Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 02/20/1997WATER UTILITIES BOARD MINUTES February 20, 1997 3:10 - 5:45 p.m. Light and Power Training Room 700 Wood Street COUNCIUWATER UTILITIES BOARD LIAISON Charles Wanner CO -CHAIRPERSONS OF WATER UTILITIES BOARD Paul Clopper - 223-5556 George Reed - 686-4383 STAFF LIAISON Molly Nortier - 221-6681 MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Clopper and George Reed, Co -Chairs; John Bartholow and Bob Havis, Co -Vice -chairs; Alison Adams, Howard Goldman, Tom Brown, David Lauer, Dave Frick, David Rau, John Morris, Terry Podmore STAFF Mike Smith, Gale McGaha Miller, Bob Smith, Ben Alexander, Steve Comstock, Beth Voelkel, Molly Nortier City Staff: John Duval, Assistant City Attorney and Tom Shoemaker, Director of Natural Resources Larimer County Staff: Rex Burns, Storm Drainage/Larimer County Liaison GUESTS Conrad T. Swanson, Potential buyer of Meadow Springs Ranch property John Bigham, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Sue Ellen Charlton, Observer, League of Women Voters MEMBERS ABSENT (all excused) Randy Fischer, John Barnett, Ray Herrmann, Robert Ward, Tom Sanders, Joe Bergquist NOTE: ALL ACTION TAKEN ON AGENDA ITEMS IS PREFACED BY THE WORDS ACTION. MOTION AND VOTE IN BOLD TYPE Chairman Paul Clopper opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Water Utilities Board Minutes February 20, 1997 Page 2 MINUTES George Reed moved that the minutes of January 23, 1997 be approved as distributed. After a second from David Lauer, the Board approved the motion unanimously. FAREWELL TO TERRY PODMORE Terry Podmore, after serving nearly 9 years on the former Water Board, regretfully submitted his resignation from the Water Utilities Board. Following are excerpts from his letter of resignation: "Recently it has become harder for me to get to the WUB meetings and fulfill my role as chairman of the Conservation and Public Education Committee. Therefore, I consider it necessary that I resign in order that these responsibilities get the attention they deserve." "I have enjoyed my time on the Water Board, but less so since it has become larger with expanded responsibilities. I consider it a privilege to have had the opportunity of working with the fine people in the Water Utilities staff." Paul Clopper commended Mr. Podmore for his dedicated service to the Water Board and Water Utilities Board; especially as chair of the Conservation and Public Education Committee. "We deeply appreciate all your hard work and all the contributions you have made to the City of Fort Collins during your more than 8 years on the Board." Mr. Podmore recalled that when he began his tenure on the Board, "the great debate about water metering" was in full force. "In my time on the Water Board, we did some things to ensure the water supply for the City. I would encourage the Board to continue that. We also bought the Meadow Springs Ranch for the disposal of biosolids; quite a significant undertaking. I think the thing I'm most pleased about is the Demand Management Policy which is now is place. In terms of my tenure, it's the thing I'm most proud of. The Conservation and Public Education Committee has been somewhat dormant this past year, but that doesn't mean there aren't some issues coming up that need attention. It has been a great privilege to work with the Board and also with the City staff. Mike Smith and his staff are top notch. I also want to thank Molly Nortier for all of her hard work and staunch support of the Board over the years." UPDATE: NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT John Bigham distributed copies of reservoir storage numbers and SNOTEL reports, and copies of the Interim Base Water Supply Policy. He said that reservoirs are quite full and the supply looks good. Since the new Flatiron pump was installed, Carter Lake lacks only 13,000 ac-ft of being full. At the current pumping rate it will take 33 days to fill Carter. The District anticipates that the Bureau will shut down their system for a few days to two weeks to take the excess out of Carter and run it through pump No. 3 at Flatiron so there will be a chance to generate electricity. He reported that the snow pack continues to be high. The District and the BOR, have done some preliminary projections. Indications are, under the minimum, which would be average or below Water Utilities Board Minutes February 20, 1997 Page 3 average snowfall from this point forward on the west slope in the collection area, that there will probably be spills of about 41,000 ac-ft of water out of Granby and Willow Creek. Under the most probable projections, they anticipate a spill of about 100,000-105,000 ac-ft, and under the maximum, if it becomes a very wet year, up to 170,000 ac-ft. "We will probably begin preemptive releases on the west slope about April 1st, so we can draw down the system to facilitate the runoff and still have some spill," he said. "I can't speak for the Board, but I anticipate a 50% quota again if things move forward as they are currently, " he predicts. There is almost 70,000 ac-ft of carryover water. Total storage within the District is at about 70% total capacity. He anticipates that some non -charge water will be issued. It will be turned over to rivers and streams for anyone under the priority system who can put additional water to beneficial use. Last Friday the District Board of Directors passed the Interim Base Water Supply Policy. The first paragraph of the policy summarizes the intent: "The existing Base Water Supply Policy of the NCWCD is that the water supply provided by the CBT Project is to be beneficially used as a supplemental water supply to the base water supplies available for beneficial use within the boundaries of the District. Base water supplies are defined as any permanent water supply other than those yielded from the CBT Project. The District Board is currently reviewing the existing Base Water Supply Policy of the District to determine whether changes or modifications in the policy are necessary. Pending a final decision by the Board with respect to the need for and the substance of any changes in the Base Water Supply Policy, the Board hereby adopts the Interim Policy." He emphasized that this is an interim policy. If anyone has additional comments, the Board would welcome those. At some point there will be a public meeting and hearing before it is officially passed. It could be a few months to a year. Those with interests in this have time to study the interim document. Beth Voelkel was asked if she had comments about the policy. Mr. Clopper pointed out that Board members just received copies today. Miss Voelkel said she has looked at the policy. "Staff doesn't have much trouble with the interim policy," she began. There are several things that could limit the amount of CBT water the City can take. The basis behind the policy is to assure that everyone has some native water so there is justification for the Project being a supplemental supply. A separate but related issue is the cap which looks at water supply as a whole, CBT and other sources added together. Under the current policy, you can have only enough supply to meet a 1-in-50 year drought. That is basically what the City works with, except our policy says that we always must have over that amount; the District policy says you may not have more than that and still get additional CBT water. Eric Wilkinson is aware of the discrepancy in this case. George Reed referred to the point that the District won't make any changes on CBT allotment contracts if the intended property has no base water supply. Under exceptions it says, "existing allotment contracts with no minimal or base water supply will be considered for modification only to the extent of a requested change in ownership of the entire allotment contract...." "Supposing a person who owns property had a base water supply, some local direct flow requirements and some Water Utilities Board Minutes February 20, 1997 Page 4 CBT. They sell their direct flow requirements, which means they are sitting with no base. Is there anything that can be done about that? "Anything in existence prior to last Friday, is grand fathered in," Mr. Bigham replied. "If you tried to fill that void with CBT now, you would be rejected." "Is there any way you can make someone keep their base supply?" Mr. Reed asked. "That is one of the situations the District is studying. The project is supplemental to the native water. If it was determined that we are not supplemental, we could be subject to about $100 million in back payments, etc," Mr. Bigham responded. "For a given landowner, there is nothing in this policy that would require them to forfeit CBT water if they were to sell their native water?" Mr. Bartholow inquired. "Not that I know of," Mr. Bigham replied. "I doubt seriously if that would be the case," he added. Mr. Bartholow referred to the