HomeMy WebLinkAbout2 - Draft Minutes - Water Resources - January 28, 2008CITY C1F BOULDER, COLORE~DO
BO~~RL?S AND COM117ISSIONS l~iEETING SLT11i11~iARY FOR14i
N.41VIE OF BOARD/CONIlVIISSION: t~rater Resources l~dviso Board
DATE OF MEETING: January 2~, 2008
NA11~iElTELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SiJl~~iARY: Kaaren Davis, 303-441-3229
NA141ES OF RZEMBERS, COLJNCIL, ST~FF, ~ND INVITID GUESTS PRESENT:
B011I2D itZEMBERS -Jun Knopf, Robin Byers, William DeOreo, Kelly DiNatale, Bart Miller (absent)
STAFF - Ned Williams, Bob Harberg, Eric Lessard, Cristina Martinez, Randy Earley, Floyd Bebler, Bret
Linenfelser, Bron~vyn Weygandt, Carol Linn, Brin Kintzle, Todd Cristiano (Red Oak Consulting), Nancy
Love (Lo~~e & Associates), Kaaren Davis, secretary, Suzanne Liebernlan.
V~~T TYPE OF11'IEETING BOLD ONE REGUL.ziR SPECIAL QUASI-7UL)ICIr1L
Agenda Item 1- Call to C?rder
The meeting was called to order at 7:0~ p.m.
Agenda Item 2- Meeting 11'Iinutes -December 17, 2007
11'Iotion: Byers - Move to appro~e ~~ith changes
Seconded: DiNatale
Vote: 4-0 in favor,ll'iotion passed
Agenda Item 3- Public pai~ticipation and comment.
• There ~~~as none. Public artici ation was closed.
Agenda Item 4
141atters From Staff-
• Industrial pretreatment ordinance changes: Had some questions for clarification so have
slowed the process do~vn to make sure code is consistent. If there are no substantive changes
~vill go to C_,ouncil, if there are changes will come Uack ta t~rR_AB.
• Water Quality St-•ate~ic Plan {V4='QSP): Slo~ving this down. May make some changes as to
how it goes fonvard. Will come back to ~~~RAB ~vith changes.
• Non-t~genda memos: Questions regarding the informational items were asked and
clarification was provided by staff accordingly.
Matters from Board -
• There ~~~ere none.
Agenda Item 5- Final recommendation on Fourmile Canyon/Wonderland Creek Flood RZitigation
Planning - Phase A Report.
Lessard ana Harberg gave the presentation. The Fourmile Canyon Creek and tllonderland Creek Major
Drainageway Planning - Phase A Report - Alternatives Analysis {Phase A Report) focuses on the
development, evaluation, and recommendations of alternati~~es to mitigate future flooding in both the
Fourmile Canyon Creek and Wonderland Creek fload hazard areas within the City of Boulaer (City} and
Boulder County. The work was jointly sponsored by the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
(LTDFCD) and the City of Boulder, Colorado. The Phase A Report was prepared by the cansultant Love ~4c
Associates. The Phase A Report presents information regarding flood mitigation planning and investigates
a number of strategies to be evaluated by staff, the public and City review boards. Staff has coordinated the
flood mitigation planning with other objectives of the Ureem~ays Program and presented the report to the
Greenways Advisory Committee (GAC}. Upon referral by WRA~, a presentation of this information shall
occur to Planning Board in February.
Public Comment:
• ~llen Goldstone: Thanlcs to staff for all of the work and communication. Any excavation in
the riparian zone is undesuable. That is the numUer one priority. Staff suggestion of the split
channel is supported. ~s a property owner, willing to take the risk of damages from flooding.
• Olivier Brousse: t~lso thanks to staff far the extra work and contact. Staff has been very
responsive. In general very supportive of how this project is going. High-hazard and life safety
is important and needs to be addressed, but still have concems about hi~h-hazard zone
delineation. Cancemed there may be errors in maps.
• Elizabeth Black: Would like to see a plan that keeps a little more water in Fourmile. Should
WRAB Sunnnar~T
Janualy ?8, 2048
Page No. 1
not flood out neighbors in Wonderland. How many structures are in spill zone and how many
will take damage? Concerned about the children in the four schools in the spill zone as a life
safety issue.
• Keith Fairmount: Thanks to staff for their flexibility. Want to see a plan for how staff will
continue to take feedback as the project moves forward. Concemed that after recommendation
is made, residents will be short changed on input that can be rendered. Keep communication
open.
• Steve Moore: Pleased with the plan to daylight Wonderland Creek but there might be a
jurisdictional issue between the city and the County. If we wait until that land is annexed it
could be decades down the road. Is there a way to expedite with the county for the high-hazard
properties. Bypass option- Why does it have to be a box culvert. Staff: land use requirements
necessitate a box culvert.
• Jim Snow: Thanks to staff for the efforts and the communication. Concerned about
constrictions on Topaz. Concerned about the wisdom of adding a bikeway in the bed of the
creek.
• Dale and Ann Staetna: Thanks to staff for their openness in this process. Willing to take
significant and substantial risk from the flood zone. Concerned about the risk to the schools
and not having an evacuation plan. Pedestrian bridge at Poplar is extremely intrusive to the
property owners. This was not addressed.
