HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Water Resources - July 20, 2009
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING SUMMARY FORM
NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Water Resources Advisory Board
DATE OF MEETING: July 20, 2009
NAMEITELEPHONE 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 DeOreo, Susan loft, Chuck Howe
STAFF -Ned Williams; Carol Ellinghouse; Bret Linenfelser; Joanna Crean; Annie Noble; Christie
Coleman; David Love - Belt Collins West; 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 - Meeting Minutes - June 1, 2009 and June 15, 2009.
WRAB postponed the review of the June 1, 2009 and June 15, 2009 minutes until the August WRAB
meeting, due to their lateness. Byers requested that the Board Secretary re-send both sets of minutes as
soon as possible to WRAB for comment via e-mail prior to the August meeting.
Agenda Item 3 - Public Participation and Comment. [7:04 p.m.]
Public Comment: There was none.
Agenda Item 4 [7:06 p.m.]
Matters from Board -
• Carter Lake Pipeline CEAP (Community and Environmental Assessment Process).
DiNatale: Status of the CEAP? Williams: Staff will update WRAB at August meeting. loft: Did
DiNatale comment on behalf of WRAB or individually? DiNatale: Individually. Byers: Request
that staff summarize the project for the record/public present. Williams: City of Boulder and four
other water entities considering funding and constructing pipeline for raw water from Carter Lake
up to the north, with the southern terminus at the Boulder Reservoir or Boulder Reservoir Water
Treatment Plant; pipeline would have connections to several water entities along the route.
Purpose of the pipeline is to deliver Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District's Colorado-
Big Thompson/Windy Gap raw water to the entities via a pipeline, versus an open canal.
Matters from Staff-
; July 28 City Council Study Session. Williams: Reminder regarding the upcoming study session
on the 2010 Budget by all City departments to Council: 1. CIPs (capital improvement programs);
2. development-related fees (e.g. DETs - development excise taxes), including Council action
taken earlier in the year on PIFs (plant investment fees); Council interested in revisiting
stormwater PIF in particular. 3. utility rates proposed for 2010; City Manager still undecided on
final utility rates to be submitted in budget presentation to the Council. Williams has asked Byers
to attend regarding WRAB recommendation. Howe: Study session open to the public? Williams:
Yes, but no verbal comment; written comment may be submitted before or after study session. No
final decisions will be made at study session but an opportunity for staff and public to get
feedback.
WRAB Summary
July 20, 2009
Page No. 1
Agenda Item 5 - Update on changes to Drought Plan, Volume 1. [7:12 p.m.]
Ellinghouse and Crean gave the presentation. [Note: there is a PowerPoint handout for this presentation.]
At the June 15, 2009 WRAB meeting, Dr. Charles Howe and Dr. Douglas Kenney, University of Colorado
professors, presented the lessons learned on residential water demand management from a "Drought in
Aurora, Colorado" case study. Drs. Howe and Kenney 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 also discussed.
These principles have been incorporated into several scenarios to meet the water use reduction goals for
each drought stage for the City of Boulder (see Attachment A for details on each scenario). Staff presented
these scenarios and asked WRAB for feedback, which staff will incorporate into a revised version of the
Drought Response Plan (Volume 1). It is anticipated that a final version of the Drought Response Plan will
be provided to WRAB in the fall of 2009.
Public Comment: There was none.
WRAB feedback and questions for staff included: Preference for referring to "water budget" strategy
rather than a "price strategy" (in reference to Scenario #l, Attachment A); concerns about customers
knowing which block they are in and timing of water budgets in billing cycle: under Scenario #1,
customers will not know which block they are in until about 1.5 months after a drought declared; current
forewarning of water use reductions includes public education and water monitors. Whether rate increases
in Aurora Study ("Residential Water Demand Management: Lessons from Aurora, CO, "Agenda Item #5,
June 15, 2009 WRAB meeting) equivalent to those in Boulder block system: yes; rates quadrupled in
Aurora during most severe stages of the 2002 drought. Whether drought stages in memo match up with
City of Boulder's "reliability criteria": yes - Stage 1 represents a 1-in-20-year drought; Stage 2, a 1-in-50-
year drought, Stage 3, a 1-in-100-year drought, Stage 4, a 1-in-1000-year drought; 2002 would have been a
Stage 3 drought if the stage system had existed at that time; questions on tools used to manage water during
the 2002 drought: surcharges, restrictions (including timing) and public education. Discussion about how to
reduce water consumption and still maintain revenue stability and whether this should be achievable
through relying solely on charges in Blocks 3, 4 and 5; maintaining revenue stability also accomplished
through reserves or reliance on capital projects; resistance to applying a surcharge to customers who stay
within their budgets in Blocks 1 and 2; staff also cannot charge enough in surcharges to compensate for
reduced revenue. Idea of maintaining revenue stability through a revenue stabilization fund based on
probabilities of drought occurrence. Idea of adding an amount to the fixed charge still in development.
