HomeMy WebLinkAbout2 - Draft Minutes - Water Resources - November 16, 2009
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING StA4MARY FORM
Name of Board / Commission: Water Resources Advisory Board
Date of Meeting: November 16, 2009
Contact Information of Person Preparing Summa : Kaaren Davis, 303-441-3266
Board Members Present: Robin Byers, Kelly DiNatale, William DeOreo, Susan Iott, Chuck Howe
Board Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Ned Williams, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Jeff Arthur, Engineering Review Manager
Carol Ellinghouse, Water Resources Coordinator
Joanna Crean, Public Works Project Administrator
Bret Linenfelser, Water Quality and Environmental Services Coordinator
Russ Sands, Water Quality Technician
Brian Campbell, Civil Engineer II
Kaaren Davis and Laurel Olsen-Horen - Secretary.
WHAT TYPE OF MEETING BOLD ONE REGLZAR SPECIAL QUASI-JUDICIAL
Agenda Item 1 - Call to Order [7:06 p.m.]
The meeting was called to order
Agenda Item 2 - Meeting Minutes - October 19, 2009.
The October 19 meeting minutes will be postponed for review until the December WRAB meeting.
Agenda Item 3 - Public Participation and Comment. [7:07 p.m.]
Public Comment:
• Henry Adamski: Drought Response Plan materials- Had questions regarding the code of ethics.
Specifically regarding conflicts of interest and the fact that board member DeOreo is affiliated
with one of the consultant companies that did work with the city. Board response: The study by
that consultant was done prior to Mr. DeOreo's term and the board is not reviewing that study so
there is no conflict.
Agenda Item 4 - Matters from Board and Staff [7:11 p.m.]
Matters from Board:
DeOreo: Communitv member called, advocating private swimming pools be banned under the aegis of
water budgets and asking whether the board would support. The board sees no reason for ban of pools
(public or private) on any grounds, as we have the water in the system to support pools. The city's stance is
pools are part of the outdoor water calculation for water budgets.
[Member S. Iott arrives] [7:12 p.m.]
Matters from Staff: [7:15 p.m.]
• Welcome to Laurel Olsen-Horen as the new Board Secretary
• Nederland IGA approved by Council
• Revised PIF for detention pond credits approved
• Silver Lake Ditch agreement approved with change in settlement agreement. Change was to
include an option for the Exhibit E's Silver Lake owners so that they may choose to accept the
agreement re: "non-voluntary" annexed property.
• City staff has been given notice that we are in consideration for a $1.18 million grant to refurbish
Boulder Canyon hydroelectric project. Staff is in consideration as to whether the grant will be
accepted as it is short of the required funds for the project ($5.2 million). This stimulus money is
specific to refurbishment of hydroelectric facilities.
Agenda Item 5 - Update on proposed changes to the Drought Response Plan [7:23 p.m.]
Crean, Ellinghouse, and Linenfelser presented item to board.
The Boulder Revised Code (B.RC.) authorizes the city manager to use water restrictions in case of
emergencies when the curtailment of water use is necessary for the protection of the public. WRAB and
City Council feedback on the Drought Response Plan measures will help guide the city manager in
curtailing and reducing water use during droughts and other emergencies. At the Oct. 19, 2009 meeting,
WRAB provided feedback on the proposed drought response strategy and discussed other proposed
WRAB Suiiimary
November 16, 2009
Page No. 1
changes to the Drought Response Plan (Volume 1). Based on feedback from WRAB, a "guiding principle"
framework has been drafted for the Drought Response Plan for WRAB's review and consideration.
Draft "guiding principles" on drought response measures are provided for review as Attachment A. The
Drought Response Plan has also been revised (Attachment B). The draft "guiding principles" and the
revised Drought Response Plan will be discussed at the Nov. 16, 2009 meeting.
WRAB discussion included: [7:30 p.m.]
