Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Water Resources - 8/17/2009 CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING SUMMARY FORM NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Water Resources Advisory Board DATE OF MEETING: August 17, 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 DeOreo, Susan Iott, Chuck Howe STAFF - Ned Williams; Carol Ellinghouse; Bob Harberg; Bret Linenfelser; Douglas Sullivan; Kurt Bauer; Christie Coleman; Bev Johnson - Department of Community Planning; 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 7:09 p.m. Agenda item 2 - Meeting Minutes - June 1, 2009, June 15, 2009, and July 20, 2009. Motion: Iott - Move to approve June 1, 2009 minutes as amended. Seconded: Howe Vote: 5-0 in favor, Motion passed Motion: Howe - Move to approve June 15, 2009 minutes as amended. Seconded: DiNatale Vote: 3-0 in favor, Motion passed [DeOreo and Lott absent from June 15, 2009 meeting] Motion: Howe - Move to approve July 20, 2009 minutes as amended. Seconded: DeOreo Vote: 5-0 in favor, Motion passed Agenda Item 3 - Public Participation and Comment. [7:17 p.m.] Public Comment - There was none. Agenda Item 4 [7:18 p.m.] [Howe distributes two handouts on national water rates, "Water utilities get paid for better energy management," July, 2009, U.S Water News; "Urban Water-Use Efficiencies: Lessons from United States Cities," 2009-2010, World's Water.] Matters from Board - • Discussion on Howe's handouts on national water rates. DiNatale: Surprised by low cost of Las Vegas water rates. Howe: Yes, these rates are very low compared to Seattle, which has very high rates in the upper blocks. lott: But Las Vegas has provided incentives for users to eliminate lawns and has used a "fee approach." Howe: Las Vegas has been very innovative in bringing districts together and securing water rights. Iott: Also curious about the fixed monthly service charge; would Boulder's monthly service charge be zero? DiNatale: Boulder's monthly service charge would be a meter service charge. Byers: Would the monthly service charge cover just water prices, versus also storm and flood? DiNatale: Yes. • Water budget/rate structure issues. DeOreo: Sent WRAB a memo on advice on water budgets for demand management. Williams: The water budgets topic is slated for discussion again in September or October. DeOreo: Would like staff and WRAB to review the e-mail he sent for discussion whenever it is scheduled on WRAB. agenda. Also sent out memo on the City's water rate structures. DCOreo's point was that there is a structural problem with the water rates: when rates were first established, Council decided to establish lower rates to avoid the problem of being perceived as having rates that were too high. So now Boulder's rates are so low in Blocks 1 and 2, the City is relying on revenue in Blocks 4 and 5 ($2.5 million per year) to fund the system, This is wrong because the City should not be relying on wasteful water use to fluid the system and rate structure; the approach is now challengeable because the City has to defend itself on a cost-basis WRAB Summary August 17, 2009 Page No. 1 analysis, which can't be done for Blocks 4 and 5. Does WRAB agree and would they support advice to Council to move forward with a system relying on Blocks 1, 2 and 3 for generating additional revenue (30% rate increase in the base rate, but not necessarily all at once)? In the meantime, revenues generated in blocks 4 and 5 could be available for conservation and other efficiencies. DiNatale: A WRAB motion three years ago incorporated those ideas. Council turned the motion down twice. DeOreo: WRAB should reiterate its standpoint. DiNatale: WRAB should not reiterate its standpoint now, given the economy and Council reluctance, but WRAB should be working toward the approach. Howe: Recommends that WRAB send a short e-mail memo to Council reinforcing DeOreo's analysis; the memo should describe WRAB's desire to have the City cover operating expenses from Blocks 1 and 2. Howe would go beyond this approach from an econoinic perspective, based on the fact that water is completely underpriced; there is no allowance in the rate structure of the water customers are using. Opportunity costs plague city- pricing structures across the country and fail to reflect the scarcity value of the water itself. DiNatale: Byers had a lot of good points in her e-mail. DiNatale agrees with Howe's points, but believes the City was wise in acquiring and in investing in all its resources decades ago, and current citizens are reaping the benefit of these investments. Why should current customers pay the costs of the value of water today in terms of operation costs if Boulder's wise