HomeMy WebLinkAbout2 - Draft Minutes - Water Resources - June 15, 2009
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING StA4MARY 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 Iott
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 May WRAB meeting,
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 ARAB 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 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 supportWRAB 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 Utilities 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 regulations
considerations with Planning.
WRAB Summary
June 15. 2009
Page No. 1
Matters from Staff -
• Blue Ribbon Commission, Phase II. Williams: Blue Ribbon Commission, Phase II will take
place June 25`h as a public meeting in the 291h 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.
Dr. Douglas Kenney, University of Colorado professor and Dr. Charles Howe, University of Colorado
professor and WRAB member, present the lessons learned on residential water demand management from a
"Drought in Aurora, Colorado" case study. Drs. Kenney and Howe discuss 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 will be discussed. At the July 20, 2009
WRAB meeting, board members will continue to discuss the Drought Response Plan update.
WRAB 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 its information about water
conservation from Denver media.
Clarifications: Whether Aurora serves any accounts outside its municipality like Boulder: Kenny 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 cornmunities; 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 terns 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 Kenny 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.
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 AWWA (American
Water Works Association); O&M Costs for Water Distribution (13a-c, page 9) fixed or variable costs:
many costs fixed, reflecting costs per million gallons, with variability a function of different variables
including energy costs and overall salary increases and price escalations from 2005 - 2008. "Customer
Accounts Per Employee" (graph 3a): Boulder appears significantly inefficient to other cities on these
accounts. Taking into account Boulder's redundant systems of supply, treatment and delivery, its operation
of a hydroelectric system and the fact that Boulder owns the watershed, in terms of Boulder's numbers.
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": defined by AWWA, 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 focus for report by focusing on more comparison on
a few more meaningful performance measures 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. [9:04 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 1% have
also been developed per AVRAB'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%.
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 pay for household hazardous waste costs
despite uncertainty of how much household 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:.
WRAB Summary
June 15. 2009
Page No. 3
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.
Clarifications: 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 continent; 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 in water 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 continents, but does
not look at projects in as much detail as WRAB. City council study session July 101i, 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 except household
hazardous waste costs based on TABOR concerns. DiNatale's concern that staff should consider
alternatives to staff considerations on supplemental requests. Howe and DiNatale support breaking up
motions on rate increases into the three water 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: Howe
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.
Agenda Item 8 - Discussion on future schedule. [10:17 PM]
Harber : Jul 6 public hearing for property on effects of Gregory Creek Canyon flood mitigation
WRAB Summary
June 15. 2009
Page No. 4
project. Byers: Will public comments from public hearing be included in July WRAB packet? Harberg:
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, ARAB 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`x' Street Conference
Room, unless otherwise decided by 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:
WRAB Summary
June 15. 2009
Page No. 5