the editor, or in some other way, to relate the facts of the situation. Dave Frick commented that he feels there is a need to provide more information to the Council as to what's going on. President Grigg agreed that these are good suggestions. However, he thinks before we jump into anything, we ought to have the results of the studies being done, so we have facts on which to base our arguments. One thing that could be done is report to the Council through the newly established joint committee, he said. "A second thing that occurs to me is, if the Council thought this was a good idea, we could hold a public meeting where we would present a panel, have slides, and present the facts." We could also invite the key leaders in the community. In any case what we need to do is to keep working on this, and as soon as Mike Smith feels it is time with the facts, we should develop some kind of strategy. "You may remember that we sent a letter to the newspapers about this several months ago rebutting a local columnist's comments on this issue," he said. Mr. Smith pointed out that there are some legal issues which "our legal counsel has asked the FS to respond to." Not that it would change anything, he admitted, but it would hopefully help the process. Neil Grigg asked Tom Brown, as a member of the Water Supply Committee, to bring this up at the next Board meeting for discussion, "or maybe that's too early for action." "It might be early for action, but it's not too early for developing some ideas and planning strategies," Mr. Brown responded. Pres. Grigg asked staff to include this item on the agenda for further discussion in September. Halligan Reservoir Update Mike Smith reported that the Halligan Reservoir issue has been on hold for awhile, until the Amendment 1 and utilities enterprise issues were resolved. "We are now working to finalize that agreement with North Poudre, and we're getting close," he said. "I don't think anything has changed significantly since the Water Board last reviewed the agreement." We anticipate getting the agreement to Council sometime in September or October, he said. Water Board Minutes August 20, 1993 Page 18 Update: Cross Connection Control Program Jim Hibbard reminded the Board that we have been discussing cross connection control at the last couple of meetings. At the last meeting the Board directed staff to investigate some of the impacts of the program. "Unfortunately, in June Keith Flliston, our Cross Connection Control Administrator, was hired away from us by the City of Boulder, so that has significantly hampered our efforts," he explained. Mr. Hibbard and his staff are now in the midst of a hiring process to replace Mr. Elliston within the next 3-4 weeks. In the meantime, he said, we have had limited staff time to go ahead with some of the things the Water Board has discussed in the past, and answer some of the questions and areas of concern; primarily those centered around the cross connection control program as related to residential single family customers. He shared information on several items about that aspect of the program: (1) One of them was the results of survey conducted by the City of Thornton, a summary of which Mr. Hibbard distributed to the Board. Mr. Hibbard cited from the survey that of the 15 utilities on the front range surveyed by Thornton, only one is requiring universal back flow prevention on single family homes. "Of course there is a lot more data included with that survey," he said. (2) The Water Board had asked if the installation of check valves on residential services would eliminate the need for the annual testing of the vacuum breaker; the device installed with residential sprinkler systems. "The answer we received from the State was that it would not," Mr. Hibbard said. Essentially, the vacuum breaker on a single family sprinkler system will have to be tested annually. (3) The Cross Connection Control Manual indicates that "anytime a residential system is contained with a backflow prevention device, some way of relieving internal pressure should be installed. The property owner should be advised to check their water heater pressure relief valve at least every three months to insure proper operation. A small pressure relief valve should be installed on the house side of the service line to insure there is no pressure build up due to heat expansion." That's a direct quote out of the state manual. "If we want to go to a universal dual check valve program on single family homes, we're going to have to find a way of addressing that concern," Mr. Hibbard stressed. (4) The Cross Connection Control Manual also states that because the dual check valve is designed for single family residential systems, it is not testable. A maintenance program should be established with at least 20% of the installed check valves removed and tested out of the system every year. "That means, as we install more of these dual check valves with the metering program, we will have to go back and check more of them on the other end," Mr. Hibbard related. A preliminary estimate of the cost, according to information on a handout, would probably start at $100,000 a year in 1994, and at the end of the metering program in about 20 years, we would probably average about $500,000 a year to be able to test about 20% of the devices each year. I • 0 Water Board Minutes August 20, 1993 Page 19 (5) Staff has researched the additional head loss from a dual check valve, and typical residential flows will add about 7-9 psi pressure loss. "This is significant enough that it would cause us to have to re-evaluate the boundary line between the foothills pressure zone and the main pressure zone in the City," Mr. Hibbard explained. There would probably be between 1 and 2 square miles in the City that we would have to put into the foothills zone with the capital construction associated with that. Mr. Hibbard said that staff doesn't have any specific alternatives outlined for the Board, or any recommendations due to limited staff time, "so we aren't asking for a decision, a recommendation, or even discussion at this point." In general the staff thinking right now is that the state regulations are set up on a progressive basis; in other words, the greater the risk to the distribution system, the greater the amount of protection that you must have. Staff has interpreted these regulations, and they concluded that our resources probably should be applied likewise: "that is, our time, our money, and energy should be spent on the commercial/industrial customers who pose the greatest risk," Mr. Hibbard stated. At a lesser risk, but not to be ignored, are the residential sprinkler systems. While the decision as to whether or not to use a dual check valve on all residential services is certainly important from an impact on the customer point of view, it's probably one of the least important factors with regard to the overall effectiveness of our program. "This perspective, along with the data we have gathered to date, would lead us to believe that hopefully at a future meeting, staff will be able to present the Board with some alternatives, and the staff recommendation would probably be to not have universal application of these dual check valves installations," he concluded. He provided the Board with a two page memo summarizing their conclusions, a summary of the Thornton survey, and summary of the rough cost estimates. Dave Frick said he would be interested to know why the one community in the survey decided to go to the universal dual check valve option with all of the negative implications. "The one community that chose to do it was the Genesee Water District with a 3300 service area population. Some of the other communities are doing it on a selective basis," Mr. Hibbard replied. President Grigg thanked Mr. Hibbard for the very good briefing within the time constraints. "It's a complex issue, and the Board will look forward to further discussion in the future," he said. Handicapped Hunting Agreement Mike Smith reminded the Board that Tom Gallier provided copies in their packets of the City Attorney's view of the Handicapped Hunting Agreement with Outdoor Buddies, Inc. for which the Water Board at their June 18th meeting recommended approval subject to completion of a liability analysis by the City Attorney's Office. Water Board Minutes August 20, 1993 Page 20 Informational Memo: Court's Decision on the Thornton Case Mike Smith also pointed out that staff distributed a summary of the Thornton Case decision. "You can read it at your leisure, and we'll discuss it at the next meeting." he said. Adjourn Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:35 P.M. Water Boar Secretary