forefathers bought water at very reasonable costs? Byers: This issue is a non-starter. WRAB gave Council its recommendations and Council will not respond to them this year. WRAB's approach would still be a de facto rate increase to customers. Iott: Does not think DeOreo is arguing for rate increases right now, but is instead asking for a discussion on the appropriateness of rate structure. Iott recommends that WRAB include the discussion as an upcoming agenda item in preparation for approaching Council in a timely mariner. DeOreo: WRAB understands the politics but has to get Council to recognize that there is a structural problem with the rates. DiNatale: 90% of cities have this same problem. Byers: When will WRAB revisit the rate structure issue? Williams: The issue hasn't been calendared yet. DeOrco: When will Council take up the issue again? Williams: At the August 25`h Study Session; Council might briefly discuss utility rates and then at 1" and 2°d readings to approve the budget. Council will make a final decision on utility rates in October. DiNatale: WRAB should raise this issue with Council after the budget is finalized; bad timing now. After budget rate increases, WRAB can start to develop an implementation plan and show the cost-savings as well. Byers: What does WRAB want to do about the issue? The 2010 budget process will start sooner than we know it and the economy might have settled down by then. DeOreo: Is City staff recommending a zero-percent increase to Council? Byers: Williams will brief WRAB under Matters from Staff (below). Matters from Staff - • Solar (Photovoltaic) Project update at Waste Water Treatment Plant. [Douglas Sullivan distributes summary on project.] Sullivan: City staff and EyeOn Energy are modifying their original agreement for the solar project. Staff will be going to Council about modifications on September 1. Howe: Who is EyeOn Energy? Sullivan: EyeOn is the developer contracting with City; they are an independent group. For background, in 2007 the contract was signed and Council agreed to a 20-year payment schedule for solar services with a one-year timeframe for construction, which wasn't met. The contract was extended to a Spring 2009 deadline, which also was not met due to lack of financing. Currently, the project is moving fairly quickly with an anticipated November 2009 completion date. 4452 panels have been installed. DeOreo: Who are the manufacturers? Sullivan: There are several manufacturers. Sullivan describes changes to the agreement in the agreement amendment: a few new dates plus one major change, EyeOn Energy's inability to find financing through a bank willing to provide a 20-year loan. Bank of America's regulations limit the bank's ownership of non-bank assets, so the bank may need to sell the facility at the ten-year point, with the third party unknown but possibly being the City. The City would have the first right of refusal. Sullivan is drafting a memo for Council for this Wednesday and will incorporate any WRAB concerns in the memo. DiNatale: After ten years, will the new facility owner still be obligated to sell City power at the 2.7% rate for the full twenty years? Sullivan: Yes, this language is key. Williams: Staff has tried to make the power purchase agreement go with any subsequent buyer, even though there is risk associated with it. Sullivan: The new language ensures that the underlying solar services agreement is in place for any subsequent buyer. Williams: The intent is for staff to provide an update on this project, not garner a WRAB recommendation. Staff is trying to get the item on the September 1 Council agenda so WRAB Summary August 17, 2009 Page No. 2 that Council can consider the amendment agreement. If WRAB wants to make a recommendation, would need another meeting for it. DeOreo: What is the life of the facility? Sullivan: The life of the facility was originally estimated at twenty years to match the purchase agreement, but research shows the facility could last as long as thirty to thirty-five. DeOreo: Does the agreement include a requirement about reparations for damages from natural inclement weather? Sullivan: Yes, there is a provision for this in the original agreement. Byers: Does EycOn have sources to ensure that performance bond? Williams: No, but EyeOn's interest is in generating power; without the City buying power or receiving Xcel payments, EyeOn has a valuable facility not generating power in the event of hail storm. Byers: Will EyeOn Energy be able to pay back their project expenses out of a ten-year revenue stream without the City doubling up on payments? How will EyeOn meet its [financial] obligations? Williams: Not sure EyeOn will meet its