HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Water Resources - June 15, 2009
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING SUMMARY FORM
NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Water Resources Advisory Board
DATE OF MEETING: June 15, 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, Chuck Howe [William DeOreo and Susan lott
absent]
STAFF -Ned Williams; Carol Ellinghouse; Bob Harberg; Joanna Crean; Carol Linn; Douglas Kenney -
Senior Research Associate, Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado School of Law (guest
speaker); 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 7:04 p.m.
Agenda Item 2 - Meeting Minutes - May 18, 2009.
Motion: DiNatale - Move to approve May 18, 2009 minutes as amended.
Seconded: Howe
Vote: 3-0 in favor, Motion passed
Byers request to receive substantive agenda materials earlier than the Friday afternoon before the meeting.
Agenda Item 3 - Public Participation and Comment. [7:10 PM]
Public Comment: There was none.
Agenda Item 4
Matters from Board -
• Carter Lake Pipeline update. DiNatale: Will wait until July WRAB meeting with full board to
make comments on some inconsistencies in the plan. Byers: Will update appear on July WRAB
agenda? Williams: No, but could include the update on a list of potential agenda items for future
meetings (discussed below). DiNatale could also comment on the issue under Matters from Board
at the July meeting.
• Listing of potential agenda items. Williams: [Williams distributes handout, "Potential Future
WRAB Meeting Topics for 2009/2010"] In response to WRAB request at the June WRAB retreat,
staff compiled draft list so that WRAB can identify items they would like to have presented at
future meetings as either agenda items with presentations or as non-agenda items. Byers: Request
to e-mail document to WRAB members absent from tonight's meeting. Williams: Yes. Howe:
Has WRAB ever discussed wetlands ordinance passed in May 2009? Can WRAB add wetlands
ordinance revisions issue to WRAB agenda? Williams: No; the ordinance is included in Boulder's
land use regulations, so Planning Board and staff take the lead on this. Byers: WRAB is barred by
charter from initiating discussion on wetlands ordinance; WRAB can only be asked for input.
Howe: Would like to raise wetlands ordinance issue at WRAB in the future because of some real
absurdities. Byers: What issues related to the wetlands ordinance do you think Utilities has control
over? Howe: Water levels and the inundation of wetlands, and the creation of new wetlands in
compensation for old wetlands. DiNatale: Would also support WRAB addressing this at a future
meeting. Williams: Can talk with Planning staff to find out timing of next round of wetland
ordinance issues and provide WRAB with that information. Howe: An issue that really needs
common-sense thinking. DiNatale: The nexus between Utilities and the wetlands ordinance is
that the city is filling ponds within the city, e.g. water to Wonderland Lake. Howe: Yes, also
relates to Thunderbird Lake. Byers: Agrees that there are problematic issues with the ordinance,
but thinks staff should find out if WRAB can legally address them. Williams will look into the
next round of wetlands regulations considerations with Planning.
WRAB Summary
June 15, 2009
Page No. I
Matters from Staff -
• Blue Ribbon Commission, Phase II. Williams: Blue Ribbon Commission, Phase 11 will take
place June 25" as a public meeting in the 29th Street Mall meeting room, around 6 or 7 PM.
Commission will address achieving a sustainable financial program; all departments asked to
make a presentation and Utilities will present. Commission will be discussing sources and
investments of funds at a high level. Byers: Opportunity for public comment? Williams: No,
more like a study session without council members; Williams will look into whether Commission
can take some general public comment.
• City Council Study Session - July 28. Williams: Study session on 2010 Budget, which will
include a discussion on utility rates.
• Tentative Study Session on Boulder Reservoir Master Plan - October 13. Williams: Study
session will be led by Parks and Recreation.
• Stud Session on Boards and Commissions - October 27.
Agenda Item 5 - Aurora Drought Response Lessons. 17:21 PM1
Dr. Douglas Kenney, University of Colorado professor and Dr. Charles Howe, University of Colorado
professor and WRAB member, presented the lessons learned on residential water demand management
from a "Drought in Aurora, Colorado" case study. Drs. Kenney and Howe discussed factors affecting
residential water demand during drought focusing on price, water restrictions, and rebate programs. The
principle of price elasticity and the revenue implications of different controls were discussed. At the July
20, 2009 WRAB meeting, board members will continue to discuss the Drought Response Plan update.
