Loading...
Minutes - WRAB - October 15, 2007CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING SUMMARY FORM NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Water Resources Adviso Board DATE OF MEETING: October 15, 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, Kelty DiNatale, William DeOreo Qoined at 7:18), Bart Miller STAFF - Ned Williams, Bob Harberg, Eric Lessard, Dave Love (of Love & Associates), Jeanine Foster AMEC Earth & Environmental , Kaaren Davis, secreta . WHAT TYPE OF MEETING BOLD ONE REGULAR SPECIAL QUASI-JUDICIAL Agenda Item 1- Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m. Agenda Item 2- Meeting Minutes -August 20 and September 17, 2007 • August 20th Minutes Motion: Dinatale -to accept the meeting minutes with revision. Seconded: Miller Vote: 4-0 in favor, Motion passed • September 15`" Minutes Motion: DiNatale - To accept the meeting minutes with revisions. Seconded: Miller Vote: 4-0 in favor, Motion passed Agenda Item 3- Public participation and comment. • There was no eneral artici ation. Public artici ation was closed. Agenda Item 4 Matters From Staff- • Sourcewater Master Plan: Staff is looking for one or two WRAB members to sit on the communiry workshop tomorrow. Miller, Byers and DiNatale will participate in the future. Byers and Miller will attend tomorrow. • Agenda items for November 19`": Industrial Pre-treatment and Ciry Code changes. Potential impacts of climate change. Sourcewater Master Plan. Plant Investment fee. Rescheduling of January and February 2008 due to holidays. Matters from Board - • DeOreo: Water delivery info for August out soon? W illiams: Yes. • DeOreo: Council tomorrow night talking about the Green Points/ Green Building Program. Will there be anything that relates to water conservation with that item? Williams: there will be. Maureen Rait sent DeOreo information. • DiNatale: Have seen the Stratus presentation on climate change at water conference. More interested in the Hydrosphere modeling. W illiams: That is what will be on the agenda next month. Agenda Item 5- Update on Wonderland Creek / Fourmile Canyon Flood Mitigation Planning - Phase A. Lessard and Harberg and Love made the presentation. The Fourmile Canyon Creek and Wonderland Creek Major Drainageway Planning - Phase A Report - Alternatives Analysis (Phase A Report) focuses on the development, evaluation and recommendations of alternatives to mitigate future flooding in both the Fourmile Canyon Creek and Wonderland Creek flood hazard areas within the city of Boulder (City) and Boulder County. The work wasjointly sponsored by the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) and the city of Boulder, Cobrado. The Phase A Report was prepazed by the consultant Love & Associates. The Phase A Report presents information regarding flood mitigation planning. Ciry staff has coordinated the flood mitigation planning with other objectives of the Greenways Program and presented the report to [he Greenways Advisory Committee. An open house for affected citizens has been conducted also. The ur ose of this a enda i[em is to solicit an additional comments and in ut on the Phase A Re ort WRAB Summary October 15, 2007 Page No. 1 from the Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB). Public Comment: • Olivier Brousse: Lives in Githens Acres, unincorporated Boulder County. Eazly on was very concerned about structural mitigation. Concerned that widening of the channel may change the character of the azea. Thanks to staff for working with us and being responsive and receptive. Miller: Is the alternative currently presented more acceptable to you than the 2000 proposal? Brousse: Still have the same concerns but have been working with staff and consultants and believe there may be an alternative that will suit both sides. Hazberg: Staff is currently leaning towards providing an alternative in Reach 4 to Love's recommendation. Would allow preservation of much of the vegetation along the reach. • Allen Goldstone: Also Githens Acres. Supports current plan to widen conveyance area west of 26`" St. and creating both habitat and flood retention area. This will preserve an existing riparian area. Neighborhood is willing to accept more risk in order to preserve some of the natural area that exists currently. Neighbors do not like the option to close Topaz off into two cul-de-sacs. Prefer a bridge alternative. This is a major issue for the neighbors. Harberg: The current plan is inconsistent with the hansportation goals for the area so some form of compromise is currently being sought. • Jim Snow: Githens Acres. Want to thank both staff and Dave Love for working with us aver the yeazs. Suggest culvert or low water crossing for Topaz instead of cul-de-sac. Keeping the riparian character of the area is of paramount importance in this planning. WRAB discussion included: Cost of flood insurance policies and their effects on foreclosures. Expense, effectiveness and property owner reactions to the vazious alternatives and recommendations. Consistency of public comment so far. Similarities in concerns between city residents and unincorporated County residents. Development of consistent code standards between the city and the County. Potential for low- water crossings as a possible mitigation. Agenda Item 6-Update on the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 /Multi-hazard Mitigation Plan. Lessazd gave the presentation. They city of Boulder is working with AMEC Earth and Environmental on completing amulti-hazard mitigation plan (MHMP). The purpose of hazazd mitigation is