obligations. Byers: So do they have a guaranteed sale'? Williams: It is likely the bank will want to sell the facility in ten years. Sullivan: The economic viability of the project has been a sticking point in conversations. Currently, the contractor has been providing construction funds to move ahead, but there are concerns, e.g. the value of the facility relative to the investment. Byers: The project is dependent on a twenty-year stream plus getting all the tax benefits; Byers does not see how the project can work. DeOreo: The bank will have to refinance the project at the end of ten years. Williams: The bank owns the facility. Byers: Has EyeOn had to pledge their credit to the bank as additional security? Sullivan: Probably; EyeOn has not defaulted on its loan; the bank is not technically involved yet but Ion has hired a contractor (SOLON Corporation), who is building the facility, and they are the ones with the financial exposure. EyeOn Energy is trying to get financing from Bank of America; SOLON is not interested in a long-term ownership role. The problem is that the package does not appear economically viable from the bank's perspective, so there are a lot of questions about refinancing. DeOreo: Does not want a derelict situation that the City ends up having to deal with. Iott: Has the City been asked to raise rates? Sullivan: Not yet. DiNatale: What was the cost of the wetlands permit in terms of staff time? Sullivan: There are wetlands on the site, but the staff time devoted to them was insignificant. Staff did have to hire a group for wetlands delineation, but they were efficient and developed a monitoring plan. Public Comment - Andrew McKenna: An owner of Bella Energy, a solar energy company in Colorado. 500 kilowatts of third-parry finance on County buildings in 2008 were contracted; McKenna is very familiar with third-party contracts. McKenna is attending the WRAB meeting for the flood issue, later on the agenda, but curious about why the City is continuing to consider EyeOn Energy after it has failed to fulfill the terms of its contract; supposes it is City Council's issue. McKenna offers himself as a resource to help staff/public answer questions about third-party financing. Williams: Yes, Council and other City staff are responsible for responding to such an issue. • Update on August 18th City Council Meeting. Williams: [Williams distributes handouts on the July 25 council study session summary which will be reviewed by council on Aug. 18]. Staff considered feedback from Council on utility rates and the City Manager's budget recommendation of zero-percent rate increase for all three utilities types. Staff will be checking in with Council August 25th to see if this decision is still amenable to Council members. There was still concern about the stormwater PIF (plant investment fee); staff is hoping to return to Council September 15th with options so Council can consider lowering the fees. Byers: The concern with the PIFs was not just that they were too high but about applicants having to build detention facilities while also being assessed stormwater PIFs. Williams: Yes, so staff will present this information and see whether Council wants to make different choices. DeOreo: Is the stormwater PIF proportional to the amount of increased runoff the site generates in a 100-year storm? Williams: Yes. DeOreo: And if a customer builds a 100-year retention facility, does he get a break on his PIF? Williams: Building a detention pond is often done to avoid costs to build offsite conveyance to the tributary, so no reduction in PIF; customers are not allowed to increase the flood risk downstream, so if they don't want to build off'site improvements, they can detain the water. Detention does not dratnatically reduce the total volume of water but changes timing. If a customer has an onsite detention facility with pervious layers preventing water from being released, the customer would receive a significant PIF reduction. DeOreo: Does the City require a customer who owns property feeding water into a local storm system not on a major drainageway to build 100-year detention? Williams: No, but these customers are not allowed to increase historic runoff. DeOreo: Do the WRAB Summary August 17, 2009 Page No. 3 stormwater PIFs include a PIF to build a 100-year channel for major drainageways? Williams: No; there are100-year facilities on all major drainageways. Part of the PIF reimburses customers for past investments within the system. Council will ultimately make decisions in October on the budget. • October 27t" Boards and Commissions Study Session. Williams: Not sure of topics for the study session, but will let WRAB know more as he knows. Iott: Was the