Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2 - Minutes, 12/15/03 CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING SUMMARY FORM NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Water Resources Advisory Board DATE OF MEETING: Dec. 15, 2003 NAME/TELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY: Robin Madel, 303-441-4073 NAMES OF MEMBERS, COUNCIL, STAFF AND INVITED GUESTS PRESENT: BOARD MEMBERS – Robert Fiehweg, Ken Wilson, Jim Knopf, Gil Barth, Jeannette Hillery STAFF – Ned Williams, Robin Madel, Randy Earley, Rob Anderson (McLaughlin Water Engineers), Bob Harberg, Ridge Dorsey, Floyd Bebbler, Paul Heppler, Douglas Sullivan, Chris Rudkin, Joanna Crean, Carol Linn, Paul Lander, Tom Gould (EES) WHAT TYPE OF MEETING (BOLD ONE) [REGULAR] [SPECIAL] [QUASI-JUDICIAL] Agenda Item 1 – Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:10 p.m. Agenda Item 2 – Meeting Minutes Meeting minutes from Oct. 20, 2003. Jeannette Hillery motioned to approved the minutes from Oct. 20, 2003. Jim Knopf seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. Meeting minutes from Nov. 17, 2003. Jeannette Hillery motioned to approve the minutes from Nov. 17, 2003. Jim Knopf seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. Agenda Item 3 – General Public Participation There was none. General Public Participation was closed. Agenda Item 4 - Public hearing and WRAB recommendation on the Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) for the Zone 1 Water Transmission Line Project. Randy Earley reviewed the background, alignment, project goals and major impacts (all temporary) of the pipeline project. Earley reviewed the issues raised by two groups within the city. The Open Space and Mountain Parks Department has concerns with the staff preferred alignment because of issues with prairie dog relocation and salt march disturbance. The alignment that OSMP would prefer costs $70K more than the preferred alignment. The Water Quality group raised concerns about potential groundwater contamination from several underground storage tanks in the area that are known to have leaked. The project crew will conduct soil borings to evaluate the presence of contaminants. Earley said that none of the issues raised are major. In addition to the information that was presented at the November 2003 WRAB meeting, the staff held a public meeting on Nov. 7, 2003. Public participation was small. The staff asked the WRAB to recommend approval of Option C but with the ability to negotiate with OSMP to change to Option A, the staff preferred alignment. WRAB Questions WRAB questions included the anticipated schedule for completing the construction. Jeannette Hillery motioned to recommend that the utility staff pursue Option C but with continued negotiation with the Open Space Department to look at Option A. Ken Wilson seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. Agenda Item 5 – Public hearing and WRAB recommendation on Boulder Revised Code modifications to Local Limits for Industrial Pretreatment which may affect wastewater discharges from certain commercial or industrial customers. Ridge Dorsey provided background onthis issue. The state issued permit requires that new local limits be set for wastewater producers. The city has created a new ordinance to address the permit requirements. The ordinance has been approved by the EPA Region 8 and will be presented to the city council for approval. The new limits are rd St. Water Treatment Plant) would more stringent than past limits. Currently all but one of the city’s facilities (63 meet the limits. The staff held a public meeting in November 2004 at which 30 industry representatives attended. Water Resources Advisory Board Summary Minutes Dec. 15, 2003 1 Page WRAB Questions Questions covered the topics of pollutant trading, equity between dischargers, the basis for revisions and the last revisions to local limits. Jeannette Hillery motioned that the WRAB recommend that the Utilities Division go forth with the revised code for Local Limits for Pretreatment. Ken Wilson seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. Agenda Item 6 – Matters from the Staff gave an update on the Lakewood Pipeline Project. The traffic management committee will Ned Williams meet to determine whether or not construction should be allowed through the winter. There will be a neighborhood meeting in early January and then a recommendation will be made to Boulder County. Also, the city is pursuing completion of high pressure/cold water testing on both segments that were previously installed and found to not meet the city’s manufacturing specifications. Ned Williams told the board that the staff would be preparing a key issues summary for the incoming city council and he would send a copy to the WRAB once it is completed. Of the 75 citywide issues, 12 are utility-related. Randy Earley discussed work being done on the wastewater treatment plant. The project is in pre-design for improvements that will address new ammonia limits. Earley said that it would be a major project. Bob Harberg said that the CEAP will be presented to the board in the first quarter of 2004 and construction is budgeted for 2004. Matters from the Board Jeannette Hillery provided an update on the wastewater situation in Eldorado Springs. Hillery said that the town would like to receive sewer service from the city of Boulder. Boulder County will most likely set a building moratorium until the town has a vote on what to do. Williams said that this is an issue on the key issues summary under “Out of City Water/Wastewater Issues” that will be