HomeMy WebLinkAbout2 - Draft Minutes - Water Resources - April 20, 2009
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING SUMMARY FORM
NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Water Resources Advisory Board
DATE OF MEETING: April 20, 2009
NAME/TELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY: Suzanne Lieberman, 303-441-3266
NAMES OF MEMBERS, COUNCIL, STAFF, AND INVITED GUESTS PRESENT:
BOARD MEMBERS - Robin Byers, Kelly DiNatale, William DeOrco, Susan Iott, Chuck Howe
STAFF -Ned Williams; Joanna Crean; Bret Linenfelser; 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 7:03 p.m.
Agenda Item 2 - Election of WRAB officers and other annual review topics.
Williams gave the presentation. With the appointment of Chuck Howe, our new board member, several
activities must be completed at the beginning of the April 20, 2009 WRAB meeting:
• nomination and election of new board officers, including chair, vice-chair, and secretary; and
• review of bylaws for changes or revisions; and
• discussion, if needed, about items in the Board and Commission Orientation packet, summarized
below, such as:
o Code of Conduct
o Public Meetings and e-mail
o Board interaction with council and staff
o WRAB's responsibilities
o WRAB bylaws (Attachment A)
Motion: loft moved approve election of Byers as Chair and DiNatale as Vice-Chair. DeOreo moved to
approve lott as Secretary.
Second: DiNatale
Vote: 5-0 in favor, Motion passed.
Discussion on WRAB bylaws. Byers: Section 5.3: "The Secretary shall attest to the signature of the
Chair on all documents..." Has this formality actually ever been complied with? DiNatale: Let's just start
complying with it. Iott: Secretary can check to see that all documents requiring signatures have been signed
at some point every year.
Byers had recommended a grammatical revision to Section 1.1: "The Board shall comprise the five
members..." at the April 2008 WRAB meeting. Byers asked the Secretary to incorporate this change into
the bylaws and present the document for her (the Chair's) signature at the May meeting, since the revision
was never officially incorporated. Staff had no recommendations for further changes to the bylaws at this
meeting.
Discussion on moving to paperless packets. DeOreo: Would members be able to receive packets
sooner if they were paperless? Williams: No. Byers: Could we expense printing costs and would WRAB
members be provided with laptops? Printing is a de minimus expenditure. We need paper copies for the
library anyway. If concern with using paper, then members can make a commitment to recycle. Too
difficult to work without hard copies. Lott: Possibility of reducing the number of copies or individual
agenda items required in hard copy? A way of determining in advance of the meeting which items could do
without hard copies? Byers: Would like a hard copy of everything; cleaner for the record. Howe: Logistics
too diff icult without hard copies; members shouldn't be relying on non-personal printers for large packets
on a monthly basis. Byers: Is there a recycle bin in the 13 Street Conference Room? Williams: Yes.
Byers: Members should recycle if possible. Also, if there are people on WRAB comfortable with receiving
the packets electronically, they can let the Secretary know and the other members can continue to receive
hard copies. Iott/DeOreo: Good idea; then we can try to do it in parallel and see if it works.
Discussion on "action minute" format. Williams: Staff is trying to capture motions and decisions made
on various boards without capturing the entire discussion. Iott: Environmental Action Board's (Ion's
WRAB Summary
April 20, 2009
Page No. I
former board) minutes too brief; possibility of providing an executive summary? Byers: Also difficult to
find items on recording without timestamps. WRAB should be more conscientious about calling out the
time at various points in agenda. Are recordings digital? Williams: Yes. Byers: Previous board had action
minutes and these were much too short (but subject to Rule 106). Minutes that are too abbreviated are an
inconvenience to the public; primary rationale for keeping minutes is to facilitate public's ability to review
them. Agrees with lott that true action minutes are actually useless. Suggests a balance between extensively
detailed minutes and action minutes. Also helpful to include more names for attribution of sources.