WRAR discussion and feedback included: The effectiveness and appropriateness of achieving water use
reductions through price; idea of waiting to reduce water budgets until demand reduced and then following
With water restrictions; use of rate stabilization drought fund versus water budgets. Interest in what
percentage of Boulder citizens understand water budgets and suspicion that Boulder citizens' lack of
knowledge on water budgets similar to that of Aurora citizens' lack of knowledge on the issue; citizens'
lack of understanding of water budgets another good justification for "Smart Readers" water monitors.
Question on account turnover in Boulder compared to account turnover in Aurora and concerns about
education for these accounts. Concerns about average Aurora resident obtaining their information about
water conservation from Denver media.
Clarifications: Whether Aurora serves any accounts outside its municipality like Boulder: Kenney unsure,
but believes Aurora handles some wholesale of water; whether Aurora residents are allowed to pick the
days they can water during drought: Kenney not sure; whether any survey of water users was done: no;
whether lawn-watering schedule restricted to actually watering lawns; great diversity of restrictions in
terms of timing and quantities; years data on water meters were taken: recent years.
Public Comment: Henry Adamski: When Aurora declared drought in 2002, were there any restrictions
on development in terms of building permits? Kenney: Not really. Adamski: So how did the public
respond (to no restrictions on building permits during drought)? Kenney: There were some complaints, but
there Were complaints throughout Front Range communities; Aurora is also more pro-development than
Boulder. DiNatale: 2002 drought was also extreme so there would have been restrictions anyway; new
growth did not create the problem. Ellinghouse: City Council's official policy as of 1989 in its "reliability
criteria" was to not supply water to meet demands in all conditions, so build-out not the problem.
Adamski: All 2002 Front Range towns had drought restrictions but also remembered hearing that Aurora
reopened some of its abandoned wells: did this help increase water supply? DiNatale: Aurora had some
deep wells, but the supply was negligible; Aurora leased its water at one point, which involved a more
significant attempt at augmentation.
Conclusions and next steps: City thinking about how to incorporate Aurora lessons in terms of
surcharges, watering restrictions, into Drought Response Plan, with Ellinghouse taking the lead. Current
scenarios being considered and developed: 1. water budget reduction (using pricing mechanisms to move
people into different blocks); 2 surcharges; 3. restrictions only; 4, both surcharges and restrictions; 5.
reducing water budget and block size. Howe comment that #5 is too subtle and confusing. Ellinghouse
comment that there has been good response from Boulder residents in terms of reductions for Stages 1 and
2; city will probably need more aggressive mechanisms for more severe droughts (i.e. Stages 3 and 4). Staff
asks Kenney and Howe to return to WRAB with any follow-up research. Staff will bring the five options
above to the July WRAB meeting for discussion.
WRAB Summary
June 15, 2009
Page No. 2
Agenda Item 6-Updated Benchmarking Report. 18:29 PM]
Harberg gave the presentation. The updated benchmarking report is presented for discussion as requested
by the WRAB on May 18, 2009. The report presents performance indicator values for the city of Boulder
as calculated using data from 2008. A running average of each indicator from previous years (2005-2007)
is also presented for comparison.
WRAB discussion and feedback included: Suggestion to compare Boulder to other Front Range utilities
of similar size (Westminster, Arvada, Fort Collins, Thornton, Greeley) on significant categories, e.g.
staffing levels, distinguishing services and costs of services, beyond those provided by AW WA (American
Water Works Association); Are O&M Costs for Water Distribution (13a-c, page 9) fixed or variable costs:
some costs are fixed, such as operation and maintenance, but there is variability in the cost per million
gallons based on whether water is treated by the Betasso WTF ("water treatment facility") (no electrical
costs due to pumping but rather hydro-electric generation income) or the Boulder Reservoir WTF
(electrical costs due to pumping and more chemicals required for treatment). Justification for Boulder
appearing significantly inefficient compared to other cities in "Customer Accounts Per Employee" (graph
3a): partly due to Boulder's redundant systems of supply, treatment and delivery, its operation of a
hydroelectric system and Boulder's leadership level in water quality and environmental issues. Questions
and concerns with staffing levels and staff reminder that it will look at staff levels based on
recommendations from the Peer Review. Suggestion to break down data into "staffing levels by Fund and
Program." Rationale for Boulder's high O&M costs in water and wastewater (graphs 13a and 18a):
somewhat tracks staffing, also due to Boulder's relatively high water quality standards and the fact that
Boulder discharges into a higher-quality stream than most other Front Range towns. Questions on staff's
interpretation and analysis of "theoretical investment"; how is this calculated? Defined by AW WA, fairly
conservative; but Boulder Utilities well above-average compared to most cities on reinvestments.
