HomeMy WebLinkAbout2 - Draft Minutes - Water Resources - February 25, 2008CITY C1F BOULDER, COLOR~~DO
BO~RL)S AND COMNTISSIONS MEETING SiT1~1MARY FOR14Z
N.41VIE OF BOARD/CONIlVIISSION: t~rater Resources l~dviso Board
DATE OF MEETING: February 25, 200~
NA11~iElTELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SiJl~~iARY: Suzanne Lieberman, 303-441-3266
NA141ES OF RZEMBERS, COLJNCIL, ST~FF, ~ND INVITID GUESTS PRESENT:
B011I2D itZEMBERS -Jun Knopf, Robin Byers, William DeOreo, Kelly DiNatale, Bart Miller
STAFF - Bob Harberg, Cristina Martinez, Joanna Crean, Paul Lander, Bret Linenfelser, Sue Ellen
Harrison (C~O), Todd Cristiano (Red Oak Consulting j, Suzanne Liebennan, secretary.
VG~T TYPE OF11'IEETING BOLD ONE REGUL.4R SPECIAL QUr~SI-7UDICIAL
Agenda Item 1- Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m.
Agenda Item 2- Meeting Minutes - November 19, 2007 and January 28, 200$
A~Iotion: Knopf - Mave to approve November 19, 2007 minutes depending on whether this is the
final ~~ersion.
Seconded: DiNatale
Vote: 5-0 in favar, NIotion passed
AZotion: Knopf - I~Iove to approve 7anuary 28, 2008 minutes.
Seconded: DiNatale
Vote: 4-0 in favor, NIotion passed
Agenda Item 3- Public p~rticipation and comment.
• There ~~as none.
Agenda Item 4
Matters From Staf~-
• Harberg: Ned t~rilliams is not at WR_AB meeting because he is in t~'ashington, D.C.
lobbying for federal funds for Sauth Boulder Creek, Carter Lake Pipeline and Goose Creek,
which are Boulder's federal priorities for 2008. There is no appraved plan for South Boulder
Creek and the City is waiting for FEMA ta accept their hydraulic analysis. DeOreo: What is
the status of the university work, i.e. moving South Campus from floodplain? Harberg: The
University/Flatiron Company is moving ahead with Uerm certification and FEMA has
indicated that they will likely certify it.
• Crean: The Water Bud~et Study Session went very `vell. Bruno is looking at the
infonnation, figuring out next steps fonti~ard, but nothing specific. I~nopf: VVill there be an
official summary of what Council said? Crean: Yes, they tivill try to have it ready ne~t Council
meeting but tuning-wise, not ready yet because they are also planning next steps. A siunmary
will be ready March 1$. DeOrea: ~?Jill Frank give t?JI~~U drafts of the summary before
implementation? Crean: 1~ summary of the study session tvill be submitted to see if e~~eryone
is on the same page, but not draft language of the rules. DeOreo: tVhen the rules were initially
publishea, t~1RAB didn't get them during 30-day comment period, so it was too late to make
any changes. Incorporating t~'R~~l~'s input could have side-stepped a year's worth of
conflict. Knopf: Yes, more clarity now in terms of customer classes but still important for
WR1-lB to have input. DeOreo: We should get changes implemented before the next
irrigation season so we need to move fast. Crean: Yes, that's the intent.
Mntters from Board -
• Byers: W'ants to start working on Valmont Butte in terms of alternative energy now that we
have installation at 75~' Street. Knopf: Hunter Lovins talked about ~vind turbines at
Albequerque conference - new de~~elopment working with any wind velocity. We should
have her come and speak about it. Byers: If not wind, solar - wouldn't conflict ~vith political
correctness. Byers: If we go forward with alternative energy plans, we should have it go
through WRt~B, not environmental staff. Harrison: The Ciry is starting to talk to Xcel about.
negotiating the nezt franchise. DeOreo: For ener~~y, ~~~hat is the long-term strategy in case of
WRAB Sununar~r
Februaly ?5, 2048
Page N~. 1
serious disruptions to energy? Harberg: On-site emergency generation for secondary
treatment if one leg of power system goes out, then additional generation for primary
treatment, disinfection, but both legs of Xcel grid would have to go off. Harrison:
Environmental people tasked with larger picture, Kyoto: Kara, Ned and 7onathan
communicate. DeOreo: Let's have environmental city staff come speak to WRAB. Harrison:
180 million dollars for demand-side environmental management docket. At the state-level,
Governor Ritter has all three of his people on the PUC, very involved in Amendment 37, alot
going on state-wide. The state's docket is general now but will soon be more specific,
especially for demand-side management.
