Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 01/19/2012Water Board Minutes January 19, 2012 1 Fort Collins Utilities Water Board Minutes Thursday, January 19, 2012 Water Board Chairperson City Council Liaison Vacant Wade Troxell, 219-8940 Water Board Vice Chairperson Staff Liaison Steve Balderson, 223-7915 Brian Janonis, 221-6702 Roll Call Board Present Vice Chairperson Steve Balderson, Board Members Phil Phelan, Becky Goldbach, Eric Garner, Steve Malers, Meagan Smith, Brian Brown, Liesel Hans, Brett Bovee, Lori Brunswig, and Duncan Eccleston Staff Present Brian Janonis, Jon Haukaas, Kevin Gertig, Ken Sampley, Dennis Bode, Susan Smolnik, Mark Sears, Mark Kempton, Shane Boyle, Lance Smith, Carrie Daggett, Robin Pierce, and Harriet Davis Guests Council Liaison Wade Troxell Meeting Convened Vice Chairperson Balderson called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. Introductions Introductions were made for current and new board members, as well as for Utilities staff members. Public Comment None Approval of December 15, 2011 Minutes Board Member Phelan moved to approve the minutes of the December 15, 2011 meeting. Board Member Goldbach seconded the motion. Board Member Eccleston moved that the minutes be revised to include more of the discussion concerning the exemptions to connect to the City’s sewer system (page 3 of the December 15, 2011 minutes). The minutes will be revised and e-mailed to the board members for their approval before the next board meeting. * Board Member Brown abstained from voting due to his absence on December 15, 2011. * Boards Members Smith, Garner, and Hans abstained from voting since they are new board members and were not present at the December meeting. Water Board Minutes January 19, 2012 2 Maxwell Farm Conservation Easement Water Use Agreement (Attachments available upon request). Water Resources Engineer Susan Smolnik introduced the item and stated it was presented at the October 2011 Water Board meeting. In 2009, the Natural Areas program purchased Maxwell Farm along with 12 shares of North Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC) water with the intent of placing a conservation easement on the farm. Utilities will purchase a portion of the shares from Natural Areas and provide agriculture (ag) water as part of a Raw Water Transfer Agreement. The price of the NPIC shares has increased slightly and staff is seeking the board’s approval of the higher price. Board discussion: For the benefit of the new members, Vice Chairperson Balderson requested a short explanation of a conservation easement. Natural Areas Program Manager Mark Sears stated that a conservation easement removes a portion of the development rights on a piece of property. Natural Areas would like to restrict development on the site and allow for future development of agricultural related structures, as they would like it to remain a viable farm in the future. Mr. Sears stated that a fixed price was presented at the October meeting. Currently, there is a price range of $12,000 to $16,000 per share. The price presented to Council will be within this range. How is the price set? NPIC tracks the market value of the shares. For the benefit of the new members, a board member asked for clarification on the difference between agricultural water and multiple use water. Ms. Smolnik stated the NPIC shares have three components. The early ag and seasonal ag components of the share must remain for use within the NPIC system. The Multiple Use component of the share is comprised of Colorado Big Thompson (CBT) water. This water is available for municipalities to use. Both parties benefit because Utilities will purchase the shares at half price and in exchange, an equivalent amount of water will be provided back to Maxwell Farm as part of the conservation easement. Does this model only work if one department within the City is selling to another department within the City? Also, would this model work outside of the Natural Areas Program? Ms. Smolnik stated this is something that could be considered. Do ag users rely on CBT water during low flow years? Ms. Smolnik stated they do. Utilities would substitute the ag portion from more of the Utilities’ owned shares to make up the difference. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously. Board Member Eccleston moved that the Water Board support the Utilities proposed purchase of eleven shares of North Poudre Irrigation Company water from the Natural Areas Program at approximately 50 percent of the current value and to support the Utilities entering into a Raw Water Transfer Agreement for the purpose of delivering water annually to Maxwell Farm as part of a conservation easement. Board Member Brown seconded the motion. Water Board Minutes January 19, 2012 3 Stormwater Master Plan Revisions (Attachments available upon request). Water Engineering and Field Services Operations Manager Jon Haukaas introduced the item and introduced Stormwater and Floodplain Program Manager Ken Sampley and Stormwater Master Planning Manager Mark Kempton. In 2008, City Council directed staff to review the purpose and components of the City’s Stormwater Program. One of the components is to revisit the Stormwater Master Plan to incorporate more of an environmental focus, stream restoration, and Best Management Practices (BMP). Staff seeks the board’s recommendations on topics such as prioritization and funding considerations. This information is scheduled for presentation