Issue of how to get immediate information to the customers: water monitors, customers reading water
meters, education; desire for ultimately giving customers weekly access to computer-based information on
accounts. Greater ease of implementation of water budgets through customers having water monitors: yes,
ability to affect timing will increase customers' ability to respond to methodologies more quickly and
allocate water more effectively. Preference for quantifying drought in each drought stage in terms of acre
feet rather than percentage use in reduction so that one can see volumetric deficit city has to recoup.
Questions on making software modifications to make changes to customer budgets more flexible to
mitigate multi-cycle lag problem. Request for further clarification on how staff estimated effectiveness of
restrictions for various scenarios: results of 2002 drought, literature review.
Clarifications: Justification for 9,000 square feet irrigable area for graphs on pages 3 and 4 (Attachment
B): a little larger than the average irrigable area (6-7,000 square feet) to obtain more range in some of the
differences. Calculations use 2009 water rates; process for calculating reduction amounts: elasticities based
on Aurora report ("Residential Water Demand Management: Lessons from Aurora, CO", Agenda Item #5,
June 15, 2009 WRAB meeting), based on Boulder customer response; clarification of derivation of
elasticities; elasticities a way of determining consumption per scenario in terms of percentages per block
(pages 3 and 4, Attachment B); clarification that reductions depend on where breaks are set.
Public Comment: 18:17 p.m.]
Henry Adamski: Is he missing something from the packet for this agenda item: Scenarios 4 and 5 in the
graphs in Attachment B? Ellinghouse: No; staff only included Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 for brevity's sake.
Numerical data contained in Attachment A and B and in presentation. Adamski: Requested moratorium
language moratorium on new water permits under drought conditions, Attachment B Agenda Item #7 in
WRAB Summary
July 20, 2009
Page No. 2
the Drought Response Plan at the June WRAB meeting in a hand-written memo: was this considered?
Williams: Adamski's request relates to how to include water budgets in the Drought Response Plan;
request will also be addressed under Agenda Item #7 later tonight. Adamski: Attended meetings at the
library (Boulder Public Library) in 2002 when restrictions and charges were implemented and recalled
commercial users, e.g. boutique breweries skating by. To what extent are (restrictions for) these sorts of
enterprises included in the drought plan? Ellinghouse: Reductions for commercial users included in each
scenario; commercial budgets generally reduced less than residential budgets based on the "reliability
criteria"; Council deemed commercial uses "essential uses." Lawn watering restrictions were placed earlier
than the majority of commercial uses because Council approved the reliability criteria in 1989. Crean:
Also important to bear in mind that commercial industrial entities can have several types of water budgets,
and if indoor/outdoor, commercial use budgets could be the same as residential multi-family or single-
family budgets.
Steven Jerritts: How will staff explain adding surcharges to customers' bills during a drought on top of
asking customers to reduce water use? Sounds like staff is adding surcharges to maintain revenues.
Ellinghouse: Revenue stabilization not considered as part of this analysis; pricing aimed solely at using the
cost of water as an incentive to use less water, aimed at achieving goal of overall city water use reductions.
Jerritts: Surcharge purely to induce lower water usage? Ellinghouse: Yes. Williams: There may or may
not be a surcharge depending on which scenario is selected and whether budgets are exceeded within each
scenario. Ellinghouse: If surcharges work as they are supposed to, will encourage customers to stay with
Blocks 1 and 2 (graph on page 9, Attachment B). DeOreo: But staff still needs a way to raise revenue, e.g.
through a fund balance. Williams: Or staff can (effectively] raise revenue through reducing expenditures.
