Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Mail Packet - 6/14/2016 - Meeting Notes From Regional Water Collaboration Workshop - May 31, 2016Utilities electric · stormwater · wastewater · water 700 Wood Street PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221-6700 970.221.6619 fax  V/TDD: 711 utilities@fcgov.com fcgov.com/utilities Meeting Notes REGIONAL WATER COLLABORATION WORKSHOP TUESDAY, MAY 31, 2016 4:00 p.m. Canyon West Room, Lincoln Center 417 W Magnolia Street, Fort Collins, Colorado EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Workshop Purpose The purpose of the workshop was to gain commitment from elected representatives regarding what actionable steps can be taken in the near term to develop a more collaborative framework to address this region’s water future. Discussion Highlights Workshop attendees discussed opportunities and barriers for collaboration. Key themes included: Opportunities: 1. Address inefficiencies in the current system by taking advantage of economies of scale 2. Provide consistent water services and value to the community and to customers 3. Create opportunities for innovation and sharing best practices 4. Sharing water supply – maximizing the use of our limited water resources 5. Shared planning to address community’s future water needs 6. Strengthen our ability to address common threats (e.g. climate change, extreme drought, fire, flood, exportation of water supply from our basin) Barriers: 1. Trust and loss of control – dilute voices of elected officials 2. Having winners/losers in collaboration 3. Lack of alignment on values, policies, priorities, and politics 4. Differences in culture 5. Cost of collaboration for some providers Path Forward All participants agreed that collaboration was worth pursuing. The attendees agreed to form an ad hoc Steering Committee consisting of:  Two officials from each water district board  Two officials from City Council  A water manager designee for each water provider Charge of the Steering Committee: 1. Develop a charter to address opportunities/barriers identified in discussion. 2. Provide charter to plenary group for approval (all boards present) – timeline approximately 30 days 3. Identify costs of further exploring collaboration 4. Identify and invite to the committee reps from public sector, private sector, research/university (as deemed appropriate) COMPREHENSIVE NOTES FROM WORKSHOP WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS Fort Collins Mayor Wade Troxell welcomed invited attendees (see attached list) and 43 members of the public. He thanked City of Fort Collins Councilmembers and water district general managers and board members for participating in this discussion about water supply in the City of Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA), and ways in which they can collaborate. He said he hoped everyone would feel comfortable expressing their thoughts and ideas. Attendees introduced themselves to the group. The facilitator was Todd Bryan, Ph.D, Senior Program Manager of Collaborative Decision Resources. He has lived in Colorado for 26 years. PURPOSE OF MEETING AND GROUND RULES Water Resources and Treatment Operations Manager Carol Webb of Fort Collins Utilities summarized the reason for the meeting: because we all serve customers and residents in the City of Fort Collins Growth Management Area, and there are opportunities to leverage our strengths, identify common goals, and collaborate on challenges. Theme: Is there enough common ground within this group to move forward with a collaborative structure, such as a water authority, and discuss opportunities and barriers? Ground Rules  Get to the point  Stay on point  Offer alternatives instead of criticisms  Show respect for people and their ideas OVERVIEW OF THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS Carol Webb, Water Resources and Treatment Operations Manager (see PowerPoint presentation)  “I hope everyone realizes we do have existing partnerships, and we want to leverage those collaborations.”  Rising Water Prices: 250% increase in the past few years; $7,000 per share for Colorado- Big Thompson Canyon today.  Aging Infrastructure requires capital planning, budget requests, discussions on how to maintain and replace aging infrastructure.  Shared Environment  Common Challenges  Common Goals  Existing Partnerships ADVANTAGES OF COLLABORATION  What challenges does collaboration hope to address?  What opportunities does collaboration hope to offer?  Who wins with a collaborative governance structure?  Consistency  Redundant infrastructure  Interconnectedness  Economy of scale in treatment facilities o Efficiency o Selling water to districts, take it to the next level  Trust is Needed o Building trust among the districts and trust among City Council, bury hatchets, build trust among Council and staff so that we can then get the work done  Build on Past Cooperation  We’ve been able to work together on Pleasant Valley Pipeline, it’s a win-win situation for all; we couldn’t have done it ourselves.  Tangible outcome of meeting  Hope that we can walk away from this with some kind of agreement, and come up with a target goal that’s specific, attainable, and measureable; a tangible outcome of the meeting.  