WRAB discussion included: Status of the schools and trailers in the area with reference to the high-hazard
and 100 year events and related emergency planning, the pedestrian bridge issues, coordination with county
and timing of excavations, the need for ageneral re-evaluation of the sub-community plan including the
designation of bikeways and pathways versus strictly flood mitigation issues.
Motion: DiNatale: Recommend approval of the Phase A plan as modified by staff with the following
recommendations and guiding principles as this project continues to future phases and mo?•e detailed
concept design:
1-Protect life safety by addressing structures in the high hazard zone through:
a) Acquiring properties from willing sellers
b) Constructing flood improvements at time of redevelopment of properties along Fom•Mile Creek
west of Broadway and ~~tronderland Creek near 30tH
c) Constructing high hazard zone containment and other improvements as funding is available,
including coordinating with the county on expediting improvements located jointly in the city and
county.
2- The intent of the overall approach is to minimize disruption to private property and riparian
areas. This implies that flooding during 100-year events will not be contained in a channel
minimizing impacts to downstream properties. Many properties including schools will experience
shallow flooding under this approach.
3-During next phase all potentially impacted properties and persons including students and parents
should be notified of proposed approach and tradeoffs of minimizing property impacts-vs- potential
far flood damages.
4- Public education of flood risks should be emphasized including signage and flood markers and
response plans for impacted schools.
5-Opportunities for facilitating and encouraging private flood proofing should be explored.
6-Continue to maintain high level of public involvement and feedback.
7-This non-structural approach requires active regulatory flood plain management in order to
preserve flood conveyance areas.
2"a DeOreo
Vote: 4-0, Motion Passes
Agenda Item 6- Preparation for VL'ater Budget Study Session on Feb. 12, 2008.
Weygandt, Linn, Cristiano and Williams gave the presentation. The City Council has scheduled February
12, 2008 as a Study Session date to discuss the Water Budget rate structure. grater budgets were
WRAB SulYUnary
January 28, 2008
Page No. 2
implemented January 2007 and since then, the WRAB and staff have been collecting information and
developing ideas about possible changes to water budgets.
The City Manager has not made a decision about the possible changes to implement, but is waiting to hear
the input and feedback from the WRAB and City Council. The "tension" in the discussion about next steps
for water budgets is that the 2007 revenue and use data, at a customer class level, seems to reflect a very
reasonable and predicable place to be after the first year and that there is a substantial cost, in reduced
revenue, to implement the possible changes. In the city's fiscally constrained financial climate, and with
the recent 2008 Blue Ribbon Commission report on Revenue Stabilization, the city government must take a
comprehensive look at its financial situation and goals in deciding the next best steps to take.
Public Comment:
• Sheila Horton: Because of city's high student population there tends to be more people per
housing unit than average - so an additional budget of 1,OOOgallons,~bedroom might not be
adequate. Greater allocation for 3-bedroom multi-family home than for 3-bedroom duplex
(students) makes no sense. Would prefer an allocation per person. Can't understand the
numbers City is reporting. Totally impractical for property managers to map irrigable area, etc.
Give them a budget for entire property, don't break it out by meters; then, it is up to property
managers to figure out adjustments in meters. Residential users should have the same options
for calculating budget as Commercial/Industrial. Responses: DeOreo: Historic use option just
a stop-gap measure until we can get efficiency standards. Byers: Still a valid equity
consideration to allow residential users to have same options as commercial users while
standards get worked out. DeOreo: Keep door open for adjustments based on number of
people. Cristiano: 2007 figures very similar to 2005 - 1900 adjustments made. $1.25 million
in changes -feel fairly confident with adjustments and their magnitudes for the various
categories assuming that adjustments stopped today. But adjustments are still forthcoming.
WRAB Discussion included: Questions and concerns were put forward regarding the analysis and some of
the numbers provided therein, including equity concerns, re: bill fairness vs. loss of revenue, whether
consumption and revenue figures are tracking, accommodating non-loop systems, and the three different
options for Commercial/Industrial: 1. mimicking historical patterns, 2. letting customers with combined
meters measure indoor and outdoor water use differently, 3. letting people use efficiency standard
budgeting, using excess revenues from Blocks 4 and 5 to assist customers. Other points of discussion
included rules concerning refunds and credits, reducing operating costs, whether to allow Knopf (one extra
WRAB rep) to participate in Council meeting.
DiNatale leaves at 11:00 .m.
Agenda Item 7 -Discussion about possible WRAB retreat.
t~'illiams gave the presentation.
Public Comment:
• None. Public comment was closed.
VVrRABDiscussion included: WRAB decided the issue was too premature and elected to defer any
decision regarding a retreat until whole board is present.
Agenda Item 8 -Discussion of schedule and agenda items for future meetings.
Agenda Item 9- Adjournment
Motion: Motion to adjourn by Byers
Seconded by: Knopf
Vote: 3-0 in favor, passed.
Meeting adjourned at 11:10 PM
Date, Time, and Location of Next RTeetin
WRAB SulYUnary
January 28, 2008
Page No. 3
The next WRAB meeting will be Monday, February 25 - 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:
Date:
WRAB SulYUnary
January 28, 2008
Page No. 4