Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 02/16/2012Water Board Minutes February 16, 2012 1 Fort Collins Utilities Water Board Minutes Thursday, February 16, 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 Duncan Eccleston, Brett Bovee, Steve Malers, Liesel Hans, Lori Brunswig, Phil Phelan, Eric Garner, Meagan Smith, and Becky Goldbach Board Absent Brian Brown Staff Present Brian Janonis, Jon Haukaas, Carol Webb, John Stokes, Jennifer Shanahan, Donnie Dustin, Patty Bigner, Roger Buffington, Carrie Daggett, Beth Molenaar, Susan Smolnik, Robin Pierce, and Harriet Davis Guests Craig Godbout and Mark Lorie (Resolution Planning, Inc.) Meeting Convened Vice Chairperson Balderson called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Public Comment None Approval of January 19, 2012 Minutes Board Member Malers moved to approve the minutes of the January 19, 2012 meeting. Board Member Bovee seconded the motion. Board Member Goldbach suggested revising the following sentence on page 5, “a board member questioned how certain staff is that the projects can be funded in the future.” Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously based on an edit to the above sentence. Raw Water Rental Rates and Delivery Charges (Attachments available upon request). Water Resources Engineer Susan Smolnik presented information on this item and stated it is presented to the Water Board every February. Ms. Smolnik provided additional information on this item at the request of Vice Chairperson Balderson, who requested additional information for the benefit of the new board members. Overview The presentation includes the following components: surplus water rental, the three active rental markets, raw water sale and delivery agreements, and reusable water. Water Board Minutes February 16, 2012 2 Surplus Water Rental Surplus raw water is water that is in excess of the City’s needs for the current water year. This is determined based on dry year demand. Sufficient supplies are factored in for carryover into the following year, and most years the City has surplus water. The City rents water to offset costs, to support the local agricultural economy, and to be a good basin neighbor. Ms. Smolnik stated the City owns shares in the three agricultural (ag) companies, and there are assessment costs that need to be paid on the share ownership each year. For 2008, the revenue exceeded the assessment costs. A board member asked for clarification on the word “assessment.” Ms. Smolnik stated the assessment is a payment made to the ditch companies for maintenance purposes. Even though the City’s water may not be delivered through the ditch, the City still has a responsibility as a shareholder to pay for their share of the upkeep of the ditch. Is this prorated per share? Yes. Does this include Colorado Big Thompson (CBT) water? Yes. Three Active Rental Markets The three active rental markets are the Colorado-Big Thompson Project (CBT), the North Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC), and the Water Supply and Storage Company (WSSC). Colorado-Big Thompson Project CBT water is delivered from the Colorado-Big Thompson Project via Horsetooth Reservoir. The water is delivered from the west slope to the east slope via a tunnel under Rocky Mountain National Park. This water is available for municipal, agricultural, and industrial users without going to water court, and can be used anywhere within the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) boundaries. Ms. Smolnik presented a map detailing these boundaries. A board member asked for clarification on the term“district.” Does this include all of the South Platte Basin? Ms. Smolnik stated the NCWCD district is different from the state system. What is CBT Water? CBT water is delivered from storage so it can be used at any time. The annual yield of each CBT unit is typically between .5 to 1.0 acre-foot (depending on the quota set each April). The City of Fort Collins owns 6 percent of the CBT units and rents CBT water by the acre-foot. When the quota is set, is it set for both municipal and agricultural uses? Yes, it can be used both ways. North Poudre Irrigation Company Ms. Smolnik presented a map detailing the boundaries for the NPIC. NPIC is a mutual irrigation company. There are 10,000 shares and more than 600 shareholders. Approximately 70 percent of the ownership is by municipalities and water districts (the City of Fort Collins owns 35 percent). The remaining 30 percent is owned primarily by agricultural irrigators and others. Water Board Minutes February 16, 2012 3 Types of NPIC Water NPIC annually appropriates three types of water for each share. The three types of water are as follows: early ag, seasonal ag, and multiple use. Ms. Smolnik presented a graph showing the NPIC share allocation. The multiple use water consists primarily of 4 units of CBT per share and can be used for a variety of purposes by NPIC shareholders. Both ag