comment by Beth Voelkel in which she noted that Mr. Wilkinson was aware of the discrepancy with the City's objectives. "I'm sure that's true. Should we make more of an effort to communicate with the District's Board of Directors in addition to their general manager?" he asked. "It might be worthwhile," Mike Smith replied. Mr. Bartholow suggested that staff and the Water Supply Committee might draft a letter to the District Board making sure they understand the City's dilemma. Mr. Clopper wanted to make sure that was in the minutes as a suggestion. Mr. Bigham said that the District is aware of Fort Collins' concern and the Board of the Directors is totally apprised of the situation. "It is just one of many situations they are discussing." Tom Brown observed that the policy makes a big distinction between irrigation and non -irrigation purposes. "I am assuming when it says irrigation, it means commercial/agriculture. Is that ever defined as being just commercial/ag., or could that include irrigating parks, lawns, gardens or producing vegetables?" Under the conservation plan which the District was required to submit to the BOR, Mr. Bigham recalled that it had to be for commercial purposes. "That was their definition." David Lauer asked if it would be realistic to add municipal or urban irrigation into that definition and leave the policy the way it is, so a municipality could claim a certain percentage of its water as being used for parks, lawns, gardens, etc." Note: Following the meeting, Mr. Bigham found a definition of irrigation use as follows: "For the purposes of the classification of allotment contracts and the assessment of the proper rate for use of water under an allotment contract, `Irrigation shall mean and shall include the application of water for beneficial use, without waste, for the primary purpose of growing and producing crops to be harvested or consumed by livestock, including pasture lands, and for uses incidental to the primary production of such crops." Mr. Bigham urged anyone or any group to write a letter, or attend the District meetings to state a position to the District Board of Directors. The meetings are held each month on the second Friday at 9:00 a.m. Water Utilities Board Minutes February 20, 1997 Page 5 PURCHASE OF PROPERTY - MEADOW SPRINGS RANCH Conrad T. Swanson, prospective buyer of a portion of the Meadow Springs Ranch, asked to make a presentation to the Water Utilities Board after his offer to purchase the property was rejected by the Board and the City in December, 1996. He put together a proposal which was included in Board packets, to purchase the eastern portion of the Ranch. The Ranch contains approximately 25,000 acres. The eastern portion, which Mr. Swanson hopes to acquire, is approximately 4,700 acres and is on the east side of I-25 between the Buckeye and Carr exits. According to his cover letter attached to the proposal, Mr. Swanson and his family are interested in the Ranch for its agricultural qualities. He currently operates, and partially owns, a ranch north of Fort Collins. The eastern portion of the Meadow Springs Ranch property would fit well with their operation and plans, he believes. He said that he has been involved in efforts to help preserve open space and agriculture in Larimer County for the past few years, and would like to use the Ranch to help preserve their agricultural operation and open spaces in Larimer County. Moreover, he does not believe the eastern portion of the Ranch is necessary for the City's effective use of the 20,000 acres lying west of I-25. He pointed out that it was, at one time, the City's desire to sell the eastern portion of the Ranch because the proceeds could help cover the City's expense in purchasing state lands within the border of the western portion of the Ranch. He emphasized that his proposal ensures that the Ranch will remain undeveloped, will remain in agriculture, and will provide a significant "gateway" to the region. Paul Clopper reviewed the Board's unanimous decision in December, 1996, which was to reject the offer to sell the Ranch property and essentially remove it from the market. Mr. Swanson provided some personal background information. He said he has lived in the area since 1993 and practices law in the City of Fort Collins. He also operates a ranch north of town. As far back as 1993-94 he had conversations with Tom Gallier, a former Utility employee, about the Ranch. At that time, the City wasn't sure what to do with the eastern portion of the Ranch. In the summer of 1996 he learned that the eastern.portion (about 4600 acres) of the Ranch was listed for sale at $724,960 with F&M Reality Co. As mentioned earlier, part of the rationale for that listing was to recoup funds that had been spent to purchase state lands in the western portion of the Ranch. He also understood that the City desired a conservation easement on the property so that it would remain in agricultural production. He went on to say that through some miscommunications and missteps, etc., he tried to get an offer presented to the City Council during the period of listing agreement, "and that never did happen. After following up on that and having some conversations with City Manager John Fishbach, and Water Utilities Board Minutes February 20, 1997 Page 6 Mayor Ann Azari, I am here to seek this group's approval to try and get an offer presented to the City Council to purchase the portion of the Ranch east of I-25." Mr. Swanson explained that he was proposing a cash offer for the full appraised value of the eastern portion of the Ranch. There are no financing contingencies. It also provides for a full conservation easement that he worked on with Assistant City Attorney John Duval. It prohibits commercial development, legal or physical subdivision of the property and restrictions on building. The property will remain in agricultural production in perpetuity; that means essentially grazing. "Our home and our winter headquarters are on 640 acres north of Fort Collins," he said. "That's where we have hay meadows; it's where we feed cattle during the winter. That ranch is not large enough to provide summer pasture, nor, for that matter, even good spring or fall pasture," he explained. Grover, Colorado, other land he owns and uses for grazing, has good grass, but it's a 75 mile trip; there is stress on the cattle, there are trucking expenses, and it's hard for him to manage that property, he continued. He mentioned his involvement at the County level with the agricultural Advisory Task Force, the 35- Acre Task Force, somewhat with the Nature Conservancy and with the purchase of the Roberts Ranch. He is vice president of the Larimer Land Trust, and has had experience with other conservation easements. "I would like to see the eastern property at Meadow Springs Ranch remain undeveloped," he emphasized. Mr. Clopper asked if there is anything in the written proposal that is different from what the Board looked at in December. `Because of some of the mis-communications, there was a very limited right to legally sub -divide the property under the conservation easement in the proposal at the December meeting," Mr. Swanson replied. By limited he meant that 4600 acres could have been made into three parcels, the smallest of which could have been 1280 acres, the largest something over 1900 acres. That provision has been removed so there is no subdivision of the property. "Related to that change, the version the Board saw in December, contemplated that two additional sets of ranch buildings could be built with the approval of the holder of the conservation easement. Each set of buildings would have included a house, a shop and a bam," he explained. "That would have been if the property would have been divided into three parcels," he added. That provision has also been deleted. Other than that, he thinks the conservation easement is exactly the same. He recalled that access roads would have been necessary if the ranch buildings were to be constructed, but that provision is no longer in the easement. He thinks the only difference in the purchase agreement in the latest version, is that it has no dates or signatures in it. Mr. Clopper asked for staff comments. "I don't think we have anything to add; our position is the same as it was in December," Mike Smith stated. Next, Mr. Clopper asked for Board questions and comments. "`Is it correct that the portion of land Mr. Swanson wants to purchase is currently leased for grazing?" Tom Brown asked. Water Utilities Board Minutes February 20, 1997 Page 7 "That's right," Mr. Smith replied. "So Mr. Swanson could bid on the grazing, lease of that portion of the Ranch?" Mr. Brown asked. "I haven't looked into this, but my understanding is that the Natural Fort Grazing Association has the right of first refusal on the grazing lease of the property," Mr. Swanson responded. "In addition, if we were able to