need for the study sessions triggered by a specific event? Williams: Might have to do with past conflicts of interest allegations for members with other boards. • WRAB Board Secretary Resignation. Williams: Suzanne Lieberman has announced her resignation as WRAB Board Secretary; her last day will be October 2"d. Staff has received permission from the City Manager's office to rehire the position and has begun the rehiring process. Agenda Item 5 -Recommendation to City Council regarding an ordinance approving an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Town of Nederland concerning city financial participation in improvements to Nederland's wastewater treatment facility at Barker Reservoir. [7:58 p.m.] Ellinghouse gave the presentation. On Sept. 1, 2009, City Council will be asked to approve an ordinance (Attachment A) to implement an Intergovernmental Agreement (Exhibit A to Attachment A) between the City of Boulder and the Town of Nederland regarding improvements to Nederland's wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) at Barker Reservoir. On Nov. 25, 2008, Council approved a motion to authorize the City Manager to develop an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to allow Boulder to provide a financial contribution for the construction ofNederland's new WWTF based on benefits to Boulder's drinking water supply stored in Barker Reservoir. The Town of Nederland Board of Trustees approved the IGA on Aug. 11, 2009. Nederland's need to improve its WWTF in order to meet the regulatory standards of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) within its new discharge permit presents an opportunity to upgrade a WWTF that has been a source of concern for Boulder's drinking water supply. Although even the most basic improvements that Nederland will need to make to meet permitting requirements would provide a significant improvement in its WWTF effluent quality, both Nederland and Boulder would like to pursue a more enhanced treatment technology than what is required to meet current regulatory standards. This enhanced technology will enable the WWTF to further decrease contaminant levels in order to protect Barker Reservoir water quality. On Nov. 25, 2008, Council authorized the development of an IGA providing for a $270,000 one time contribution plus an additional $100,000 one time contribution if a second equalization tank is needed and an annual contribution of up to $17,30 for operation and maintenance expenses for up to ten years. The contributions were contingent on Boulder's approval of the WWTF design and Nederland's implementation of education programs on water conservation and phosphorus use for town residents. The attached IGA has been negotiated with Nederland based on Council's direction. WRAB feedback and questions for staff included: Clarification on calculation of payments; concern witli soft language and need for elaboration of "actual construction costs"; request to have Boulder provided with copies of the Daily Monitoring Reports on a quarterly basis (rather than annually) and request for more specificity on education programs. Concern with the timing for the second equalization tank complicating Boulder being responsible for the second $100,000 "actual construction costs"; clarification of consultant fees spent to date; concern with Boulder's liability to pay penalties if Nederland can't pay for the plant, but staff reminder that Nederland will have to reimburse costs it can't pay and that state has enforcement abilities; "Upon' 'used twice; and sentence does not make sense (page 3, paragraph 3C&3E). No indication of the relevant time period for the interest rate (page 4, paragraph 3(i)) and insufficient description of the principal; request for clarification of enforcement procedures for non- payment (page 5, paragraph 6); request to include Boulder County in third-party beneficiary clause (page 7, paragraph J. Concerns about whether the project needs to obtain a Boulder County 1041 permit and the consequences for needing to obtain a 1041 permit. Concerns about Boulder being asked to contribute additional funds if Nederland is financially unable to complete the project. Questions on how long construction will take; questions on total estimated costs (3(i)) provision), including Boulder's value of contribution to construction costs for each year project operated; WRAB Summary August 17, 2009 Page No. 4 Public Comment: There was none. [8:23 p.m.] Board discussion: Need to put all comments in an official motion or take concerns to Council, pointing out areas deserving more attention. Clarification of tasks resolvable with Nederland versus those that are more difficult. One board member's