components are currently decreed only for irrigation within NPIC boundaries. Only the multiple use component is available for use by the City at this time. The City rents NPIC water by the acre-foot. Water Supply and Storage Company Ms. Smolnik presented a map detailing the boundaries for the WSSC. WSSC is a mutual irrigation company. There are 600 shares and more than half are owned by municipalities and water districts. The City of Fort Collins owns 4 percent of the shares. The majority of these shares are still rented to farmers. The remaining shares are owned primarily by agricultural irrigators. Fort Collins shares can only be used for agricultural purposes within the WSSC boundaries at this time; however, a change of use case was filed in December 2011. This would allow the City to use the shares for municipal purposes. Each share of WSSC provides approximately 50 to 100 acre feet of water for use during the irrigation season. The City rents WSSC water by the share. Raw Water Sale and Delivery Agreements Ms. Smolnik presented information on raw water sale and delivery agreements. The ditch shares involved include the Pleasant Valley Lake and Canal Company and the Southside Ditches (Larimer County Canal Number 2, New Mercer, Warren Lake, and Arthur). The City has grown over the farmland served by these ditches. The ditches are also used to deliver raw water to City parks, golf courses, school grounds, industrial parks, and Homeowner Associations (HOAs). Utilities has perpetual agreements to serve these areas. The raw water sale and delivery rate is set on a per share basis at 10 percent over assessment. Ms. Smolnik explained the difference between the sale and delivery price and the rental price. The rental prices for surplus water are based on the probability that the City will get the water. The sale and delivery agreements are more permanent because of water rights to support them. A board member questioned the use of the water. Can it only be used for ag purposes? Ms. Smolnik stated the water is only used for ag purposes unless it was included in the change of use case. A board member asked for clarification on the difference between Utilities’ owned shares and non Utilities’ owned shares. These are listed separately because other City departments such as Natural Areas and Parks own some of the shares. Reusable Water This includes transbasin water such as Joe Wright Reservoir and Michigan Ditch. Transbasin water originates in a different basin. Reusable water also includes a portion of Southside Ditch water that has gone through a change of use case. This water is mostly rented to augment evaporation from gravel pits and is rented by the acre-foot. Water Board Minutes February 16, 2012 4 Proposed 2012 Rental Rates/Charges Ms. Smolnik presented the proposed 2012 rental rates and charges as part of her presentation handout. She stated that most of the rates have not changed from last year. Board discussion: Is there an advantage to the City to using NPIC water versus CBT water? Ms. Smolnik stated there is a small advantage to using NPIC water. Water Resources Engineer Beth Molenaar stated NCWCD charges a different assessment for agricultural users versus municipal users. It was determined by the federal government that ag users can only afford to pay a certain amount for their water. The municipal users subsidize the ag users. If water is leased into the City from NPIC, they have to pay the ag rate, and the City has to pay the difference between what the ag user is charged and what the municipal user is charged. Why is the CBT municipal rental rate higher? Ms. Smolnik stated the rates are higher because there is an incentive to rent to ag users. Ms. Molenaar stated this is water that stays in the NPIC system. How much revenue is expected from water rental for 2012? Ms. Smolnik stated this depends on the year and the availability of water. The NCWCD recently introduced a new rental program to control the levels in Horsetooth Reservoir so they can better manage the inflows. This creates competition in the rental market. A board member asked for clarification on the fact that the rental rates are the same as last year when the snow pack is considerably different. Ms. Smolnik stated there were difficulties with renting water last year due to heavy rainfall in May and June. $30 per acre-foot seems to be a reasonable price for agricultural users to pay. What is the competition for water rental? The water districts are the competition. Are the rates flexible? Can the rates be changed based on rainfall? Ms. Smolnik stated there is language stating that rates can be adjusted. Since the rates are set by Council each year, they are typically not changed until September. Vice Chairperson Balderson asked for clarification on the “Option for Collateral Water” from the list of rates. Ms. Smolnik stated the Windy Gap water pumped into the CBT system spilled out last year. Since no more water could be