Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 10/21/1996E WATER UTILITIES BOARD MINUTES October 21, 1996 3:00 - 5:15 p.m. Light and Power Training Room 700 Wood Street CITY COUNCIL LIAISON Chuck Wanner WATER UTILITIES BOARD CO -PRESIDENTS Paul Clopper - 223-5556 George Reed - 686-4383 STAFF LIAISON Molly Nortier - 221-6681, 493-2522 MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Clopper, George Reed, Co -Presidents, John Bartholow and Bob Havis, Co -Vice Presidents, Alison Adams, John Moms, Tom Brown, John Barnett, Dave Lauer, Randy Fischer, Ray Herrmann, Joe Bergquist, Dave Frick, Howard Goldman, Tom Sanders, Terry Podmore, Robert Ward STAFF Mike Smith, Bob Smith, Wendy Williams, Gale McGaha Miller, Ben Alexander, Curt Miller, Beth Voelkel, Molly Nortier GUESTS Chuck Wanner, City Council Liaison John Bigham, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Sue Ellen Thornton, League of Women Voters Observer Lynne Dworak, CSU Student Observer MEMBER ABSENT David Rau Co -president Paul Clopper opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS Co -President Paul Clopper, President of the former Water Board welcomed everyone to the first meeting of the Water Utilities Board. He asked former members of the Storm Drainage and Water Water Board Minutes October 31, 1996 Page 2 Boards and staffs to introduce themselves. Mr. Clopper announced that he and George Reed, Chair of the former Storm Drainage Board, have agreed to co-chair the meetings until some of the organizational items are taken care of in the next couple of meetings. Co -vice presidents are Bob Havis (Storm Drainage Board) and John Bartholow (Water Board). The Board will elect officers within the next two to three months. MINUTES The minutes of August 8, 1996 and September 12, 1996 of the former Storm Drainage Board were unanimously (6-0) approved as presented. The August 16, 1996 minutes of the former Water Board were approved as distributed with a unanimous vote (11-0). UPDATE: NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT John Bigham didn't have a formal report. There were no questions for Mr. Bigham. There was a reminder that the Northern District will be holding their fall Water Users meeting in Greeley on November 7th. Water Utilities Board members received a letter and the agenda of the meeting in their packets. REVIEW OF ORDINANCE THAT ESTABLISHED WATER UTILITIES BOARD Board members received, in their packets, copies of the ordinance which was approved by the City Council on September 17, 1996. This is the official document that establishes the Water Utilities Board, but does not take the place of bylaws. At the November meeting the Board will discuss a draft of the bylaws prepared by Assistant City Attorney John Duval. Mr. Clopper asked for discussion of the ordinance. Alison Adams asked if this document is a melding of existing ordinances for the Water Board and Storm Drainage. "It was a cut and paste process, except for one word," Mike Smith replied. Ms. Adams was curious in looking at the functions of the current board, that there doesn't seem to be anything explicit or implicit in the water side of what the Board is supposed to do, whereas the Stormwater part contains considerable detail. "You may be putting the distinction between the function of the ordinance and the bylaws," Mr. Clopper remarked. He thinks the bylaws, which the Board will be developing next month, will contain, for example, the Board's mission statement, which more closely defines what it is the Board is supposed to be doing and how to accomplish that. Ms. Alison wondered how the Board is supposed to define what it should be doing if the Council hasn't given the Board direction on what it is they think "we should be doing." Mike Smith explained that the original ordinance was very specific for the Storm Drainage Board. On the other hand, the original ordinance creating the Water Board was fairly general. Staff has followed the practice of taking to the Council, water/wastewater policies for the Water Board to Water Board Minutes October 31, 1996 Page 3 review and make recommendations to the Council. Examples would include rate issues, development of a master plan, or changes in policy or agreements. Mr. Clopper said there is an interesting distinction between some of the powers and authorities that the former Storm Drainage Board were able to exercise, in particular, variances. The variance processes that the SD Board went through are specified in the ordinance. The Water Board was not authorized to handle variances because if people didn't like what the code said, they went directly to Council. He added that, historically, the SD Board only processed variances 2 or 3 times a year. Bob Smith explained that flood plain regs. are only processed once or twice a year. One of the variances was for fees, "and we never heard one of them." Also, very few variances for criteria were heard. He said that the SD Board advised Council on the budget, and approval on drainage basins and also on rates. Mr. Clopper thinks it's important that the WU board recognize that they will now be looking at variances from time to time. "I guess it's always the right of the parties involved in a variance question, to appeal the decision to the City Council," he added. John Barnett related that the reason the SD Board heard variance procedures has to do with the tradition of those regulations coming out of zoning and land use law more than anything else. When zonings were evolving in the early 1900s, the Supreme Court was concerned that variance procedures be included in zoning regulations to address "takings." The variance procedures contained in the Flood Plain Regulations, are