Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Water Resources - 5/19/2003WATER R~SOURCES ADVISORY BOARD FINAL MEETING MINUT~S May 19, 2003 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Robert Fiehweg, Jim Knopf, Ken Wilson, Gil Barth, Jeannette Hillery STAFF MEMB~RS PRES~NT Ned Williams, Bob Harberg, Joanna Crean, Carol Linn, Carol Ellmghouse, Joanna Stansbury, Robm Madel, secretary, AGENDA ITEM 1 Call to Order Bob Fiehweg called Che meehng to order at 7:10 p.m. AGENDA ITEM 2 General Citizen Participation Chuck Howe, Campus Box 468, University oF Colorado at Boulder, 80309, discussed the no profit constramt on utiliries. He discussed this topic during the April meeting. Howe recerved an email from 7oe de Raismes wrth the City Attarney's Office. The email stated that fees are required to have a basis m cost Howe feels that the basis of cost has not been accurately defined m the case of Boulder water. The rate structure doesn't accurately reflect the cost of raw water. Howe said he thmks the city should get a return on the $402M of its water rights. Ken Wilson commented that m order to get a 4% return on the $402M, water rates would have to be doubled General Citizen Participation was closed. Water Resources Advisory Board Full Minutes May 19, 2003 Page 1 AGENDA ITEM 3 5taff presentation and WRAB discussion on the Barker Reservoir Boating Feasibility Study. Carol Ellm hg ouse gave a review of the background of the study. Ellmghouse said that when the Middle Boulder Creek Management Plan went to the city council they required that the staff prepare a boatmg feasibihty study A draft of that report has been prepared and is being presented for comments. Joanna Stansburv discussed the feasibility study and mtroduced the consultants that contributed to the study The consultants include Steve Walker, a landscape architect and recreation consultant, Michelle Frey, of McGuire Environmental Consultants and Kris Kranzush, a safety consultant. The study evaluated three options for non-motorized boahng which ranged from no boating on the reservoir, an mformal boating scenario and a formal boatmg scenario. The mformal scenario would mclude using the western 1/3 of the laka for small boats without trailers, the access area would remam unpaved, and there would be no safety boat on site. The formal scenario would include use of the western 2/3 of the lake, there would be a boat ramp that would allow the use of larger boats on trailers with a paved access area and there would be a safety boat on site. Provisions for concessions would be unhkely under the mformal scenario but would be hkely under the formal scenario. A safety plan would be created for both the mformal and formal scenarios Stansbury said that two public meetings had been held, one in December 2002 in Nederland and one m February 2003 m Boulder. Stansbury satd that the comments provided no consensus on what participants want to see happen. The two major concerns to the staff and the public are safety and water quality. The meehng panc~ipants didn't like the "Boat at your own risk option," and they wanted a safety system in place. The main reason is deahng with cold water safety. The mazn water quahty concern is the increased risk of human activity and mcreased iisk to the drmking waler supply for Boulder. Increased pathogen loadmg would require mitigation. Allowing mcreased activity around drmkmg water reservoirs goes agamst the current trends Stansbury discussed the fmancial analysis. The staff feels that outside fundmg would have to be secured to support a boatmg program. The staff recommendahon is to not allow boaung at the reservoir at this time because of the issues wrth safety, water quality and cost. But if boatmg is allowed, the staff recommendation is to go to the mformal scenario. Water Resources Advtsory Roard Full Minutes May 19, 2003 Pagc 2 WRAB Questions Ken Wilson asked how boaters are limited to 1/3 of the lake. Stansbury said that a buoy line would be used. Steve Walker said that there are examples that show success with this type of sysCem Ellmghouse said thaC Yhere would be an ordmance m effect thaC would mimic the ordmance for mterfering with a water utihty apphance Bob Fiehweg asked how the water quality issue would differ from that at Standley Lake in Westmmster, which allows boatmg and is a drinkmg water source for Thointon. Michelle Frey said that you see some amount of contamination no matter where you go and some of the most contammated lakes are in watersheds that are contammated from wildhfe. With mcreased human activity, degradation will mcrease, primarily doe Yo mcreased presence of dogs. It is a value judgment for how restrictive to be. Ellinghouse said she worked for the city of Thornton when the debate over allowmg recreation on Standley Lake was occurrmg. In that case, the canals that feed the lake are more contammated than the lake and allowmg recreatron does not present a sigruficant increase m risk. There is a much bigger risk associated with boatmg on Barker Reseivoir. Fiehweg asked about the models for contammant loading. Frey sazd that the model shows that animalloadmg has a higher impact than human loadmg and is sigmficant. Frey suggested that the reservoir could be opened to boahng with dogs prohibited Gil Barth asked if there had been any attempt to assign a financial value to the risk associated. Frey discussed the informahon The costs are summarized in the study. Gil Barth asked if a coalition wrth polirical clout decided to try to get boating allowed with dogs piohibrted, how successful they would be He asked how flexible the plan is. Ellmghouse said the three scenarios cover the range of what is acceptable and there is some flexibility. Ken Wilson said that the safety issues would be more involved than providmg a boat on site and asked whether the local emergency providers would