HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Water Resources - 2/24/2011
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES
Name of Board / Commission: Water Resources Advisorv Board
Date of Meetin : 24 February 2011
Contact Information of Person Preparing Minutes: Laurel Olsen-Horen: 303-441-3203
Board Members Present: Bill DeOreo, Susan Iott, Chuck Howe, Kate Ryan, Vicki Scharnhorst
Board Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Bob I larberg, Engineering Project Management Coordinator
Bret Linenfelser, Water Quality and Environmental Services Coordinator
Bronwyn Wcygandt, Utility Billing Supervisor
Erin Kintzle, Utilities Financial Analyst
• Joanna Crean, Public Works Administrator
Laurel Olsen-I loren, Board Secrets
Meeting Type: Regular
Agenda Item 1 - Call to Order [7:05 p.m.]
This meeting was called to order at 7:05 .m.
Agenda Item 2 - Approval of the 20 January 2011 Meeting Minutes: [7:05 p.m.]
Motion to approve as amended by: Scharnhorst ; Seconded by: Howe
Motion Passes; 3:0
Agenda Item 3 - Public Participation and Comment [7:10 p.m.]
Public Comment:
• Henry Adamski: Has concerns regarding the public's access to finance information for Utilities,
What is the City's policy for finding out financial information for Utilities? Staff response: All
finance-related information is made available to the public in a transparent way via City websitc,
library, Park Central, and Central Records in the Municipal Building. Budget discussions take
place April through June and any other financial information relevant to Utilities throughout the
year is made available in WRAB memos.
• ilenry Adamski: Utility bills vary from 28 days to 34 days in the billing cycle, making it difficult
to use water monitors reliably. Board response: It is up to customers to make relevant adjustments
in their water budgets if'thcy want to avoid going over budget, though it is easier to avoid going
over budget in winter months. Regardless of'season, there is no penalty for going slightly over
budget.
Agenda Item 4 - Matters from Board and Staff 17:16 p.m.]
Matters from Board:
Howe brought up the below matters:
• In light of new findings on risks of overflouridation and the Federal Drug Administration's recent
0.7 fluoride level recommendations, which Mr. Chris Copp brought to WRAB's attention at the
January 20, 2011 WRAB meeting, asks Mr. Copp to make a statement and distribute materials.
Mr. Copp: Has worked on the fluoride issue for seven years, founding member of Citizens for
Safe Water in Vermont. Considers overflouridation an ethical issue. Staff response: City staff has
been following the fluoride issue; the Department of Health and Human Services will make their
final decision regarding fluoride levels this spring. After that, the Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment will review the levels and recommend any changes. Board response: The
Boulder public already voted against taking fluoride out of the water.
• There is sufficient new evidence on fluoride over flouridation to warrant new WRAB and/or staff
discussion. A complex issue - take the final guidelines from Health and Human Services and
have WRAB vote as a board on whether it is an issue to forward to City Council.
Lott brought up the below matters:
• The water budgets forwarded by the Board Secretary were very useful in terms of recapturing
revenue from Blocks 4 and 5 (discussed further under Agenda Item 5, below)
DeOreo brought up the below matters:
• Redistributed a spreadsheet on accounting for water: reauest for water accoUmline as a future
WRAB Minutes
24 February 2011
Page No. 1
agenda item
Matters from Staff: [7:40 p.m.]
Ilarberg brought up the below matters:
• Update on Board Commission recruitment process; Council appointment will be made March 29;
Open Space Board of Trustees regarding South Boulder Creek meeting was moved to April 13'h.
Agenda Item 5 - Update on Possible Water Budget Changes for Residential Customers [8:15 p.m.]
F,rin Kintzle presented item to the board. Fernando Aranda and John Gallagher from Red Oak Consulting
were also present.
Executive Summary from Packet Materials:
Water budgets were implemented in January 2007 and have since been refined a few times.
Concerns were raised by the Boulder Area Rental Housing Association (BARHA) that Multifamily
Residential (MFR) duplexes do not have large enough indoor water budgets and that they should he treated
the same as Single-Family Residential (SFR) customers. The overall objective of the water budget rate
structure is to set fair and equitable water budgets for all customer classes, including MFR and SFR
customers. Utilities staff performed initial MFR analysis on only the MFR adjusted accounts
(approximately 30 percent) that submitted water budget adjustments to correct and/or verify their exact
number of units and bedrooms. Then, staff asked Red Oak Consultants to analyze all MFR and SFR winter
billing records for 2008 and 2009. Red Oak reports (see Attachment A) that MFR customers water usage
and bills fall into excess use blocks approximately twice as frequently during the winter months as SFR
customers, but still only 2-6 percent for MFR customers (depending on unit size) as compared to 2-3
percent for SFR customers. Red Oak concludes that there is no significant difference between duplexes
and other MFR customers in the distribution of bills and usage over budget (blocks 3-5) or in the excessive
use blocks (blocks 4 and 5),
Utilities staff does not recommend changes to the MFR water budget methodology at this time but, rather
consider targeting conservation measures to MFR customers over budget. Staff is asking for "AB
feedback with regards to this analysis and next steps.
[8:37 p.m.[
WRAB discussion included:
• It may be good to better understand the average indoor water use per multi-family unit based on
number of bedrooms. Mr. Aranda: Only looked at percentages, but staff could recalculate it that
way.
• Why does water use go down with higher household numbers? Staff response: Because it takes a
certain amount of water to run a household, and then use does not increase proportionally.
• Has there been much recent variation over time in usage for all blocks larger than fourplexcs, e.g.
the Peloton? Staff response: The complexes do not have any problem staying within budget; it is
the smaller businesses that have more trouble staying within budget. Possible explanations include
the fact that there is usually a higher occupancy rate in the smaller units, or else, that usage is more
discretionary in multi-occupancy buildings.