acquire this, my goal would be to sell the ranch land we have near Grover," he said. He added that he wants to keep the federal forest service allotment with that property because it is a good piece of grazing land. It requires a certain amount of base property that is owned, not leased. "Leasing land close to where I live does not fit our needs very well as far as a long term, viable cattle operation," he stated. Mr. Brown said he was confused about who the grantor and the grantee are in dealing with the conservation easement. "The purchaser under the purchase agreement is the grantor and the grantee is the conservation organization that holds the conservation easement and monitors it," Mr. Swanson explained. "It was set up this way so that, at the same time as the closing, the purchaser of the property would, as a condition of closing, sign the conservation easement rather than the City of Fort Collins putting the easement on it before it was sold," he clarified. "So who would the grantee be in this case?" Mr. Brown asked. "One of the things we talked about in the purchase agreement was to select a grantee that was mutually acceptable to the City and to the purchaser," Mr. Swanson began. "My thought on this is that it might be The Land Trust, which is sponsored by the Colorado Cattlemen's Association. Another possibility would be the Larimer Land Trust, and a third possibility may be The Nature Conservancy. A fourth possibility would be the City of Fort Collins itself, or Larimer County being the grantee, because a governmental entity can also hold a conservation easement," he concluded. Tom Brown pointed out that paragraph C states that it is the grantee that approves or disapproves of a proposal to put up new buildings or other structures on the property. "I believe that's right," Mr. Swanson said. "If there were a desire to build something different, a written request would essentially go from the owner to the holder of the conservation easement seeking approval," he explained. Mr. Bartholow commented that he is extremely pleased that there are people like Mr. Swanson who are interested in conservation easements on land surrounding Fort Collins. "Ultimately the City is going to have to foster those to accomplish goals that are probably outside of the scope of this Board," he believes. "Speaking for myself, I don't think that this Board would have a different recommendation," he said. Mr. Swanson said that he was never able to track this down precisely, but apparently there was some interest on the part of at least some representatives of the City at one point, in selling this property. "I'm not exactly sure what the reasons are for that change. It is my understanding that Meadow Springs was acquired essentially for purposes of sludge disposal, and I'm not sure the portion east of I-25 would work that well for that purpose, in conjunction with the portion west of I-25," he pointed out. Mike Smith stated that, "it's all useable." Mr. Clopper recalled that when the Board visited this issue in December, the question of buffer came up, and encroachment into that buffer, in Tom Sanders' view, was something that was undesirable. (Dr. Sanders was not present at today's meeting.) He mentioned that to show "why there was a Water Utilities Board Minutes February 20, 1997 Page 8 change there." Mr. Bartholow stated that the City owns the land; "we are not in the business of trying to encourage the conservation easement on a piece of land that the City does not own." David Rau said that Dr. Sanders' comments were geared to the fact that it is difficult to permit these types of things. "If you own the land, you can control it and continue to dispose of sludge on it; why give that up? In a few years, we will be back trying to get land that we can do this on. Then you run into the problem that nobody wants it in their back yard." Mr. Swanson clarified: "so the idea was that a private landowner on the east side might find sludge disposal on the west side a nuisance, and the eastern property currently provides a buffer?" "I understand that was the sense of it," I& Clopper replied. George Reed asked staff when they expect to run out of sufficient ground to apply sludge on the west side. "I hope a very long time," Mr. Smith stressed. "Perhaps 50 years?" Mr. Reed pressed. "That's with existing projections; we don't know how big we're going to get," Mr. Smith answered. "Moreover, we don't know if we will be a regional facility," he added. Mr. Swanson understood that when the idea of a sludge disposal location north of town was first approached, the original idea had been about 10,000 acres. "I don't know if that's right or wrong," Mr. Smith said. Mr. Clopper clarified the staff recommendation which is basically to take the property off the market as we voted at the meeting in December. Mr. Smith said that was correct. "John Fishbach couldn't be here, but he wanted me to inform the Board that his position has not changed; he does not want the property to be sold." Mr. Smith was present at a Council meeting where this item came up under other business by a Council member who did not wish to sell the property. The other Council members didn't vote on it, but no one verbally expressed any disagreement. ACTION - THE MOTION John Bartholow moved that the Board reaffirm its previous stand, which was to reject the offer to sell the property and to withdraw it from the market. He thanked Mr. Swanson for his offer, but he didn't think the Board would recommend that it go to the City Council. "That doesn't mean you can't take to the Council yourself," he added. Alison Adams seconded the motion. Further Discussion David Lauer pointed out the language in the proposal that refers to Mr. Swanson's intentions of keeping the property as a ranch for at least as long as he owns it. "Is there any guarantee that, if and when you sell it, or if and when your family no longer has control of the land that those provisions remain intact, in terms of maintaining the use of the land for agriculture?" "What the conservation easement is intended to do is to put that restriction on that land in perpetuity," Mr. Swanson assured the Board, "so that any subsequent owner of the land would be bound by those same restrictions." He emphasized that it is not just a statement of intent for a current owner; it's one that goes on. "I was aware of that," Mr Lauer said, "but does that apply to all of the land? In other words, is there a conservation easement for 1001/6 of the acreage?" "Yes, for the 4600 acres," Mr. Swanson replied. Water Utilities Board Minutes February 20, 1997 Page 9 Tom Brown said he wanted to echo John Bartholow's comment. "It's very nice to see someone purchase the land and place that kind of conservation easement on it. I'm not going to vote in favor of selling the property because I don't think it's a wise move for the City, but I certainly do appreciate your fine offer," he said. "Assuming that we vote against your purchase of the land and the City Council does also, what's your next option?" Mr. Lauer wanted to know. "That's difficult to answer. One of things that makes this property so desirable is that in this part of Colorado there aren't very many large undeveloped areas left. Those that are relatively large are often beginning to feel the pressure of development," Mr. Swanson responded. "This isn't a cheap piece of property, but it has a realistic price for agricultural usage," he added. "In all honesty, the costs of moving cattle back and forth is almost too difficult. The 640 acres where we live is not a sufficient base property either legally or practically for operating solely. The property we have near Grover is a long ways away, which results in pretty significant trucking costs. It's one of those things that makes continued agricultural operations in this area difficult, and I'm not the only one who is facing this problem. There are a lot of pressures because of the growth occurring in this area. The Meadow Springs property is 8 1/2 miles by road from our property and 6 miles cross country. Fortunately it's still undeveloped so we can move cattle," he concluded. "Is the reason that the sale is not in the City's best interests, because the City may want to use the land someday to expand sludge operations?" Howard Goldman asked. "That's a possibility, and as difficult as it is to get land now, we didn't want to close options for whoever is here in the future to do that," Mr. Smith said. "If there is a concern about preserving large open spaces, it may be that selling the property with a conservation easement results in more protection for the property than a continued ownership by the City," Mr. Swanson contends. "Things can certainly change for the City over the next several years, and it's possible that the property could be sold by a future City Council without a conservation easement. If there is concern to conserve