HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Water Resources - 3/17/2008
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING SUMMARY FORM
NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Water Resources Advisory Board
DATE OF MEETING: March 17, 2008
NAME/TELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY: Suzanne Lieberman, 303-441-3266
NAMES OF MEMBERS, COUNCIL, STAFF, AND INVITED GUESTS PRESENT:
BOARD 1\1EMBERS -Jim Knopf, Robin Byers, William DeOreo, Kelly DiNatale, Bart Miller
STAFF - Ned Williams, Joanna Crean, Bret Linenfelser, Todd Cristiano (Red Oak Consulting), Suzanne
Lieberman, secretary.
WHAT TYPE OF MEETING BOLD ONE REGULAR SPECIAL QUASI-JUDICIAL
Agenda Item 1 - Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:13 p.m.
Agenda Item 2 - Meeting Minutes - February 25, 2008
Motion: Byers - Move to approve February 25, 2008 minutes with changes.
Seconded: Miller
Vote: 5-0 in favor, Motion passed
Agenda Item 3 - Public participation and comment.
• There was none.
Agenda Item 4
Matters From Staff -
• Williams: Bret Linenfelser has been fielding all calls for pharmaceuticals and drinking water
in response to articles that ran the week of March 9 from the Associated Press and other
papers, and in response to the CU Boulder and USGS studies on Boulder Creek. Linenfelser:
The city has been receiving three main questions: 1. Does the city monitor for
pharmaceuticals in their drinking water? 2. Where does water come from in Boulder on the
raw water side? 3. Do wastewater treatment facilities interact at all with raw water? The city
does not monitor for pharmaceuticals and refers the public to the Safe Drinking Water Act
and Consumer Confidence Report for water quality. The public can make recommendations
to City Council regarding monitoring. The Little Thompson Water District also recently
called the city regarding joint monitoring of Carter Lake water, which the city would like to
pursue. Byers: Any program for encouraging safe disposal techniques rather than flushing?
Linenfelser: Yes, the city just agreed with Boulder Community Hospital and Partners for a
Clean Environment (PACE) to work together with the city on a Pharmaceutical "Take-Back"
Day and Program (longer-term). The city of Longmont had a very successful take-back day in
September 2007, collecting nearly 300 pounds of pharmaceuticals. Boulder's general
message is that if there is a take-back program and you are comfortable with storing unused
pharmaceuticals until take-back day, do that. Byers: Is the city focusing just on
pharmaceuticals, other cleaning by-products or personal care products (PCPs)? Linenfelser:
The city needs to discuss PCPs with Utilities and Communications staff. There is no current
city message about PCP restrictions, but the city will soon include improved links to the EPA
on its website regarding recommendations for personal care products and take-back programs.
Matters from Board -
• There were none.
Agenda Item 5 - Update on the Plant Investment Fee (PIF) Study.
Joanna Crean (project manager for PIF study) and Todd Cristiano gave the presentation. The February 25,
2008 WRAB meeting served as an opportunity to update the board on the Plant Investment Fee (PIF) study.
The March 17 meeting will serve as an opportunity to provide some additional information on the PIF
study based on further analysis that Red Oak Consulting has completed. In addition, staff will be able to
update WRAB on the outcome of the PIF stakeholder meeting on March 12.
As contained in Attachment A (Analysis of PIF Characteristics Memo), Red Oak has completed some
WRAB Summary
March 17. 2008
Page No. 1
additional analysis as a result of the January 30 stakeholder meeting. The analysis is intended to provide
additional information regarding the characteristics for determining PIFs and their impact on equity and
other city objectives. Red Oak has also completed the asset valuation and cost allocation for functional
categories, which is included in the memo.
All of the feedback will be compiled and presented to City Council at a study session on April 22, 2008. It
is anticipated that the City Council would make a final decision about any changes to the current PIF
methodology and assessment schedule as part of the 2009 budget process. In addition to the PIF study,
three other development-related fees (development excise tax, development review fees and building plan
review, permit & inspection fees) are being evaluated for possible changes. The City Council will review
and consider the full impact of the development-related fees during the 2009 budget process. Any PIF
changes should be implemented January 1, 2009. Prior to implementation, any PIF changes and financial
impacts will be communicated to the public via utility bill inserts, news releases, newsletters and targeted
mailings. In addition, several public meetings will be held to inform customers of the potential impacts.
