HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Water Resources - 11/21/2011
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES
Name of Board / Commission: Water Resources Advisory Board
Date of Meetin : 21 November 2011
Contact Information of Person Preparing Minutes: Laurel Olsen-Horen; 303-441-3203
Board Members Present: Bill DeOreo, Chuck Howe, Kate Ryan
Board Members Absent: Susan Iott, Vicki Scharnhorst
Staff Present: Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Bob Harberg, Engineering Project Management Coordinator
Bret Linenfelser, Water Quality Coordinator
Michelle Wind, Drinking Water Program Supervisor
Keith Walzak, Parks and Recreation, Parks Planning Manager
Russ Sands, Water Conservation Program Manager
Meeting Type: Regular
Agenda Item 1- Call to Order [7:00 p.m.]
This meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Agenda Item 2 - Approval of the 17 October Minutes:
The 17 October meeting minutes were approved as presented; moved by: Ryan, seconded by: DeOreo
Vote: 3:0
Agenda Item 3 - Public Participation and Comment [7:01 p.m.]
Public Comment:
A] Gunter: Recently, the city passed some tree ordinances making it the responsibility of the property
owner to maintain the trees along their property (even if they are city trees). However, since the city did not
include the square footage for the water involved for maintenance, the property owner's water rates have
thus been inadvertently increased. The city needs to reevaluate adding the amount of square footage to the
specific property owner's water budget. Also, the city needs to take into consideration of water budgets
during a drought (specifically in August). The city should look at where people really need to use the water
(what time of year) and ensure that the water is available for the user. As it seems now, the budgets are
derived from the needs of the city in terms of storage. For example, the city needs to look into more storage
as the Arapahoe glacier is going away; it's just a matter of time. Mr. Gunter also is under his overall yearly
water budget, but in August was stuck with a $350 water bill. There needs to be a balance of how the city
charges for the water utility. Mr. Gunter was under his budget for July, but went over in August, (due to
weather) it doesn't seem right that he should be charged so much more for one month when he is still under
his yearly water budget.
Agenda Item 4 - Matters from Board and Staff 17:08 p.m.]
Matters from Board:
Board member Howe brought up the below matter(s):
• Where does the city stand on the grey water issue with CU? Staff response: Jeff and Ned met with
CU prior to Ned's retirement and decided to take a two-pronged approach. City staff, along with
CU staff is collaborating on a letter to the Northern Colorado Water Conservation District to get
some clarification from them on "re-use". CU had asked them about CBT water being more
practical than Windy Gap, however our legal team has some questions around the use of CBT and
water re-use. City staff is looking to see if this item can get up and running with a permit rather
than trying to develop an MOU at this time.
Board member DeOreo brought up the below matter(s):
• Pinellas County Florida is discontinuing fluoridation in their water system. Staff should contact
them and ask whether or not they are going to collect data (i.e. number of cases of fluorosis) Also,
staff should write a letter to the Boulder County Health Department and request that they begin to
gather information around fluorosis from local dentists.
Board member Ryan brought up the below matter(s):
• Ryan will work on drafting the requested letter from CMO regarding the WRAB's goals for City
Council for the upcoming year.
Matters from Staff:
Arthur brought up the below matters:
WRAB Minutes
21 November 2011
Page No. 1
• The. city had our cycle visit from FEMA. At this point, the city appears to at least be keeping our
rating of a seven; meaning that property owners with flood insurance will get a 15% discount.
Once the city gets the official numbers back; we may move into a rating of six, which translates to
a 20% discount.
• The city has received the Director's Award from the Partners for Safe Water.
• The city is in the process of hiring a Utilities specific Attorney.
Agenda Item 5 - Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council regarding
acceptance of the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan [7:33 p.m.]
Michelle Wind and Keith Walzak presented item to the board
Power Point Presentation for this item.
Executive Summary from Packet Materials:
A BRMP update was last provided to WRAB at the November 15, 2010, meeting which focused on water
quality concerns related to recreational activities at Boulder Reservoir and boating options. Primary water
quality concerns related to current and future proposed recreational activities include: potential release of
gasoline from motorized water craft and fuelling station; emissions from motorized water craft;
introduction of aquatic nuisance species, including zebra and quagga mussels and Milfoil; human and dog
water contact; and, compliance with state and federal water quality standards. At the meeting, staff
requested WRAB recommend a boating policy option for PRAB and City Council consideration. Five
boating policy options were discussed at the meeting (see Attachment A) and WRAB moved to support the
staff recommendation of boating policy Option 2 - Motorboat Standards, with modifications, as follows:
Parks and Recreation staff continue the current management practices to control ANS [aquatic
nuisance species] or Milfoil supported by an annual report that evaluates status ofANS and
Mil/oil in other water sources throughout CO, and bring new, tip to date methods to the board as
they become available. The board's number one priority is to maintain the water quality of the
reservoir, and there was considerable amount of concern about the potential loss to the water
resources of the city should Boulder Reservoir be infested with ANS.