Whatever Secretary can work out, which is still useful. Williams: Would not envision being able to distill
minutes down to one page but also doesn't think we need minutes as detailed as minutes reviewed tonight
(March 2009 WRAB minutes).
Agenda Item 3 - Meeting Minutes - March 23, 2009.
Motion: Iott - Move to approve March 23, 2009 minutes as amended.
Seconded: DiNatale
Vote: 4-0 in favor, Motion passed [Howe abstained as a new board member.]
Agenda Item 4 - Public Participation and Comment.
Henry Adamski: Attended March 23`d WRAB meeting and asked Williams to check on surcharges and
rate increases initiated in 2002. Williams: Nine percent (9%) water rate increase on January 1, 2002 and
three percent (3%) increase on January 1, 2003. Surcharges effective 2003 for two months and then lifted:
fifty cents in Block 2, and one dollar in Block 3, for residential and irrigation accounts. Can make a copy
for Mr. Adamski. DiNatale: Was the surcharge per thousand gallons? Williams: Yes.
Agenda Item 5 [7:32 p.m.]
Matters from Board -
• WRAB Retreat. DiNatale: Would like to have another WRAB Retreat to discuss WRAB
priorities and long-term plans, with all staff welcome, noticed, etc, like the last meeting 2-3 years
ago. Not interested in asking staff to prepare anything but more of a brainstorming. Iott: A
separate meeting? DiNatale: Yes. Iott: Good timing with arrival of new member. Relatively
soon? DeOreo. Yes. May or early June. Howe: Will be out until May 12 but anytime after that.
Byers: WRA.B members should send good and bad dates to the Secretary. Williams: No
weekends? Byers: No. Williams: We'll do a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday at 6 PM
with dinner. DiNatale: Thursday, May 14? Byers: Send e-mails to Secretary with dates that
absolutely don't work. Williams: Secretary will check on room availability, with 13th Street as a
possible location, and dates. Staff will initiate something.
• Flood Response Plan. DeOreo: Had sent e-mail around on this year's exercise and what is
involved; wants to discuss this later in agenda under "future schedule" (Agenda Item #9). Would
like more discussion on this at a future meeting. Williams: [Distributes list of items not currently
on agenda but being potentially considered as agenda items for future meetings.] List includes
flood response item; Kelly's follow-up items from retreat; "Ten Points" from DeOreo's Drought
Response proposal; Howe's paper on Aurora from AWWA (American Water Works
Association). WRAB should discuss these further under "future schedule" (Agenda Item #9).
DeOreo: WRAB should be better informed on city's Flood Response Plan. Williams:
Possibility of Chief Donner from the Fire Department and Chief Beckner from the Police
Department attending a WRAB meeting to discuss city's Emergency Flood Response Plan. Byers:
On a future agenda? DeOreo: Yes. Byers: As an "Update Item"? DeOreo: Yes.
Matters from Staff -
• Council study session on floodplain management. Williams: Discussion of flood management
and Wonderland and Fourmile Creek master plans April 28 h at 6 p.m. in council chambers. Iott:
Will study session only focus on flood management for Fourmile or broader flood management
issues? Williams: More about flood management than response; already discussed response with
council in 2008. Upcoming session will focus on flood management CIP priorities in anticipation
of returning to council later in the year with master plans for council approval. Iott: Staff/WRAB
have no broad policy statements on flood manasement? Williams: Study session will focus on
WRAB Summary
April 20, 2009
Page No. 2
policies in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. DeOreo: When council has a study session
dealing with issues WRAB considers, WRAB should have an opportunity to have the floor.
WRAB is supposed to be involved in advising council on such matters. DiNatale: In that vein,
was surprised at how Thunderbird Lake issue was handled. Advisory boards only had three
minutes each to present. lott: Would council ask WRAB if they wanted us to be there? DeOreo:
Council asked us to be on this board, and this is an opportunity for WRAB to pass a resolution;
WRAB should have a more participatory role in study sessions on water resource issues.
