City of Colorado Springs / Commissions & Committees / City/County Drainage Board

Thursday, July 07, 2011




July 7, 2011


The City of Colorado Springs/El Paso County Drainage Board held its regular meeting at 3:00 PM

on July 7, 2011, in the in the City Council Chamber, City Hall, 107 North Nevada Avenue.


MEMBERS PRESENT:     Jeff Johnson, Ollie Watts, Emily Skalsky, Ken Bailey, Mike Bartusek, Kim Wright, John Schwab




OTHERS PRESENT:         Tom Bonifas (City Engineering), Cheryl Callahan (City of Colorado Springs), Dan Bare (City Engineering), Jennifer Irvine (El Paso County), Mike Cartmell (El Paso County), Mary Murray (City Finance), Tom Kerby (GTL Development)


Meeting called to order by Jeff Johnson at 3:03 p.m.


Item 1:  Approval of the minutes from the June 2, 2011 Drainage Board Meeting 


Motion by Emily Skalsky to approve the minutes

Motion was seconded by Ollie Watts


Motion passed unanimously 7-0


Item 2:  Discussion of July 7, 2011 agenda


Tom Bonifas advised the Board that Dan Bare is available during Item 5: Housekeeping to answer any additional questions in regards to the Stormwater Management Assessment Update that was given at the last meeting.


Item 3:  Bridge fee Increase and Reimbursement Request from the Bennett Ranch Basin Bridge Fund ? County Item


Mike Cartmell from El Paso County informed the Board that GTL Development has requested reimbursement for a bridge structure that crosses Stapleton Drive just east of Meridian Road. This item was not originally included as a reimbursable structure in the Bennett Ranch Drainage Basin Planning Study. Along with the request, they are also asking that this structure be included on the reimbursable list so they can get reimbursed. The structure?s cost was around $924,000 which will need to be distributed amongst the 326 undeveloped impervious acres in the basin. This would increase the current bridge fee to $2,835.00.


John Schwab asked what final drainage report that the structure was based upon. Tom Kerby with GTL Development stated that the bridge was put in as part of the construction with Stapleton Drive. This was strictly a road project so it is uncertain if there was a drainage report that this bridge was based off of.

Jennifer Irvine with El Paso County followed up by saying URS did a lot of the work in this development and there was a drainage report. It was an off-site improvement completed by the developer as a standalone project. The developer built Stapleton Drive in phases and the bridge was not part of the first phase of the original development and that is why it was not included in the original plans of the development. Even though it was part of some of the requirements, this improvement was completed outside of the subdivision process.


Mike Cartmell discussed the three motions that will need to be made. The first will be to have the costs of the bridge considered as reimbursable; the second motion is to increase the bridge fee; and the third motion is to approve the reimbursement request.


Motion 1by Mike Bartusek to approve the request that bridge construction and engineering design costs for the Stapleton Drive Bridge be considered as reimbursable in the bridge facilities portion of the Bennett Ranch Basin in the amount of $924,306.60

Motion was seconded by Emily Skalsky


Motion passed unanimously 7-0


Motion 2 by Ollie Watts to approve the increase of $2,835.00 per impervious acre for bridge facilities of the Bennett Ranch Basin due to the addition of the reimbursable facilities in the amount of $924,306.60

Motion was seconded by Ken Bailey


Motion passed unanimously 7-0


Motion 3 by Mike Bartusek to approve the request made by GTL Development, Inc. for reimbursement and/or credit in the bridge facilities portion of the Bennett Ranch Basin according to the procedures outlined in the City/County Drainage Criteria Manual in the amount of $924,306.60

Motion was seconded by Ollie Watts


Motion passed unanimously 7-0


Item 4:  Financial Update


Mary Murray provided an update to the City?s Drainage Basin Fee Program fund balances which included Fund 152 for drainage and ponds, Fund 153 for bridges and the drainage fee offsets. Ms. Murray explained that there have not been a lot of plats coming in which leads to lower balances in some of the funds for reimbursements. The next scheduled payout is this month but the only basin that has funds is Sand Creek Pond.


Ollie Watts asked what the County had in their funds. Mike Cartmell informed the Board that nothing has changed since the last update.


Tom Bonifas will work with Mary Murray to provide a plat breakdown to show how many plats come in and how it affects the revenue that is generated in a quarterly basis. This will show what revenue is collected and how many plats either use credits or financial assurances.


Item 5:  Housekeeping


Dan Bare was available to answer any further questions regarding the Stormwater Management Assessment Update from last meeting. Mr. Bare stated that multiple presentations or workshops can be conducted based on the Board?s needs.


John Schwab asked if there is a target date on getting comments back of two of the chapters that are already out for review. Mr. Bare stated that a month is given for everyone to review the chapters. There is a webpage that gives access to those documents.


Cheryl Callahan will send the link to the webpage that has the documents for the Board to review.


Jeff Johnson wanted to know when the Board will need to make a recommendation to Council. Mr. Bare explained that for now, they are identifying the needs and seeking funding from different agencies in the watershed. There are other meetings that need to happen to obtain the remaining funds for this project from other agencies that are also affected. Right now, a formal recommendation is not needed from the Board. This has just been an update to keep the Board informed and to give feedback if changes are needed.


John Schwab reiterated that the funding needs to be first to maintain the structures we currently have before updating the criteria. Mr. Bare advised that the Watershed District is beginning to take a bigger lead and a project has been authorized to do a white paper. Summit Economics is in the process of putting together options for how to fund stormwater improvements in the watershed which is due in September.


Jeff Johnson wanted to know if the board members could receive the monthly documents a couple of days earlier in case the members had questions regarding the agenda and items on the agenda.

Ms. Callahan explained the process of requesting agenda items two weeks in advance and sending the documents by email to the board members one week in advance. Getting the documents to them sooner may be a strain based on City Staff workload. Mr. Johnson wanted the packets sooner so the board members could send an email with any questions that board members might have regarding items on the agenda. Ms. Callahan stated that this could lead to long strings of emails and not all the board members would see these emails and miss out on open discussion on certain items. Tom Bonifas also pointed out that it might also be considered a virtual meeting if emails begin to be circulated and it would then violate the open public meeting notice policy. The process will remain the same.



No further business

Meeting adjourned at 3:39 p.m.