• 1las this information been shared with BARI IA. Staff response: No the information was not
shared prior to the meeting but staff plans to do so.
• Are the averages and differences between the averages statistically significant? Mr. Aranda: the
differences between the averages were not analyzed but could be done in the future.
• The data indicates that for the multi-family category of five or more units, there are a higher
percentage of bills in excess use blocks vs. the percentage of actual usage in excess use blocks and
implied this may be an equity issue that the City should further explore.
• What are the conservation implications of the data analysis and steps the city might take to
improve the conservation program for multi-family customers? Staff response: Multi-family
housing does not typically take full advantage of conservation program elements, including
rebates, at the same level as single family residential. This may be because more of the multi-
family units are rented and many of these units may not be individually metered and so there is
less of a financial incentive to reduce water use. Staff is proposing adjustments to the water
conservation program to address these issues.
WRAB Minutes
24 February 2011
Page No. 2
• Felt analysis was well done and contained good information and agreed with staff's approach and
recommendations regarding next steps.
Agenda Item 6 - Update on Rules and Regulations to be used during a drought [9:15 p.m.]
Joanna Crean presented item to the board.
Executive Summary from Packet Materials:
At the Feb. 24, 2011 meeting, WRAB may provide feedback on the draft rules and regulations for declaring
and removing a drought alert stage as well as responding to a drought (Attachment A). The rules and
regulations, established outside of the Boulder Revised Code (B.R.C.), provide the specific details that the
city manager, in consultation with City Council, may use to guide an appropriate response to a drought
event. The rules and regulations will be further developed in 2011 with continued input from the WRAB
and public. Rules and regulations are approved by the city manager by way of the "Rulemaking" process
(B.R.C. 1-4) upon completion of a public comment period.
19:25 p.m.]
WRAB discussion included:
• When a drought is called off and prior budgets are reverted to, what are the triggers? Staff
response: The City continues to monitor trends once a drought is called off, but there are no
specific triggers; there are "guidelines" to be used in conjunction with other variables. Board
suggestion to list triggers for calling off a drought. The guidelines are derived from how the
system would perform through a 500-year hydrological trace.
• City's direct flow rights are very senior and have very few conditions on them; they do not change
significantly in their yield from year-to-year except in very dry years.
• It is important to consider monitoring of water use to be sure that water use reductions are being
achieved at various drought stages and indicate the procedure that will be used to make necessary
adjustments if the reductions are not achieved.
• Additional language should be added to the proposed rules that make it clear that the City
Manager can implement more stringent actions if necessary.
Board suggestion to consider presenting an additional example for another customer class in the rules
and regulations.
19:32 p.m.]
General Comments:
• Henry Adamski: The City should be as unambiguous as to how it comes out of a drought as it is
entering into one in terms of triggers. Board response: But we cannot know how much water the
snowpack will yield until May 1.
Next Steps:
• Staff will return with a recommendation on this topic at the April WRAB meeting.
Agenda item 7 - Update on Water Utility Master Plan [8:15 p.m.[
Bob IIarberg presented item to the board-
Executive Summary from Packet Materials:
The Water Utility Master Plan is nearing completion and this agenda item is intended to update the Water
Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) on the progress to date and schedule for completion and final
acceptance.
Staff began the process of updating the 10-year old Treated Water Master Plan (TWMP) and developing
the overarching Water Utility Master Plan (WUMP) in late 2009. The WUMP is intended to encompass
the recently completed Source Water Master Plan (2009) and Water Quality Strategic Plan (2009).
Currently, the WUMP is organized as follows:
• Volume 1 - Executive Summary (not yet completed)
• Volume 2 - General Planning Information (updated, see Attachment A)
• Volume 3 - Water Quality Strategic Plan (WQSP) (2009)
• Volume 4 - Source Water Master Plan (SWMP) (2009)
• Volume 5 - Treated Water Master Plan (TWMP) (updated, see Attachment B)
• Volume 6 - Consolidated Capital Improvements Plan (not yet completed )
WRAB Minutes
24 February 2011
Page No. 3
At this time, final drafts of Volume 2 - General Planning Information (see Attachment A) and Volume 5 -
Treated Water Master Plan (see Attachment B) are available for review.
WRAB discussion included:
• Request for clarification on planning levels for West Slope water transfers. Staff response: The
various sectors have baseline conservation goals; the City is exceeding water conservation goals in
many areas already, but with current supply and infrastructure, it has the potential to move more
water. So the City is making the energy/water conservation nexus fit within its Climate Action
Plan. This is not about eliminating the Windy Gap water supply.
• Upon what is baseline demand based? Staff response: From 2006-2009, despite variations, the
overall average demand is 103% of the long-term average, so this was a rcpresentativc3 time
frame to use for the baseline.
• Conservation goals are articulated in terms of unit water demand, which correlates with 2006-2009
averages
• There should be sufficient resilience in the system to reduce demand. Staff response: Yes, that's
the point, and there are still ways to gain efficiencies.
Agenda Item 8 - Discussion on Future Schedule [10:05 p.m.]
Staff decided not to reschedule the March 21 WRAB meeting.
Agenda Item 9 - Adjournment [10:12 p.m.l
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 wilt be - Monday, 21 March at 7:00 p.m., at the 13`h Street Conference Room
located at 1720 13`h Street. unless otherwise decided by staff and the Board.
APPROVED BY: ATTESTED BY:
/ n)3
ar 'hair Board Secretary 41 1A5
I ate 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
24 February 2011
Page No. 4