Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2 - Draft Minutes - Water Resources - 1/20/2011 CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES Name of Board / Commission: Water Resources Advisory Board Date of Meeting: 20 January 2011 Contact Information of Person Preparing Minutes: Laurel Olsen-Horen: 303-441-3203 Board Members Present: Bill DeOreo, Chuck Howe, Kate Ryan, Vicki Scharnhorst Board Members Absent: Susan Iott Staff Present: Ned Williams, Director of Public Works for Utilities Bob Harberg, Engineering Project Management Coordinator Carol Ellinghouse, Water Resources Manager Christie Coleman, Utilities Project Engineer Bret Linenfelser, Water Quality and Environmental Services Coordinator Laurel Olsen-Horen, Board Secretary Consultants Tim Gablehouse Esq. Present: Jeanie Foster, AMEC Meeting Type: Regular Agenda Item 1- Call to Order [7:05 p.m.] This meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. Agenda Item 2 - Approval of the 16 December 2010 Meeting Minutes: [7:05 p.m.] Motion to approve as amended by: Scharnhorst ; Seconded by: Howe Motion Passes; 3:0 Ryan abstained since she wasn't at the December meeting Agenda Item 3 - Public Participation and Comment [7:10 p.m.] Public Comment: • Chris Copp: On January 7t1' the Department of Health and Human Services suggested that the national standard for fluoridation be lowered to 0.7 parts per million. The City should follow the guidance of the DHHS and lower the fluoride levels in its municipal water sources. Ultimately, Mr. Copp would like to see the fluoride levels in water to be at zero. According to a 2006 National report by the ADA, they recommended that fluoride be removed from consumable products completely. Agenda Item 4 - Matters from Board and Staff [7:16 p.m.] Matters from Board: Ryan brought up the below matters: • Requested feedback on the Elks CEAP which went out to the Board as an information item in this month's packet. WRAB supports the proposed alternative for the Greenways Advisory Committee. Howe brought up the below matters: • Would like the remainder of the board to bring back insight on the Cordry Court issue per his E- mail which was included in the packet materials. • Arizona Water Resource Newsletter: The Arizona State Engineer stated that reuse was not a matter of water law. DeOreo brought up the below matters: • Contacted the CO State Engineer regarding water reuse. As long as the water is staying in an individual facility it is anticipated to (in a municipal setting) be reused, thus not creating any water right issues. Thus the City doesn't need to reserve Windy Gap water as previously discussed. If the City is going to enter into a pilot study with CU, then the City can now focus more on an evaluation and performance type of study rather than a water rights one. • Sent out a spreadsheet of a "Water use Tracking Table". • Handed out an accounting form that could be used by the Colorado Water Conservation Board regarding water reporting, and requested staff to look into possibly using the presented format. Would also like to see this item added to an upcoming agenda. WRAB Minutes 20 January 2011 Page No. 1 Matters from Staff: [7:40 p.m.] • City Council is having their annual retreat this Friday and Saturday. They have been provided a memo on all of the Boards and Commissions priorities. • Williams handed out a summary sheet of the WRAB's priorities. Board members also would like to know what staff s top ten priorities. • South Boulder Creek: Staff has not yet scheduled an agenda item with the OSBT. Staff anticipates getting on their agenda sometime in either February or March. • February 8`k' will be a Study Session with City Council on city-wide CIP projects in the General Fund that might be considered for a future bond, but will not include Utility projects. • Boulder Creek Flood Mapping Update: Staff is hoping to have an agenda item for WRAB in February or March. • WRAB received two information item memos in this month's packet: Out-of-City utility service and Fluoride. Staff would like to receive feedback on both items from the board. o WRAB believes that Planning Board is best to continue with the out-of-city utility service item. o A board member believes that studies need to be preformed to find out whether or not the addition of fluoride is as beneficial as it is believed to be. WRAB does not object. Agenda Item 5 - Update on Critical Facilities Ordinance and new State (Colorado Water Conservation Board) Fooodplain Rules and Regulations [8:15 p.m.] Christie Coleman presented item to the board. Executive Summary from Packet Materials: The purpose of this item is to provide the Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) an opportunity to discuss and provide feedback on a