HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Water Resources - 1/22/2007n, ~ +~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~,
i ~
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
uneunc nivn CnNiNnSSi(1NS MF,F.TING SLIMMARY FORM
NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Water Resources Adv~sor Board
DATE OF MEETING: January 22, 2007
NAMFJTELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY: Jennifer Gra , 303-441-4073
NAMFS OF MEMBERS, COUNCIL, STAFF, AND INVITED GUESTS PRESENT:
BOARD MEMBERS - Ken Wilson, Jim Knopf, Robin Byers, Bart Miller, Kelly DiNatale
STAFF-Ned Williams, Bob Harberg, Joanna Crean, Cazol Linn, Randy Earley, Floyd Bebler, Carter
Coolid e(intem), Jennifer Gra - Secretar
WHAT TYPE OF MEETING (BOLD ONE) [REGULAR] [SPECIAL] [QUASI-JUDICIAL)
Agenda Item 1- Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m.
Agenda Item 2- Meeting Minutes -December 18, 2006
Motion: Motion to accept the meeting minutes with corrections by DiNatale
Seconded: Knoaf
Vote: 5-0 in favor, Passed
Agenda Item 3- PubGc participation and comment.
• Lawrence Budd, water auditor from Fort Cotins: I have concerns about the water budget
program. The single family budgets are well done. I am very concerned about the commercial and
multifamily properties. There aze some properties that have been given way too much water
allocation and others that are not given enough. If people are getting too much water, they are not
going to contact the City of Boulder [o change that, so we are not promoting conserva[ion. I[hink
the City of Boulder should look into this further.
Public Partici ation was closed.
Agenda Itero 4- Update on Utiiity Financial Reserves / Rate Stabi6zation Reserve
Linn presented on the Utility Financial Reserves and Rate Stabilization Reserve. She presented the board
with summary results of a survey of 10 other communities as well as where Boulder stands in this analysis.
Red Oak Consuldng (John Gallagher and Andrew Rheem) also presented information on their report. Linn
asked the Boazd for feedback.
WRAB questions and commenh
• DINatale: When would the capital ceserve be used? Linn: It could be used when there is an
unexpected capital wst or a revenue shortfall.
• WiLson: Why diddt we use the large reserves during [he drought? Linn: We did reduce our
reserve that year, in addition to reducing operating and capital costs as a way to save money.
Williatns: We were going into an unpredictable situation and duration and the prudent thing was
to save money since we didd[ know how long we would be in the drought.
• Wilson: What we have reserves for is not consistent Why would we change what we have a
reserve for?. Harberg: Updates in technology and such can change what we have reserves for.
• Wilson: What happens when the operating reserves keeps growing? I think we should make an
effort to adjust Ihe rate increases so that we are close [o [he amounts that we may need.
• DiNatale: How can you get these funds? Williams: If the funds have been appropriated, a
conversation between staff, myself and the Finance Department or City Manager's office is
prudent in order [o access the funds. DiNatale: Would [he capital reserves be appropria[ed?
Williams: No, no[ unless we changed our normal process [o have the funds appropriated during
the annual budget process.
• Byers: Would you use rate reserves for demand hardening? DiNatale: No, since reserves are for
temporary issues, not on-going revenue reductions
• Byers: For the entities reviewed, which ones aze TABOR enterprises and which are not? Would
there be constraints due ro TABOR regulations on reserve funds? Consultant: The surveyed
Colorado communities are similar to Boulder. DiNatale: Boulder utilities meet the TABOR
definition of an enterprise and are therefore exemp[ from TABOR regulations. Williams: We will
check on this.
WRAB Summary
]anuary 22, 2007
Page No. 1
~~ ~ {, ~
• Byers: Why isn't there any commu~rty from the wes[ slope and why use Arizona, Texas, e[c'?
Williams: I wanted to go outside Colorado to see other places that had water conservation
programs. Byers: Why not Irvine Ranch, CA., or Highlands Ranch or Centennial, W.? Williams:
We fel[ we had enough communities closer [han Califomia for a good representatioa.
Agenda Item 5- Update on the Wastewater Treatment Strategic Plan
Hazberg and Eadey presented the Wastewater Treatment Svategic Plan for the board's review and
comment. Earley asked for feedback from the board.
