HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 3/18/2013
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES
Name of Board l Commission: Water Resources Advisory Board
Date of Meeting: IS March 2013
Contact Information of Person Preparing Minutes: Laurel Olsen-Horen; 303-441-3203
Board Members Present: Susan Iott, Chuck Howe (departed at 10:16 p.m.], Dan Johnson, Vicki
Scharnhorst
Board Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Bob Harberg, Engineering Project Management Coordinator
Bret Linenfelser, Water Quality and Environmental Services Coordinator
Joe Taddeucci, Water Resources Coordinator
Christie Coleman, Engineering Project Manager
Annie Noble, Greenways Coordinator
Craig Skeie, Water Resources Facilities Manager
Russ Sands, Water Conservation Manager
Ken Baird, Financial Manager
Kaaren Davis, Board Secret
Meeting Type: Regular
Agenda Item I Call to Order 17:03 p.m.]
This meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m.
Agenda Item 2 - Approval of the 25 February 2013 Meeting Minutes: 17:03 p.m.]
Motion to approve the 28 December minutes as presented by: Howe; Seconded by: Scharnhorst
Motion Passes; 4:0
Agenda Item 3 - Public Participation and Comment 17:09 p.m.]
Public Comment: None
Agenda Item 4 - Continuation- Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation for thresholds
for a recreational boating Program on Barker Reservoir. [7:I7p.m.]
Jeff Arthur presented item to the board. Item was deferred until after Agenda item 5 but before agenda item
6. There was a pause in action at the beginning of the item while the board read the synopsis presented.
Executive Summary from Packet Materials:
No memo was produced as this item was a continuation from the prior meeting. Staff produced the
following synopsis of February's discussion for the approval and comment of the board:
Public Comment: 17:29 p.m.]
• Arden Buck of Nederland (Submission by email): Expresses opposition to boating on
Barker Reservoir in the town of Nederland. Mr. Buck believes that if a proposal were
forwarded to the Board of Trustees, it would stand a substantial chance of being turned
down. There is anger among residents that a handful of enthusiasts, including two
officials, are attempting to push it through without acknowledging this opposition. Mr.
Buck asserts that the often-cited town survey has major flaws and is not an accurate
indication of public opinion.
WRAB Discussion Included: [7:34 p.m.I
• That it would be helpful to include an item under "sustainability" regarding verification of
enough support amongst the citizens of Nederland to ensure long-tcm support for the
program.
• Any proposal should include a balance between overall risk and benefit of the program to the
City of Boulder.
• Clarification on how Boulder Reservoir standards for ANS control were established.
WRAB Minutes
18 March 2013
Page No. I
Motion by Johnson, seconded by Howe: See full text of motion and thresholds below "vote".
Vote: 4:0 Motion Passes
Motion to recommend that the following "WRAB Thresholds Summary" be addressed in the
evaiuation of a Town of Nederland proposal for a recreational non-motorized boating program on
Barker Reservoir.
WRAB Thresholds Summary:
The Water Resources Advisory Board, at the request of City Council, has considered "thresholds" for a
potential recreational non-motorized boating program on Barker Reservoir. The WRAB recognizes the
recreational benefits that a boating program would provide. The WRAB also recognizes that development
and management of such a program in a manner generally consistent with comparable city programs will
entail significant costs. The WRAB further recognizes that if a proposal is to be prepared by the Town of
Nederland, it is important to fairly and adequately assess the risks and benefits to the City of Boulder, to
communicate the city's general requirements, concerns, and expectations at the outset, so that the Town of
Nederland can make informed decisions on the development and submittal of a proposal. The WRAB does
not support dedicating resources from the Water Utility Enterprise fund for development or management of
a recreational boating program and recommends that only minimal staff resources be dedicated to review of
a proposal. The WRAB does not consider review of a boating proposal to be a higher priority than existing
work program items. Should City Council decide to prioritize review of a boating proposal, WRAB
recommends that such a proposal address the following general thresholds:
1. Safety - The boating proposal should provide a thorough analysis of safety and security relative to
recreational non-motorized boating at Barker Reservoir. The reservoir is currently under Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission jurisdiction. Prior to finalization of a license exemption, any
proposal would, at a minimum, be subject to FERC requirements. Should an exemption be
approved, any proposal should still address FF,RC recreation, public safety and security
requirements. With or without an exemption, the proposal should address emergency response
and should provide a comparative safety analysis, including evaluation of acceptable accident and
death frequency, to other reservoirs (city-owned and non-city-owned such as Denver Water) that
provide recreational boating. Because Barker Dam vulnerability assessments and security plans
are confidential in nature, staff would need to evaluate the proposal to determine the adequacy of
the existing security plan with regard to any concerns attributable to a boating program.
Additional security measures, if needed, could result in increased program costs.
