HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Water Resources - 4/16/2007CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
uneunc axn rnMMisSioNS MF.F.TING SUMMARY FORM
NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Water Resources Adviso Board
DATE OF MEETING: April 16, 2007
NAME/TELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY: Kaaren Davis, 303-441-3229
NAMES OF MEMBERS, COUNCIL, STAFF, AND INVITED GUESTS PRESENT:
BOARD MEMBERS -Jim Knopf, Robin Byers, Bart Miller, Kelly DiNatale, William DeOreo
STAFF - Ned Williams, Jim Shelley, Annie Noble, Bret Linenfelser, Steve Buckbee, Douglas Sullivan,
Rich Thomton with HDR, Rand Crittenden, Cazol Eilin house, Kaaren Davis- Secreta
WHAT TYPE OF MEETING BOLD ONE REGULAR SPECIAL] UASIdUDICIAL
Agenda Item 1- Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m.
Agenda Item 2- Meeting Minu[es -March 19, 2007
Motion: Motion by Byers ---to accept the meeting minutes with corrections
Seconded: Miller
Vote: 4-0-1 (DeOreo abstains) in favor, Passed
Agenda Item 3- Public participation and comment.
There was none. Public Partici ation was closed.
Agenda Item 4- Installation of new WRAB member and election of WRAB officers.
New member William DeOreo was given the oath and welcomed to the board. Election of officers
followed.
Chair: Byers Nominated Jim Knopf, 2nd-Milleq Vote: 5-0, Elected.
Vice Chair: Byers Nominated Miller , 2""-DeOreo, Vote: 5-0 ,Elected.
Secretary: DeOreo nominated Byers, 2°"-DiNatale , Vote: 5-0, Elected.
Knopf initiated diswssion on the matter of moving "matters from board" to beginning of ineeting (after
public participation)
Motion: DiNatale: Move to amend Section 21 of the WRAB bylaws to move "Matters from StafP'
and "Matters from Board° to follow the "Public CommenY' period, with an ailocation of 15 minutes
to each of those items.
2"": DeOreo
Vote: 5-0 passes. To take effect next meeting.
Agenda Item 5- Final recommendation on the Stormwater Management (formerty Strategic) Plan.
Sullivan and Thornton presented the Stormwater Management Plan (P&DS requested change in title to gain
wnsistency with similaz CIP items submitted to PB and Council). Staff asked for the WRAB's acceptance
of the plan and for feedback conceming the projects and priorities for the 2007-2012 CIP.
WRAB questions and comment:
• Byers: How much ground truthing was done on detention basins and impervious area? Sullivan:
2003 aerial mapping used to develop a new impervious coverage layer. Found a rather significant
difference for some land uses. Got a much better understanding of the impervious area coverage.
• Byers: Did you go out in the field to inspect and make sure aerial mapping was acwrate?
Buckbee: Inspected every pond. Plan to inspect every pond every two years. Mapping is accurate.
Williams: Used same aerials for water budget mapping, went out and verified several properties
and found the aerial mapping to be quite accurate.
• DiNatale: How much flow/drainage area would a$50-] 00,000 project treat? Thornton: 5-8 CFS,
20 acres or so.
• DeOreo: Existing impervious coverage. Thornton: Detention pond database.
• DeOreo: Did you consider low impact development? Buckbee: Yes, low impact development is a
way to mitigate storm water closer to the source. Developed a BMP (Best Management Plan)
toolbox that looked at different low impact development practices and how those could be applied.
With urban draina e tools and land use lanned, was not financiall a ood decision to ush low
WRAB Summary
April 16, 2007
Page No. 1
impact development practices to manage stormwater in Boulder Transit V illage Study. Not an
overarching statement for all circumstances.
• DeOreo: Toolkit available to developers? Buckbee: Yes. In this area, low impact is encouraged in
floor azeas and zoning and developers tend to use them by preference.
• Byers: In Gunbarrel, are we working with the County to make sure that we are not double
covering and to cost share the funding? Sullivan: Yes we are. Most areas are in the city. For the
areas that aze in the counry, we are looking at cost shazing.
• Byers: Are our rate payers' funds going to the benefit of our rate payers? Rate payers should not
have to fund RTD projects. Sullivan: Transportation goes after TIF funding wherever they can
and their contribution should be large. Utilities tries to match when able and in advance. These
projects cove~ many years and so funding is not a simple issue that can be decided wholly in
advance, but must be dealt with as the project develops over time.
• Byers: It seems we have built much of this already and are being asked to pay to rip it up and
build again in the same azeas. Sullivan: There are still a lot of unknowns. We are in a very eazly
planning Ievel and the first phase is ] 0-15 years and the sewnd is 10 yeazs after that. First
milestone is RTD's commitment to planning and design next year and construction in 2009. That
is why this is only just now showing up in the CIP.
• DeOreo: Any work done on how much damage would we be looking at if we take no action (100
year level). Sullivan: We looked at 2 and 5 year events with an eye to what the monetary value
would be for property damage. Cost-benefit anatysis done as to what is more cost effective,
nuisance compensation or property acquisition. No damage assessment as part of this project.
• Knopf: What happens to properties in High-hazard zone if damaged by a big storm? Sullivan:
Cannot rebuild if in high hazard zone.
Public Hearing: No public comments.
Motion: Miller- Move that WRAB support the Stormwater Management Plan as presented by staff.
Seconded: Byers
Vote: 5-0, Passed
Agenda Item 6- Update and discussion on the performance criteria and weights used in the
Integrated Evaluation of Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant Source Water Protection and
Treatmeot Improvements Study.