Agenda Item 5 -Review of city's Conflict of Interest policies.
Sue Ellen Harrison, Senior Assistant City Attorney from the City Attorney's Office, gave the presentation.
A representative from the City Attorney's Office is meeting with all the city's boards and commissions to
discuss and review the city's Code of Conduct.
WRAB discussion included: Circumstances which could be considered a potential conflict of interest for
WRAB members and situations under which recusal would be necessary.
¦ DeOreo: Conflict of interest focuses on substantial interest, but primarily if there is a
financial stake. The appearance of impropriety is critical. If there is confidential
information involved, which is relevant for future franchise agreement issues, conflict
of interest applies.
¦ Knopf: What if a member of the Board is involved in a Parks interest issue, but it's
not a financial issue? Harrison: Yes, conflict of interest because it gives an appearance
of impropriety and an inability to be personally objective. DeOreo: What about asking
the city to spend money to enhance something you are personally interested in? The
application of conflict of interest seems too broad. Harrison: The definition of
conflict of interest is very specific if you are on the board of directors or an officer,
even if there is no financial issue involved. If you were president of Trout Unlimited
and voting for instream flows, you would have to recuse yourself. If you were just a
member of a group, you would have to consider whether the issue is of a general civic
nature or not, and whether there is an appearance of impropriety. If an issue is of a
general civic nature, no recusal is necessary.
¦ DeOreo: Is there any prohibition on consulting firms working from the City of
Boulder if on «'RAB? Harrison: No, would have to be very specific. PIF, flood
studies are too general because everyone is involved, so they couldn't be considered
conflicts of interest. More difficult for quasi judicial boards such as Landmarks
Board. WRAB issues are more about whether you can make an objective decision
because so many of the matters are general civic.
Agenda Item 6- Update on the Plant Investment Fee (PIF} study.
Joanna Crean (project manager for PIF study) and Todd Cristiano gave the presentation. Plant Investment
Fees {PIFs) are used to recapture initial capital improvement investments in water, wastewater and
stormwater/flood management infrastructures and have been used for the past 50 years by the city of
Boulder. PIFs are charged to new and existing customers who need new or additional utility service {such
as a new tap) from the city utility system. Currently, the city charges PIFs in the following manner:
* New customers connecting to the utility system pay an upfront PIF charge to compensate current
customers for past investment, and
• Existing customers may pay a PIF charge when the customer increases their projected usage (for
example, adds a bathroom to their house) of water and wastewater infrastructure or when they
increase the impervious (hard-surfaced) area on their property and impact the stormwater
infrastructure.
Periodically, the city takes a comprehensive review of the PIFs to evaluate the methodology and fees and to
ensure equitable distribution of capital casts among the following customer classes:
• Single-family residential,
• Multi-family residential,
WRAB Summary
February 25, 2008
Page No. 2
* Commerciallindustrial/institutional, and
• Irrigation-only.
The last evaluation of PIFs occurred in November 2001. PIFs have been adjusted by the Construction Cost
Index {CCI) annually since 2001. In January 2007, the city implemented a new water rate structure that
uses water budgets for calculating monthly water bills. The 2008 PIF study presents an opportunity to
review how PIFs are assessed and to make possible changes to reinforce the goals and objectives of the
new water budget rate structure. The utility infrastructure inventory and valuation will also be reviewed and
updated as part of the PIF study.
A stakeholder group has been formed and is meeting regularly to provide input and act as an advisory
group to the project. The consultant has completed a preliminary analysis to assist in determining which
characteristics should be used in calculating new PIFs. It is anticipated based on input from the stakeholder
group and the Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) that the consultant will further analyze possible
PIF options which will be presented to City Council at a study session scheduled for Apri122, 2008.
VGTRABDiscussion included: Whether PIFs are currently capturing all necessary variables, suggested
revisions to calculating new PIFs, PIFs for basins, calculations for outdoor vs. indoor PIFs.
¦ DeOreo: Thought calculations would be based on actual water use. We should try to figure out
how to use the peak month as a proxy (ratio of peak month to average month). Harberg: The
problem is that the design basis for the system is not based on a monthly parameter, but we are
considering other parameters like square footage, etc. Cristiano: What is best way to estimate
indoor usage? For outdoor, we have been banking on pervious area. We should use both to get
annual usage for single families. This would be a good starting point to obtain interclass equity
between small and large families. Knopf: But peak values vary so much from household to
household. Cristiano: Yes, the values won't capture everything but they are a goad starting point
for improving equity.