to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural hazards. The city of Boulder is developing this multi-hazard mitigation plan to make the city and its residents Tess vulnerable to future natural hazard events. This plan is being prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 in order for the city of Boulder to be eligible for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Pre- Disaster Mitigation Grant Programs. WRAB has been requested to review and provide comments on the FEMA required Multi-hazard Mitigation Plan. This is a mitigation centered plan as opposed to a response centered plan. Mitigations cover many areas including codes, education, outreach, etc. The list of mitigation actions continues to grow. Public Comment: • There was none. Public comment was closed. WRAB Discussion included: Suggested adding drought to the MHMPand updating the Drought Response Plan. Potential/appropriate funding sources for mitigation projects were discussed. Suggestions were made regarding what is needed for the plan to be thorough. Things which should be added (sourcewater protection, wildfire, etc). Clarification regarding joint projects was requested and provided. WRAB will send their thoughts directly to staff over the next few weeks. Agenda Item 7 -Discussion about the water budget program. Williams gave the presentation. This item is provided as an opportunity to hear from the public and discuss modifications to make the water budget system work better, prior to a study session with the City Council. Experiences of commercial and multi-family customers during the ircigation season will be of special interest. City staff is currently discussing options for making future adjustments to the way CommercialQndustrial bud ets are calculated and is meetin with different re resentatives from the WRAB Summary October I5, 2007 Page No. 2 business community to gather information about issues and concerns. Public Comment: • Jean Gouille: Concerned as an owner whose residence that has been converted to a small business. July water bill skyrocketed. Has used less than was budgeted most months, about right a couple of months, and for about two months usages are way over budget. Feels as though has been penalized for being on a lot that is not covered with concrete. Had questions regarding fees for wastewater disposal. Looking For a tiered plan for different kinds of businesses. Knopf: One meter? Gouille: Yes. Water departtnent did say that we could get a meter for the irrigation only but it is expensive. Williams: On a commercial property, all water that goes through the meter is charged to wastewater. • Mitch Tacy (representing Tebo Properties): Presented the board with handouts. Budgets for all irrigation accounts were not included. Accounts are severely under-budgeted from the beginning. Appeals are taking months to process. Changes must be made in the GIS mapping system. City Manger recommends waiting until usage numbers are analyzed. Concerned about City software. Miller: Exclusion of ships in right-of way corrected? Tacey: Had to file adjustments but changes were made. • Kathy Evans: Owns a 140 unit apartment building. Received letter of denial for budget modification request. Feels like all properties have been put in a "one size fits all" system. Is the city using this method to save water or make money? Not getting enough information. Why can the water department just not go into the city computers to see proof of rental liscense? DeOreo: Is your total annual budget OK? Evans: Looks like it is not. • Lawrence Budd- Urban water conservation: Budd conducts GIS mapping and field audits far Albuquerque. Does think that the overall budget allotted is enough in multi family units. In Mrs. Evans' case, there are four meters, all allotted to both indoor and outdoor. One actually does not have any outdoor usage, so is using some of their indoor allotment overall, that could be applied to other meters. Believes the program is unfair for multi-tap properties. WRAB Discussion included: Request for the 2005 scope of work from staff. Authorizations and mechanisms for bill impact summaries. Suggestions that a "group meter" function be developed for the billing system. Though the system appears to be working well overall, suggestions were made for refinement of the system to help the couple of sub-sets of users that appear to be having difficulties. Motion: DeOero: WHEREAS, Rule S.c as drafted in January 2007 for the non-residential customers is so rigid that it makes it impossible to achieve the objectives of the city code (Chapter 4-20(b)2), and it should be modified to allow a wider range of methods to be used for determining commercial industrial water budgets. For instance the rule could allow AMU or other appropriate methods needed to achieve an accurate and practical water budget for CI customers to be used. It was a mistake to limit the approach to one very narrow method. Where ambiguity or conflicts exist, the City Manager should use the Water Budget Adjustment process (Rule 6) to make the necessary corrections; and WHEREAS, we do not believe that a study session is needed prior to taking this limited action since council has already established a clear policy of granting individual customers water budgets that meet their reasonable requirements for indoor and outdoor uses. Rule S.c needs to be modified to make it more flexible in order to accommodate the many individual circumstances of the CI customers. We advise that the manager and staff be instructed to formulate custom water budgets as required in the