Common sense o Rick Pickard, North Weld County Water District: Our need to be here is to speak on the sharing of water treatment plants, namely Soldier Canyon Filter Plant. We went through a process 1.5 years ago to consider a water authority; it was met with disapproval by NWCWD. We’re not in favor of our plant becoming a peaking plant. We provide water at the cheapest anywhere in Colorado that we’re aware of. Any discussion of the filter plant will definitely get our attention.  Redundancy o We do have redundancy right now, because we have duplication of efforts; collaboration eliminates redundancy.  Innovation and Scale o There’s been confusion about water conservation programs. We all have opportunities for innovation as we think about our land use and building code. Sharing best practices. Thinking of it from a systems perspective.  Agree that it’s a common sense view. We have a responsibility to collaborate because it makes so much sense. We have to do it going forward.  Redundancy  Innovation and Scale o Land Use o Building Codes o Best Practices  Costs-Efficiency  Natural environment, quality of life, water quality o We can talk about enhancing all three o We have lots of capacity between those two plants and we’re not using it to its full advantage. o General public is upset with government at all levels, frustration that they’re charging too much.  Without the details about what we’re collaborating on, it’s difficult to make a decision. We all want to protect the natural environment, protect the quality of life for the people who are living here, and water quality.  Sharing best practices; synergy  Consistent among all districts: pride in the services they provide; working at the highest level possible; treat and deliver at the most efficient level possible  Combining storage. City of Fort Collins has substantial amount of water rights that were bought early, but don’t have enough water storage;  How important long-range planning is to our community. It took years to develop these systems to move water. Collaboration is essential for public servants.  Environmental help and climate change, consistent rebate policies, more robust comprehensive Benefits of long-range planning - Shared  Common challenges o Climate Change o Common/consistent message to citizens o Enough supply  Discussion with Council grew from question do we have enough water supply to accommodate the growth we expect to see in the GMA. o Maximize limited resource  Figure out how to maximize use of existing resource; we’ll be in a real pinch if a water district runs out of water  Jon Haukaas: The purpose of our collaboration is for the customer. What is the customer getting? Every one of us could be considered “best in class” and the concern is we’re doing it all separately. We have interconnections, we have those fail-safes in place, but the day to day what the customer gets is the goal for collaboration.  There is potential here today. How can we expand those programs the City offers to their residents to others in the GMA, plus additional programs: toilets, etc. as we look to manage this very limited resource in the future? o Serving customer base o Expand programs o Idea of resiliency o Drought and emergency protection o High level of trust at staff level CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS o What are the greatest concerns with a collaborative approach? o What are the key obstacles to a more collaborative structure? o Are there losers with a collaborative structure?  Who’s getting the benefits and who’s paying the costs?  Concern about losing some of the benefits  Loss of control  Who pays?  Dilute voice of elected officials  May artificially encourage growth  Need enduring alignment  Postponing needed work o Paralysis by analysis because we have so many participants  Jumping to conclusions too quickly  Don’t lose sight of customer o High quality, low cost  Need a process to propel us forward to next steps  Carol Webb: At City of Fort Collins, we have high level of service, we have 7 key priorities that we pay attention to, per City Council, where we have shared values, then you can collaborate  Policies may not be consistent o Values may be consistent or not  Differences in culture o Residential vs agricultural  Closing Soldier Canyon  More $/1000 gals for some  Makes sense to collaborate on common goals, but needs to be an allowance, respect for differences of opinion  Difference in values, policies, culture, politics - Need respect  Difference in growth potential in different districts  How do we assess those assets and bring in a potential authority  Costs are distributed unevenly. Investments in capital  Firm yield – dramatic drought. o Essential that we plan for future o Federal action o Future – permitting process  Common threats o Loss of the resource o Drought, flood, fire  Mike DiTullio: Fort Collins has a better portfolio than the rest of us. We’re relying on Colorado-Big Thompson (C-BT) water now. There will be a loss of control. Delivery of water.  Enduring alignment is important for long-term outcomes.  Ag/Urban Cooperation o Legislation o Innovation – new tools o Water Quality  Water districts – lack storage, senior water rights  Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP): we’re at odds on NISP before we get started on some topics Are there potential losers with a collaborative structure?  