open space, there is more protection this way," he insisted. "Also, I don't know how soon a need for that place to be used for sludge disposal will run out; maybe 50 years. It's still an open piece of property at that point, so it's still available if it can be sold to a willing buyer at that point. It's not like it's going to have houses built all over it," he stressed. "It seems to me there's a way to do everything," Mr. Goldman advised. "Could we negotiate a contract that would call for something more than a right of first refusal, but actually require some kind of sale back in the event the City needs it at some point in the future? That may seem a little touchy by restricting the alienation of the land. However, if the buyer is willing to negotiate something like that, it would keep all the options open for the City, and yet the City would have a little cash and wouldn't be perceived as standing in the way of advancing the interests of agriculture, which is something we talk about a lot," he suggested. The City also leases it out for grazing, "so we aren't obstructing agriculture by any means," Mr. Smith pointed out. He reiterated that the City is just trying to protect the City's future interests. "If someone 20 or 50 years from now decides it Water Utilities Board Minutes February 20, 1997 Page 10 should be sold, it would obviously be worth a lot more money. Frankly, we don't see any good reason to sell it," he concluded. ACTION: THE VOTE Paul Clopper called the question. Nine members voted to support the motion. Two members, David Lauer and George Reed voted no. The motion passed 9-2. George Reed explained that he felt that what Howard Goldman said about keeping this open if there was some kind of ground that would give us a win/win situation. The other reason he voted against it was .that the property apparently doesn't have a conservation easement on it, and has no protection other than the good intentions of the City. David Lauer concurred with what Mr. Reed expressed. He said he sees two issues here: "One is our continuing self delusion that we want to protect agriculture, and when we get a chance to do it, we don't want to let the private sector work." His other reason was, "as long as we are a market driven economy, removing public sector land and value away from the operation of market is not a good idea, especially if you have a willing buyer who is offering to provide a cash deal that would allow the City to preserve 100% of those acres. It seems to me that Mr. Swanson has better use for the land than we do now, and possibly will have for the next 40 or 50 years." He concluded his remarks by advising Mr. Swanson to go to the City Council. Mr. Clopper thanked Mr. Swanson for coming. DRY CREEKIWEST VINE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT An agenda summary had been included in the Board packets containing background information, maps, descriptions of the Dry Creek and West Vine Basins, a staff recommendation and a summary of the key provisions of the proposed intergovernmental agreement. Bob Smith began by saying that this would be a two part presentation; the first part by him, and the second part by Rex Burns from the Larimer County Engineering Dept. Mr. Smith related that a working group of legal and financial staff members from the City and County have been meeting for several months to draft an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) that considers the formation of a Local Improvement District (LID) for the Dry Creek Floodwater Diversion Project and the formation of a Stormwater Utility by the County in the West Vine Basin. City Council is scheduled to consider the IGA at the March 4th Council meeting. The proposed IGA identifies a funding source for the improvement for the Dry Creek floodwater generated from the large rural basin to the north and outside the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area (UGA), and initiates funding mechanisms to address drainage needs in the unincorporated areas of the County. Mr. Smith explained that Dry Creek is a basin that enters the Fort Collins urban area in the vicinity of North College Ave. The basin is about 65 square miles and generates a broad floodplain that greatly restricts development or redevelopment, creates a health and safety hazard, and property owners are required to pay flood insurance premiums. The City and County have prepared a master Water Utilities Board Minutes February 20, 1997 Page 11 drainageway plan that recommends improvements to address the floodwaters generated in the Dry Creek basin with the construction of a diversion channel that would intercept the floodwaters north of town and carry them to the Poudre River west of College Ave. (about a $2.5 million project). Once the diversion is constructed, there will be a need to deal with the flows generated along Dry Creek below the diversion to ensure their safe passage to the Poudre River between Lemay Ave. and Summit View Dr. The Dry Creek Master Plan also makes recommendations for these improvements. The property owners inside the floodplain would decide if this is the right way to proceed. At a study session in May, 1996, City Council agreed that there are two needs along Dry Creek: to form an LID, with the County's lead, for funding the Dry Creek Floodwater Diversion Project, and to use the Stormwater Utility for the improvements associated with the area below the diversion. The boundaries of the LID would include those properties located in the Dry Creek floodplain. Properties located in the Dry Creek basin below the diversion would be served by the City or County Stormwater Utility. The Council also discussed the need for the County to address the drainage problems in the West Vine Basin. It is a tributary basin to the Poudre River on the northwest side of Fort Collins. Mr. Smith indicated on a map which part was in the City and which was in the County. Urbanization took place with little consideration for drainage, creating significant drainage problems. The City and County jointly prepared and adopted a West Vine Basin Master Plan which recommended improvements addressing existing drainage problems and those future improvements associated with new development. The City currently has drainage fees in place to construct improvements associated with properties located in the City. Mr. Smith emphasized that the whole idea of the IGA is to share resources and pool expertise to address common problems. The County has considerable experience with Local Improvement Districts (LID), and the City Stormwater Utility has the experience in the areas of design, construction and maintenance. "We hope to have a resolution that adopts the IGA after meeting with the Council on March 4 and the Commissioners on March 5th," he said. Rex Burns, from Latimer County, summarized the key provisions of the City -County Intergovernmental Agreement for Stormwater Cooperation. They are listed below: • Provides for the City of Fort Collins and Latimer County to cooperate on matters of stormwater planning and funding for the West Vine Basin and the Dry Creek Basin. • Provides for Larimer County to consider formation of a stormwater utility for the purpose of funding stormwater improvements for certain City -County fringe areas within the Urban Growth Area (UGA). It is not expected that the County Stormwater Utility will conduct any activities outside the UGA Water Utilities Board Minutes February 20, 1997 Page 12 Provides for the County to consider formation of a local improvement district (LID) for the purpose of financing and construction for the Dry Creek Floodwater Diversion Project. The County would form the LID and take the lead in design and construction of the facility. Provides for the City and County to jointly fund capital improvements in the West Vine Basin through their respective stormwater utilities. The City would take the lead in this effort by designing and constructing facilities as funding becomes available. The City would maintain the facilities with funding from the County West Vine Stormwater Utility O&M fees. Provides for the County to hire a project manager for the two projects that are envisioned by the agreement. Funding for the position would initially be provided by the City and County on a 50-50 basis. The County's part would be paid by the County's SID Admin. Fund and the City's part from drainage fees in that particular basin. If neither project is funded, the position would be terminated. If either project survives, the position would be funded as an expense of the surviving project. Provides that the City and County will use the same fee schedules in the respective basins. Contemplates that the County Stormwater Utility would be an enterprise as defined under state law. Mr. Burns said that the purpose for bringing this to the Water Utilities Board was to secure the Board's recommendation on passage by the