pumped into the system, Windy Gap users borrow against the CBT water. Ms. Molenaar stated both Windy Gap and CBT water are stored in Lake Granby. The option allows collateral CBT water to be set aside until Windy Gap water replaces it by pumping. If Windy Gap does not pump, then the CBT water can be rented from the City. A board member asked for clarification on the term “carryover.” Ms. Smolnik stated that carryover is water that the City is allowed to keep in the CBT system for one year. A board member noted that revenues have decreased over the last four years. How recently have rental rates been changed? Ms. Smolnik stated rates were changed from $35 per acre-foot to $30 per acre-foot. Has competition in the marketplace increased in the last ten years? Ms. Smolnik stated there has been competition with NCWCD for the past two to three years. There has also been more runoff. Water Board Minutes February 16, 2012 5 Do the revenues go towards the assessment costs? Utilities Executive Director Brian Janonis stated that revenues offset the rates. How much water has been available during the last three years? What is the proportion of rental water? Ms. Molenaar stated that primarily CBT water has not been rented. The ag portion of NPIC water has been rented. All of the WSSC shares have been rented. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously. Water/Sewer Services to Carriage Houses (Attachments available upon request). Water Utility Development Review Manager Roger Buffington presented information on this item and stated that Utilities has been working with the City Attorney’s Office to develop an option for how carriage houses receive water and wastewater services. The Land Use Code (LUC) allows carriage houses in certain zoning districts. Chapter 26 requires that each building have separate water and sewer services; however, an exception can be granted by the Utilities Executive Director if the following three conditions are met: 1. the combined water use of the buildings shall not exceed the capacity of the service line; 2. if the service is for residential use, only one of the buildings may be used as a residential dwelling; 3. if the buildings are served by one service line, the buildings shall be under single ownership. A carriage house is defined as a single-family detached dwelling typically without street frontage that is located behind a separate principal dwelling on the same lot. A board member asked for clarification on the meaning of a single-family detached dwelling. Mr. Buffington stated the building must contain a kitchen to be considered a dwelling. Mr. Buffington explained the challenges with extending water and service services to carriage houses in the older areas of town. For example, installing service lines around the principal dwelling may be challenging due to mature landscaping. In newer developments, the narrow lot sizes make it impossible due to the presence of gas and electric services, window wells, etc. Utilities proposes that Chapter 26 of the City Code be revised to provide the Utilities Executive Director the flexibility to approve the connection to the principal dwelling on the property if the following conditions are met: 1. The services must have adequate capacity for both buildings. 2. The buildings are under one ownership on a single platted lot. 3. One of the buildings must meet the carriage house definition contained in the LUC. 4. Plant investment fees are paid and raw water requirements are satisfied for the additional dwelling unit on the property. 5. A written covenant or other document containing these conditions is signed by the owner of the property and submitted to the Executive Director as a condition of approval, and this document is recorded at the office of the County Clerk and Recorder. Board Member Bovee moved that the Water Board recommend that the proposed rental rates and delivery charges be adopted by Council. Board Member Malers seconded the motion. Water Board Minutes February 16, 2012 6 Board discussion: A board member questioned if Utilities has taken into consideration the possibility that property owners will build additional structures on their property that they could not have built prior to this code change. Mr. Buffington stated this has been considered by Utilities because there have been cases of property owners building additional habitable structures with no kitchen. The board member expressed concerns that the Water Board’s recommendation for the change may encourage these types of loopholes. Are there other stringent regulations in place that prevent this? Mr. Buffington stated the Land Use Code has limitations on the size of carriage houses. This varies depending on the zoning district; however, they generally are from 800-1,000 square feet. Sometimes the costs of extending service to the street become prohibitive to the property owners and they decide not to move forward with the project. Would the