Williams with Noble, presented an update on the evaluation of source water protection for Boulder
Reservoir, including additional treatment and the Carter Lake Pipeline Project. Staff provided some
additional information requested by the board at the last meeting. Staff requested clarification on what
options the board would like to consider at the neact meeting when this issue is brought before them again.
DiNatale presented and discussed an alternative set of criteria and weighting system for evaluation of
options. DiNatale thought the criteria presented at the last meeting were specific to staff and represented
stafPs goals, as opposed to what might be a different set of goals for the WRAB and the community.
Looked back and found historical evaluation criteria. Significant differences can be created with the same
information depending on what criteria are used and how they are weighted. Provided and alternative
evaluation system to board and staff.
WRAB Discussion:
• DeOreo: Clarification on the Black & Veatch criteria used to write the alternatives for the
Pipelice? Noble: Two different studies done. Sourcewater study covered several options. The
evaluation was intended to be independent of cost and dea] solely with source water quality.
• Byers: Where ue we at in the timeline with regards to the budget? Williams: Bringing a draft
'08-`13 budget ro next meeting with final rewmmendation in the June meeting. A major project
has historically been reflected to go forward in 2009. Cunently this is Carter Lake Pipeline
conditioned upon it receiving final approval.
• DeOreo: If there was no way to build the pipeline, are you convinced you could produce water of
the required quality in the future? Crittenden: Currently do, the wlnerabiliry is the canal which is
WRAB Summary
Apri116,2007
Page No. 2
allowing degradation over time of the water quality and will be more difficult to treat in the futun
Treatment alternatives are listed in the report. Noble: None of the alternatives except the pipeline
allow us to meet the ciry goals, but are wrrently meeting all federal requiremenu.
• Byers: If there was a decision to rework analysis with different weighting system, where would
that fit into the budget process? Would that be a big problem in the overall CIP? Williams: June
will be the last opportunity for the WRAB to submit their recommendation to the City
Manager/Planning Boazd before the Ciry Manager submits his proposal budget to council.
• Byers: Is it even feasible to reevaluate by June? Williams: Hearing some WRAB members say
that WRAB should do this to provide their perspective. Staff could also do this process and then
both WRAB and staff could submit separate recommendations.
• DiNatale: Process for criteria selection should involve all interested parties and should get all
parties to agree that their interests are represented in the criteria. Williams: Is it your request that
the boazd complete this chart?
• DiNatale: MWH Study on website? Williams: Not sure, but will find out.
• Miller. Like DiNatale's approach as it broadens the perspective and almost fuses all four tables
into a single chart. What should we do with this approach? Should we ask staff to go back and
evaluate this approach? Use this approach ro reevaluate the issue?
• DeOreo: Which non-pipeline alternative does staff believe is the best if pipeline could not be
built. Williams: Have not tried to choose the best alternative option.
• DiNatale: Would like to see some TOC data. Williams: Yes, and we'll provide some
justification for the GAC.
• Williams: With respect to the weighting and criteria, what is the Boazd's preference?
• DeOreo: Not comfortable with the Black and Veatch criteria, so would like to try this method.
• Miller: Cannot do final anatysis, but can do basic evaluation and give it to Black &Veatch to do
final.
Williams: What additional information would the Board like?
KnopL• Effect on rates? Noble: that info provided last meeting. Williams: Will be updated and
brought back before the board next month.
Conclusion: WRAB will fill out DiNatale's alternative evaluation mark-up sheets and fax to staff
member Noble by the end of the week. Staff will submit the mark-up sheets to Black and Veatch for
analysis and the results will be presented and considered at the next meeting with the CIP.
Agenda Itero 7-
Matters From Staff -
• S. Boulder Creek Flood study to Council for recommendation of submittal to FEMA
• "Floodplain 101", Council study session on May 22. WRAB is invited.
• Water Supply decisions and restriction decisions will be made around May ls`. Does not look like
we will be on drought alert.
Matters from Board -
• DeOreo: Need to think about adjusting Water Budgets for Commercial customers. Let them have
the option of using the historic monthly consumption pattem as opposed to avg. Monthly usage.
Williams: It was bo[h WRAB recommendation and Council decision to use 100 percent AMU. At
this point it would take an ordinance change. If WRAB will make a recommendation to Council,
rewmmending a change, they must first have a public heazing next meeting. Staff has committed
to gather info and work with Chamber of Commerce to begin to explore what the next step would
be. Will not be ready in 2007, but will come back ro board for consideration when it is.
• DeOreo: Is there a way to bring the cost of the water monitors/Orion meters down? Wiliiams:
Cost will prohably not come down for 3 years but will come down. Changed out the whole city 7
years ago. Should not have to go the next step for several years.
• DeOreo: Can we get a user name for Intranet site for reports? Williams: No, securiry measures
prevent it. If there are speciFc reports you want, we can post them on the extemal site.
• Byers: Do we need to make a response to the letter on water budgets from the Fort Collins
consukant? Knopf: covered that informally in person.
• DeOreo: Brought up packaging of board packet. Board discussed how far in advance packet
is/should be delivered and whether/how it should be organized and bound. No wnsensus was
WRAB Summary
April l6, 2007
Page No. 3
reached on whether there was a needed change in either.
Agenda Item 8- Discussion of schedule for future meetings.
Agenda Item 9- Adjournment
Motion: Motion to adjourn by Miller
Seconded by: Byers
Vote: 5-0 in favor, passed.
Meeting adjourned at 10:37 PM
Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting:
The next meeting will be Monday, May 21 - 7 p.m., regulaz meeting, Municipal Services Center, 5050 East
Pearl Street unless otherwise decided b staff and the board.
These are summary minutes. Audio tapes for full record aze available through Central Records.
DRAFT MINUTES
Minutes approved b}~~ r'1. i~
Date: ~~
~
WRAB Summary
April 16, 2007
Page No. 4