opituon is that agreement does not create an unreasonable risk because of payment installment arrangements (only pay when half the project is done and then again when the full project is completed); questions about the home-rule issue (Nederland is not home-rule). Questions regarding timing issues, e.g. why did Nederland's trustees already vote on the issue and the potential for Nederland to revisit the issue after this WRAB meeting. Discussion of process for resolving actual costs for "Operation and Maintenance" payments; discussion of available options for enforcement of the agreement. Whether Nederland has a waiver on the 1041 permit and the need to include impact of a non-waiver in Section 2(d) (interaction between Nederland and Boulder), acknowledging that the 1041 permit might be a step in the process causing potential delay. Proposal for motion: WRAB recommends to Council approval of the implementation agreement incorporating the revisions and comments discussed at WRAB meeting. Byers will send list of these recommended changes to WRAB Board Secretary to incorporate into the minutes. Motion: DiNatale Move that WRAB recommend Council approval of the proposed ordinance and agreement, incorporating as many of the comments outlined by WRAB, below [as possible]: 1. P2, para. 2(b): When will the need for an additional equalization tank be finalized? Language to clarify the deadline for this determination should be added to the document. 2. P.2, para. 2 (general): Clarify allocation of consulting fees - if both sides are paying their own, add language to that effect. CC needs to be aware this may increase the total costs to the City for participation above the amount set forth in the IGA. 3. P.2, para. 2(c): Add language to clarify that Nederland will also timely apply for any other permits that may be needed, incl. by way of example (but not limited to) 1041 (if necessary), and 404. 4. P.3, para. 3: In intro., define what "actual construction costs" comprises - just "brick and mortar," or intangibles as well? 5. P.3, paras. 3(c), (e); Delete the word "upon" where it occurs in these two paragraphs, as it doesn't make sense. 6. PA, para. 3(i): Clarify what the relevant time period is for computing interest rate cited (per annum?), and define what constitutes the principal for purposes of said computation. What is enforcement for non- payment? 7. P.5, para. 6: Need deadline(s) for implementation of educational programs re: water conservation, phosphorus use, PCPs, pharmaceuticals, etc. In current form, this provision is open-ended, and has no stated goals. General concerns: a) Boulder will not have an ownership interest in the project, so what is the plan if the proposed project stalls out or bond payments default? b) It does not appear that the 1041 process will be triggered, but it might be a good idea to confirm this. c) Suggest adding language that Boulder's contribution will never be construed to include water rights, just funds and set-vices. Seconded: DeOreo Discussion of motion: Agreement to include 1041 state permit considerations into Section 2(c) and not include the consulting fees issue but keep an eye on this issue. Discussion about the extent to which Utilities staff thinks it has the inside talent to complete a lot of the analysis without contracting it out: MWH will likely be involved, as they have been throughout. Whether Nederland will pay for any potential Clean Water Act 404 federal permitting or 1041 state permitting costs if these permits are required: staff uncertainty as to whether these permits are required. Vote: 5-0 in favor, Motion passed WRAB Summary August 17, 2009 Page No. 5 Agenda Item 6 - Update on Gregory Canyon Creek Flood Study. [8:46 pm] Coleman gave the presentation. Staff is currently updating the Gregory Canyon Creek flood mapping study and began the associated public process with a neighborhood open house on July 8 and explanatory WRAB meeting on July 20" (additional reference information play be found in the agenda memorandum from the July 20'h WRAB meeting.) 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. 