have the capability to handle cold water rescues. Ellmghouse said that the service providers aren't currently trained m water rescue and the `Boat at your own risk" scenario is not favored by emergency personnel. Citizen Participation Allen Nelson, 2925 Ridge Rd., Nederland, CO 80466 thanked the staff for a thorough job and said he has been involved with boating on Barker Reservoir for 13 years In 1999 he was mvolved with a trial boatmg study that addressed boating concerns He said he favors the formal scenario He said that the 1/3 rule of the informal scenario would provide a sma11 window for sailing because of the rule that no boating would be allowed when the reservoir is spilling mto Boulder Creek. Nelson said that a drawback of the report is the expense of the formal scenario and he said he thinks it could be less expensive. Nelson said the problem with dogs at the reservoir already exists Allowmg boating won't increase the dog traffic by that much. He also rercunded the staff that the Federal Energy Resource Commission (FERC) has mandated increasing recreation opportumties on bodies of water. Water Resources Advtsory Board Full Minutes May 19, 2003 Page 3 Andrew Cookler, P.O. Box 358 Nederland, CO 80466 said that he agrees with A1 Nelson and would like Yhe more formal scenario He said thaC if you boat it should be worthwhile and the city should allow use of the larger area. Cookler said he is not that concerned about the safety issues and he urged the board and staff to not let merha stand m the way of somethmg that could be so good for the town of Nederland. Allen Nelson said that if trailers are ehirunated, half the users of the lake would be eliminated and that is not fair User fees could be increased to cover costs and the lake should be open to all forms of non-motorized boating. Bob Fiehweg said that it is unlikely that user fees would pay for the effort entirely. WRAB Discussion Carol Ellmghouse said that the city has an ordinance that limits boat length to 17ft. And both scenarios preclude boatmg when the reservoir is spillmg. The proposed boahng season would be Memorial Day through Labor Day, except durmg spillover. The surface area is reliable until mid- August when the city starCs taking water from storage in the reservoir. Ken Wilson asked if Yhere is a chart showmg how the depth decreases with ume. Ellinghouse said that the staff has one showmg average data. Ellinghouse said that a big parl of the security concern is facilities around the dam and a vulnerability analysis recommended limiring the area to 2/3 of the lake. Ellmghouse said that while it is true that FERC is pushmg recreation on reservoirs, after September ll they altered their position to mclude mcreasmg securrty at all hydm faciht~es. Steve Walker said that fmances are a big indicator of whether or not to allow boating. He cited the Colorado State Parks system which aims for a 70% recovery on parks pro~ects. Now, the state won't approve projects unless they can show a 100% recovery. The formal boahng scenano requires considerable cost. Walker also sazd that he doesn't thmk a concessionaire would be viable at the site. In order for that to happen the level of recreation would have to be elevated. Walker said that m the formal scenario, the parkmg lot would have to be paved m order to accommodate all the traileis m an organized manner. The goal is for there to be no spillover parkmg m town Also, the boat ramp would have to be designed in a manner that is sustamable. Ken Wilson said that it is clear that boatmg on Barker Reservoir benefits Nederland more than Boulder. He suggested that Nederland could provide some benefit to Boulder by movmg its WWTP effluent pipelme. Ellmghouse said that there has been some discussion about that but it is a topic for another time. The feasibihty study serves as a good basis for holdmg talks with Nederland. Jim Knopf said that because usei fees won't cover the capital costs associated with water quality issues, then the burden of paying for rt will fall on everyone else's shoulders. Walker said that Watei Resourees Advi.sory Board Full Minutes May 19, 2003 P2ge 4 there would be no cost recovery with the mformal settmg and the cosl recovery would be poor with Che formal settmg because Yhe user fee would probably be about $10. Ellmghouse said that the program would have to be subsidized Allen Nelson said that in the trial study that was done several years ago, there were 8 weekends of boating. The costs they incurred don't look like the costs in the feasibilrty study. He thinks there might be room to move. Nelson said that in the tnal study half the people were not fiom Nederland, they were from Boulder, Broomfield, etc. Boating on Barker would benefit Boulder too. Elhnghouse asked the WRAB members to review the study and provide comments to the staff. Elhnghouse said that the staff would Yake the study Yo the city council m June AGENDA ITEM 4 Staff presentation and WRAB discussion on the 2004 Budget and Capital Improvement Program. Bob Harbere and Carol Linn discussed the proposed budget for 2004 for water, wastewater and flood control as well as the 2004 budget ad~ustment Williams said that the staff has already subitutted the budget for 2004 to the city manager for consideration. Williams said that the process got accelerated one month because of the need to reduce and cut budgets WRAB Questions Ken Wilson asked if the urility budget is completely separate from the rest of the city budget. Williams said that it is part of the city budget and there will be impacCs to salary but the department will not expeiience a 25% reduction m the budget like the other departments. Carol Lmn said that the Fund Financials were updated from the previous month. Last year foi the water fund there was a 3% mcrease This year there is no mcrease, assuming the city council approves the