WRAB questions and comment:
• Byers: With the County being more restrictive about sephc systems during the County permit
process, will we get more applications for hookup to our sewer system? Harberg: We have
accounted for those azeas in our planning process.
• Miller: Suggested several format changes regarding the presentahon of the plan.
• Miller: I think the energy level issues aze prevalenc Is fleet hauling efficient? Bebler: The
majority of the hauling is done by private/ouuide conVacrors and we do not moniror or control
their fleet and fuel systems. The city's Biosolids fleet is on the older side and not as efficient as
newer models. We are not anticipating replacing the city fleet because we're relying on the
private haulers.
• Byers: Is the Utilities depaztment exempt from cazbon tax? Wiltiams: No, the city departments
will pay the tax. But, the commercial rate is lower than the residential rate.
• Miller. Is there a way to anticipate if this W W'1'P upgrade will help with our ra[ing of ammonia?
Bebler: That is a driving force and it will help our treatmenUremoval of ammonia.
• Miller: It might be useful to throw in how citizens can help with issues at the front end by
disposing of the materials.
• DiNatale: In the Future, linking all of these plans together wouid be useful. It would also be nice
to show hisrorical flow data as well in this plan.
Agenda Item 6- Update on the Benchmark Study to Evaluate Utility Performance
Coolidge, Crean and Harberg presented on [he Benchmark Study ro Evaluate Utility Performance including
summary results of the study conducted on this subject as well as Boulder's position within this study.
WRAB questious and comment:
• Byers: Why is the utilities informa[ion in the Benchmazk Study from the o[her communities
confidential? Coolidge: Perhaps they aze not forthcoming with that informa[ion in case they are
not doing we1L DiNatale: Also, it helps in getting communities to respond to surveys if you tell
them the specific info/data will only be released in summary form. The data is public information
and is available from each community, but someone needs to expend a lot of time to get it.
• Wilson: Some[hing seems wrong in the calculations since we are so much higher in water
distribution percentages. DiNatale & Harberg: That is because we are a mature community that
is more stable and able to put funds for[h for maintenance and that varies the depreciation value
that goes into this calwlation.
• Wilson: The theoretical value for the system renewaUreplacement rate seems a bit high at $39
million. I-Iarberg: We will have [o check that.
• Wilson: There are issues with some calculations, but it is good to look at. DiNatale: A peer group
survey would be grea[.
Agenda Item 7-
Matters From Staff -
• Williams: There is an upcoming study session on Valmon[ Bu[te for City Council on Jan. 30. I
also have updates the Sou[h Pla[te River Wells issue. Finally, I have a copy of the water budget
Rules on how we calculate water budgets that are out for the public review and comment righ[
now.
• The City Council re[reat is this Friday and Saturday if you are interested. There is no public
comment.
WRAB Summary
Jauuary 22, 2007
Page No. 2
~ ,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
• There is u public meeting on [he dental amalgnm meeting this Thursday at the Municipal Services
Center.
• South Boulder Creek flood study information will be on the Web and functioning by the first of
February, but we may no[ be able ro present this a[ the nex[ meeting. We will know azound Feb.
17-20 if the South Boulder Creek flood study will be an agenda item on Feb.26.
Matters from Board -
. Knopf: On the water budget bills, there seemed to be a problem in the mailing system. Williams:
There were about 1,600 bills that had to be printed on old stationary because of a delay in a
shipment of new material.
• Byers: The County is proposing land use regula[ion changes, possibly limiting house size and
development rate. It could impact different utility projects if it goes through.
Agenda Item 8- Discussion of schedule for future meetings.
Agenda Item 9- Adjournment
Motion: Motion to adjourn by Bvers
Seconded by Miller
Vote: 5•0 in favor, passed.
Meeting adjourned at 10:17 PM
Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting:
The next meeting will be Monday, Feb. 26 - 6 p.m., regulaz mee[ing with a special, early time, Municipal
Services Center, 5050 East Pearl Sveet unless otherwise decided b staff and the board.
These aze summary minutes. Audi pes are avail ble through Central Records for full record.
Minutes approved by:
Date: ~
WRAB Summary
January 22, 2007
Page No. 3