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 detail analysis which incorporates a conveyance and high hazard zone. The proposed flood study will provide the basis for land use applications and flood insurance requirements for properties projected to be impacted by the I00-year flood. At the July 20'h WRAB meeting staff presented the extent and components of the mapping study update. During this meeting staff also received feedback from the WRAB members. Staff response and additional research related to this feedback is included in Attachment A. A copy of the Gregory Canyon Creek letter of map revision and associated workmaps are included as Attachments B and C. WRAB feedback and questions for staff included: Clarification on number of new structures in the high-hazard zone compared to earlier mapping; effects of bridge improvements on existing channel; eminent domain only a possibility during mitigation phase. Explanation for timing for modeling floodplain with removal of culverts: most likely included in the identification of a capital improvement project and the preliminary pre-construction modeling associated with design of structural improvement channel crossings to ensure the project would be improved before construction and to mitigate flooding. Consultant feedback on analysis of hydraulic output since July WRAB: ninety percent of flow critical, independent of the structures; floodplain would look very similar without the structures; small channel capacity is the significant component. Clarification of the containment policy for Boulder Creek and the "100-year flood" policy versus the "non-structural approach" policy, which Boulder currently subscribes to for all of its drainageways. Public Comment: [9:05 p.m.] Alec Chesney: A remote sensing professor at CU-Boulder; appreciates the technology (i.e. the LIDAR, "Light Detection and Ranging" approach) going into the project. In terms of Chesney's own property, if staff does floodplain modeling that will prove that a portion of the residence would not be in the floodplain, what is the procedure for amending the study? Coleman: If Chesney has the survey information, staff would incorporate it into the floodplain model before sending it to FEMA (Flood Emergency Management Agency); if the survey information is provided after FEMA adopts the study, a LOMR or LOMA can be used to correct the hydraulic model. Cbesney: So there is a short window [for requesting an amendment to the study]? Coleman: Not really; there are the three different windows: before FEMA adopts the study two afterwards: the LOMB, "Letter of Map Revision" and the LOMA, "Letter of Map Amendment"). Motion: DeOreo: - Move that WRAB accept the flood study and recommend that Planning Board and City Council approve submittal of the study to FEMA for regulatory adoption. Seconded: Lott Discussion of motion: Need to include the "recommendation to Planning Board" part? Comment that agenda item memo includes two inconsistent proposals for WRAB recommendations, but WRAB agreement that either one is acceptable; simply lift the language for the WRAB motion from "Staff Recommendation" in this agenda item memo as a friendly amendment. Friendly Amendment to Motion: Move that WRAB recommend approval of the updated Gregory Canyon Creek Floodplain Mapping Study Update and submittal of the study to FEMA for regulatory adoption. Vote: 5-0 in favor, Motion passed Short break [9:12 .m.] Agenda Item 7 - Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Update. [9:18 p.m.] Johnson gave the presentation. The purpose of this item is to provide WRAB with an overview of the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan roiect scope. process and schedule. Staff would also like input from board WRAB Summary August 17, 2009 Page No. 6 members on draft goals, vision statement and challenges outlined by staff (Attachment B). The purpose of the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan project is to establish management goals and objectives for Parks and Recreation Department managed land and activities at the Boulder Reservoir (including Tom Watson Park and Coot Lake) that will guide long-term investment strategies. An interdepartmental staff team has been assembled and staff has initiated Phase I of a three phase process for developing the plan (Attachment A). WRAB will be asked to provide feedback on the plan during each phase of the project. Staff anticipates completion of a master plan by the second quarter of 2010. WRAB feedback and questions for staff included: Need for coordinating reservoir activities among the various departments and clarification of Northern's (Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District's) role in reservoir management; implications of the Carter Lake Pipeline project for reservoir management and for Boulder's exchange water. Questions on desired water quality goals and indicators for the reservoir; timing of identification of off-limit zones/closure areas. Support for goals but skepticism about potential to balance recreational uses and water quality; encourage setting off-limit zones and prioritizing water quality. Concern with ensuring treatment of development compatibility with neighborhoods not in City limits. Suggestion to amend maps to show knock-out for fire-training facility and access routes. Public Comment: There was none. [9:42 p.m.] Discussion: Staff to follow-up on question about what portion of the water entering the reservoir is for agricultural uses. Conclusion and next steps: Staff will return to WRAB the first quarter of 2010 with the master plan. Agenda Item S - Fourmile Canyon and Wonderland Creek Major Drainageway flood mitigation planning update. 