[8:26 pm]
Discussion: General WRAB support for simpler changes in pricing for customers; general WRAB support
for good incorporation of budgets into Drought Response Plan with remaining challenges in terms of
presentation to customers. Suggestion for staff to conduct a small survey on Boulder customers' current
understanding of water budgets. Support for providing customers with real-time feedback, designing
surcharges to maintain revenue stability and providing enforcement in the upper blocks. Reminder that
Council decided that upper block revenue should be applied to development of new water supplies and
conservation enhancements. The need to include enforcement costs (e.g. add'I FTEs, municipal court
resources) in revenue projections; preference for only relying on enforcement actions (e.g. ticketing) for
truly wasteful water uses as a last resort and not in terms of restricting timing or types of non-wasteful uses.
Support for position that should be able to develop a scenario without "water police," and should be able to
manage just via water budgets with surcharges. Support for a revenue stabilization fund to subsidize
Utilities revenues in extremely dry or otherwise extremely wet years. Support for including restrictions that
are focused on water waste.
Conclusion and next steps: Staff to return for WRAB's final recommendation on changes to the drought
plan in September.
Agenda Item 6 - Update on Gregory Canyon Creek Flood Study. 18:57 pm]
Coleman gave the presentation. Staff is currently updating the Gregory Canyon flood mapping study and
began the associated public process with a neighborhood open house on July 8. The Gregory Canyon
Creek study extends from the confluence with Boulder Creek upstream past the southern city limits
approximately 300 feet south of Flagstaff Road. The updated study is proposed to be submitted to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for regulatory adoption and will revise Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM) 08013CO395F and FIRM 08013CO535F along Gregory Canyon Creek, special flood
hazard area FEMA maps. This flood study will also revise the current City of Boulder Gregory Canyon
Creek floodplain, which differs from the FEMA floodplain in that it is a detailed analysis which
incorporates conveyance and high hazard zones. The proposed flood study will provide the basis for land
use applications and flood insurance requirements for properties projected to be impacted by the 100-year
flood.
WRAB feedback and questions for staff included: Whether loophole on flood insurance via lending
institutions still exists: staff unsure; number of structures in the regulatory floodplain which are non-
conformin : staff has not undertaken this level of land use analysis. Justification for diversions at 9ih Street
WRAB Summary
July 20, 2009
Page No. 3
and Marine and idea of doing floodplain mapping without the undersized structures to estimate native
flows: next step after determining current location of floodplain under existing conditions. Any additional
municipal structures that will be included in the new floodplain boundaries? Several City of Boulder
properties that come close but would not be flooded. Whether the City mandates bringing its own non-
conforming structures into conformity in the floodplain regulations: only during redevelopment.
Evacuation plan for the area? Staff has identified vulnerable populations and might be able to aid them, but
focus has been to ensure residents' awareness of the hazards so they can develop their own plans.
Clarifications: Whether the study also involved redoing the hydrology or only involved pure mapping:
purely mapping. Questions on criteria used for mapping: criteria in terms of channel blockages, assuming
undersized bridges and culverts left in place with differing degrees of debris blockages on a structure-by-
structure basis with the consultant, Belt Collins West. Number of citizens who attended the open house: 30-
40, mostly citizens in impacted area. Distinction between Boulder's floodplain regulations versus those of
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Act): conveyance zone criteria are the same under Boulder and
FEMA regulations; Boulder's high-hazard zone regulations have been specifically adapted to Boulder in
terms of real risk to life; Boulder's 100-year floodplain regulations are a combination of local and federal
regulations. Whether grandfathering provision applies to homes that have changed ownership: staff will
check.