DiNatale: In the future, if an issue comes up that WRAB feels strongly about, could try to adopt a
common WRAB position and attend the relevant study session; but study sessions just intended
for council and staff. Howe: Agrees with DeOreo: WRAB should have a place on the study
session agenda. DeOreo: How should this work? Williams: In the past, there have been joint
study sessions between council, respective advisory boards and staff for certain items where the
entire board participates. At other times, a board member, usually the chair, is asked to be actively
involved in the presentation; and other times, just council and staff are involved in the study
sessions. Byers: This would be a good topic to revisit, possibly at the WRAB Reheat. Williams:
No other study sessions currently planned this year with Utilities and council besides the budget
process. Iott: Plans to attend the April 28'h Study Session and just listen.
Agenda Item 6 - Final Recommendation on the Water Quality Strategic Plan. [7:52 PM]
Linenfelser gave the presentation. A Water Quality Strategic Plan (WQSP) has been developed by city of
Boulder (City) Utilities Division staff in coordination with the City Planning Department. The purpose of
the WQSP is to define the City's goals for protecting water quality, develop strategies to achieve these
goals and planning for future regulations. The WQSP will be implemented by the Water Quality and
Environmental Services (WQES) Group, within the Utilities Division. This memo provides an overview of
the final WQSP, responds to comments received from WRAB members during the meeting on January 12,
2009 and requests that WRAB accept the WQSP.
WRAB discussion included: Questions for staff: Whether there is a procedure for anticipating future
new in-stream water quality regulations at the federal level: to some extent - all pre-programmed under the
Clean Water Act and implemented by the state but no formal adoptive standards for nutrient criteria (i.e.
nitrogen and phosphorus), which might have an impact on waste water facility. Questions about
collaborating on monitoring and coordinating work with other entities, including upgrading Nederland's
wastewater facility, and discussion of past success with collaboration on South Platte; whether map for
constituents of concern for list of impaired waters had been upgraded (Figure A-1): yes, including for
endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs); Boulder supporting EDC monitoring in terms of allowing USGS
and CU access to wastewater facility and electrical power, but no actual funding for EDCs monitoring;
more planned for future; nutrients and aquatic life also very specific to receiving water. Whether TABOR
has resulted in stricter scrutiny of full-time employees for Utilities: yes; any fillings of positions or
expansions have to go through a special committee; Water Conservation Specialist position will not be
filled this year but Linenfelser plans to cover many of this position's activities by re-assigning activities to
other staff. WRAB not being asked to pick one of the three levels (fiscally constrained, action or vision) but
approve as one big plan with council aware of constraints. The possibility of reprioritization of some items
given fiscally constrained environment and relatively important constituents: focusing more on top tier
issues, partly due to another retirement in the storm water group. Praise for distilling WQSP since first
iteration.
Public Comment: There was none. [8:12 PM]
Clarifications: Difference between a strategic plan and a master plan? The WQSP is a hybrid: includes
measures, but also more general than a strategic plan, not focused on capital projects. Will a master plan
follow?: Just finishing the Waste Water Utility Master Plan for the entire wastewater utility, which
includes WQSP, then hope to do flood control master plan, then comprehensive water utility master plan.
Feedback and Discussion on Final Recommendation: One WRAB member felt the Plan is reasonable
given its broad level approach and is ready to pass it.
Motion (DeOreo): Move that WRAB accept the Water Quality Strategic Plan as presented and recommend
city council approval.
Seconded: DiNatale
WRAB Summary
April 20, 2009
Page No. 3
Discussion of Motion: Byers: Is WRAB being asked to actually recommend the plan to council?
Williams/Linenfelser: No. Williams: Council will only look at it when master plan goes forward.
Friendly amendment (Byers): Move that WRAB accept the Water Quality Strategic Plan as presented.
Seconded: lott
Vote: 5-0 in favor, Motion passed.