19:43 p.m.] Bauer gave the presentation. The purpose of this agenda item is to provide an update on the Founnile Canyon Creek and Wonderland Creek flood mitigation planning effort including current staff recommendations. The Major Drainageway Phase A plan, prepared by Love and Associates in June 2007, developed, evaluated, and recommended flood mitigation conceptual-level alternatives along both Wonderland and Founnile Canyon Creeks. The work was jointly sponsored by the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District and the City. The report recommendations have been reviewed through an extensive public involvement process. Based on feedback from the public involvement process, staff believes there is general concurrence on the flood ntigation approach for all stream areas with the exception of Wonderland Creek between 26`x' St. and Foothills Parkway. In this area there are questions regarding the following two approaches: l . Containment of the entire 100-year flood flows at public expense, thus mitigating all potential property damage due to the 100-year storm event 2. Containment of the high hazard flood zone at public expense, coupled with voluntary private financing of floodproofing private property owners' structures. Staff has evaluated these approaches as summarized in this agenda item, including staff's preliminary recommendations, and is seeking WRAB input and feedback. WRAB feedback and questions for staff included: Clarification of costs paid for flood insurance: broken down by commercial properties, multi-family structures not included. Clarification that entire floodplain reach within incorporated City; discussion of flood-proofing costs; clarification of "community-based cost- benefit ratio": benefits are damage reduction and costs are public construction costs (as funded by ratepayers). Questions about what City has spent on flood management for comparable channels: $38 million on major drainageways improvements, $24 million on property acquisition; figures are in 2008 dollars for the last 20 years. Explanation of costs for project's "Greenways" components. Question about projected implementation period: Fourmile not as high priority as some of the other drainageways so will take decades to implement the improvements, but also implementabie incrementally. Whether residents can get waivers for FFMA requirements for floodproofing: only if LOMR, "Letter of Map Revision" based on G11. Discussion of publicization of private risks and determining cut-off between public and private risk assumption. Clarification of degree of risk to structures still in high-hazard zone and versus 100-year WRAB Summary August 17, 2009 Page No. 7 floodplain. Public Comment: [10:14 p.m.] Ann Key: Thanks staff for work; lives in the Winding "frail Village, which is bisected by Wonderland Creek between 26'h and 28`h Streets. Under the modified plan, is the City proposing to widen the channel under 28th Street? In the original plan, there was no change to that bridge, but the proposal to widen the channel creates a big choke-point. Bauer: The modified plan would leave the 100-year recommendations in place and replace the bridge. DeOreo: Does Ann Key want the bridge replaced? Key: Yes; the City needs to enlarge the channel at that point. Also, what is the timeframe for implementation? The Homeowners Association is trying to upgrade the landscape and doesn't want to invest in the landscape if the work is going to be torn up. Finally, the creek is totally choked with cattails and willow trees that the City hasn't dredged; seems like this is increasing the flood risk. DeOreo: Area located in drainage easement of city? Harberg: Yes. Andy Key: Has lived at the Winding Trail Village for nine years. [Key points to map on presentation slide.] Lives in second house just below the bend, which is totally choked with cattails and trees. As Ann Key mentioned, City has never cleaned any of it out. In spring 2009, the City began to clean from 26`h Street to the bend; Key thought City would return to finish but never did. The channel needs to be dredged, not sure if it needs to be widened. It is also difficult to determine the accuracy of the FEMA maps; Key's 100-year floodplain cuts through the middle of his backyard; any increase in the channel capacity