HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Water Resources - June 1, 2009
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING SUMMARY FORM
NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Water Resources Advisory Board
DATE OF MEETING: June 1, 2009
NAME/TELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY: Suzanne Lieberman, 303441-3266
NAMES OF MEMBERS, COUNCIL, STAFF, AND INVITED GUESTS PRESENT:
BOARD MEMBERS -Robin Byers, Kelly DiNatale, William DeOreo, Susan lott, Chuck Howe
STAFF -Ned Williams; Bret Linenfelser; Joanna Crean; Chris Douville, Suzanne Lieberman - Secretary.
WHAT TYPE OF MEETING (BOLD ONE) [REGULAR] [SPECIAL] [QUASI-JUDICIAL]
2009 WRAB RETREAT
Agenda Item 1
The meeting started at 6:00 p.m.
Agenda Item 2 - Review of previous WRAB retreat agenda items (September 18, 2006) and
discussion of proposed topics for 2009 Retreat
• Low-impact development
• WRAB-Staff interaction
• Greenways Advisory Committee meeting update
• Status of Water Budget implementation
• "Meaning of WRAB"
• Demand versus supply
• Sustainability - infrastructure (financial)
Agenda Item 3 - Low-impact development
Iott: Sufficiently thorough measures in Boulder's ordinances for stormwater flow impacts? Byers: Boulder
already does a lot to address stormwater impacts through various provisions: permeable driveway
provisions, PIFs, etc. Iott: But sense that Boulder could be doing more, e.g. for upcoming Transit Village.
Possibility of looking at how well Boulder is doing on low-impacts versus other cities at a future meeting?
A planning or flood-control issue? Williams: Flood control but flood control regulations in land use
ordinances, which Planning Board addresses; need to coordinate with Planning Board if WRAB wants to
do any analysis on this issue. Williams: First step - get WRAB copies of land use code. DiNatale: Has
Planning ever done a presentation on Boulder's low-impact development? DeOreo: Precedent on rain
barrels? DiNatale: Two bills - limited circumstances, e.g. rural. Byers: Illegal under state law (unless
qualifies under new statutory provisions). Howe: One bill that passed contains mechanism for calculating
required augmentation for rainwater harvesting. Iott: Is this the reason city hasn't pursued greater low-
impact development and retention on-site? Williams: Rain barrels and low-impact unrelated. Boulder's
ordinances allow for current best management practices but doesn't require them at all times. DiNatale:
South Platte Recovery program has component for increased runoff for all impervious areas. Howe: How
many other cities have stormwater retention provisions, etc.? Iott: Mostly cities in the Pacific Northwest.
DiNatale: Request that staff ask Planning if they have any summaries on presentations they have given on
the topic.
Agenda Item 4 - WRAB-Staff interaction [6:52 p.m.]
Howe: Has attended meetings over ten years; very impressed with how staff has presented issues to
WRAB. WRAB more active than other times. But remembers DeOreo having WRAB getting involved
earlier in some of the topics, e.g. rate structure; at what stage does it make sense for WRAB to be involved
in various topics? Would have been more beneficial and efficient for WRAB to be involved earlier in the
rate structure process. Can any generalities be made? Can meetings be made more productive in terms of
staff and/or WRAB areas of expertise? DeOreo: According to city charter, WRAB's primary responsibility
is advising city manager and city council on policy, so WRAB should be careful not to act as staffs rubber
stamp, unless appropriate. Iott: Raising versus implementing policy issues, e.g. with drought plan. But for
low-impact development, how does this get raised? DeOreo: Tried to get WRAB to make a motion to
council through a set of recommendations, so WRAB can be most effective by making formal
recommendations to council. Iott/Howe: That makes sense. Howe: Thunderbird Lake a good example of
WRAB Summary
June 1, 2009 - WRAB Retreat
Page No. 1
WRAB needing to come together to push an issue forward through council. DiNatale: Bigger policy issue
was maintaining lake levels and appropriate use of water resources. So question is whether WRAB should
spend more time on these types of policy issues, versus commenting on master plans and strategic plans.