Public Comment: [9:29 p.m.] Evelyn Nemeth: Where can I get a detailed map of the proposed
floodplain? Coleman: Project website-www.boulderwater.net under "Projects & Programs" on the
postcard sent to residents within the proposed floodplain. Or contact Coleman with specific questions:
colemanc(&,bouldercolorado.eov. Nemeth: If it is true that Boulder citizens got included in the floodplain
due to the small culvert the city added on Arapahoe, these inclusions appear to be the city's fault, not the
citizens'. Coleman: Can get a more detailed opinion as to what role the culvert plays in including
additional citizens in the floodplain. DeOreo: Or do a model run to make crossings large enough to convey
flood, and reexamine the profile. Coleman: The existing drainage channel is itself very small, which
causes spills. DeOreo: If existing channel too small, adjusting the size of the culvert will not help, like with
Fourmile/Wonderland culvert issue. Coleman: Can investigate and return with feedback but there may be a
double problem of undersized culvert and small drainage channel.
Conclusion and next steps: Item is scheduled for a public hearing and for a final recommendation from
the board at the August WRAB meeting.
Agenda Item 7 - Future Agenda Items. [9:33 pm]
Williams gave the presentation. At the June 1, 2009 WRAB retreat, WRAB members asked for a possible
menu of agenda items for future meetings and asked for this list to be available at the next WRAB meeting.
This request was made in the context of 1) managing meeting time in a more efficient manner, 2) allowing
WRAB more ability to influence and determine agenda items, and 3) better plan for and calendar agenda
item topics. At the June 15 WRAB meeting, staff handed out a list of 43 topics that staff had identified as
being possible items for future meetings. WRAB members at the meeting asked that this list be separated
into "Must do" and "Would like to consider doing" categories. On July 7, 2009, a list of 40 potential
meeting topics/agenda items (the "Would like to consider doing" list) was sent electronically to each
WRAB member, requesting that they return their prioritized list of "up to 10 items" by July 16. Staff
would then bring a summary of each individual WRAB member's response to the July 20 WRAB meeting
so the WRAB could go over the screened, "first-cut" list at the meeting.
WRAB feedback and questions for staff included: Idea of combining items that logically fit together
(e.g. energy audit items); idea of verbally updating some of the items - e.g. informational items such as the
Lyons to Boulder Trail update - with presentation and copies of presentation (versus written packet
material); staff can save 50% of its time with verbal updates on items. Support for item #36 ("Utility bill
inserts about proposed rate increases"), but without an update, as it was just discussed. Support for having
staff maintain agenda items which may or may not have received many votes but on which WRAB has
already invested considerable time (e.g. #3a, "Update to Drought Response Plan: Volumes 1 and 2
[includes moratorium on water permits during drought]); #37, "Town of Nederland wastewater treatment
facility IGA"). Support for expanding #25, "Water quality and regulatory update", to include stormwater,
wastewater and flood regulation issues. Discussion about whether E. Coli TMDL total maximum daily
WRAB Summary
July 20, 2009
Page No. 4
load) (#32) should be considered a separate topic from emerging contaminants (#29).
Public Comment: [9:52 p.m.] Ron Mitchell: Received letter regarding backflow prevention (item #8) for
eight of his commercial buildings, $100,000. Would like information on how owners can meet the tight
deadline (August 28) because a real hardship for property owners. Byers: Inquired as to whether letter was
related to wells. DeOreo: Doesn't recall discussing requirements for commercial buildings at WRAB
meeting earlier in 2009. Byers: Staff updated WRAB on backflow prevention [at March 23, 2009 WRAB
meeting, Agenda Item #5, "Update on Auxiliary Wells Survey and Implementation Plan] in connection
with wells, not commercial properties; was letter sent through Planning Department? Mitchell:
Requirements apply to both domestic water and sprinkler systems; agrees with philosophy and that it was a
mistake not to include requirements in original ordinance, but why are the implementation requirements so
immediate? DeOreo: Thinks it is possible to get an extension through the City. Mitchell: City has to be
fair to everyone. DeOreo: Thinks that anyone can get an extension. Williams: Russ Sands and Michelle
Wind came to WRAB earlier in the year, letting WRAB know that Colorado was shifting its focus in
priorities as a result of the Alamosa contamination event; City sent out letters to customers regarding
commercial and multi-family groundwater wells with some exemptions. City is not exempting commercial
industrial users, but there is some discretion in implementation timing. DeOreo: Believes Mitchell is
requesting an extension, not a waiver. Linenfelser. Recommends calling City for an extension; some
flexibility for certain buildings/circumstances.