at the Council Work Session on April 24, 2012. Board discussion: A board member requested specific instructions on what input is needed from the board members. Mr. Haukaas stated several of the programs that are part of the Master Plan are on the operational level. These items will not be presented individually to the board. The final Master Plan will be presented to the board at a later date. Mr. Sampley began the presentation by giving a background on the Stormwater Repurposing Program. As stated above, Council directed additional emphasis be placed on improving stormwater quality and protecting the City’s urban watersheds while preserving natural and beneficial functions of floodplains. The Stormwater Utility Repurposing Program review consists of fourteen major components. Staff desires to integrate flood control and water quality projects into one comprehensive plan. Currently, the primary focus is on flood control; however, there are some stream rehabilitation projects identified. Goal: The goal of the Stormwater Master Plan Revisions is to update the Master Plans to address water quality considerations and stream restoration and stability projects. The update should be consistent with the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) approach outlined in the revised Stormwater Mission Statement. The updates will be finalized using data, information, and results from the following three program efforts: Urban Stream Health Assessment, Basin-Specific BMP Selected Plans, and the Stream Restoration and Stability Study. 1. Urban Stream Health Assessment This assessment was completed by Colorado State University (CSU) in cooperation with the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Division. This report was presented to the Water Board in July 2010. The goal was to determine the specific stream characteristics that have the greatest impact on improving stream health. Mr. Sampley presented the results and recommendations of the assessment, including a focus on in-stream rehabilitation only on those areas with significant upstream BMP coverage, a recommendation that a minimum of 40 percent of a watershed should be undeveloped or have BMP facility coverage, and a recommendation that more than one metric is needed to assess stream health. Mr. Sampley stated that irrigation flows are a challenge in this area because they pose significant challenges to stream health due to high shear stress, sediment loads, and variable flow regimes. Water Board Minutes January 19, 2012 4 2. Basin-Specific BMP Selected Plans In 2010, the Fort Collins Stormwater Division contracted with three engineering consultants to prepare basin-specific BMP selected plans (water quality updates) for ten of the City’s master drainage basins. Mr. Sampley gave an update on the work completed and the work to be completed as part of the update. Currently, the update is in the Alternatives Analysis phase. The BMPs have been ranked for each basin. Mr. Sampley stated staff will ask for board member input on this process. 3. Stream Restoration/Stability Study This study was conducted by CSU in 2011 on behalf of the Stormwater Division. The goal of the study was to prioritize future stream management and rehabilitation work on ten streams in coordination with the Basin-Specific BMP Selected Plans. Mr. Sampley listed the objectives of the study, including performing a geomorphic assessment on a segment-by-segment basis, determining channel evolution stage, and determining channel susceptibility to erosion. Another objective of the work was to identify and prioritize future stream management and rehabilitation work through the development of a Multi-Criterion Decision Analysis (MCDA) matrix. Mr. Sampley gave an update on the work completed and the work to be completed as part of the update. The geomorphic assessment is complete and the multi-criterion decision tool is currently in progress. Current Status Mr. Kempton gave an update on the Water Quality BMP Study. Currently, it is in the Alternatives Analysis phase. A basin-by-basin TBL analysis was performed for all potential BMPs and the BMPs were ranked based upon the TBL results. Locations were identified within the basin to apply the ranked BMPs. Mr. Kempton presented information on the Fossil Creek TBL evaluation and rankings of BMPs, as well as the BMP selection based on the TBL rankings. Mr. Kempton gave an update on the Stream Restoration/Stability Study. This is a very comprehensive report with designs specific to the City of Fort Collins. The report addressed the Irrigation Return Flows. These flows drastically change the hydrologic flows and create significant changes in base flow from season to season and year to year. Mr. Kempton gave background information on the MCDA tool. This is a tool for prioritizing stream rehabilitation and basin-wide BMP projects. It rates the importance of environmental, social, and economic benefits to the project and overall drainage basis. The projects are prioritized based on final scoring in the MCDA. The MCDA tool provides a meaningful way to prioritize projects and provides a transparent, rational, and flexible methodology. Mr. Kempton stated the approach is to prioritize stream rehab projects first, and then group BMP projects that are tributary to each stream reach. Public Outreach Process Mr. Sampley gave an update on the public outreach process. Focus groups were formed in August 2011 and other City departments, affected public