Agenda Item 7 - Discussion on Peer Review costs for 2010 Budget development. [8:19 PM]
Crean gave the presentation. On October 17, 2008 the American Water Works Association (AWWA)/
Water Environment Federation (WEF) peer review of the Utilities water and wastewater operations was
completed. A report was provided to WRAB and staff which identified both strengths and opportunities for
improvement. Staff has been working with WRAB on the guiding principles and prioritization method for
developing an implementation plan. An initial prioritization of the opportunities for improvement was
presented to WRAB at the Jan. 12, 2009 meeting. Feedback was incorporated and a proposed
implementation plan was distributed to City Council in a Weekly Information Packet (WIP) memorandum
on April 9, 2009 (see Appendix A).
WRAB discussion included: Questions for staff: Questions and update on the status of maintenance for
computer management (Item 122) including currently existing operations and future plans to more fully
integrate electronic systems via G1S; point that systems are extremely valuable for smoothing out
maintenance problems and reliability and support for this item as "Tier 1."- Questions about city's
compliance with OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) standards for treatment plants
and hydroelectric facilities, including request to confirm with city attorney's office on whether city is
exempt from OSHA, and if not, what it would take to comply. Suggestion to link energy audit with water
efficiency efforts. Discussion about workgroups running over budget (Item #43) and concern that more is
not being done to address problem, including discussion of potential measures to minimize overruns, e.g.
training, making sure individual workgroups are more accountable in their budget management every few
months; WRAB request for source of overruns; Peer Review very high-level; and staff should not try to
hide information from WRAB or public. Handling "zero payback" items and working with less income
including some programmatic budget reductions and not moving forward with some of the Peer Review
items. Discussion of linking line items in the budget with things in the matrix: probably too cumbersome.
[8:58 PM]
Public Comment: Henry Adamski: Table 3, p. 3: "reduce fiscally constrained"; "fiscally constrained";
"action plan" titles give the impression that utilities is impoverished. last spreadsheet for 2007 shows
$48.5 million surplus with three-, five- and eight- percent rate increases (for water, waste water and storm
water, respectively) so titles should better reflect reality- Crean: Heading titles are being used in the city's
budget process. Adamski: That doesn't matter; they should still better reflect reality.
Clarifications: Whether the AWWA peer reviews are cyclical: No, it is a program that you sign up and pay
for. Utility personnel from comparable-sized utilities do the review on a voluntary basis.
Feedback and discussion: Funding options as outlined in Appendix A beyond three pro forma categories.
Agreement with Mr. Adamski that titles seem biased; discussion about reasons and justification for fund
accumulation; WRAB opinion that rate increases for water and waste water not excessive; not good
management to underfund, particularly given inflation. However, it is important to provide explanation as
to why budgeted spending levels are justified.
Agenda Item 8-Discussion on changes to Drought Plan, Vol. 1. [9:15 P.M.]
Crean gave the presentation. At the March 23, 2009 WRAB meeting, it was determined that staff, with
input from WRAB, should move forward with the Drought Plan update process and update the Drought
Response Plan (Volume 1). Specifically, it was recognized that the Drought Response Plan needs to be
updated to include newly-available actions that might be taken at each drought alert level such as using the
new water budget rate stricture to help reduce water use. These immediate updates will help assure that all
available tools for dealing with drought can be used to their full advantage should a drought occur soon,
WRAB discussion included: Questions for staff: Discussion about framework of Highlands Ranch
WRAB Summary
April 20, 2009
Page No. 4
drought plan; rationale for different blocks; addressing catastrophic failures in Boulder through the fees.
Rationale for focusing on water- reduction only in irrigation season: this is just an example from the current
Drought Response Plan. Whether city has a rate stabilization or drought reserve fund also for very wet
times and the idea that one would be helpful in terns of political protection and in terms of preventing
people from having to pay more during a drought via surcharges: currently sufficient flexibility in the
system and no specific drought reserve fund.