would probably take them out of floodplain. Howe: Do the floodplain models take encroaching vegetation into account? Love: Worked on the design twenty years ago; the area was designed to be a wetland-bottom channel. Had concerns at the time that sediment would accumulate; had permit problems with the Corps (Army Corps of Engineers). Since then, the 100-year floodplain has doubled in size because of the "spill," the flood characteristics have changed. Howe: From a cost-effectiveness perspective, dredging the channel seems obvious; why isn't dredging done regularly'? Lqve: When channels designed, assumed there was wetland vegetation, but we never considered the presence of "volunteer" trees, and assumed these would be cleaned out. Harberg: The vegetation problems are not unique to Fourmile; City has had to keep up with thirteen drainageways with limited crews and had to face the difficulty of getting through the wetland permitting process. Staff has a program to maintain channels with Urban Drainage contributing funds, restoring original conveyance capacity, but vegetation loves to grow where it is wet and it is very difficult to keep up with. Discussion: Whether crossings would be brought up to 100-year containment in the high-hazard containment alternative: for new crossings, yes. Boulder White Rock and wetlands upstream would be treated the same under all options because the area contains a high-functional wetland. Conclusion and next steps: Staff will return to WRAB in September asking for a final recommendation on WRAB's preferred alternative for the Wonderland/Fourmile flood mitigation plans. Agenda Item 9 - Rescheduling of the Dec. 21, 2009 (possibly), Jan. 18, 2010, and Feb. 15, 2010 Water Resources Advisory Board meetings. 110:29 p.m.] Williams presented the item. The regularly scheduled dates for the Water Resource Advisory Board (WRAB) meetings of December 21" 2009, January 18"' 2010 and February 15'h 2010 will fall near or on federal holidays. The City is closed to daily operations on the January and February holidays and thus it becomes necessary to reschedule the meetings for January and February to other dates within those months, and to reschedule the December meeting if WRAB so desires. WRAB Discussion: Avoid scheduling public meetings on Tuesday nights; reminder that WRAB has the ability to preempt other meetings that take place other nights, (e.g. on Tuesdays); concern for providing sufficient time for staff meeting preparation between meeting dates. Conclusion and next steps: Keep Monday, December 21" for the regular December WRAB meeting; change January WRAB meeting to Tuesday, January 19"" 2010 and change February WRAB meeting to Monday, February 22d, 2010. Agenda Item 10 - Discussion on future schedule. Williams presented the agenda item. At the July 20, 2009 meeting, WRAB members identified their top priorities for future agenda items, Those items (listed below) have been placed on the WRAB's on-going calendar. 1. Town of Nederland W W`I'P IGA - August 2009 2. Update to Drought Response Plan - Sept or Oct 2009 WRAB Summary August 17, 2009 Page No. 8 3. Update on Water Conservation Program - Nov 2009 4. Update on Lyons to Boulder Reservoir Trail - Nov 2009 5. Update on Water Availability studies being done by the Colorado Water Conservation Board - Dec 2009 6. Update on Boulder's water yields, operations models and reliability criteria - Dec 2009 7. Gross Reservoir expansion and South Boulder Creek instream flow - Jan 2010 The balance (41 items) of the "possible future agenda items" is reflected in the memo. WRAB members are asked to individually select their top 5 items (you do not need to prioritize your top 5) from this list and submit/send those items to staff on or before Friday, August 14, so that a summarized list can be compiled and provided to WRAB members for review/approval at the August 17 meeting. WRAB is asked to review its top 5 items. WRAB Discussion: Williams distributes results of remaining agenda item votes. Howe: Really interested in digging into the CII (commercial industrial and institutional) issue. WRAB members who hadn't previously voted, vote: DiNatale: Item numbers 2, 4, 7, 21, and 26. DcOrco: Item numbers 2, 4, 21, the Colorado River stud (already on schedule for December), and 8. Agenda Item 11- Adjournment. Motion: Motion to adjourn by lott Seconded by: DiNatale Vote: 5-0 in favor, passed. Meeting adjourned at 10:49 p.m. Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting: The next WRAB meeting will be Monday, September 21 - 7 p.m., regular meeting, at the 13~' 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: Attested : Board Secretary Date: WRAB Summary August 17, 2009 Page No. 9