proposed critical facilities and mobile populations ordinance (Attachment A) to revise the floodplain regulations under sections 9-3-2 through 9-3-7 and 9-16-1, B.R.C. 1981. Although recommendations to City Council on changes to the land use code are under the purview of the Planning Board, staff is providing WRAB an opportunity to review, discuss and provide feedback given the relevance of floodplain regulations to the Stormwater and Flood Management Utility. An update on the critical facilities and mobile populations ordinance was presented at the July 19, 2010 WRAB meeting in which three alternative management strategies were presented and feedback on a preferred alternative was requested from board members. Staff has also participated in the Colorado Water Conservation Board's recent update to "Rules and Regulations for Regulatory Floodplains in Colorado" which was approved on November 17, 2010. A final WRAB meeting on the critical facilities and mobile populations ordinance is tentatively scheduled for March 21, 2011. Following the WRAB's review, staff will present the proposed ordinance to Planning Board for a recommendation to City Council. Public Comment: [8:37 p.m.] • James Lieberman: First off, the city has not done enough to get the word out to all of the facilities that could be impacted by this ordinance change. Mr. Lieberman pointed out that there is no federal mandate to regulate a 500 year floodplain. The state modified its regulations last year, and rejected having the 500 year floodplain as the standard for comprehensive floodplains. Boulder is an area where in the event of a flood, it would be a flash flood event rather than a static event. • John Tayer: would like the opportunity to review the draft ordinance before it is finalized. WRAB discussion included: [8:49 p.m.] • Can the city do a cost benefit analysis for mobile populations, critical facilities and hazardous facilities? Staff response: yes, staff is currently working on an economic aspect of the ordinance. • Is the language of the ordinance causing a drag net which will result in more facilities to be included? Mr. Gablehouse's response: There were different criteria used to help create the language of the ordinance. One was the inclusion of hazardous materials, they pose a very serious risk to people cleaning up post flood, not to mention the environmental impacts. • The duration of flooding: does the damage curve take into consideration how long a facility will be under water during different events? Staff response: There are some cost associations based on how long a facility is sitting in water, but our understanding is that the cost of recovery are damage due to debris, debris removal, and other materials. Not necessarily based on how long the water is in the building. • If there were a daycare facility in a 500 year flood lain, what would the impact be on that type of WRAB Minutes 20 January 2011 Page No. 2 facility? Staff response: if it's an existing facility, then the facility will be grandfathered in. However, if there came a time where the facility wanted to add a small improvement to the current facility, then they would be required to comply with the new regulation. • Since this is part of the National Flood Insurance Program, is there a link with not complying with the guidance, or is it just that; guidance? Staff response: at this point it is not a federal regulation; however, the National Flood Insurance Program is in the process of re-evaluating itself and doing potential updates, including promoting the protection of critical facilities to a 500 year level as part of that discussion. (According to the National Flood Insurance Program more than 50% of payments on claims are for facilities outside of the 100 year floodplain.) Next Step: Staff is going to finish the economic analysis and include it in the final discussion which should be back to the Board around March. The Board would like to ensure that staff does an adequate amount of outreach prior to any meetings. A community member would like to see a two or three page brief prior to the meeting on impacts. Also, going "door-to-door" to inform people could be beneficial to increase public participation. Agenda Item 6 - Update and discussion on revisions to BRC 11-1-19, Water and Ditch Rights Carol Ellinghouse presented item to the board [9:10 p.m.] Executive Summary from Packet Materials: On Oct. 19, 2010, City Council was asked to approve an ordinance (Attachment A) to amend Section 11- 1-19 of the Boulder Revised Code (BRC) 1981, entitled "Water and Ditch Rights." The proposed revisions are intended to allow flexibility for the city, property owners and those applying for municipal water utility service to develop mutually-acceptable agreements