presented to the city council. discussed the lack of funding for dealing with permits and fees at the state level. Jeannette Hillery There is a bill in the legislature that would increase fees to dischargers. Hillery pointed out that the state of Colorado is the only state that does not put money into the non-point source pollution problem. Agenda Item 7 – Staff update, public comment and WRAB discussion on the Biosolids Recycling Center at the Valmont Butte Site. Ned Williams introduced the topic. He said that the staff was looking for input from the WRAB and the citizens and that no decisions would be made about the project until May or June 2004 when the project is presented to the city council. The project would be presented to the WRAB as a CEAP in February or March 2004 and then to the Planning Board in April or May 2004. Douglas Sullivan provided an update on the project since it was last presented to the board. The Alternatives Analysis and the Preliminary Design Report have been completed. Two public meetings were held in October and November 2003. Further discussion covered project issues, annexation of the site, environmental concerns and potential impacts, historic preservation of the site, project location and justification, and design and operation of the facilities. Public Participation LeeAn McGinty, 5987 Valmont Rd. Boulder , spoke about the cemetery and said that the fire department training center would not be appropriate. The Butte has been used as a religious site for Native American tribes for burial grounds and is currently used as a sweat lodge and for religious ceremonies. Wildlife is abundant and the facilities will destroy their habitat. There will also be an impact to the power plant lake nearby. Finally the Butte is on the historic register. McGinty said that Valmont has had enough. th , 75& Valmont, Boulder Nick Halsey, is a Native American and was the last caretaker of the Butte. Halsey said that he had a good view of the Butte as the caretaker. He started out wanting to help the wildlife but discovered more about the area, especially toxic waste in the area. There are ancient burial grounds and hunting grounds in the area. The area is sacred to Native Americans and there are a lot of tribes buried there. Halsey is working with the Native American Rites Fund to bring other Native American concerns to the project. The Butte is not a well Water Resources Advisory Board Summary Minutes Dec. 15, 2003 2 Page known site and the tribes that were there had to move away quickly and abruptly. The area is a center point for the whole Boulder area. Halsey said he wants the Native American leaders to identify the site as sacred and he wants to help educate and survey the area with spiritual leaders. The site needs to be preserved and alternative plans should be looked at. Carol Affleck, P.O. Box 53491, Boulder , has a non-profit organization that works on the historical background and archeology of Valmont. The Butte has been designated as a Boulder County landmark and may have cultural, ecological and geographical attributes. Affleck asked if the city wants to set this kind of precedent and asked if we would put this facility next to the Flatirons. Affleck reviewed the area’s history and said that the cemetery needs equal consideration of any other cemetery in Boulder. The Butte is a volcanic dyke and should be designated as open space. The Butte is home to wildlife, wild grasses and wild flower species. Affleck asked if the Native American tribes have been consulted. She also pointed out that the mill on top of the Butte is eligible for the National Register of Historic places. Finally, Affleck asked if there is a better place to do this. Sadhna Khalsa, 6717 Valmont, Boulder , asked why the meetings only focus on the Valmont Butte site and not on any other sites. Joy Keeter, 6739 Valmont, Boulder , said her family has lived at that site for 102 years. In the 1940’s, General Chemical had a mill going that caused contamination problems with a well at her house. General Chemical installed a new well but the wind brings tailings and dust into the town of Valmont. She also lived there when there were accidental fires. Public Participation was closed. WRAB Questions Questions covered the location of the sweat lodge, details about the tailings piles and the driving course, the level of activity at each of the sites, the source of water used at the mill and the location of an on site well, details of the plans in relation to the tailings ponds and the general movement of groundwater on the site. Additional questions covered the sites status in terms of contamination, the native American and historical information in the area, the required procedures for a resource review, the presence of nesting burrowing owls, the timeline for completion of the report and the CEAP, the current status of the site, whether any historic items exist on the site, the establishment of a working group that contains members of the Valmont community and the status of the cement company on the opposite side of the Butte. Ned Williams said that all of the issues raised at the meeting will be addressed in the CEAP and presented to the board. Individual meetings will be held to allow interaction between the staff and members of the public. The board thanked the public for their input. Further discussion covered what the city planned to do about security at the cemetery which the residents feel is inadequate. Agenda Item 8 - Staff update, public comment and WRAB discussion on the draft Utility Rate Structure Report, including a preliminary recommendation. The