WRAB's recommendation was presented to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) at the
November 22, 2010 meeting and to City Council at the December 7, 2010 meeting and public hearing.
Since the November 2010 WRAB meeting PRAB and City Council provided recommendations on the
BRMP. Both PRAB and City Council support the need to protect Boulder Reservoir water quality and
recognize that the reservoir's primary purpose is a water supply reservoir. PRAB supported boating policy
Option 2 with an additional requirement that boats must remain on Boulder Reservoir only. City Council
recommended Option 1 with modifications to enhance water quality protection for motorized water craft.
Public Comment [7:56 p.m.]
John Crittenden: The noise level during Special Events begins too early in the morning (around 7:00
a.m.) The current Master Plan does not seem to have an objective to mitigate the Reservoir's growth and
how the neighboring residents are going to be protected.
Kelly DiNatale (pooled speaking time with fellow residents): During events at the Reservoir, 5151 St.
becomes an impassable, noisy, environmentally concerning street. 5151 is not designed to handle the
thousands of people that come out for those special events and becomes a major hindrance to the entire
neighborhood. There needs to be adequate traffic control during said events, currently there is none. Mr.
DiNatale and his fellow neighbors do not endorse having the WRAB place their "stamp of approval" on the
BRMP as it stands today, as it does not address the various carrying capacity of the reservoir during special
events. Also, Mr. DiNatale would like to know what the water quality impacts are to the reservoir with so
many special events. The focus seems to be on the boaters only, but what about the events where there are
2,000+ swimmers in the water all at once? What are the environmental impacts from all of the cars that idle
along 5151 SO Some idlers are out there for over 30 minutes. There are also wildlife impacts that seem to
have been ignored which are caused by the large numbers of people, loud noises, and idling vehicles. Mr.
DiNatale and some of his fellow residents believe that the BRMP is at a good starting point, but not there
yet. They would like to request any action be postponed for three months to allow for staff to go back to
review the neighborhood's concerns and come up with an appropriate management plan to include with the
overall master plan.
Kim Wennesland: Mr. Wennesland would like to reiterate the issue of not going ahead and approving the
proposed master plan, as many of the concerns already brought to light are not adequately addressed. Mr.
WRAB Minutes
21 November 2011
Page No. 2
Wennesland would also like to see more direct contact from the city planners with the residents so
everyone is clear about what concerns are being/not being addressed.
Al Gunter: Mr. Gunter would like to encourage staff to utilize any opportunities for gray water out at the
reservoir.
Neil Anderson: If this were a private developer proposing an event center, what would the planning
commission's reaction be, given all of the issues the neighbors have brought up tonight?
Gretchen Nordham: Ms. Nordham is concerned with the stewardship vs. heavy use issues. Each year the
amount of use seems to increase. The south shore used to have sandpipers that would nest along the area,
and now there aren't any. The foxes are also gone. Also the intersection of 5151 and Kelsa is very
dangerous. Ms. Nordham has concerns around water quality. Towards the end of the summer, there is a lot
of agg run-off and the reservoir has been closed to all users. How would that be addressed?
Sharon Anderson: Ms. Anderson is most concerned about the impacts to the habitats. 5151 Street used to
be a wonderful place to ride her horses, but now is no longer a safe place. The amount of noise is getting to
the unbearable level.
Anne Turnacliff: If the city is looking at generating more revenue by adding more events, there needs to
be proper planning for traffic mitigation.
Bill DeLa Croix: Mr. DeLa Croix does not believe that power boats have that much of an impact on the
reservoir, and thus should not be restricted by the number of days they are allowed on the water. He
believes that the greater impact comes from the vast number of people that come for these special events.
Their cars can leak fluids while they idle, which has to go into the ground at some point. There are only a
small number of restroom facilities, so where do you think the majority of people are going to the
bathroom? (Mr. DeLa Croix noted that during special events, he has noticed that no additional restrooms
are brought in to accommodate the higher number of users.)
Doug Miller: Mr. Miller is concerned with the current master plan allowing for two special events per day
during high season and one per day during low season. That seems like far too great a number of special
events.
WRAB discussion included: [8:16 p.m.]
• There seems to be some uncertainty surrounding the actual occurrences and the proposed number
of special events. Staff will clarify through more detail in the site management plan.
• The current plan seems misleading in what the board is actually being asked to approve. It feels
very general and there isn't any explanation in regards to what the city is allowed to do in detail
further down the road without needing to go before any of the boards/Council.
• What is the impact on water quality due to these special events? Staff response, staff is monitoring
the water quality (regarding boat use) during high use days, (i.e. Fourth of July weekend) for
organics that would be a result from fuel. Staff didn't detect those constituents and found no
consistent pollutants. Staff does not believe there is cause for concern of pollutants due to special
events, as water testing has occurred after special events. Staff has found more nutrient loaded
water during times of high rain run-off.