City and County of the proposed IGA. He stressed that it is desirable for the City and County to work together, and the IGA would be an instrument where there will be a means to achieve a stormwater basin approach to stormwater management. The IGA will provide the mechanics of how the City and County will go about cooperating in this endeavor. Both entities have something to gain if the basin approach is maintained. "We are especially excited about the possibilities for forming an LID for Dry Creek," he continued. Several changes in that basin have occurred, not necessarily having to do with stormwater, making that a possibility in the next year or two. One is the extension of Timberline which the City Council has agreed to. Another one is that certain key commercial developments have occurred, and have made that area more viable economically. There are also areas of that basin that are relatively moderate and low income, and they would be helped by being out of the floodplain and not being subject to flood hazard or to the expense of flood insurance. He said the City and County have worked with their respective legal staffs and financial staffs to achieve the language in the agreement. "With this Board's recommendation and the approval of the Council and Commissioners, we hope to put the agreement into effect soon," Mr. Burns concluded. Mr. Frick wanted to clarify if the District would be funding the capital improvements and the Utility fees for the maintenance. "For the Dry Creek Project, the LID would fund the capital improvements Water Utilities Board Minutes February 20, 1997 Page 13 for construction of the Diversion," Mr. Burns replied. "The maintenance of the Dry Creek Project probably would be funded by Stormwater Utility fees over an area of the basin for that purpose." "What is the District boundary; is it the entire Dry Creek watershed?" Mr. Frick asked. "No, the District boundary is the property owners of the flood plain," Bob Smith replied. He pointed those out on the map. Mr. Bums added that the capital improvements would be funded by assessments against only the properties within the flood plain of Dry Creek, and that's why the LID option is appealing for that purpose. "It prevents any special assessments and properties not involved from being assessed." W. Smith pointed out that the assessment will be 6/10 of a cent per square foot per year. Because the property owners want to do the improvements right away, "we are looking at debt financing up front." The Water Conservation Board has some low interest loan money (4 1/4% for 30 years) for construction loans. There is almost $1 million set aside for that. The remaining balance would be financed through a 20-year municipal bond issuance. "What percentage of the total cost of that $1 million would you have to set aside," Mr. Lauer asked. "The whole diversion project is about $2.5 million. This is strictly Dry Creek. It's the one we want to have in place in 4 years," Mr. Smith responded. The other improvements are "more or less a pay as you go" arrangement, financed over about 20 years. "Is the monthly fee in the lower portion collected over the whole drainage area, for both County and City?" Mr. Frick asked. "Yes," Mr. Smith answered. Mr. Bartholow said, "right now, in the event of a flood, we would get some standing and flowing water through that area. If this channel is created, the majority of that flood water would empty into the River. What happens to that water downstream? Does it create any additional flooding problems?" "Actually the impact to the River is not that great because Dry Creek peaks in about 2 hours time, whereas the peak on the River is 5-6 hours," Mr. Smith said. "How large will the detention ponds be and what will they be used for?" Paul Clopper asked. "There are a number of combination park sites and schools next to detention ponds," Mr. Smith explained. Mr. Clopper supposed that portions of those basins would be used for recreation, e.g. soccer fields, perhaps wet areas for stormwater cleansing and water quality treatment. "Yes, all of those things are being considered," Mr. Smith replied. Terry Podmore wasn't certain how the agreements work. Several of the provisions say that "the County will consider to do something. What happens if they don't?" "I think the Commissioners legally can't sign an agreement that says `they will form' because that would legally indicate that they might have prejudged what might happen at a public hearing to consider the formation," Mr. Burns explained. "In answer to what happens if they don't, the agreement provides that if both projects don't survive, for whatever reason, then the agreement becomes null and void. But if either project survives, that project would be an object of cooperation by itself," he continued. 'Tight now, how many acres ofundevelopable land are in the basin, causing flood problems for Dry Creek?" Mr. Bartholow asked. "A lot of the area within the City needs to be in filled. Also, until Water Utilities Board Minutes February 20, 1997 Page 14 recently, there hasn't been much support for urbanization of that area," Mr. Smith responded. Mr. Bartholow said he didn't realize that was the 100-year flood plain. "With those improvements the flood plain goes away completely?" "Yes," Mr. Smith said. "What do you do with the flows that are generated in the former flood plain?" John Morris asked. "That's when we deal with the flows along Dry Creek generated below the diversion addressed in the Dry Creek Master Plan," Mr. Smith replied. "What is the boundary for determining who pays," Tom Brown asked. "With the LID, just the people within the 100-year flood plain," Mr. Smith reiterated, "because they are the direct beneficiary of those improvements." Mr. Morris asked if it calculates to $60 a year for approximately 10,000 square feet. "It would be roughly that," Mr. Smith replied. "It's about $4+ per month." David Rau asked about the opinion of the landowners there. "The people on North College are for it. In some areas there is a mixed reaction," Mr. Smith answered. Officials haven't decided whether to seek voter approval in November. If there is a vote in November, property owners have the opportunity to decide for themselves. The next step will be to send information about the project to area landowners and have public meetings. "What about the airport," Mr. Lauer asked. "I think they are in favor of it, but are not very much in favor of the assessments," Mr. Burns replied. "Does this have any impact on the Timberline extension project" Mr. Rau asked. "Timberline is further east," Mr. Smith said. Someone asked if there is any possibility of getting money from the state. "Actually those monies are drying up," Mr. Smith replied. ACTION: THE MOTION John Moms moved that the Board recommend approval of the IGA to the City Council. David Rau seconded the motion. Dave Frick commented that this is a good opportunity to set a precedent for the City to work with the County. "This agreement looks like it has great vision and effort," Mr. Clopper agreed. George Reed pointed out that the long term effort on this by the Storm Drainage Board has been commendable. "This is a big deal! It has the potential for making all the difference in the world for the whole North College situation, which has been a very slow area to develop because of the flood plain," he stressed. Mr. Lauer asked what the County has been doing about stormwater management if they haven't had a utility up to now. "We do what we can. Our funding level is stable but low," Mr. Burns laughed. Many people in the area have experienced consistent flooding. We would like to do more and that's why I am here today," he stressed. He added that it's kind of a mixture of City and County, and "that's why we need a joint proposal." Mr. Bartholow asked Tom Shoemaker of the Natural Resources Dept., if his department has been involved in this. He said they haven't but they always try to be involved in the larger context from a land use perspective. Water Utilities Board Minutes February 20, 1997 Page 15 /:119fl Y (1)\A! I' I DIY41Y y The question was called. Ten members of the Board voted in favor of the motion. John Bartholow abstained because he didn't get a chance to study all the pros and cons of the proposal. He has been out of town. PROPOSED SURPLUS WATER RENTAL RATES Each year, after the irrigation companies have established their annual assessment rates for water, the Water Utilities Board recommends to the City Council the rental rates for the City's surplus water. The proposed rates are based on several factors including past rental rates in the area, current assessments, and anticipated supply and demand conditions. The rental prices for CBT, North Poudre and Water Supply and Storage Company shares are based primarily on market rental rates since there is an active rental market for these shares. With the limited rental