¦ DiNatale: You can also have two houses with the same sized lot, families and impervious area
but with very different water use. Cristiano: Yes, and weather also greatly affects results.
Cristiano: Yes, a lot of nuances in the variables, and weather also greatly affects results. We are
also still looking at the best way to estimate commercial use and stormwater.
¦ Byers: Should people in higher-risk areas (e.g. basins) pay more via PIF for stormwater?
Cristiano: Basins will probably not be included. Byers: Wants to know more about basins and
stormwater at a future WRAB meeting. Harberg: The city has resisted moving from a system-
wide perspective to individual basins because so much has been spent on capital improvements for
specific basins. Byers: How much build-out capacities is left in the various basins and how do we
find an equitable solution for them? For example, the Transit Village Area Plan ("TVAP") will
have a huge impact on the area. Harberg: T VAP will not be adding new impervious area so no
additional PIF will be assessed. The TVAP is already completely paved over. DeOreo: Run-off
from TVAP should actually increase. Harberg: A new developer would have to detain everything
in excess of the historic run-off. DeOreo: It would have been a great opportunity to upgrade the
system at T VAP. Harberg: This was discussed by the 2004 WRAB.
¦ DeOreo: Adding a peak hour value? Too much complexity in calculations. Just wrap all factors
into the peak month. Cristiano: Yes, but it's about striking the right balance in terms of the level
of detail included in calculations, moving towards equity. DeOreo: If PIF conflicts with water
budget, the system collapses, so they should create the same results.
¦ Miller: Why is outdoor piece different (Attachment B, pages 8 and 9)? Byers: What would the
charge be for an existing PIF structure for medium (3/4" tap), around $10-12K. Crean: These
different scenarios are exactly what staff wants to look at to compare differences in cost for the
next stakeholder meeting.
¦ Miller: What are stakeholders saying about equity arguments? Crean: No comments yet.
DeOreo: Steve Pomerance said existing customers say they have never paid an adequate PIF, have
gotten afree-ride. Miller: This is not a plan to assess retroactive PIF charge, correct? Cristiano:
No, retroactive charging is legally and politically questionable. Miller: Because Boulder so built-
out, makes retroactive charging difficult. DiNatale: Yes, employment increasing more than
overall growth even though water demand going up. Crean: Staff is hoping to have the last
WRAB SulYUmary
February 25, 2008
Page No. 3
stakeholder meeting March 12 or April 16. The Apri122" meeting would be the opportunity to
bring forward options from stakeholders and WRAB.
Agenda Item 7 -Update on the draft Water Conse~•rTatian Plan for submittal to state.
Paul Lander gave the presentation. The City of Boulder, as a retail water provider delivering more than
2000 acre-feet/year, was required under State law, in 1994, to submit a water conservation plan to the State
of Colorado, Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB). The attached draft City of Boulder Water
Conservation Plan (Plan) (Attachment A) replaces the City plan submitted to the State in 1996. The 2004
State law required all covered entities to submit a new plan following new guidelines. After the Water
Resources Advisory Board (WRAB~y reviews the Plan, it will ultimately be submitted to the CWCB. As
part of the State approval process the City is required to have a 60-day public comment period for the Plan,
and the WRAB process will count as part of the public comment period.
Once the State approves the Plan, the City is then eligible to apply for State grant funds for implementation
projects, with 75% of the cost bom by the State. This represents an opportunity to obtain outside funds to
complement current conservation efforts or offer new services to City water customers. In addition, the
Plan can provide baseline information for intemal review, evaluation, and revision of current City water
conservation programs and policies.
WRAB Discussion included: Suggestion of minor changes to the report for public comment period, and
discussion of report's role in obtaining state's approval for grants but also for internal monitoring.
¦ Knopf: Irrigation 38%? (Table 5 under Table 2.7). Quite high. This is what we expected but we
need to focus our attention here. Paul: Yes, good for refining our work.
¦ Miller: What are requirements of the state statute? Does it require estimate savings from previous
programs? Paul: No, these are baseline plans, unlike Denver's plan. Boulder can also state a goal
on zero savings.
¦ DeOreo: Byers: How much of state's grant funds are actually available for Boulder? Paul: The
state has between $1.5-2 million/year in funds for the whole state, but Boulder has to submit the
proposal anyway. Byers: So we shouldn't go above and beyond what is necessary to get funds.
Paul: Yes, we should use it as a report card and just do what is necessary to get it stamped, and
also use it as in-house version. DeOreo: The first grant should apply to the ICI -(Industrial
Commercial Institutional) survey. We need to disaggregate ICI customers and determine what
information we need in order to effectively predict their water use.