that include terms and conditions concerning water and ditch rights and to complete the implementation of the Settlement Agreement between the City of Boulder and the Silver Lake Ditch & Reservoir Company (SLD&RC) that was approved by WRAB on Oct. 19, 2009 and City Council on Nov. 10, 2009. City Council approved the first reading of the ordinance on Oct. 19, 2010 and requested that WRAB review and discuss the proposed amendments prior to a second reading of the ordinance. At the first reading of the proposed ordinance, three people spoke in support of referring this item to the WRAB for further review (Attachment B is the City Council Minutes from the Oct. 19, 2010 meeting.) Members of the public with interests in ditch companies who are affected by the terms of the current ordinance have requested a more extensive discussion of the city's underlying policies related to ditch shares. The proposed ordinance changes are the minimum necessary to allow increased flexibility for the city to adjust requirements based on individual situations and negotiations with property owners. Some have suggested that ordinance changes be adopted in order to prohibit or limit the city's ability to require the sale of ditch shares and water rights upon connection to the city system. Public Comment: [9:25 p.m.] Catherine Long-Gates: Ms. Long-Gates owns Long's Gardens on Broadway, and is the secretary / treasurer of the Silver Lake Ditch Company. She would like for the board to look into the fairness of the ordinance. Irrigation ditches are a valuable resource in any community and the question is, are there aspects of this ordinance that take the water out of the ditches, and are we now at a point where we have jeopardized the viability of the irrigation ditches because we end up with "governmental ditches"? Silver Lake Ditch is more of a community building thing as it brings people together and teaches them how to cooperate. The SLD company definitely wants to see the water stay in the district. Also, if someone would like to connect to the city's water tap, they should be allowed to do so. The current ordinance would not allow for that. This is not the case for users of the Farmer's Ditch or Anderson Ditch_ and thus should be the same with the Silver Lake Ditch. Ms Long-Gates would like the Board to please look at the equity of the distribution of requirements. WRAB discussion included: [9:32 p.m.] General Comments: • Why does the city require all of the customers of the water system to bear the same level of risk? • Board member would like to have more clarification from the city attorney whether the sub paragraph B applies to the property owner who connects to the city's water utility instead of just having a connection to the city's water utility. Staff response: Sub Paragraph B would apply to any WRAB Minutes 20 January 2011 Page No. 3 property connected to the city's water utility. • The premise ought to be if a resident has a system where they can use ditch water and they own shares, then they should provide the city a "right of first refusal". That way, if they ever stopped using their shares, then they previously agreed to sell the shares to the city and not to an outside user. • Does the city know how much raw water is being used within the city limits that are being used for irrigation? Staff response: not more than what is being diverted. • A board member would like to have staff take another stab at the language of the ordinance to ensure that the intent is very clear. • Williams requested from the board: give staff time to prepare an alternative ordinance. Staff does not have the ability to change the proposed ordinance since Council approved it at first reading. Next Steps: staff will work with the City Attorney to find out: a) how far staff can proceed with a substitute ordinance and b) if given the okay by the City Attorney, then staff will proceed with re-writing the language, including clarification of subsection B. Agenda Item 7 - Discussion on Future Schedule [10:05 p.m.] Agenda Item 8 - Adjournment [10:12 p.m.] There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, by motion regularly adopted, the meeting was adjourned at 10:12 p.m. Motion to adjourn by: Howe; Seconded by: DeOreo Motion Passes 4:0 Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting: The next WRAB meeting will be - Thursda iy, 24 February at 7:00 p.m., special meeting date, at the 13`h Street Conference Room located at 1720 13`' Street, unless otherwise decided by staff and the Board. APPROVED BY: ATTESTED BY: Board Chair Board Secretary Date Date An audio recording of the full meeting for which these minutes are a summary, is available on the Water Resources Advisory Board web page. WRAB Minutes 20 January 2011 Page No. 4