2. Water Quality - The boating proposal will need to present a detailed plan to monitor and address
potential water quality impacts including risks associated with aquatic nuisance species. At a
minimum, the proposal will need to present a plan for both short-term and long-term inspection,
monitoring and reporting to the city for aquatic nuisance species, and monitoring and reporting
other pertinent water quality parameters, including identification of roles and responsibilities. The
city's Boulder Reservoir aquatic nuisance species program and monitoring program should be
used as a general guide for minimum standards. The short-term water quality monitoring program
should present steps for establishing baseline water quality information so that effects can be
considered with and without boating. The proposal should present plans for meeting city and state
water quality requirements and should address consistency with other city facilities where
recreational boating is allowed.
3. Program Development and Management - The boating proposal should present a
comprehensive plan for program management. In terms of program development, strong
consideration should be given to involving third-party consultants with relevant experience and
expertise. The proposal should provide a comparative analysis to other reservoirs (city-owned and
non-city-owned such as Denver Water) that provide recreational boating. WRAB's expectation
would be that the management plan would present an approach consistent with a city-managed
program and should include provisions for items such as training and certification. The plan
should identify the organizational structure and should clarify roles and responsibilities.
4. Liability - The boating proposal should present a careful and complete analysis of liability
prepared by an individual or firm with appropriate professional qualifications. WRAB's
expectation is that the proposal would address liability and insurance at the Town of Nederland's
sole expense and that the Town of Nederland would indemnify the city from any damages, losses,
claims or expenses that result fi-om the boating program. The plan should provide a comparative
analysis to other boating programs in the state with respect to liability, risk management and
insurance issues. The proposed plan to address liability will be subject to review and comment
WRAB Minutes
18 March 2013
Page No. 2
from the City Attorney's Office at which time additional legal considerations may he identified.
5. CostlSustainability - The boating proposal should be prepared by the Town of Nederland and
should present a detailed plan and budget. The plan should present an analysis of usage and
projected costs, fees, and revenue in a way that can support the program at the Town of
Nederland's sole expense. The proposal should identify any associated resource impacts above
current city expenditures, including staff time, and present a plan for compensation to the city.
The proposal should include a detailed budget that describes the long term financial viability of
the program. Should the boating program be terminated for any reason, the proposal should
address plans to end the program inclusive of measures to prevent further boating use.
6. Other - The proposal should include a discussion of any potential benefits to the City of Boulder
(e.g., number of projected boaters from Boulder, regional collaboration, recreation, environmental
benefits, water quality education, etc.). The proposal should also present a plan for development
of an intergovernmental agreement.
Agenda Item 5 - Public hearing and consideration of recommendation to City Council regarding the
adoption of a Critical Facilities Ordinance. 17:12 p.m.]
Jeff Arthur and Christie Coleman presented item to the board. The item was presented and discussed before
Agenda Item 4 (Boating on Barker).
Executive Summary from Packet Materials:
The City of Boulder is proposing an ordinance to increase flood protection for facilities that offer lodging,
and for critical facilities that provide essential services, serve at-risk populations, or contain hazardous
materials. This ordinance requires lodging facilities to develop an emergency management plan and critical
facilities to both develop an emergency management plan and implement flood protection measures. The
proposed requirements would help reduce the risk to life and safety, ensure continuous service, minimize
infrastructure damage and reduce environmental contamination following a major flood event.
In 2011, WRAB and Planning Board recommended approval of a draft critical facilities flood ordinance.
City Council subsequently raised concerns about the ordinance's potential impact on the business
community. At a May 29, 2012 flood study session, City Council expressed support for continuing
development of the ordinance and provided the following feedback:
• Minimize impacts to nonprofits and small businesses
• Avoid conflicts between height restrictions and elevation requirements
• Structure ordinance to clearly reflect the impacted uses
At the June 2012 WRAB meeting, staff gave an update on the outcome of the flood study session, and in
September 2012, staff presented a summary of City Council's feedback and staff's anticipated next steps.
On December 17, 2012, staff presented an update on the ordinance and asked WRAB to assess proposed
modifications to address City Council's feedback. No significant concerns were identified and WRAB was
generally supportive of scheduling an agenda item to make a formal recommendation to City Council.
Staff has continued to refine the ordinance to improve its organization and incorporate public feedback.
Portions of the ordinance have been relocated from the floodplain management section of the Boulder
Revised Code, 1981, to a section focused on development standards- Another change, based on feedback
from a facility manager, provides a two year time frame for completing levee modifications. Outside of
these changes, the substance of the regulations remains substantially the same as discussed in December.
Public Comment: [7:17 p.m.]
• None
WRAB Discussion Included: [7:16 p.m.]
• WRAB had no questions for staff.
Motion by Scharnhorst, Seconded by Howe: Motion to recommend adoption of an ordinance
amending Chapter 9-3, "Overlay Districts," Chapter 9-9 "Development Standards," and Section 9-
16-1 "Definitions," B.R.C 1981, in substantially the same form as what is included in the WRAB
packet as Attachment A.