Public Comment: There was none.
Conclusion and next steps: Plan for a more regional approach for report by focusing on comparison of a
few more meaningful performance indicators with other Front Range cities; staff to explore generating
more interest on benchmarking from other cities via Water Utility Council, International City and County
Managers' Association, Colorado Performance Measures Consortium, etc. Idea of bringing on another
intern to help with this research.
Agenda Item 7 - Budget. 19:15 PM]
Williams, Linn and Harberg gave the presentation. As part of the city's annual budget process, Utilities
develops a six-year planning budget, this year for the time period of 2010 through 2015. Utilities staff has
formulated revenue and expenditure projections for each of the three utility funds through the year 2015.
Within the budget process, Council approves and appropriates funds only for the first year, 2010.
At the May 18, 2009 WRAB meeting, staff presented the preliminary 2010 utilities budget including the
six-year capital improvement program and options for revenue increases from monthly utility rates. Since
that time, the operating budget (e.g. personnel), transfers and projected interest earnings have been updated
and incorporated into the fund financials per the city's budget guidelines. The projected interest earnings
rate has been revised downward, which has impacted revenue projections, most significantly in the water
fund. Additional revenue options of water 4%, wastewater 1% and stormwater/flood management I% have
also been developed per WRAB's request. No modifications have been made to the 2010-2015 capital
improvement program (CIP). With these changes and further review of the budget, the staff-proposed
revenue increases for 2010 are water 3%, wastewater 2% and stormwater/flood management 1%. Also
includes a 1% non-personnel increase. Decrease in annual payments to Water Utility for the Fire Training
Facility property based on a property appraisal.
WRAB discussion and feedback included: Explanation of changes in some of the budget figures since
May WRAB meeting. Justification for increases costs for Household Hazardous Waste program: city's
increased citizen participation in the county-run program; scope of "household hazardous waste":
everything except electronics, prescription drugs, etc; concern with TABOR issues due to Boulder
ratepayers having to a for household hazardous waste costs despite uncertain of how much household
WRAB Summary
June 15, 2009
Page No. 3
hazardous waste would potentially end up in Boulder's wastewater system. Clarification on budget for
Valmont Butte (Attachment B-2, row 34): nothing currently budgeted beyond FY 2009 but funds
appropriated in 2007 and 2008 are being carried forward; scope of work: prairie dog relocation, legal work,
risk management; concern with Utilities having no legal obligation to contribute costs and Open Space not
contributing to clean-up costs. Suggestion to handle regulatory support in-house (page 9), particularly
given current economic conditions. Suggestion to also evaluate frequency of use of lab equipment when
replaced (page 8) under "Replacement Program"; suggestion to change wording on cutting program called
"efficiency program" despite touting "efficiencies" on previous page. Rationale for Boulder being less
competitive on wastewater billing versus for water billing: recent phenomenon based on bonding for April
2009 Waste Water Treatment Plant improvements; these costs expected to decline soon.
Clarifitations: Whether 3/2/1 percentages result from revenue and expenditure conditions within each
utility: yes, combination of factors; less revenue than expected for water utility in particular based on
changes in PIF (plant investment fee) calculations and duration of implementation, coupled with reduction
in building activity.
Public Comment: There was none.
[DiNatale presents visual representation of 20-year CIP with graphs]. Graphs as an easier way to view
Utilities "debt service." Proposed source of funding for Nederland IGA (intergovernmental agreement) for
wastewater? The water fund, included in CIP, ongoing (Operations and Maintenance: Attachment A-1,
Row 45; capital piece at Attachment A-2, Row 106); question on expiration of Nederland discharge permit.