and private entities, and affected Homeowner Associations (HOAs) were invited. Another round of focus group meetings will be held after completion of the preliminary selected plan. Neighborhood public meetings are also planned for citizens to provide comments on the plan. Water Board Minutes January 19, 2012 5 Project Schedule Mr. Sampley gave an update on the project schedule. The BMP Selected Plan is scheduled for completion in March and as stated earlier, the results are scheduled for a Council Work Session in April. The stream rehabilitation prioritization is also scheduled for completion in April. Staff plans to combine the results of the BMP and Stream Restoration selected plans into a revision of the City Master Drainage Plan. This is scheduled for the May timeframe. The item will be presented again to the Water Board during the summer timeframe. Funding Considerations Mr. Sampley gave background information on funding considerations, including flood control projects currently identified and funded using existing stormwater fees. Currently there is no dedicated stormwater funding source for Stream Rehabilitation/BMP projects. Potential funding scenarios include the following: • dedicating a percentage of existing stormwater fees to projects; • increasing the current stormwater fees and dedicating a percentage exclusively to projects; • include the Natural Resources Department Stream Rehabilitation Fund and the Colorado Healthy Rivers Grant Fund (the grant funding typically requires matching funds). Board discussion: How can the board members become more involved in the process of reviewing the information? Should this information be presented to a subcommittee? Mr. Haukaas stated more information will be made available to the board members if they would like to become more involved in the process. Vice Chairperson Balderson stated this information can be presented more in-depth to the Engineering Committee. This committee has reviewed the Stormwater Master Plans in the past and other board members are welcome to be a part of the discussion. Mr. Sampley stated the board members could also be a part of the focus groups. Are the focus groups specific to a particular basin? Yes, the information presented is basin specific. A board member stated he is interested in the transparent and defensible methodology as it relates to the MCDA tool and feels this would be a beneficial way for him to be involved in the process. He feels that a focus group would be a beneficial avenue to learn more about this methodology. A board member questioned the cost range of the project. Mr. Kempton stated the costs associated with the project are still in the preliminary phase. Civil Engineer Shane Boyle stated the costs are variable and depend on how much work needs to be completed in the stream. A board member questioned how confidant staff is that projects can be funded in the future. Mr. Haukaas stated there are funds available. Currently, the Master Plan identifies the use of the fees for the next 20-30 years and projects can be added to the list. If stormwater fees were not increased in the next 10-15 years, would there be funds available in the future? Mr. Haukaas stated staff is looking at project prioritization and how both stream restoration and flood control projects can be part of the overall funding. Water Board Minutes January 19, 2012 6 Is there an effort to mix the prioritization of stormwater and flood control projects? Mr. Sampley stated that initially staff looked at how to rank both stormwater and flood control projects; however, an approach to combine the two categories of projects has not yet been developed. Currently the stream restoration is ranked separately. A board member felt the most cost effective process would be to select the highest ranked flood control project instead of ranking the BMPs independently and that particular project should be funded first. Mr. Sampley stated that is how the CIP projects are currently funded, based on the highest flood control project ranking. Introducing a distinct/separate approach for funding water quality projects would result in schedule impacts to the current flood control projects. A board member stated that stormwater fees for cities within the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) typically are lower than cities outside of this district. She stated this is because they have developed BMPs including Low Impact Development (LID). The board member questioned the costs involved and does not agree with increasing stormwater fees. She also stated that BMPs are sometimes less expensive. (The board member provided a graph for reference showing the monthly stormwater utility fees for Colorado Municipalities inside and outside the UDFCD boundaries). Mr. Sampley stated the cities represented in the graph have different stormwater programs and that stormwater programs in one municipality should not be compared to a stormwater program in a different municipality. The entities within the UDFCD pay property tax for flood control projects and the total amount paid is different than what is represented in the graph. Mr. Haukaas stated the UDFCD Manual has been adopted by the Stormwater Program. Future flood control projects will incorporate water quality components and LIDs where applicable. The board member stated that existing homes should be protected first before considering future developments. The board member also stated Utilities should review the