Questions as to whether any thought was given to the application of revenues that will increase when the
proposed drought steps are taken and whether revenue neutrality can be maintained. Concerns that the
City's existing drought model is reactive and low involvement. Suggestion to use FEMA's new mission
statement as a mission statement for the drought plan. Concerns that the drought Plan is overly specific in
its restrictions. Plan needs to be clear on how to give recommendations for community members to stay
within their water budgets without actually telling them what to do. (i.e. giving any specific restrictions on
days they can water their lawns.). Suggestions for re-wording of the document and a reduction from two
volumes to one in order to make the document more user friendly to the community. Board also
recommends that it would be better to have a conservation target calling for an overall volumetric reduction
rather than the proposed indoor/outdoor reduction goals. Overall plan includes both voluntary and
mandatory measures to respond the drought. Need to revise the language to be more specific. Could the
drought plan be used if we were to lose a source due to a structural or infrastructural reason? Board would
like to know if the "Guiding Principles" approach is a good way to go, and some members expressed a
preference for using real principles; i.e.: "city will do everything possible to maintain financial integrity"
and "city will adopt water waste ordinance prior to drought".
Public Comment: [8:11p.m.]
Henry Adamski: Agree with DeOreo about being more proactive. Part of planning process should be to
increase supplies. Need access to meter readings. Education on drought issues should go into the daily
paper. Regular updates on status. Document is still lacking "ratchet down" mechanism, (from drought
stages). There should be curbs on new water permits.
Board response to Mr. Adamski: [8:15 p.m.]
Code does not forbid people opening up their meters to read them, just prohibits tampering. Request
clarification from CAO as to whether code currently prohibits people opening their meters to read them. If
it is, request Council change code to make it legal. Could require water efficiency upgrades when
properties are sold. Ratchet down mechanism is already in the principles as presented tonight. Believes
something more nimble is required. Recommends some kind of simplified explanation (education aspect of
plan) about triggers up and triggers down in Vol. I.
Staff response: City staff is trying not to work in exact specifics, but to provide the ability to respond
quickly and flexibly and work with other communities as needed, without having to go through entire
process of code change and/or Council approval.
Conclusion and next steps: Staff will take board's input, go back to the formative process and return to
WRAB when the concept and document are more fully developed.
Agenda Item 6 - Review and Discussion on City Storm water Regulations [8:34 p.m.]
Arthur and Campbell presented item to board
The WRAB recently requested that staff provide a presentation on the city's stormwater regulations. This
memorandum provides a brief overview of items to be presented at the November 16, 2009 meeting.
BACKGROUND:
Stormwater activities in the City of Boulder are subject to a variety of federal, state, and local regulations.
Regulations govern the design and construction of new public facilities as well as other activities that
impact the city's municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) and waters of the State of Colorado. The
staff presentation will focus on the city's Design and Construction Standards (DCS) which specify
standards for construction of stormwater facilities. The DCS is adopted by ordinance as part of the city's
land use regulations and is available on the city website wwtw.bouldercolorado.gov by clicking "City A -
WRAB Summary
November 16, 2009
Page No. 2
Z" and then selecting "Design Standards." The stormwater chapter of the DCS was most recently updated
in 2003 to address state and federal stormwater quality requirements. Associated DCS changes focused on
stormwater quality best management practices during and after construction and were reviewed by the
WRAB prior to adoption by City Council.
WRAB discussion included: [8:58 p.m.]
How stormwater standards interact with low impact development standards. Requirements for erosion
control in construction permitting. How cigarette butts are covered in the codes and enforcement. Disposal
requirements on vault and filtration systems. Effects of various capture systems on the ability to treat water
passing through them. Relation of PIF fees to accounts without curb and gutter. Board looks forward to
seeing the upcoming updates to design and construction standards and what comes out of this process.
Public Comment: [9:10 p.m.]
None.
Conclusion and next steps: Staff will be working on updates to these regulations sometime next year.
Though it falls under land use regulations, and hence Planning Board's purview, staff has traditionally
brought the relevant components to the WRAB for recommendations as well. Staff will likely come before
WRAB at least once some time in 2010.
Agenda Item 7 - Update on Water Conservation Program and future Commercial, Industrial and
Institutional (CH) water use study [9:19 p.m.]
Linenfelser, Crean, and Sands presented item to board.