Questions on whether payments will require annual appropriations? Yes. DiNatale suggestion to staff to
provide similar graphs for next presentation of CIP.
Discussion on recommendation(s): Staffs 3% water; 2% waste water; 1% storm water recommendation
to city manager requiring WRAB comment; staff also needs a recommendation from WRAB for the CIP
for planning board and council, and a recommendation on the overall budget and rate increases. Linn
comment that collective 3/2/1 proposed rate increases would result in an average household utility bill
increase of $17/year (or $1.40 per month). Questions on how Planning Board uses WRAB
recommendations on CIPs. Planning Board mainly concerned with whether CIP projects are consistent with
BVCP (Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan); Planning Board will consider WRAB's comments, but does
not look at projects in as much detail as WRAB. City council study session July 28th, followed by several
public hearings and then city manager recommendation. Byers's suggestion to break up motions on
recommendations into three funds so staff can go forward with rate increases despite lack of consensus on a
particular fund. Byers's support for overall CIP except Valmont Butte mitigation expenditures based on
lack of justification for long-range investments despite uncertainty of land ownership and household
hazardous waste costs (the latter based on TABOR concerns). DiNatale's concern that staff should consider
alternatives to their recommendation on supplemental budget requests. Howe and DiNatale support
breaking up motions on rate increases into the three utility funds.
Motion (DiNatale): Move that WRAB support the staff recommendation for a 3% increase on the water
rate and associated CIP.
Seconded: Howe
Vote: 3-0 in favor, Motion passed.
Motion (DiNatale): Move that WRAB support the staff recommendation for a 1% increase on the storm
water rate and associated CIP.
Seconded: Byers
Vote: 3-0 in favor, Motion passed.
Motion (Howe): Move that WRAB support the staff recommendation for a 2% increase on the waste water
rate and associated CIP.
Seconded: DiNatale
Vote: 2-1 in favor, Motion failed.
Dissent (Byers): Concerns noted above; Utilities can meet its needs with 1% in light of economic times.
Staff owes it to ratepayers to cut them some slack when it can.
WRAB Summary
June 15, 2009
Page No. 4
Agenda Item S-Discussion on future schedule. 110:17 PMj
Harberg: July 6 public hearing for property owners on effects of Gregory Creek Canyon flood mitigation
project. Byers: Will public comments from public hearing be included in July WRAB packet? Harberg:
Yes, or summary. DiNatale: On potential Future Agenda Items, suggestion that staff include spreadsheet
for prioritization for WRAB members. Williams: Suggested method for prioritization: Top 1-10?
DiNatale: Yes. Byers: Request that staff e-mail list to WRAB and post it on the WRAB website.
DiNatale: Request that staff highlight items that are already scheduled for WRAB review. Williams: Yes,
and ask that WRAB add desired topics not currently listed. Byers: Also received hand-delivered list of
topics from Mr. Adamski that he would like addressed at a future meeting. Request for Board Secretary to
scan or transcribe. Howe: To whom to send suggestions for additional topics? Williams: To myself or
Board Secretary. Byers: Staff should first compile and complete list, then ask WRAB members to prioritize
list. DiNatale: Will give WRAB update on Greenways Advisory Committee Tour June 12 when full board
present. Byers: Carter Lake Pipeline and Fourmile/Wonderland items scheduled for future meetings?
Williams: Yes. CEAP in July. Harberg: For Fourmile/Wonderland, WRAB needs to weigh in on 100-year
flood containment versus containment of just the high-hazard zone. Byers: Will city coordinate with the
county on this issue? Harberg: Yes; will keep WRAB informed. Byers: Would like to send thank-you note
on behalf of WRAB and staff to Doug Kenney for presentation tonight. WRAB/Staff: Great idea.
Agenda Item 9 -Adjournment.
Motion: Motion to adjourn by DiNatale.
Seconded by: Howe.
Vote: 3-0 in favor, passed.
Meeting adjourned at 10:29 PM.
Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting:
The next WRAB meeting will be Monday, July 20 - 7 p.m., regular meeting, at the 13' 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: Q~-~-
Attest: V1 , Board Secretary
Date: ( 0
WRAB Summary
June 15, 2009
Page No. 5