rainfall criteria again. Mr. Haukaas stated the localized rainfall data was used. He stated that this discussion could be revisited by the board. The board member questioned why the Stormwater Program is involved in stream restoration? Mr. Sampley stated that because stormwater flows to the streams, the Stormwater Program has a responsibility to look at the streams to incorporate BMPs when considering water quality. With acts such as the Clean Water Act, there is also more of a focus on water quality. A board member stated he is interested in the driving factors behind the decisions. Is there flexibility in the decisions? Mr. Haukaas stated there is a lot of flexibility concerning the “how” but that most of the discussion is focused on when the projects will occur. He stated that a more comprehensive LID policy will be presented to the board at a later time. A board member questioned the use of the term “repurposing.” Utilities Executive Director Brian Janonis stated that Council has taken a different direction in regards to stormwater. They desire staff to consider more environmental considerations. This new approach launched the Stormwater Repurposing Effort which included changes to the Master Plan to incorporate stream restoration, floodplain criteria, rainfall criteria, and level of protection criteria. Mr. Sampley reminded the board there has not been an increase to stormwater fees since 2004. Water Board Minutes January 19, 2012 7 A board member questioned the irrigation flows that connect to the City’s creeks. Mr. Kempton stated there are several creeks that convey irrigation flows in the natural channel, and there is a discharge that is transferred to another reservoir or to the Poudre River. Did the study look at alternative ways to pay? Mr. Sampley stated this was not part of the original study; however, this has been part of an internal discussion. A board member feels it would be great for the City’s Stormwater Program to utilize innovative ideas and set an example for other communities (for example, the Dry Creek area on North College Avenue). Mr. Haukaas noted that the Lincoln Avenue area on the north side of Link-N- Greens Golf Course will be part of a city-wide effort to create a “green streets” concept. This will be a primary focus of this corridor in the future. A board member questioned the funding considerations for the Natural Resources Department (i.e. the Natural Resources Department Stream Rehabilitation Fund) and asked for clarification on the funding if Stormwater manages these programs? Mr. Haukaas stated the Stormwater Program does stream restoration and the Natural Resources Department also does some work along the Poudre River and in the natural areas. The funding is for various natural areas projects. A board member requested more information on the restructuring of the Natural Resources Department. Mr. Sampley noted that this item is scheduled for the February meeting as part of the presentation on the Poudre River Health Modeling. Mr. Haukaas stated that staff would also like to discuss the Stormwater Master Plan Revisions with the Water Board Engineering Committee in the near future. This will be scheduled for their upcoming meeting. Draft 2011 Annual Report Vice Chairperson Balderson requested feedback from the board members on the 2011 Annual Report. He will send the most recent version to the Board Secretary for submittal to the City Clerk’s Office. Committee Reports Conservation and Public Education Committee (Board Member Phelan): No report. This committee will resume their meetings in February. Engineering Committee (Board Member Balderson): No report. This committee will resume their meetings in February. Legislative, Finance, and Liaison Committee (Board Member Goldbach): Committee Chair Goldbach gave an update on the graywater legislation as presented at the December Water Board meeting. This bill has been assigned to the State Affairs Committee. Dr. Larry Roesner from Colorado State University (CSU) has sent information to members of this committee for further review. Water Supply Committee: No report. This committee is seeking a new chair with the retirement of Board Member Gessler in December 2011. Vice Chairperson Balderson stated that committee membership and leadership will be discussed at the February Water Board meeting. Staff Reports Monthly Water Resources Report Water Resources Manager Dennis Bode provided this report for the agenda packet. Board discussion: What is the lowest percentage ofwater used in the past? Mr. Bode stated that this has ranged from 12 percent below up to 5 or 6 percent above the projected average. At one time, it was at 85 percent of the projected average. Other Business Vice Chairperson Balderson introduced Council Liaison Wade Troxell. Mr. Troxell stated that Council reads the recommendations presented by the Water Board and they are very interested in their ideas. Board Member Malers reminded the board about the CSU Water Tables Event in February. He encouraged the board members to participate in this event. Vice Chairperson Balderson reminded the board that the Officer Elections should be held in February or March. These will be scheduled for the March meeting. Future Agenda Items None Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:27 p.m. Submitted by Harriet Davis, Administrative Assistant, Fort Collins Utilities Approved by the Board on I , 2012 Signed: I i i i Board Secretary Date Water Board Minutes 8 January 19, 2012