property owner pay double fees for the additional water and sewer service? The property owner would have already paid the fees for the principal dwelling; however, there would be additional fees for the second dwelling. What is the initiative for this proposed change? Mr. Buffington stated the City occasionally receives requests for carriage houses. In several instances, the projects were not built due to the construction constraints and the costs of extending the water and sewer services to the City mains in the street. A board member questioned the first condition (the combined water use of the buildings shall not exceed the capacity of the service line). The board member asked for further clarification on this statement. Mr. Buffington stated that the capacity of the line has not been an issue; however, this condition is included to tie the regulations together. The board member feels the proposed change is good because it supports an individual’s use of their property without them incurring additional costs. What zoning areas are included? The neighborhood conservation low density, neighborhood conservation medium density, and the neighborhood conservation buffer districts are included in the zoning areas as per the Land Use Code. Is there a limitation to the size of the carriage house? Mr. Buffington stated there is a limitation in the zoning districts listed above. The board member expressed concern about a property owner building an additional dwelling such as rental property. Water Engineering and Field Services Operations Manager Jon Haukaas stated that only one primary residence is allowed on the property. The additional dwelling would be limited by the carriage house rule. How many people will be impacted or benefitted by this change? Mr. Buffington stated there are not very many requests for these types of structures; however, the requests are consistent enough to warrant the code change. Water Board Minutes February 16, 2012 7 Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously. Poudre River Ecosystem Modeling (Attachments available upon request). Natural Areas and Poudre River Sustainability Director John Stokes introduced the item and introduced Environmental Planner Jennifer Shanahan. Mark Lorie from Resolution Planning, Inc. was also available during the presentation. Mr. Lorie served as a consultant on the project. Mr. Stokes stated the model was developed to help staff understand the ecological condition of the Poudre River 30-50 years from now. Plan Fort Collins contains a lot of qualitative language pertaining to the river. Staff desired to apply the qualitative language to budget and policy decisions made regarding the river corridor. Staff desired a better science-based understanding to present to the organization and the community for a sustainable river. The modeling team consisted of individuals from Colorado State University (CSU), United Stated Geological Survey (USGS), United States Forest Service (USFS), and the Nature Conservancy. These individuals worked mostly volunteer hours on the project. Background Information Ms. Shanahan began the presentation by referencing several documents that contain language pertaining to the river, including the 2011 City Plan, the 2011 Poudre River Natural Areas Management Plan Update, and Stormwater Master Planning and Floodplain Administrative documents. Why are we doing this? Ms. Shanahan gave three reasons for the ecosystem modeling: • Resilience o Resilience is the ability of an ecosystem to receive disturbances and maintain the same components. • Sustainability o Humans cannot create ecosystems or wetlands. Since certain native species do not thrive when planted, humans have to create an environment where these plants can sustain on their own. • Community Asset o The Poudre River is a community asset in many ways, including environmentally, economically, and socially. Regional Projects Ms. Shanahan listed several applications for the model, including a quantitative understanding of the ecological needs of the river as related to the proposed dam projects, a dialogue on what the community wants, new studies and new data, sensible planning with instream flow acquisition, and specific management and planning of lands in the floodplain. Board Member Bovee moved that the Water Board recommend to City Council approval of the changes to City Code which would allow the Utilities Executive Director to approve the water and sewer services for carriage houses to connect to the principal dwelling on the property. Board Member Goldbach seconded the motion. Water Board Minutes February 16, 2012 8 Building a Model—Concerns Ms. Shanahan listed several concerns with the model, including that the natural native processes are not working, that the aquatic habitat is increasingly degraded downstream, and the diversions and volatility of flows downstream. Building a Model—Opportunities Ms. Shanahan listed several opportunities with the