Citizens if elected officials diminish authority – influence  Job loss o One of the deal-breakers was around redundant staffing. Some people would lose out.  Let’s set this up so we don’t have losers. Let’s find common ground and start small. o Consistency, drought-planning  Fairness for ratepayers o Who pays? Who wins? Will it cost some districts more than others? Who subsidizes?  Trust – is it a barrier among the entities around the table? o High level of trust at staff level o Varying levels of trust for district boards o District boards stay in place for a long time o City Council changes quickly  People exiting workforce  Hiring, maintaining, growing workforce  How to be more competitive  Growth distribution o Growth is east of I-25, east of the fairgrounds, south of Harmony Road to 57 th St, Timnath growing rapidly (Costco, Super Walmart)  It’s in our best interest to work together as elected officials  Trust  Give thought to why outlying water districts were formed, and their contribution o Need tact o Areas outside GMA  Difference in tap fees – how to resolve o Fairness? o Cost of raw water, $19,000 difference  City of Fort Collins Utilities staff: we’ll have some extra cost today to benefit the future, what’s going to happen to water providers not just in the next five years but next 50 years and beyond.  How do we show benefits of increased costs to citizens?  Are costs and benefits distributed  Complexity  Scott Baker: Growth neutral  What are the market forces? o Value difference?  Question to City: is it right to sell water at cost way below the market?  How do districts accommodate non-district paradigms?  Average cost model vs marginal cost model  Sincerity?  Is it fair to charge less than market? When?  Is it fair for utility to charge more than they need to?  NISP o Different positions by City and districts  Different management philosophies  Trust o 1962 districts formed because City wouldn’t provide service outside GMA PATH FORWARD – OPTIONS FOR A MORE COLLABORATIVE STRUCTURE Brainstorming session - What does a collaborative framework look like? Which issues might it address? Options  How much GMA can Fort Collins cover with existing water rights?  How were new rate payers dealt with in the past relative to the new service area?  Identify small projects that benefit customers and present opportunities  Look at past projects involving collaboration  Joint project to lower water rates, i.e. infrastructure o Within existing customer base  Joint project to bring excess capacity to customers  Joint staff effort o Work together o City staff and water district managers meet every two months. o Need direction  Joint project to examine “what if” scenario planning  Study of treatment authority might be expanded to include raw water. Dealing with greater constituency. Continue discussion.  Are electric utilities a good model of collaboration? o Well-defined service areas  Treatment is good model for collaboration.  City could consider long-term leasing capacity  Start with water treatment, then scale up Structure Moving Forward  Is a collaborative effort worth pursuing? If so, what are next steps? o Yes (All but two raised hands because they want specificity, details. They later joined in unanimous support for collaboration.)  Structure o Suggestion for ad hoc Steering Committee. Each board nominate:  Two people from water districts  Two from City Council  Colorado State University  Triple-helix approach: Public sector, private sector, research/university  Strong intersections to move forward  Expand across university: representatives of environmental, social to integrate all that are valuable to people in this room o Designee in charge of water will be part of this committee o Need numbers/finance people in the group because numbers have stopped collaboration efforts in the past  Water Solutions Institute  Innovation  Plenary group duties o How often? o This group  What the group’s charge? Plenary group, not work group. o Explore possible topics o Informal structure to periodically review this framework TASKS AND TIMEFRAME FOR ADDRESSING QUESTIONS Who Does What Next?  Focusing on raw water, water treatment, and draft charter  Innovation, looking to the future Charge of the group  Form group  Make charter draft  Bring to plenary  Identify costs  Create timeline for forming group  Within 30 days, ad hoc group presents draft charter to present to boards  Include costs  Collaborative process QUESTIONS FOR STAFF  Suggestion: City staff draft what they think task is, one page memo to Council within one week APPRECIATION  City Manager Darin Atteberry o Acknowledge good work o Optimistic about conversations tonight o Thank you to Fort Collins Utilities Staff: Executive Director Kevin Gertig, Water Resources and Treatment Operations Manager Carol Webb, and Water Resources Manager Donnie Dustin o Round of applause for Mike DiTullio, who recently retired from Fort Collins- Loveland Water District as general manager  Mayor Wade Troxell o Thanks to water district boards for frank discussion; build on that going forward, water districts all serve customers so well ADJOURN