ARAB discussion included: Updating WRAB on the stakeholder advisory group meeting on March 12
and soliciting feedback from WRAB for the next stakeholder meeting on April 16, including discussion of
options that staff has developed for commercial, industrial and institutional (CH) PIFs.
■ DeOreo: Locking in water budgets should not be a disincentives people to use less
water. If people pay less for PIF and receive a smaller water budget, they probably
wouldn't feel abused. Crean: But PIF is based on potential usage so potential is there
for next residents. Knopf: And successive owners may have legitimate reasons for
using more water (e.g. gardens, extra children). DiNatale: Water budgets and PIFs
need to be tied together so the city can recover its capital costs and can encourage
conservation. Crean: Yes, makes sense but it would be challenging from an
administrative perspective, with people obtaining adjustments through utility billing.
It would be better to keep actual usage tied to monthly rates and potential demand tied
to PIF. Cristiano: Also keep in mind that asset valuation is fairly significant in terns
of calculations.
■ DeOreo: We (Aquacraft, Inc.) conducted a study of 100 single-family homes at
random representing indoor water use characteristics of population (distributed
handout), took results from data-loggers re average indoor use and obtained a pretty
significant statistical relationship (0.55 R-squared). We should see this kind of data to
set water budget, then budget would be in the middle of expected demand and would
also help people who were way above the curve figure out a way to decrease.
Williams: If you know the number of people actually living in house, you can get
good data. DeOreo: Yes, and the EPA approach (page 4 of handout), provides
incentives for building a more efficient house using best available technology
(Energy Star, e.g.). This is an alternative to the 7,000 gallons per month indoor
allotment to calculate the indoor PIF for new houses. DiNatale: High-efficiency
appliances should be mandatory with every new home. Byers: Not everyone can
afford high-efficiency appliances.
■ DeOreo: The first three PIF options are just based on historic use so they don't
address the problem of how to set a budget for CII customers. These options are just
a way for customers to get started but they are not meant to be applied over the long-
term. DeOreo: What about stormwater detention - do developers get a break?
Williams: No, but we are looking into it. Byers: Regarding whether there should be
different stormwater rates for drainage basins, during the Stakeholder meeting, we
decided "no" because everyone has already waited their turn in line and helps pay for
everyone else's costs. DeOreo: PIF Options 4 and 5 are not the only options left.
Cristiano: These options had the most support - or at least the most discussion.
DeOreo: I would not want to walk away from Option 3D - the "efficiency standard"
plus Option 4, including subcategories by users. Crean: Yes, a lot of discussion
regarding Option 4. but knows DeOreo wants to do further analysis on subcategories,
so Option 4 plus further analysis in the future. DeOreo: Rather than have the city
determine the water budget, have the building owner come u with the water budget
WRAB Summary
March 17. 2008
Page No. 2
based on city criteria.
■ Miller: What is meant by "equity" in the report? It would make sense to have
residential and commercial classes treated the same in terms of burdens, but not sure
whether small residences should be treated the same or that large residences should
pay more. Cristiano: Yes, based on size, a customer will pay more or less within a
class because small and large homes each pay for their own potential demand.
Williams: Larger irrigable area will pay larger PIF than smaller irrigable area but we
haven't yet solved indoor issue. Size and characteristics of houses are all equal now.
DeOreo: This is why we should use the actual number of people in a house.
Williams: We do not have good statistical results in terms of using bedrooms as
surrogates, so we are hesitant to use that. Byers: Steve Pomerance's issue is inter-
generational equity. His whole point is to discourage "free riders." Steve is convinced
that PIFs are much smaller than their budgets and vice versa so wants retroactive
adjustments. Byers is not sure how we would accommodate this from an equity
standpoint. Most of the people complaining are mom and pop stores going to get
permits and realizing how high their PIFs are, whereas CII accounts will never
complain because their PIFs are relatively small (potential "free riders"). Cristiano:
There are no precedents for these equity categories. But they help support fee design
and are consistent with city and legal requirements.
■ DiNatale: Is there any comparison with Boulder with other cities, e.g. Longmont on
new valuations for PIFs for Customer #1 and #2 for these various methods?
Cristiano: Yes, helpful for apples to apples comparison. A lot of utilities are going
with more traditional approaches. Greeley uses meter size and is happy with that
approach. Fort Collins has a similar approach but includes a component for high-
strength wastewater. DiNatale: Would be interested in comparison with cities such
as Broomfield, e.g. Crean: The city has already done method comparison with other
local Front Range cities, e.g. the buy-in approach. In terms of fee comparison, Steve
Buckbee is developing scenarios for different customers so Boulder can compare fees
with other cities: Longmont, Louisville, Westminster, etc.