Mitchell: Comments on items #13 (Boulder and Barker Reservoirs item) and #37 (Nederland wastewater
treatment facility item). Mitchell part of the Nederland Downtown Development Authority, in which
merchants tax themselves to increase downtown revenue; the Authority interested in non-motorized boating
on Barker Reservoir, given Nederland's economic tenuousness. Non-motorized boating activity would help
stimulate economy and help clean water going into Barker Reservoir. 83% of Nederland voters voted to tax
themselves to improve the wastewater treatment facility, which (Boulder) City Council thought was
positive; Council gave Nederland a grant for the treatment plan. Mitchell would like to see non-motorized
boating on Barker as a future WRAB agenda item. Howe: Voted for non-motorized boating before
Nederland became interested in the issue; looked at potential alternative levels of recreation development in
2003 and saw net benefits to both Nederland and Boulder. Williams: Boulder staff sent WRAB an e-mail
indicating that Council is interested in non-motorized boating but had safety concerns. Council asked for
an implementation proposal from Nederland and reminded elected officials; Boulder is still awaiting a
proposal from Nederland. Mitchell: No response from Nederland because of change in administration and
impracticalities, but the ball is in City Hall's (of Nederland) court. Byers: WRAB also did an extensive
study on this issue already. DiNatale: There have been new WRAB and Council members elected since
old policy; would support limited four-stroke motors with proper inspection, given technology
improvements. Mitchell: Four-stroke motorized boats (except for emergencies) would kill the proposal on
the table.
Henry Adamski: Asked WRAB to address his concerns in a hand-delivered letter (Agenda Item #7,
Attachment B) at June 15 WRAB meeting, and WRAB still has not responded. Byers: WRAB discussed
the bill insert idea under Agenda Item #7 earlier tonight and members thought it was a good idea.
DiNatale: Does WRAB need to discuss this further with staff? Williams: The problem with utility bill
inserts is that the bills get mailed out so far in advance, they cannot be informative in a timely fashion
unless they direct customers to a website. For example, information about rate increases at the July meeting
would have to be included in May utility bills. Byers: WRAB's discussion of rate issues is fairly
predictable in terms of timing during the year,but WRAB doesn't want to give bad information and invite
the public to a meeting when the issue does not end up being discussed. WRAB could let the public know
that discussion on rate increases usually occurs in May or June and have the public check the website and
be aware of any Council follow-up. DiNatale: Budget study sessions in Council? Williams: Some budget
study sessions have already been held; the next one is July 28 for the 2010 budget.
[10:12 p.m.]
Discussion: Support for adopting the five items (in addition to #3a, which WRAB is already addressing)
which garnered three votes into the agenda; support for grouping items that garnered two votes; Suggestion
to combine items #6 ("Water Conservation Program update) and #7 ("Industrial, Commercial and
Institutional [ICI] study and possible Water Budget changes"). Request that staff suggest how items would
dovetail with other items coming up in the WRAB calendar.
Conclusion and next steps: The August WRAB meeting will include a short agenda item to finalize the
WRAB Summary
July 20, 2009
Page No. 5
items that received the top votes (the five, which received three votes, plus #3a and #37, which WRAB is
already addressing), and prioritize those topics receiving two votes; WRAB members will re-vote on topics
already scheduled on the agenda, and think about which topics (from the entire list) should just receive oral
updates and presentations. Staff will also update WRAB at the August meeting on the cycle for rate
increases to help inform timing of insert discussed above (Item #36).
Agenda Item 8 - Discussion on future schedule.
Williams: 4-6 items for August 17 WRAB meeting. Byers: Reminder to WRAB members to review June 1
and June 15 minutes electronically and send any revisions to Board Secretary prior to August meeting.
Agenda Item 9-Adjournment.
Motion: Motion to adjourn by DeOreo.
Seconded by: Iott.
Vote: 5-0 in favor, passed.
Meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting:
The next WRAB meeting will be Monday, August 17 - 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:
Attested Board Secretary
Date:
WRAB Summary
July 20, 2009
Page No. 6