[9:32 PM]
Public Comment: Henry Adamski: Wants to be clear that he understands the table (p. 3, drought stages
of "moderate," "serious," "severe," and "extreme"),- is there some set of conditions that allows staff to
determine which stage applies? Williams: In previous packet and available in the library; will send this
information to Mr. Adamski: Seems to he a one-way street: staff ratchets up the fees when there is a
drought, but never ratchets fees back down when water- supply increases. DeOrco: Surcharges are
temporary so when water supply is more plentiful, prices are supposed to decrease. Adamski: This is not
clear from the plan. DeOreo: We hope to make this clearer in the plan. Adamski: Needs to be a two-way
street so that when there is more water, prices go down; a fairness issue. The Eldora watershed is 152% of
normal: why aren't rates coming down? DcOreo: We will try our best to avoid being unfair; we want to
make this a two-way street. Crean: Agrees with DeOreo that drought surcharges are always meant to be
temporary.
WRA.B discussion included: Feedback and discussion: Opinion that the drought response plan should be
presented as more of a joint effort between WRAB and staff (i.e. not just "consult with WRAB" or "with
input from WRAB": an issue of tone. Suggestion to reword goals section heading: "suggested goals" so it
is less prescriptive in nature. More input from public and council helpful. Preference for analyzing
reductions for extreme droughts in terms of volumes of water, not annual percentage reductions (for both
indoor and outdoor use); without better information from ICI (industrial commercial index) study, %
reduction might be acceptable, like percentiles for rest [REF? "Rest."?]. Preference for using water
budgets rather than water use restrictions to actually reduce demand, Whether reductions are too
aggressive and hurt people who have already invested in conservation. Discussion of evapotranspiration
(ET) allocation and area in terms of application rate. Idea of reserve fund (discussed above) to serve as a
financial cushion. Importance of communication for public being able to understand budget and monitor
effectively. Options: for monthly outdoor allocations, Options D and E (Cover memo to Agenda Item #8,
page 4) conceptually sound better in terms of ability to communicate them to the public; Option C could
look somewhat arbitrary. Colorado Water Wise and Colorado Water Conservation Board studies on ICI as
good resources for categories with existing efficiency benchmarks. DeOreo will email WRAB a link to
these studies. Suggestion to mention water billing system itself as an enforcement tool. Separating out
short-term from long-term suggestions for the Drought Response Plan. Discussion of benefit of above-
average late spring runoff in terms of "breathing room" for a future drought. Byers doesn't think staff is
arbitrarily increasing water rates because they impact everyone, but appreciates Mr. Adamski's comments.
Point that funds also needed to service aging utilities infrastructure. Crean will return in June or July 2009
with this topic.
Agenda Item 9 -Discussion on future schedule. 110:28 p.m.]
Williams: [Williams distributes handout on other future agenda items to consider.] In addition to retreat
discussed above, DeOreo's ten drought points, flood emergency and management, Howe's Aurora paper to
prioritize/calendar. Byers: Calendar these items for beyond the May meeting because May agenda already
full. DeOreo: Already dealing with ten points tonight, but good to keep these items in the back of our
minds while revising the Drought Response Plan. Start discussing incorporating the water budgets into the
Drought Response Plan now (addresses first three points); discuss how to handle the rest of the points at the
retreat. Byers: Add the Drought Response Plan - Phase I to the June agenda tentatively, and combine this
with a discussion of the Aurora paper. Crean: Good idea. DeOreo: Overall flood emergency response
plan calendared? Let's think about this at the next meeting.
Agenda Item 10 - Adjournment
Motion: Motion to adjourn by Lott.
Seconded by: DeOreo
WRAB Summary
April 20, 2009
Page No. 5
Vote: 5-0 in favor, passed.
Meeting adjourned at 10:39 PM.
Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting:
The next WRAB meeting will be Monday, May 18 - 7 p,m., regular meeting, at the 13th Street Conference
Room, unless otherwise decided b staff and the board.
These are summary minutes. Audio tapes for full record are available through Central Records or on the
WRAB web site.
Minutes approved by:
Date:
WR B Sifminary
April 20, 2009
Page No. 6