model, including a heightened focus on the river and the fact that the river is valued by the community. Transition Zone Ms. Shanahan stated the project has been a challenge because of the river’s various transition and diversion zones. There will be trade-offs when prioritizing projects. How are we doing this? Ms. Shanahan listed the individuals involved on the team as noted above. The original intent was to build a Bayesian model from the canyon mouth to the Town of Windsor, but most of the data available is for the urban reach (from Overland Trail to Interstate 25). There are several diversions within this reach. Expectations for the model Ms. Shanahan stated the model is expected to provide an integrated view of how flow and management will affect the Poudre ecosystem. It will also inform how future changes in policy and management could affect the ecosystem condition. The model is not expected to provide detailed predictions of outcomes or provide results that are highly prescriptive about what exactly is needed. It will not go “head-to-head” with Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). Bayesian Network Ms. Shanahan elaborated on the concept of a Bayesian model. This is a probabilistic graphical model that represents a set of random variables and their conditional dependencies via a directed acyclic graph. Ms. Shanahan listed the pros and cons and presented a series of graphs and flowcharts detailing the model. Ms. Shanahan also presented a model on brown trout in the Poudre River. Remaining Plan Ms. Shanahan stated that staff hopes to complete a draft version of the model by spring. Several potential future flow scenarios will be run to evaluate long-term trends. The draft findings will be presented to Council at the end of March. She listed the details of the preliminary runs: • Three reaches (highly confined, moderately confined, and channel movement) • Five biological parameters (native fish, brown trout, riparian vegetation, aquatic insects, and nutrients) • Associated descriptions • All summarized into scenarios/handouts Board discussion: How does this model fit with the stormwater master planning? Mr. Haukaas stated Utilities is involved in the model from the standpoint of point sources, non-point sources, and water management. Mr. Haukaas noted the CSU study on Stream Health Assessment is also part of the stormwater master planning. Water Board Minutes February 16, 2012 9 Is the analysis run at a single point on the river or is it one analysis for the whole river? Mr. Stokes stated most of the analysis is run from diversion point to diversion point, focusing on Overland Trail to Interstate 25. A board member suggested elaborating on the output boxes in the Network flowchart (for example, a drop in invertebrates will have certain results). He suggested that more explanation may provide value for Council. A board member suggested “recreation/city utilization” should be listed as an output. Ms. Shanahan stated recreation was originally listed as an output but it was removed because it did not seem appropriate to add to the ecological model. How would the process be affected if the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) was approved? Ms. Shanahan stated the modeling process would not change. Mr. Stokes stated it does not affect the modeling; however, staff would have access to more data when the supplemental draft is released for NISP. Staff is considering integrating this information into the modeling when it becomes it available. Is there interest to present the modeling for peer review? Ms. Shanahan stated the modeling needs to be presented to Council first. Mr. Stokes stated staff would like to publish the results of the study for feedback. A board member mentioned the Halligan Reservoir discussion as part of the Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (WSDMP) update presented last year. The board member suggested that since specific demand levels have been defined, they could be utilized to represent potential scenarios for ecological modeling. A board member asked for clarification that the modeling will not be used to make comments on NISP. Mr. Stokes stated the model was not built to respond to any project. When the initial phase of the model is completed, staff will look at the model to determine if it is working and how it can be improved; however it is not driven by projects such as NISP. Is this equivalent to the Best Management Practices (BMP) process used by Stormwater? Mr. Stokes stated there are opportunities for Stormwater and Natural Areas to integrate projects such as improving stormwater management and habitat objections on the river. Vice Chairperson Balderson stated the long-term perspective (30-50 years) matches with the concept of sustainability. A board member suggested this model should be peer-reviewed to bring credibility to the project. Meeting Conduct (Attachments available upon request). Deputy City Attorney