DeOreo: WRAB also reviews master plans but WRAB sometimes gets too bogged down in this. [Board
Secretary reads aloud WRAB's mandate as outlined in the Boulder Revised Code, § 2-3-15.1 Howe: So
should part of the agenda be devoted to larger policy issues? DiNatale: Suggestion to spend less WRAB
time on issues that return to WRAB multiple times for review. Howe: How regular are the plans and what
is upcoming? Crean: Drought Response Plan. Williams: Also several flood control plans and Boulder
Reservoir Master Plan. Byers/DiNatale: Support for seeing some of the master plans a few less times.
Byers/lott: Staff input on this? Williams: Staff struggles with how often to come to WRAB on certain
issues; decisions culminating in a final recommendation from WRAB to city manager and council usually
require at least two meetings, including a public hearing (introductory and at least one subsequent meeting).
If WRAB wants to see items fewer times, staff can try to do that, just probably not in just one meeting.
DeOreo: WRAB can advocate much more effectively with city council for the utility and the public if it is
on the same page as staff. lott/Howe: Individuals on WRAB may also push issues forward. Howe:
Clarification on "consent agenda"? Williams: Still a public hearing but highly summarized format. loth
WRAB can also be more self-disciplined in terms of time; Byers has helped as Chair already. Likes idea of
consent agenda. Linenfelser: Staff would also like to know what WRAB would like to see on agenda over
the next year. Byers: Good idea, e.g. for emerging standards issues. "Chinese menu" idea for desired future
topics. Request for draft of list from staff by June meeting; would also help staff put together long-range
calendar; differentiating between informational versus in-depth treatment.
Agenda Item 5 - Greenways Advisory Committee Meeting Update
DiNatale: The Greenways Advisory Committee met May 20, 2009. Discussed 2010-2015 CIP; always a
rotation of new members from six different boards; $450,000/year: not changed in 10 years; $150k from
transportation, $150k from Flood Utilities, $150k from Lottery funding; funding is opportunistic; GAC
tries to leverage other funding sources. GAC members had no big issues with budget. Only one main item
of interest: Larry McDonald's fish passage project on South Boulder Creek. Goodhue Ditch (west of
Highway 93); asking for $30k in Greenways funding because some CWCB funds fell through; total project
is $236k. DiNatale concern with building fish ladder if flows on South Boulder Creek too low; also need
for Wittemyer Pond water to make project work; problem with project not being within city limits. Concern
about Utilities being set up for enhancements on South Boulder Creek. Thought about sending McDonald a
letter to inform him of other CWCB grants. GAC's motion recommended giving the project $30k if no
other funds materialize. Byers: GAC being heavily impacted by drop in sales tax revenue? DiNatale: No,
because GAC has set funding and it hasn't changed in ten years. Byers: Any county involvement in the fish
assa a ro'ect? DiNatale: Nothing et. Lieberman: GAC to visit fish passage site in September.
Agenda Item 6 - Status of Water Budget implementation 17:29 p.m.1
Howe: Interested in more information (in addition to the WIP, 5-28-09, about the Municipal Water Budget
Pilot Project) on how water budgets are set for various city departments; some departments in Block 5 but
not paying Block 5 rates: Parks & Recreation, Transportation. So is the budget correct? DiNatale: Can't
meet water budget on some of the medians. Crean: Recreation uses same guidelines as
Commercial/Industrial water budgets in terms of average monthly use. Other times, staff looks at historic
monthly use as a measure. DeOreo: Still dodges issue of what standard a recreation center should be using
in terms of square feet or visitors/day. Crean: For some of the outdoor accounts, items are actually
"indoor"; systems also not always maximally efficient. DiNatale: Water budgets can also be used as
guidelines to help target use. Byers: Oddest increase in water use in Boulder Public Library. Also
concerned that people with community garden plots not charged for their water use - no incentive to
conserve water. DeOreo: Is WRAB still behind the concept? And if so, WRAB should make it clear.
Byers: Part of the Code now. DeOreo: If WRAB is going to rely on budgets, particularly in times of
drought, need water meter monitors. Budget is for guidance. Moving forward with Industrial Commercial
and Institutional category; trying to get database from Water Wise staff suggestion to hire a consultant for
this research.