staff presented an update and a preliminary recommendation and announced a public meeting to be held in January 2004. Tom Gould delivered his presentation. He reviewed the rate structures and the draft rate structure report. Gould’s presentation highlighted Chapters 6 and 7 of the report. WRAB Questions WRAB questions covered how well the rate structures would do under severe drought conditions, creating a rate structure that is revenue neutral, and how the rate structures would handle homeowners association-watered lots. Public Participation Chuck Howe, Boulder, CO , commended all the participants in the study. Howe raised two issues. When lot size is used in a water budget the customer is never confronted with the marginal cost of the water. The cost needs to be continually confronted and tap fees alone aren’t enough to do that. Howe said he didn’t see any concern in the water rate report given to drought conditions. Howe feels that the existing water rate structure sufficiently handles the drought issue. Tom Gould said that drought concerns will be added into the selected rate structure and will be coordinated with asked how the marginal cost issue is addressed. Howe said that there is a correlation the drought plan. Gil Barth between water used and the cost of the water. Customers will pay higher rates more quickly if the water rate structure is designed around gallons instead of around irrigable area. 2 John Sichel, 6107 Chelsea Manor Ct., Boulder , said he is upset about a $275 water bill. His lot is 8000 ft. Sichel said it took forever to get an explanation of the block rate system. He is a single guy in a residence and Water Resources Advisory Board Summary Minutes Dec. 15, 2003 3 Page feels the city is discriminating against him. His friends suggested that he run a hose into the field behind his house. He feels taken advantage of. When he got the bill he called the water department. He finally talked to Bronwyn who explained the billing system. He had a leak and was never told about it even though a city report said that he had one. He was told to send a letter to the city to get a refund. Sichel said that the city should treat its customers like customers and charge them for what they use. He encouraged the city to come up with something better than the block system. Peter Mayer, 1339 Hawthorne, Boulder , said he has been following the study closely and the city has come a long way since the study began. He feels like his comments have been heard. He agrees with the conclusions presented by EES for single-family residences. He recommended that the city move from lot size to irrigable area. Also, commercial structures aren’t there yet in the study. It seems like the city is giving away water. He expects the study will get a lot of comments about that when it goes to the city council. Other class structures are very elegant. The metered irrigation system presented is workable but Mayer said he thinks the city will want a system that is more transparent so that all outdoor irrigation can be charged equally. th , 3030 15 St., Boulder Bill DeOreo, said that the city ought to consider taking a month to review the report because the turn around times are too short and they don’t lend themselves to thoughtful reviews. The fourth block of the water budget system is designed to be at the full marginal cost. During drought periods, margins are reduced proportionally and it is left to the customers to figure out where to save. Sichel’s situation is why the city needs a water budget. His winter consumption is so low that he gets into block 3 quickly. DeOreo recommended that the city look into water budgets for commercial accounts. Public Participation was closed. WRAB Comments Ned Williams reminded the WRAB that the staff was not looking for a recommendation from the WRAB at this meeting. WRAB discussion covered commercial structures and tap sizes and the need to create other options than those presented in the draft report. Also discussed was watering by homeowners associations for detached houses and how that would be addressed by different water rate structures. The possibility of postponing the recommendation was discussed but Williams pointed out that the January meeting is later in the month and there is time to resolve issues. There will be a public meeting to discuss the issue on January 14 and the next WRAB meeting will be January 26. Joanna Crean said that the issue would be discussed at a Chamber of Commerce meeting on January 15. The staff said that they would have all of the commercial issues resolved before the public meeting on January 14. The board thanked Tom Gould for his work on the report and they thanked the public for their input. Jim Knopf said that he does not believe that the AWC is a good thing and asked if the city was prepared to use that system next summer. Williams said that unless the city council directed the staff to do otherwise, the AWC would continue to be used. Knopf encouraged the staff to do a volunteer water budget study. He said it would provide useful info and could be very low cost. Williams said that a final report would be presented on January 26. Agenda Item 9 – Adjournment Gil Barth motioned to adjourn the meeting. Jeannette Hillery seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 10:09 p.m. Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting: Monday, Jan. 26, 2004, 7 p.m., regular meeting, at the City Municipal Services Center conference room. Minutes approved by _________________ Date _________________ Water Resources Advisory Board Summary Minutes Dec. 15, 2003 4 Page