markets for the southside ditches, the rental prices are based primarily on assessment rates. Board members received, in their packets, a list of the proposed rental rates recommended by staff, along with an attached table that showed the assessment rates and the proposed rental rates for 1997, as well as the corresponding rates for 1995 and 1996. Beth Voelkel said that the surplus water is rented primarily for agricultural use. She also related that the City tries not to seriously affect the market rate for rental. She pointed out that the assessment rate for Water Supply & Storage may be incorrect and she will make sure that it is correct before this item goes to Council. Mr. Clopper noted that from staffs recommendation, it appears that the rental rates are close to where they have been for the last couple of years; perhaps with a slight increase. Dave Frick asked why WSSC is so high. "We don't own very many shares in that company. The rental rates have always been rather high. The Company rents theirs for nearly $2000 more than the assessment, so this year it will be $2750 (or $2730 if that is correct), Miss Voelkel explained. How many acre feet are in each share of WSSCT' David Rau asked. "Roughly 80-90. I think it was 85 last year," she said. David Lauer wanted to know why North Poudre's price has increased when most of the rest of them have not. "The rental rate went up on North Poudre specifically because of the increase in the assessment," Miss Voelkel answered. "But why was there an increase in the assessment," he continued. "The Ditch Company determines that themselves," she said. "Dennis Bode, who was not able to be here today, can explain the Board's reasoning since he sits on the North Poudre Board," she said. "One of the reasons may be that they are looking at some improvements on the ditch system," she suggested. Water Utilities Board Minutes February 20, 1997 Page 16 Mike Smith explained the process that the irrigation companies go through to set their assessment rates: "They have a budget like anyone else. They look at what they have and what they are going to need, and then they vote on it." David Lauer asked if that was the case with WSSC going from $1900 to $2100 to $2200. "It's roughly the same thing, but you will notice that our rental rates went up even when the assessments did not go up. That's primarily because of the market. In 1995 we rented for $1900. Thornton owns a lot of WSSC now, and they were renting at $2300 or $2400 that same year," Miss Voelkel explained. "The next year we thought we would try to catch up with them a bit. We own only a few shares but they are a hot commodity. I usually have requests for 2-3 times as many shares of WSSC than the City owns," she related. Mr. Lauer asked if this was ag. or municipal. "It's strictly agricultural," Miss Voelkel replied. Mike Smith pointed out that those who rent the surplus water get a good deal by leasing the water instead of buying it. David Rau commented regarding use of rental water to meet state requirements for temporary augmentation plans. When a gravel pit or well is developed, the consumptive use must be replaced to the River. "That is what some Joe Wright Reservoir water is rented for," Miss Voelkel explained. "It's generally for augmentation." ACTION: THE MOTION AND THE VOTE John Bartholow moved that the Board recommend, to the Council, approval of the proposed surplus water rental rates. Alison Adams seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously in support of the motion. LAND USE PLANNING (POUDRE RIVER) Informational Board members received agenda summaries on this item in their packets. Sections from the Draft Land use Code: Division 29.4.11 - River Conservation District and Division 29.4.16 - Community Commercial/Poudre River District were distributed at the meeting with deletions and revisions highlighted. Tom Shoemaker, Natural Resources Director, introduced the item by stating that his purpose for being here today was to provide the Board with a quick update on the number of land use items that either have been underway or are continuing that relate to the Poudre River basically from LaPorte to Timnath, and, in some cases, beyond that. "We want to make you aware of the work that's ongoing." This presentation gave the Board an opportunity to comment on various land use activities that are related to the River. Some questions posed to the Board were: (1) Are staff efforts in the right direction? (2) Are there any missed issues or concerns? and, (3) Is the language for the "Water Hazards" section on target? Water Utilities Board Minutes February 20, 1997 Page 17 Mr. Shoemaker pointed out that various departments are working together in these efforts. "Our objective is to integrate the various aspects of land use planning," he said. He presumed that everyone was aware of the City Plan which is the largest umbrella that relates to Poudre River land use planning efforts. City Plan is a complete revision of the City's comprehensive plan and has been underway for about 2 years. On Tuesday night City Council adopted several of the key comprehensive plan elements: One of those was Community Vision and Goals, a short section of that speaks to the importance of the River as a vital community resource. He went on to describe each of those elements that was adopted. The following is a summary of the various land use activities underway in the City relating to the River in an effort to ensure this resource is either maintained or enhanced: Gravel Mining Study This project is just getting underway and its purpose is to develop a strategy for gravel lands along the River as it relates to reclamation and augmentation. This multi objective effort is to enhance the post mining landscape to ensure an aesthetic and productive river corridor, consistent with the desires for wildlife habitat, trails, open space and public access. Mr. Shoemaker explained that staff has been meeting with the gravel mining interests to see what their plans are for the future, and how their plans match with the City's Land Use Plan? This project hopefully should be completed within the next 6 months. City Plan -Land Use Code City Plan is a City wide effort to redefine the planning requirements within the City. Included in the Plan is the development of zoning districts and included within these districts are land use regulations specifying the types and design of acceptable land uses. Three of these districts include properties along the River: Public Open Lands (POL) - Lands in this district are owned by the city and are designated for either recreational or natural resource types of activities. River Conservation District (CR) - Lands in this district are subject to limited development. The land use regulations are developed to allow limited development while ensuring the protection of sensitive natural resource values along the River. Community Commercial - Poudre River District (CCR) - This district is the transition area between the CR district to the downtown or more intense districts. Development or redevelopment in this district is allowed to be more intense than the CR district but less intense than the other zoning districts in the City allowing land uses compatible to that section of the River. Water Hazards - New language is being proposed for any development or redevelopment within the floodplain. The purpose of this language is to ensure that any activity is consistent Water Utilities Board Minutes February 20, 1997 Page 18 with City criteria and master plans, doesn't create any adverse effects on adjacent properties, and if so, ensures mitigation measures to prevent negative effects on natural resource values. (Board members received copies of the proposed language.) Poudre River Land Use Plan The Poudre River Land Use Plan is being developed by staff and will encompass lands both inside and outside the City. This plan will, in detail, direct the future land use activities along the River. Specific areas of the plan will include a summary of past planning efforts on the River, a summary, of the planning influences on the River, a summary of the land use vision for the River, design standards for any development or redevelopment along the River and the implementation of the land use vision for the River. Mr. Shoemaker went on to discuss further the planning efforts related to the River. The idea is to look at overall land use needs, community needs relative to the River in the area from LaPorte to Timnath. The implementation of the zoning code would be part of that, but there are other things that would be part of that: Intergovernmental Agreements with Larimer County, restoration, a continued acquisition program, natural areas, additional trails. This plan should capture all of that and place it under one document. "We are trying to integrate the natural drainageway recommendations, trying to integrate natural