In June 2008, the Water Conservation Program Supervisor left the City of Boulder (city) and efforts were
made to re-fill the position in early 2009. In February 2009 the city's staffing review committee
recommended the Water Conservation Supervisor position not be filled in 2009 due to budget concerns.
Since this decision, city Water Quality and Environmental Services (WQES) staff have covered
implementation of the Water Conservation Program by delegating program responsibilities among a team
of four staff. The primary focus of the Water Conservation Program in 2009 included: implementation of
the rebate program:, targeted Water Conservation Program advertising; coordination/leveraging with other
city departments and Boulder County:. and, completion of water audits for residential and multi-family
residents. Re-filling the Water Conservation Supervisor position maybe evaluated again in early 2010.
The current city water budget rate structure does not set water budgets for commercial, industrial and
institutional (CII) category water users based on water efficiency benchmarks. Typically, water budgets for
the CII sector are set based on historical water use or meter size. Within the city's approximately 29,000
water accounts, 2,000 are CII accounts. These 2,000 accounts use an average of 26 percent of the city's
annual water sales based on 2004 through 2008 data. City staff proposes to conduct a phased CII water use
study to better characterize water use patterns and evaluate possible options for developing sector-specific
water use efficiency benchmarks.
WRAB feedback and questions for staff included:
Water Conservation Discussion:
A suggestion from the board to eliminate the extra 2,000 acre feet of water use per year falling within
blocks 3-5 in the water budget system. Cost/benefit analysis for the program both existing and upcoming.
HOAs and their interaction with/reaction to irrigation audits.
CII Study Discussion:
Suggestions to start with a survey series of CII customers and follow up with site visits to get more specific
information about businesses which could aid in correct classification/ categorization for the purpose of
setting a reasonable PIF/water budget. What measures are and will be in place to ensure confidentiality in
the study to prevent exposure of participants to a competitive disadvantage? Suggestions from the Board as
to what types of companies would be useful for this pilot study.
Agenda Item 8 - Discussion of the WRAB goals [ 10:12 p.m.]
Williams presented item to board.
WRAB Summary
November 16, 2009
Page No. 3
At the Council study session on October 20, 2009, the Council discussed a number of topics related to
Boards and Commissions (B&C). Among them was the question "what drives the work plan of the various
Boards?" The Council discussion on this topic included the question of whether the work plan is driven by
the B&Cs, by staff or by the Council.
The Council requested that staff bring this topic up with each B&C so each B&C can provide a written
communication prior to the January 22-23, 2010 retreat with the following information:
• Provide the Board's opinion on what drives the work plan
• Outline the Board's work plan and priorities
• Outline what requests the Board might have for Council to consider
B&C feedback will be compiled by the Office of the City Clerk and included in the City Council packet for
the January 2010 retreat.
R'RAB discussion included:
A suggestion that this be the first item on the agenda in December. Suggestions to get some policy and
budget priority guidance from Council. Suggestions that the above areas are where WRAB should be
providing policy recommendations to Council and not the other way around. Suggestions that WRAB start
with the list of issues they have already produced and develop from that list a set of Goals or Issues to
submit to Council.
Conclusion and next steps: WRAB members will send their suggestions to the Board Secretary who will
work with staff to collate the suggestions into a list that the Board can then build on for their submission in
December. Iott will take the collated list and prepare a draft for submission to Council which will be ready
for inclusion in the next WRAB packet (Dec. 11). WRAB will then review and finalize the document at the
December 21, 2009 WRAB meeting.
Agenda Item 9 -Discussion on future schedule. [10:28 p.m.]
Revisions to the planned schedule were outlined by Williams, and WRAB gave input on preferences for
time and prioritization of presentations in upcoming months.
Agenda Item 10 - Adjournment. [10:36 p.m.]
Motion: Iom Seconded by: DeOreo; Vote: 5-0
Meeting adjourned at: 10:37 p.m.
Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting:
The next WRAB meeting will be Monday, December 21 - 7 p.m., regular meeting, at the 13`F' Street
Conference Room, unless otherwise decided b staff and the board.
These are summary minutes. Digital recordings of this meeting are available on the WRAB web site.
Minutes approved by:
Date:
Attested: Board Secretary
Date:
WRAB Summary
November 16, 2009
Page No. 4