recommendation for the rate mcraases and the Average Wmter Consumption cap. The board members asked specific questions about the budget additions that covered water conservation, the funding associated with the rate study and new billing system and ditch cleaning. Ned Williams said that the city has adopted a two-year budget wrth Yhe intenYion of makmg only mmor ad~ustments in the second year. Toward that end, budget additions were presented for 2005. Williams said that the staff will be askmg for consideration of a recommendation to Yhe city council aC the 7une WRAB meeting. The staff and board reviewed the fund fmancials and the enclosed CIP for the Greenways Water Resources Adv~sory Board Full Mtnutes May 19, 2003 Page 5 Program. The feedback provided about the Greenways Program is that the program is gomg well and the budget looks great. Citizen Participation There was none. WRAB Discussion There was none. AGENDA ITEM 5 A. Matters from Staff • Carol Linn discussed the rate stivcture study and said that the staff had received eight proposals. Four compames were chosen to be interviewed, mcluding Black&Veatch, EES & Langham, Integrated UYilities Group & TRG, and Rick Giazdina & Aquacraft & Experio. The review group included Carol Lmn, Carol Ellinghouse, Joanna Crean, John Nystrom, Pam Nichols and Ken Wilson. The group was pleased wrth the qualrty of the proposals and there was a consensus by the staff and board member that reviewed them on which comparues to interview. Lmn said the selection will be made by June 6, a draft report will be due by the end of October 2003 and the final report will be due by the end of December 2003 • Bob HarberQ discussed the Storm Water Dramage Master Plan update. Harberg would be meehng with a stakeholder advisory group on Tuesday, May 20 at 3 p.m. Harberg said that the old document was reviewed and it was found that most of the recommendations had been implemented, so it is time to revise the document. The staff inembers involved will include Ned Williams, Bob Harberg, Alan Taylor, Donna Scott, Douglass Sullivan, Jeff Arthur and Stephame Gramger. Harberg discussed the majar issues to be addressed, mcludmg floodplazn management and storm water quality. In 2002 the city council adopted principles of management that address localized floodmg and those prmciples have to be incorporated into the Master Plan. The WASH program impacts storm water qualrty management and also must be mcorporated into the plan. Harberg provided a list of the stakeholder review group members and said that it would include Gil Barth who is a hydrologist and a member of the Greanways Advisory Committee Harberg said that some of the pioposals that come from the document will have a significant impact on development. • Bob Harberg mtroduced Suzanne Gibler, an mtern workmg wrth him for the summer. • Ned Williams provided an update on the Lakewood Pipeline pro~ect. Williams said that the staff is contmumg to evaluate the test results and is workmg wrth Yhe counYy staff and commissioners to finalize the traffic management plan. Construction will resume some hme afCer Memorial Day The staff is meeting wrth the contractor and the speciahsts to understand the findings and reach a resolution The analysis is complicated and detailed Water Resources Adv~so~y Board Full Minutes May 19, 2003 Page 6 Williams said that construction will probably take another 10-12 months Ned Williams discussed the city council consideration of drought stages which will be presented at the city council meetmg on May 20, 2003 for a fourth readmg Wilhams discussed his impression of the council and public reaction to the drought stage. On May 6, 2003 the city council supported classification of a Stage 1 drought but some council members have been reconsidermg that position. Williams discussed the revenue shortfall and the proposed rate increases Also discussed was the council proposed Aveiage Winter Consumption cap of 5000 gallons for Block 1. The amount of 5000 gallons per month is lower than the 8000 gallons recommended by the staff and probably comes from bemg the class aveiage far smgle family residential readmgs Ned Williams discussed the fluoridahon of drmking water issue. The Ft. Collms study has been completed and the city council will now consider what to do Ned Wilhams said that the water supply from the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District may go as high as 50% this year because the supply is much better this year. Barker Reservoir is fillmg and it has been an ideal sprmg. Ken Wilson asked how Boulder compares to the North Piatte River Basm m general. Wilhams said Chat the Boulder Creek Basm is a little lower than the North Platte River Basin. B. Matters from the Board • Ken Wilson discussed Che draft of the guest editorial that the WRAB has prepared. He recommended sendmg a pre-published copy to the city council • Gil Barth asked to have times slots published on the agenda to keep the meetings on track. • Jim Knonf asked about the~omt meetmg with the Plamm~g Board The WRAB members , settled on Thursday, Aug. 28 as a possible date. They agreed to discuss the agenda at the June WRAB meetmg. AGENDA ITEM 6 Next meeting agenda The next regular meeting will take place on Monday, June 16, 2003. The agenda will mclude pubhc hearmgs on both the boatmg on Barker Reservoir Feasibility Study and the 2004-2009 CIP. Water Resources Advisory Board Full Mcrttetes May 19, 2003 Page 7 AGENDA ITEM 7 Adjournment Gil Barth motioned to adjourn the meeting. Ken Wilson seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. The meetmg was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting: Monday, June 16, 2003, 7•00 p.m., regular meeting, at the City Mumcipal Services Center conference room. Mmutes approved by G~~~~~ Date 6~~ ~DO Water Resources Advisory Board Full Minutes May 19, 2003 Pagc 8