areas and park policies, etc.," he said. There is a need to get through the City Plan process and then have this additional planning effort fall in line as part of the implementation procedure. "We will likely be spending the summer with a community outreach program around this effort." Great Outdoor Colorado Legacy Project Next Mr. Shoemaker explained the Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) Legacy Project. Over the last year and a half, Fort Collins has worked closely with a wide variety of partners: Loveland, Larimer County, Weld County, Greeley, Windsor, Timnath, The Nature Conservancy, Friends of the Poudre, and others, to apply to GOCO for one of their grant programs. About 2 years ago they came out with their Legacy Program which provides funding for projects with state-wide significance. The group mentioned above developed a proposal called the Poudre-Big Thompson Legacy Project. It will look at both the Poudre and Big Thompson watersheds. (1) The first aspect of the grant emphasizes land conservation, primarily in Fort Collins and Loveland areas and in the foothills. (2) The second component is recreational access. The Group's proposal was to get funding to complete the Poudre River Trail from LaPorte all the way to the South Platte River. It also would provide recreational access to Estes Park, Lake Estes, and what is known as "Gateway Park," at the site of the old water treatment plant in Poudre Canyon. (3)The third aspect of the grant has to do with environmental education, and possible funding for facilities at the Poudre Learning Center in Greeley and CSU's Environmental Learning Center. Water Utilities Board Minutes February 20, 1997 Page 19 Mr. Shoemaker stressed that it was a very competitive process and ours was among ten entities in the state that received grants; "our award was $3.4 million for the region. That money will be applied for the next 3 years to all of the efforts." There is considerable activity involved in this process that relates to the Poudre River. "We are fortunate that we won't be waiting until all the planning is completed before we move ahead with things we know the community supports," he concluded. Tom Brown asked if the Roberts Ranch is included in that. "The overall area includes the Roberts Ranch," Mr. Shoemaker replied. "The Nature Conservancy has received a commitment for a grant from LOCO for the ranch. The Legacy project does not include the ranch," he said. Basically The Nature Conservancy has identified Larimer County foothills as their number one conservation priority in Colorado. In order to accomplish that, they are using the Roberts Ranch as a piece of a large centrally located portion of that. Bob Smith asked for questions and comments about City Plan - Land Use Code, 29.3.2.3 Water Hazards. He said this was an attempt to cover what must be considered for any development or redevelopment within the floodplain. "This goes into more detail than what is in the Code now," he explained. Lands subject to flooding or are located in a natural drainageway will not be approved for development or redevelopment unless the following conditions are met: a. Complies with the Basin Master Drainageway Plan applicable to such lands. b. Complies with City Stormwater Design Criteria and Construction Standards. c. Complies with floodplain regulations as defined in Chapter 10 of the City Code. d. Any development in any 100 year floodplain will be designed in such a way so as not to cause any adverse effects to the development or to surrounding properties from either increased flood heights, flow velocities, flow duration, rate of rise of flood waters, channel stability, or sediment transport. e. Any mitigation measure proposed to address those identified adverse effects shall maintain natural area values in accordance with Chapter 29 of the City Code. f. All measures proposed to eliminate, mitigate, or control water hazards related to flooding or drainageways shall be approved by the Water Utilities General Manager. If a project includes a water hazard such as an irrigation canal, water body, or other water channel, necessary design precautions shall be taken to minimize any hazard to life or property and additional measures such as fencing, water depth indicators, and erection of warning signs shall be considered. Water Utilities Board Minutes February 20, 1997 Page 20 Mr. Smith said that there have been requests to not allow any development in the floodplain, "but we haven't gone that far. We thought that the floodplain was a health and safety issue, so we wanted to make certain that we were not increasing those aspects in the floodplain; that's what we tried to cover in this section," he concluded. Tom Brown asked if any activity dealing with the Poudre River focuses on flows in the River, or is it all land use? "It isn't focusing on the flows," Mr. Shoemaker replied. He noted that early in their discussions of the Legacy Project, there was some discussion about seeking funding to increase flows in the mainstem of the Poudre River in the Canyon. "We felt that we weren't ready to make a proposal to GOCO on that," he added. Mike Smith said there has been a lot of discussion about the possibility, "but it's not as easy as it sounds," he stressed. It requires negotiating with people who own water rights, etc. and involves spending a lot of money. David Lauer asked about the Poudre River Land Use Plan. "You said that was being done pretty much in house. What departments are involved in the process?" "A couple of years ago the City competed a study called the Poudre River Land Use Framework, which brought together all past planning. We used that as a basic springboard," Mr. Shoemaker explained. Mike Powers from CLRS and I are co -project managers for that. We will prepare maps, draft plans, or plan alternatives and do a variety of public outreach efforts. Then we will take the specific aspects of that plan to a full round of board and commission review." Will the state be involved at all in requests for funding or permit approvals? "I guess that's unclear," Mr. Shoemaker replied. "We are obviously involved with Larimer County and the state parks department. In the draft study I fully expect that there will be proposed amendments to reclamation and the language involved." "If the language in the Water Hazards portion is adopted, what kind of increase will there be in the number of variances that this Board will expect to hear?" Mr. Clopper asked. "I would expect a slight increase," Bob Smith replied. "Variances are usually more involved with a site condition, so I don't see very much of an increase." David Lauer asked if there are any concrete expectations as far as developing a Poudre River Corridor downtown between Linden and say Lincoln Ave. or College Ave. and Lincoln. "That's part of the next phase of the whole corridor study we are looking at. The recommendations will be coming up for that," Bob Smith responded. DISCUSSION OF CURRENT POLICY ON MEMBERSHIP REDUCTION Mr. Clopper reminded the Board that they had discussed making a recommendation to the City Council to change the current method for reducing the membership of the WUB. The City Code currently says: The board shall initially consist of 18 members, with an eventual membership of eleven (11). Seven (7) of these members shall be those persons who were serving on the City's Storm Drainage Board as of September 3, 1996. The other eleven (11) members shall be those persons who were serving on the City's Water Board as of September 3, 1996. Notwithstanding the provisions of Water Utilities Board Minutes February 20, 1997 Page 21 paragraph (b), City Council shall not fill any vacancies on the board until a vacancy would leave the Board with less than eleven (11) members. Each member shall serve without compensation for a term of four (4) years, except that members may be appointed by the City Council for a shorter term in order to achieve overlapping tenure.... No member may serve more than three (3) consecutive four -years terms. The Ordinance establishing the Water Utilities Board states: "Whereas, through the usual attrition of board members by resignation and expiration of term, the membership of the Water Utilities Board will be reduced to eleven members and maintained at that level thereafter." ACTION: Discussion and Motion Dave Frick thinks that natural attrition by resignation and reaching the three term limit should be used to reduce the size of the Board instead of not allowing members to re -apply when they reach the end of a four-year term. "It seems with the method I'm suggesting, in a period of 3-4 years, we should be able to reach the desired membership of 11," he said. Mr. Clopper pointed out that for the former Storm Drainage Board members, their 2-term limit is now three terms of 4 years each. As stated above, "No member (of the Water Utilities Board) may serve more than