Agenda Item 7-"Meaning of WRAB"
Addressed under WRAB-Staff interaction.
WRAB Summary
June 1, 2009 - WRAB Retreat
Page No. 2
Agenda Item 8 - Demand versus supply 17:46 p.m.1
DeOreo: How long-term drought on the Colorado River affects Boulder's vulnerability and should Boulder
respond to these long-term drought issues through ramping up conservation efforts via demand. Lee
Rozaklis- climate change will increase water supply so increased conservation not an issue; so why are we
keeping Windy Gap? lott: Because we don't know consequences of climate change. So if we conserve,
what do we do with the conserved water? Byers: Leased to agricultural use. Lott: How do we identify
water for sale? Williams: Staff estimates (around June) yield for the next twelve months, and the difference
is leased to agriculture. Iott: Variability? Williams: 3-4,000 AF/year. DiNatale: If going to more demand
management, increases drought resiliency and then determine whether Windy Gap water is needed because
it is such ajunior water right; also have to look at financial sustainability. If Boulder residents using less
than ten percent and Boulder doesn't change rate structure, utilities could be losing more than ten percent;
shouldn't punish customers for using less water. loft: Have revenues for each block decreased? Williams:
No. DeOreo: Reasons for substantial reductions in residential water use? DiNatale: Yes, across the board;
even cities without water budgets. Williams: Price of water has increased. DeOreo: If you want customers
to pay for the least amount of water they can, avoid very expensive capital projects; suggest city invest in
water meter monitors. DeOreo: Would like experts to come to WRAB to debate Colorado River water
supply issues. Iott: Have DeOreo put together a proposal for such a meeting. DiNatale: It's two different
issues: General Boulder planning for the future versus Colorado River supply availability. Byers: Also
wants to address Henry Adamski's concerns (which likely echo those of the general public) about what we
are conserving water for (public perceives that it is for development concerns, e.g. Peloton, Transit
Village); nobody is addressing this on city council. Howe: Can't use water as a growth constraint; too
many loopholes for private parties. Nobody is straight about growth policy in general. DiNatale:
Sustainability philosophy should be to keep growth in dense areas. Iott: What is city's conservation policy?
Conserved water gets leased? Howe: Planning and land use control development and ultimately find water
regardless.
Agenda Item 9 - Sustainability - infrastructure (financial) [8:05 p.m.]
DiNatale: Replacement schedule on infrastructure, if take expected life, billions of dollars: how to best
manage this beyond raising rates annually for long-term sustainability; can't come from PIFs. loft:
Operating budget small compared to capital budget to fund infrastructure investments. DiNatale: No,
should be funding system replacement (e.g. water main replacement) through operating budget. Howe:
Does city have anything equivalent to a "sinking fund" or "stabilization" fund? Williams: Not currently on
a large-scale basis (e.g. pipes and buildings), trying to set something up like that. Have sinking funds for
small-scale projects: fleet, computers, etc. DiNatale: Better job of earmarking to keep debt down. DeOreo:
Need better presentation of debt levels (e.g. summaries) to know when funds will be freed up. Iott: Last
time city did efficiency studies on cost-savings? Williams: Last external evaluation was the AW WA Peer
Review; staff currently incorporating recommendations of Peer Review into 2010 budget submittal; staff
hasn't done external fiscal audit. Iott: Consequences of no rate increases? Sources of rate increases?
Williams: Coming back on June 15' with no rate increase options. Past rate increases from many large
capital projects, e.g. wastewater treatment plant, pipeline projects, etc. At zero-percent rate increase, choice
is to reduce funding for projects or programs. DiNatale: More visual graphic representation of debt service
and closer look at infrastructure replacement.
Agenda Item 10 -Adjournment.
Meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
These are summary minutes. Audio tapes for full record are available through Central Records or on the
WRAB web site. ~p
Minutes approved by:
J„-(J~(JS 1 l~tA.4.w.
Date:
c ~ -
WRAB Summary
June 1, 2009 - WRAB Retreat
Page No. 3