• What are the options to increase public access to the neighborhood rather than forcing neighbors
and event go-ers to share 5151? Staff response: Alternative accesses to the reservoir were recently
evaluated as part of the development of the Fire Training Center. The Diagonal was not an option
for public access due to funding issues from the Federal Highway Administration. The city was
able to get allowances for emergency personnel through the diagonal. 63`d has security issues
surrounding the water treatment plant that prohibit public access, and was thus not considered a
viable option.
WRAB recommendation:
Motion moved by DeOreo, seconded by Howe: The WRAB would like to table this discussion until parks
staff has had time to meet with the neighbors and talk about the proposed issues, and come up with a joint
agreement on how to proceed with a final recommendation.
Vote: 3:0
Agenda Item 6 - Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to the City Manager to
proceed with developing new Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional (CII) water budgets using a
revised approach and purpose statement [8:37 p.m.]
Russ Sands presented item to the board\
Executive Summary from Packet Materials:
Water budgets were adopted by City Council in 2006 to provide customers with budgets which reflected
WRAB Minutes
21 November 2011
Page No. 3
efficient use of water and supported city water conservation goals outlined in the 2000 Water Conservation
Futures Study. Upon approval, City Council recommended re-evaluating the way indoor water budgets
were developed for the Commercial, Industrial and Institutional (CII) sector. While single family and
multifamily water budgets attempt to link water use to water conservation measures, CII water budgets are
currently based on historic water use regardless of whether the historic use has been efficient or wasteful.
In 2009 staff initiated a CII water use study to determine how efficiency-based water budgets could be set.
With WRAB input, the study explored a number of options ranging from a no action alternative to equal
reduction in water budgets across all sectors (Attachment A). The options were discussed at the May 16,
2011 WRAB meeting, and two options were considered for further evaluation: 1) use of statistical
benchmarks to set CII water budgets; and, 2) use of water audits to establish CII water budgets. At
WRAB's request, staff continued to analyze both options and staff have developed a single "Revised
Approach" (Attachment C) which primarily utilizes the benchmarking methodology while using water
audits to address unique water users and customer variance requests.
Full development of the Revised Approach is expected to continue through 2013 with possible
implementation in 2014, if approved by City Council. Staff is continuing to contract with the Brendle
Group to provide CII analysis which builds on the city-specific CII work already completed (Attachment B;
Attachment D). The city will also be participating in a new Water Research Foundation (WRF) project
(number 4375) titled Methodology for Determining Baseline Commercial, Institutional and Industrial End
Uses of Water, the results of which will help inform city efforts.
Staff is proposing the following purpose statement to guide the CII study:
The overarching goal of this project is to improve the process for developing C11 water budgets such that
they fairly and equitably establish an efficient level of water use.
WRAB discussion included: [8:55 p.m.]
• The board is eager to see this move forward.
• The board asked a few clarifying questions.
• The point was made that this is really not a revised approach, since the original concept for setting
CII budgets was to rely on a combination of benchmarkings (where the data allow them) and
audits (for small or unique categories of customers).
Public Comment 19:07 p.m.]
Al Gunther: The city has been playing around this for many years, and nothing has been done yet. Mr.
Gunther suggests having some phasing in of this project. Start small and keep moving forward. Also,
consider giving business owners a "free pass". For example, if a new restaurant entrepreneur wishes to
open a new eatery, but they don't want to spend a lot of money on a study, allow them to review the
historical water use for the property, and if they can reduce their water use by 5% a year for the next four or
five years, then they would get a pass for those years. This would be a simple way to allow them to begin
the process immediately.
WRAB recommendation:
Motion: moved by Ryan, seconded by DeOreo: Move to recommend to the City Manager to continue the
CII study utilizing the revised approach that incorporates both benchmark and audit based methodologies
and with a purpose statement that the overarching goal of the project is to improve the process for
developing CII water budgets such that they fairly and equitably establish an efficient level of water use.
Vote: 3.0
Agenda Item 7 - Discussion on Future Schedule [9:20 p.m.]
The next meeting will be on the 19`h of December. January and February's meetings will move to the fourth
Monday of each month due to government holidays on the regularly scheduled time.
Agenda Item 8 - Adjournment [9:25 p.m.]
There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, by motion regularly adopted, the
meeting was adjourned at 9:24 p.m.
Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting:
The next regular WRAB meeting will be 19 December at 7:00 p.m., at the 1P Street Conference Room
located at 1720 13a' Street, unless otherwise decided by staff and the Board.
WRAB Minutes
21 November 2011
Page No. 4
APPROVED BY: ATTESTTBD BY:
oard Chair Boar Secretary
3~~--- ±1~3/a
D /e 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
21 November 2011
Page No. 5