three (3) consecutive four- year terms." David Lauer moved that the WUB recommend a change in the City Code as was stated by Dave Frick. George Reed seconded the motion. Mr. Clopper noted that Tom Sanders called him today to say that he favors the change that is contained in the motion. Mike Smith talked with Council Liaison Chuck Wanner, and he is supportive of whatever the Board comes up with. However, he is not supportive of changing the number of eventual members of the Board, which is 11. For example, this year one person has resigned, one person is leaving because he has reached the 3-term limit. There would have been 3 others who would have had to leave as well. Mr. Wanner said he would be favorable to re -appointing those three people which would bring the Board down to 16 members. Someone said the position wouldn't be gone because the Council may not chose to re -appoint some members. "That seems silly until you get down to 11 members," Mr. Bartholow asserted. Alison Adams agreed. "I thought the purpose was to maintain the longevity of some of the existing members." Mr. Clopper explained that what Mr. Frick is saying is that positions are eliminated by one of two means: by resignation or a term limit that takes that position away. "Those are the only mechanisms by which we will allow our Board to be reduced in numbers until we get down to I L" "How long would it take to just use term limits; forget resignations, because you can't control that?" Ms. Adams wondered. Mr. Smith said that staff hasn't done that calculation. "It would probably be around 4-5 years," Mr. Clopper guessed. Ms. Adams asked if this recommendation goes to the Council since they are the ones who make the decision on this. "Yes, it would require a change in the Code," Mr. Smith replied. ACTION: The Vote Paul Clopper called for the question. Eight members voted in favor of the motion and 1 member abstained. Mr. Bartholow abstained because he is very much in favor of the Board reaching a smaller Water Utilities Board Minutes February 20, 1997 Page 22 size more quickly, "even though it affects me," he said, "since I would be leaving this year under the current rules." He added that this doesn't mean he wouldn't like to remain on the Board. Mr. Smith said that staff will work with John Duval to put an agenda item together for the Council. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF BYLAWS Assistant City Attorney John Duval prepared a draft of the bylaws incorporating some of the suggestions of Board members. He also wrote comments on each of those suggestions in the attached memo. He commented as well on the remainder of the suggestions which had not been incorporated into the bylaws. Additions to the document were highlighted and deletions were crossed out. Mr. Clopper reminded the Board that when they voted to accept the bylaws on an interim basis at their December meeting, the motion included the provision that a new draft would be reviewed and voted on in February. Alison Adams asked if anyone had any questions about the re -draft. Dave Frick recalled, from the December meeting, the suggestion that the Board's mission statement be included in the bylaws. "Since that time we decided that our mission statement doesn't need to be in the bylaws," he said. George Reed brought up an item that may require a change in the City Code which can be discussed at a future time. ACTION: MOTION AND VOTE Mr. Clopper asked the Board if they were ready to approve the draft bylaws, or if they wanted more time to study them and operate under the interim bylaws for another month. David Lauer was concerned that members not here who suggested items that were not included in the draft might be upset "if the nine of us passed them without their suggestions." It was determined that all the members who made suggestions were those still at the meeting. After further discussion, Dave Frick moved that the bylaws be adopted as presented. John Bartholow seconded the motion. Mr. Duval pointed out that, after this vote, all changes to the bylaws will require a 2/3 vote. This was included in the draft at one member's suggestion. Mr. Duval explained that when he drafted this set of bylaws, he tried to include items that were in the purview of the Board to make decisions. "I put in everybody's suggestions that could work, and gave reasons in the memo why the other suggestions were not included," he said. He wanted to assure the Board that this was not just his opinion or the way he thinks the bylaws ought to be done. Mr. Clopper called for the question. Seven Board members voted to approve the bylaws. Paul Clopper and Bob Havis abstained because they didn't have a chance to carefully review the draft. Water Utilities Board Minutes February 20, 1997 Page 23 OTHER BUSINESS Response to NCWCD Survey on Formation of a Northern Regional Water Coalition Alison Adams received a copy of a survey prepared by the NCWCD to get the Board's response on forming a Northern Regional Water Coalition. She has attended two of the meetings and Howard Goldman has attended one of the meetings as representatives of the Water Utilities Board. She participated in developing the survey. The survey needs to be back to the District by the end of next week, so she wanted input from the Board prior to that time. "We need to make a response consistent with the Board, not just my opinions," she said. She and Howard Goldman have scheduled a meeting at his office on Wednesday, February 26th at 1:00. They would like as many board members as possible to come and work on the survey. She quickly went through some of the questions on the survey. Utility staff will fill out the survey with respect to the Utility's point of view, she replied when asked about staff being included in the response. "Staff has been participating in the meetings," she added. STAFF REPORTS Poudre Pipeline Decision Mike Smith related that there is ajoint effort with Greeley, the three districts and the Northern District to do some work on the Poudre Pipeline. Potentially, before the next Water Utilities Board meeting, the City Manager may be asked to take to Council an interim governmental agreement to cooperate on the conceptual design piece of the project. It should cost about $400,000 split 4 ways; each for $100,000. It must go to Council because they are required to authorize any arranged agreements when they are over $50,000. Staff will be taking a resolution to Council the second meeting in March "so we don't hold up the other partners in this agreement. What I am looking for from the Board is a motion saying that you would support participating with the other entities on the pipeline project, so the City Manager can enter into the agreement," Mr. Smith said. He explained that the Poudre Pipeline Project is a 7-8 mile pipeline that would transport raw water from the Poudre River (Munroe Canal) to the Water Treatment Plant. "With the facilities we have now out of Horsetooth, if something goes wrong with our water supply source in the summertime, we don't have enough supply to serve the City," he emphasized. He added that the City came quite close to that situation one time. Mr. Clopper also pointed out that there is a reliability issue with the age of some sections of the existing pipeline. ACTION: MOTION AND VOTE Alison Adams moved that the Water Utilities Board recommend to the City Council that they support a conceptual Design Study for a Poudre Pipeline in cooperation with Greeley, the Tri-districts and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. John Bartholow seconded the motion. The entities have agreed to share equally in the cost of the study. "The City of Fort Collins will probably be a 60% or 700/a player in the actual construction of the pipeline," Mr. Smith related. "That's better than 100%," he added. The Board voted unanimously to support the motion. Water Utilities Board Minutes February 20, 1997 Page 24 COMMITTEE REPORTS Water Supply and Liaison Joint Committee Meeting Mr. Clopper reported that the Water Supply and Liaison Committees met jointly on February 18th. Since the chairs of both committees had to leave, Mr. Clopper said that the two committees agreed to prepare a "white paper" that describes the issues of concern regarding the City's water supply situation. Robert Ward will prepare a first draft of that statement. Water Supply Committee Chair Tom Brown prepared a summary of the meeting which will be included in the March packets. SUGGESTED AGENDA ITEMS FOR MARCH MEETING Dave Frick suggested that the development of a mission statement and goals and objectives be included on the agenda. David Lauer asked that Friends of the Poudre's letter of response to'the NCWCD regarding the "Gateway Park" issue be included in the packets and be placed on the agenda as a discussion item. ADJOURNMENT Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m. Water Utili es Board Secretary