Agenda Item 6 - Update, discussion and feedback on the draft City Council Study Session Summary
on Water Budgets
Ned Williams gave the presentation. The City Council held a Study Session on Water Budgets on February
12, 2008. The City Manager has requested feedback from the WRAB before making his final decision
about next steps.
Staff would like to submit a Council agenda item for acceptance of the Study Session summary minutes on
March 19 in order to be included in the April 1, 2008 Council agenda.
ARAB Discussion included:
■ Knopf: There are historical monthly use (HMU) values, then they drop off (error on page 5 of
additional information to Agenda Item #6). Williams: We will correct, but our intent is that
January 3-year historical average would become the January water budget, February 3-year
historical average would become the February water budget, etc. based on the most recent rolling
average and recalculated every year. Williams: The city made budget adjustments in terms of
accurate irrigable area and provided customers with credit beginning in April 2007. 2007 was the
correction year/grace period. Miller: Did the customers complaining in May, June and July get
retroactive calculation? Williams: Yes, anyone who requested an irrigable area readjustment for
2007got adjustments if they were appropriate and the city made them retroactive back to April. If
someone comes to utility billing sometime this year, the city will provide adjustments but they
will not be retroactive back to April 2007.
■ Knopf: For the revised water budget rule, would it take an ordinance change for wastewater?
Williams: Yes, the way the City Code is currently written, monthly bills for all CH are based on
the amount of water going through the meter, so we have to change that. The efficiency standard
budget allows people to hire their own consultants and to submit data to be reviewed by staff and
used if appropriate. DeOreo: Yes, but the city should develop standards for the audits.
Williams: Yes, this is the intent.
WRAB Summary
March 17. 2008
Page No. 3
■ Miller: Outdoor allocation - 15 gallons per square foot for residential (page 6 of report in Agenda
Item 46): We should have a similar ratcheting down for large commercial industrial plots.
Williams: We don't currently ratchet down the application rate on multi-family or commercial
outdoor accounts. Knopf: Yes, the reason is because we didn't want to force people to change
their existing landscapes. Miller: But with residential, we applied the ratchet. Knopf: Yes, in
theory, but in practice, we couldn't fmd anyone irrigating entire landscape. DeOreo: The other
rationale for multi-family and open space irrigation being 15 gsf is because this type of
landscaping entails more intense use by more people. But commercial is not a highly used public
landscape so Miller's proposal is defmitely reasonable.
■ DeOreo: Under looped water systems, we are combining the budgets for budgeting and billing
purposes on systems with multiple meters feeding looped water systems. So the city should
determine one budget for the entire area fed by a looped system and then combine that budget for
all meters (combine the readings from the meters). It should be up to the owner of the property to
provide the correct information and the city will make the appropriate adjustment. CU has the
same problem with four meters feeding the main campus so aggregate water budget from four
meters. Williams: Yes, that is what we intend to begin with the June billing.
■ Miller: Not a big fan of HMU - no conservation incentive. Could we drop it from the list of
options altogether? Williams: WRAB recommended it 3 months ago. DeOreo: The reason it was
recommended was because some businesses have distinct seasonal characteristics. DiNatale: We
can use HMU to work towards efficiency benchmarks. Byers: Leave HMU but advise phasing it
out over five years. Miller: Emphasize that all these methodologies are under review in the
beginning or the end of the report. Byers: We should have a 2-year cycle rather than annual
changes in the water budget in order to make this more like a real business decision - otherwise
there can be gaming. Change the business license instead.
Agenda Item 7 - Discussion of schedule and agenda items for future meetings.
Agenda Item 8 - Farewell to Jim Knopf.
Agenda Item 9 - Adjournment
Motion: Motion to adjourn by Miller.
Seconded by: Knopf
Vote: 5-0 in favor, passed.
Meeting adjourned at 9:54 PM.
Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting:
The next WRAB meeting will be Monday, April 21 - 7 p.m., regular meeting, Municipal Services Center,
5050 East Pearl Street unless otherwise decided by staff and the board.
These are summary minutes. Audio tapes for full record are available through Central Records.
Minutes approved by:
Date:
WRAB Summary
March 17. 2008
Page No. 4