WRAB Minutes
18 March 2013
Page No. 3
Vote: 4:0 Motion Passes
Agenda Item 6 - Information Item - Update on Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Water
Budgets. 18:48 p.m.]
The item was presented by Russ Sands , Jeff Arthur and Seth Jansen with Brendle Group. There was a
Powerpoint presentation.
Executive Summary from Packet Materials:
When water budgets were implemented in 2007 they were intended to equitably link monthly
water allotments with water efficiency. While single family, multifamily and outdoor water
budgets were set using informed efficiency levels, the Commercial, Industrial and Institutional
(CII) sector was less straightforward. Given the complexities of the Cll sector, historic water use
was used to determine CII water budgets regardless of whether the historic use had been efficient
or inefficient. Upon implementation of water budgets in 2007, and amidst subsequent C11 budget
changes in 2008, City Council directed staff to continue evaluating if an efficiency-based,
equitable CII water budget could be developed.
With WRAB guidance, staff initiated a CII water budget pilot study in 2009 to identify what, if
any, water efficiency-based alternatives could be developed and implemented. In 2011, staff
developed a CII water budget approach that combined statistical benchmarks and water audits
into a single "Combined Approach." With WRAB's support, staff has moved forward with a
deeper analysis of how and if this methodology could be used to establish new CTT water
budgets.
Through 2012 staff continued to analyze the Combined Approach, focusing most heavily on the
benchmarking methodology- the more data intensive component. Now, with sub-sector
benchmarks identified, initial revenue impacts analyzed and water audits ready to test, staff is
providing WRAB with an update on progress to date. Staff plans to continue testing and refining
the Combined Approach through 2013 in order to bring a final recommendation hack to WRAB
in early 2014.
WRAB Discussion Included: Consideration of the following questions from staff. [10.04 p.m.]
• Does WRAB have any questions or concerns with the benchmarking analysis?
o Revenue neutral approach is preferable.
• Does WRAB have any questions, concerns or specific direction for water audits?
o Should perhaps look at implementing the audit system for residential users as well as CII
users.
o Audits should be free. They are a good tool towards doing the right thing, but cost could
be considered punitive.
• Is there specific financial analysis WRAB would like to see in future presentations?
o Recommend the 75th and 85's percentile as levels for analysis going forward.
o Make sure whatever method we use is not so punitive towards business that it causes
business exodus.
• Is WRAB supportive of having staff continue exploring the Combined Approach?
o Combined approach seems like a good approach to a thorough and equitable system.
o Methodology combining benchmarking and audits seems efficient.
WRAB Comments Included:
• Current usages for CII water and what/whether there are goals for where it should be.
• This should be published as it is an invaluable contribution to the field. Boulder is leading the
way.
Motion: No official action was requested of the board at this time.
Agenda Item 7 - Matters 18:39 p.m.]
Jumped to this item prior to agenda item 6.
From Staff: (8:39 p.m.)
WRAB Minutes
18 March 2013
Page No. 4
• Staff- Update Snow-Pack: Snow pack is running about 70% of average. Have been getting good
dense snows in the watershed. Expecting a good storm this weekend or next week. We are still too
early to make good projections. We will bring a comprehensive update to the WRAB in April.
Overall reservoir storage is about 110% of what it would normally be for this time of year.
• Council has appointed new WRAB members; Mark Squillace (5-year term) and F.d Clancy (2 year
term). If any current members have ideas about useful orientation materials for new members,
please let staff know.
• 2 press releases and fix a leak week related to water budgets and water conservation efforts.
• Rebates targeting high water usage users- Get a fine toilet.
• New meter updates- (1:46 track 4) J.eak checks
• New "Water Wise" flyer. Watershed tour.
From the Board: [10:18 p.m.]
• Scharnhorst: AWWA article regarding sensitivity around rate increases was interesting.
Recommended reading for staff.
• Iott: Requested Windy gap/Gross stream reservoir in-stream flow update.
WRAB member Howc departed at 10:16 .m.
Agenda Item 8 - Discussion on Future Schedule [10:28 p.m.]
• Officer Election
• Budget Office
• E. Coli TMDL Update (information item)- Move to May or June
• Function for Kate and Susan
• Thanks to Susan for her excellent service to the WRAB.
Agenda Item 9-Adjournment [10:32 p.m.]
There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, by motion regularly adopted, the
meeting was adjourned at 10:32 p.m_
Motion to adjourn by: Scharnhorst; Seconded by: Johnson
Motion Passes 3:0
Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting:
The next WRAB meeting will be April 15, 2013 at 7:00 p.m., in the 1777 West Conference Room of the
city Municipal Building located at 1777 Broadway, unless otherwise decided b staff and the Board.
APPROVED BY: n'1 TESED BY:
,7
1 f
Board Chair Board Secretary
Date Date ~J
An audio recording of the full meeting for which these minutes are a summary, is available on the Water
Resources Advisory Board web page.
WRAB Minutes
18 March 2013
Page No. 5