¦ DiNatale: What baseline are we using for projections and what about the drought shadow?
Lander: We are re-setting the baseline because we are still in a draught shadow. Data projections
are based on pre-drought figures. Imposition of water budget on the city will also affect
projections.
¦ DiNatale: Should savings on outdoor audits for water conservation targets be applied to post-
drought numbers or 2000 numbers? Lander: They should be applied to pre-drought projections
and goals because mid-1900s assumptions have changed in terms of employment, e.g., but we still
don't know what the baseline is. DeOreo: That's why it's better to not put data in percentages.
Use absolute numbers instead and separate goals per indoor household: gpcd (gallons per capita
per day) per household. We should also set more specific goals for irrigation and stop referring to
"unaccounted water" because it forces you to consider what proportion of water loss is due to
meters, e.g. Betasso's. If we replaced the meters at Betasso, we might find that we are ahead of
our goals! Knopf: 1 % reduction by city sounds "fishy."
¦ Knopf: Are there any activities targeted towards irrigation customers? Paul: ~A1e are still waiting
for data re Block 4 and 5 usage. Some customers are confused, some never got the right allocation
for right-of--way, and some simply said they don't care.
¦ Det~reo: Expand on Section 7-5. The report shouldn't just reference water conservation futures
study but should also discuss what measures we really see going forward.
¦ DeOreo: Section 9-3 should include an evaluation for every goal: one-to-one reporting factor to
track goals. Paul: Yes, this is the end for the state in terms of reporting, but the beginning
internally. Knopf: Lander, et al. will make minor modifications based on WRAB input and then
post it to website for remainder of public comment period. Lander: Then we will get feedback
from the state and use it to inform our internal review. We should include how much water we
WRAB Sununary
February 25, 2008
Page No. 4
have lost to leaks in the master plan.
¦ Miller: Yes, we should flesh out sections 7-5 and 9-3 more. They are currently too thin based on
their relative importance for their submission to the state.
Agenda Item 8 -Update on current floodplain regulations and floodplain management work efforts
including potential changes to the floodplain regulations that would require higher regulatory
standards for critical facilities.
Bob Harberg and Cristina. Nlartinez gave the presentation. The purpose of this agenda item is to update
tkRAB on current floodplain regulations and floodplain management work efforts. In particular, staff is
interested in WRAB's perspective on the issue of changes to floodplain regulations that would require
higher regulatory standards for critical facilities. The city is trying to schedule a Floodplain and Wetland
Management City Council Study Session to introduce Council to the purpose and importance of protecting
floodplains and wetlands, to provide Council with background on current Floodplain and Wetland
Management Programs, and to get feedback from Council on floodplain and wetland policy issues and
preliminary approaches for changing the Floodplain and Wetland Ordinances. Planning and Development
Services staff is preparing the wetland component of the study session, while Public Works Utilities Staff is
preparing the floodplain management component. For the purpose of the February 25`h meeting with the
Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB), staff will focus on floodplain management and solicit input
and comments from the WRAB on the preliminary draft outline {Attachment A) for the study session
packet/memorandum. Staff desires a discussion of ideas and issues about current floodplain policies and
regulations, and what changes, specifically related to critical facilities, should be considered for the future.
WRABDiscussion included: Solicitation of WRAB input on questions concerning the City's current
floodplain management intended for submission to City Council Study Session Apri19 (meeting was
cancelled). Several members commented on the issue of accessing critical facilities during a flood in terms
of formulating regulations and for the City's emergency preparedness program.
¦ Byers: Green light on conference center? How can we be building more along the creek if we're
trying to come into compliance? The City should also hold themselves to the same standards for
regulations. The City has not done an adequate job of locating facilities outside of the various
flood hazard areas.
¦ Knopf: KGNU has considered the vulnerability of their facility to flooding and how this might
affect their ability to broadcast information during a flood. We should look into this issue for
KGNU and other communications facilities for "critical facilities," particularly the Boulder
Central Office (CO) owned by Qwest and occupied by other telecommunications providers.
Harberg: We need to determine how we define "critical facilities."
¦ DiNatale: Is Crestview in the floodplain? Harberg: Crestview is not in the floodplain but there
are ingress/egress issues related to Crestview.
Agenda Item 9 -Discussion of schedule and agenda items for future meetings.
Agenda Item 10 - Adjow•nment
Motion: Motion to adjourn by Miller.
Seconded by: Knopf
Vote: 5-0 in favor, passed.
Meeting adjourned at 10:54 PM.
Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting:
The next WR.~1B meeting will be Monday, March 17 - 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 Sulrunary
February 25, 2008
Page No. 5