Carrie Daggett presented information on this item to provide an overview of basic rules of procedure and order for Water Board meetings. The City’s Boards and Commissions Manual suggests that boards use Robert’s Rules of Order as a guide for meeting procedures; however, this may not always be practical for the board to use. Since the Water Board is a quasi-judicial decision making board, it is particularly important for the board to follow rules of procedure. Water Board Minutes February 16, 2012 10 Ms. Daggett reminded the board members they should clearly state their motions since the Boards and Commissions Manual states motions should be represented verbatim in the minutes. She suggested the board may choose to adopt the rules of order by motion, or they may choose to amend the bylaws. This item will be added to a future agenda. Board’s Role (City Charter)/Utilities Vision for the Future Mr. Janonis asked the board members to review the Water Board’s purpose and scope found in their member manuals. He also gave highlights from the recent Council Retreat. Council discussed the purpose of the boards and commissions and would like the boards to be at the “30,000 foot level.” They also requested the board members look at the Council agenda since Council relies on the Water Board as an advisory type of board. They would like the board’s input on particular items. The board’s opinions and comments can be expressed in the minutes or in memo format. The board chairperson initiates the memo based on input from the staff liaison. Council would also like to see board members at Council meetings where critical issues are being discussed. Ms. Daggett reminded the board they should not speak on behalf of the board unless the board has directed them to do so. Mr. Janonis also stated he is working with the Council Futures Committee. They are looking at the roles of boards throughout the City. Some boards may be combined, but this should not impact the Water Board. New Committee Recruitment and Committee Reports Vice Chairperson Balderson opened the floor for new board members to express which committees they are interested in joining and to provide the opportunity for existing board members to change their committee membership if they so desire. Conservation and Public Education Committee (Board Member Phelan): No report. This committee will meet in March. Engineering Committee (Board Member Balderson): Committee Chair Balderson e-mailed a summary to the board members from the February 1 meeting. This committee will meet March 7 to discuss the Stormwater Master Plan. This item will be presented to Council in April. Legislative, Finance, and Liaison Committee (Board Member Goldbach): Committee Chair Goldbach gave an update on the graywater legislation and the Clean Water Bill. Both of these bills have been postponed indefinitely. Council Liaison Wade Troxell would like to attend a committee meeting in the near future. Committee Chair Goldbach will poll the members to determine potential meeting times. Water Supply Committee: No report. Board Member Bovee has volunteered to chair this committee. He will poll the members to determine potential meeting times. Staff Reports Monthly Water Resources Report Water Resources Engineer Donnie Dustin provided this report for the agenda packet. Nutrient Rulemaking Hearing Regulatory and Government Affairs Manager Carol Webb gave an update on this item. The responsive prehearing statement has been filed on the City’s behalf for the Nutrient Rulemaking Hearing. There were three main statements made in the response, including support of the direct use water supply designation. This adds special protection to direct use water supplies such as Horsetooth Reservoir. Utilities asked for slight adjustments to numeric limitations that the Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) proposed. Utilities also asked for numeric limitations based on basic biological nutrient removal technology. The division proposal was based on this technology but with the possibility of adding chemicals. The hearing is scheduled for March 12 - 14. Other Business None Future Agenda Items Mr. Janonis requested that copies of CounciFs Six-Month Agenda Planning Calendar be available at each board meeting. These will not be included in the packet since the calendar changes frequently. Vice Chairperson Balderson stated Officer Elections will be held during the March meeting. Board Member Malers expressed interest in the Vice Chairperson position; however, he will not be present at the March meeting due to Spring Break. Mr. Janonis stated board members are not required to be present at the meeting to be elected. Another board member should make the nomination. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Submitted by Harriet Davis, Administrative Assistant, Fort Collins Utilities Approved by the Board on th 1 ,2012 Signed: Board Secretary Date Water Board Minutes 11 February 16. 2012