Code, in co- operation with the customers, which achieve the goals of the ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, WRAB recommends, after consideration of the above listed recitals, that the City Manager and Staff be instructed to take the following actions: 1) move ahead to provide monthly or annual budgets based on indoor and outdoor requirements for non-residential customers with combined water meters (those serving both indoor and outdoor uses); 2) formulate methods of providing proper budgets to multi-family and CI customers with multiple meters and/or unpredictable monthly demand patterns, and to customers with uni ue roblems; and 3 the Ci Mana er be instructed to re ort back to Council on the WRAB Summary October I5, 2007 Page No. 3 solutions that have been found for the various problems brought by the customers as part of the study session currently scheduled for sometime in 2008. WRAB strongly advises against waiting for the study session to begin this process since by then i[ will probably be too late to effect the necessary changes for the 2008 irrigation season. 2"": Miller Vote: 5-0, Motion passed. Agenda Item 8 -Final recommendation on Lakewood Pipeline Easement. W illiams gave the presentation. The city of Boulder and the United States of America (through the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (FS)) entered into a Water Conveyance Facility Easement for Lakewood Pipeline on Dec. 18, 2001. The pipeline was constructed in 2002-2004 and placed into service in May 2004. A settlement agreement related to the construction defect lawsuit between the city, construction contractor, pipe manufacturing company and various insurance companies was approved by City Council on July 18, 2006. It was known during the settlement discussion that the FS intended to attempt to revoke the 2001 easement unless changes to the language of the Water Conveyance Facility Easement were approved. These changes were required as a result of the non-compliant pipe and will: 1) increase the liability insurance amount carried by the city; and 2) adds a new section regazding "suspension" of the easement. Staff anticipated during the settlement discussions that any additional insurance premiums would be paid out of the settlement proceeds. The City Council was scheduled to consider this agenda item at its October 16 City Council meeting. This item has been postponed but Council requests that the public heazing before the WRAB goes forward and that input gained from the WRAB meeting is sent on to Council. Staff recommends that the City Council pass a motion to authorize the City Manager to execute the Termination of Easement of the 2001 easement and to execute a new 2007 Water Conveyance Facility Easement for Lakewood Pipeline with the FS. Public Comment: • Steve Pomerance: First got involved in this issue in April of 1986. At the time, the recommendation was to get a D-9, replace the pipe and let the Forest Service try to take the city to court. City does have a grant from Congress and a pipeline already in place. Still recommend letting the Forest Service take the city to court. Anything agreed to in a new easement limits the original grant (yr. 1866). This is undesirable. The suspension of easement is most concerning. Either the Forest Service has the power, in which case it does not need to be in the agreement; or they do not, in which case agreeing to it in a new easement agreement would negate part of the original grant. The statement regarding suspension of easement is very vague and does not have any balance to address city concerns and there is no third party azbitration allowance. There is nothing in the agreement that says any of the conditions for suspension have to occur on the easement. 2001 easement gives the Forest Service all the powers they need to protect health and safety. No need for the new provisions. Suggest give them more insurance, an enhanced maintenance schedule and a guarantee to replace the pipe if it proves un-maintainable. WRAB discussion included: Difficulties with the drafting and terms of the proposed new agreement. Merits of the staff recommendation -vs- the status quo. What is the Forest Service putting forth as the stated breach of the original agreement which has caused the attempt to revoke the easement? The terms of the 2001 agreement and whether it would be more beneficial to amend that agreement rather than sign a new agreement. The need for additional indemnification. Merits of litigation -vs- agreeing to the new easement terms. Motion: DiNatale- WRAB recommends that City Council not approve the revised 2007 easement as submitted in the WRAB packet. There are serious concerns with the language of the revised easement that result in the city giving up protections existing in the 2001 easement. Additional information on the background of this issue and the risks of associated with the potential revocation of the 2001 easement is needed before WRAB could recommend action on this item 2"": Knopf Vote: S-0 Motion assed. A enda Item 9 -Discussion of schedule for future meetin s. WRAB Summary October I5, 2007 Page No. 4 Agenda Item 10- Adjournment Motion: Motion to adjourn by Miller Seconded by: Knopf Vote: 5-0 in favor, passed. Meeting adjourned at 11:39 PM Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting: The next WRAB meeting will be Monday, November 19 - 7 p.m., regular 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 are available through Central Records. Minutes approved by: ti ~11~1 ~LG1't91i Date: WRAB Summary October I5, 2007 Page No. 5