patterned after those in nearly every zoning ordinance or resolution. Dave Lauer pointed out on p.3 of the ordinance, in response to Ms. Adams' question, that there are a number of specific functions there and item (i) says: "The board shall advise the City Council in matters pertaining to the acquisition, control and disposition of water rights and pertaining to the City's municipal water works and wastewater treatment systems." "That's a rather broad, significant item to digest," he said. "You could probably go on for several pages just on that." He added that it's pretty general, as are all the others on the water side, because, apparently the WB didn't have the same tradition as the SD Board. The WB was more policy -directed. Mr. Smith said that it helps to look at the history of when the boards were formed. The WB was established in the 1960s when there wasn't a staff that had much expertise. When the SD Board was formed there was a staff with technical expertise, so they could be more specific about certain things. Mr. Clopper thinks that through 1997, the WUB will be "feeling its way through" and he assumes that Mike Smith and Bob Smith will help to enlighten members about issues that each of the former boards took for granted. George Reed pointed out an area that may come up organizationally. It seems to him that variances could be heard by a sub -committee; that might lighten the load. He wasn't sure about how to handle the quorum aspect of that. He provided some details on the two variances the SD Board handled this past year as examples. "If it's that rare, it may not make sense to create a sub -committee for that," Water Board Minutes October 31, 1996 Page 4 Mr. Lauer contends. "If a sub -committee came up with a controversial ruling, it may end up coming to the full board anyway," he added. "Good point," Mr. Reed responded. Ms. Adams agreed. "Perhaps we could try it for the next year, and see how it works. Mr. Reed referred to Sec. 2-438. on p.2, which says the board shall make recommendations to the council concerning stormwater facilities in the City. The board shall recommend to the Council the appropriate division of the City into separate drainage basins. He suggested that Board members keep a eye on that because it's a fundamental element of stormwater. Mr. Reed also drew the Board's attention to p. 3 under (f): "The board shall make recommendations to City Council regarding policy or technical matters related to stormwater management. The board shall make comments on policy items prepared by other City departments." "That's an area, as you get into the next question of concerns, that is somewhat controversial." Under (b) he referred to the last sentence: "Projects shall be recommended if the analysis indicates that the total benefits are greater than the cost of the project." He thinks the SD Board's interpretation of that has been that this does not say that we cannot recommend a project whose cost/benefit ratio, for other reasons that may be intangible; in other words, it could still be recommended. Mike Smith asked how the Board feels about that: it basically dictates that you must approve it whether you like it or not. "I think if the economics work out, and the positive element of protection that you are going to provide to the citizens, and the savings are more than the cost of providing that service, as a Utility, you need to provide it," Mr. Reed contends. "In today's environment, the cost/benefit analysis has taken on a whole new meaning than when the federal government first created it" Ms. Alison remarked. Non -economic value benefits for cost are now taken more into account than traditionally had been included. John Barnett commented that there is a lot of effort in some of these projects to optimize things, so there is not a bare bones, over simplistic methodology being applied. "I don't think the SD Board hesitated to make suggestions or recommendations on projects that make things better in the long run," he concluded. Ms. Adams reiterated that this says the Board has to recommend it. Mr. Reed said that the Board could, in the letter of recommendation to the Council, delineate all the concerns that the Board had with the recommendation. "What it points out to me," Mr. Smith said, "is there is an opportunity down the road to recommend that the Council change it if the Board is not comfortable with what is in there." John Barnett said, as he reads it, it does not specifically say "we are talking about just all the costs or all the benefits. I think we need to look at it in a broader context." Bob Smith said, "it's not just dollars and cents. The approach of our master plan is to be proactive and move towards the future by looking at the whole basin as a system. In other words you need to look at the big picture and how the system works as a whole. It's not always dollars and sense," he stressed." Water Board Minutes October 31, 1996 Page 5 "If I'm looking at other things besides dollars, I could always craft some sort of argument that if I don't like it and I don't want to approve it, I'm going to figure out a way to make a cost/benefit ratio come out to justify my position," Howard Goldman commented. Bob Smith said that there are criteria they use to recommend projects like that. "Perhaps at a future Board meeting we could go through that," he suggested. Tom Sanders apologized for being late. He wanted to make another comment about the ordinance before the Board moved on to organizational issues. As pointed out earlier, he asked why only two items under functions were attributed to the former Water Board, and all the rest were former Storm Drainage Board functions. "Does that indicate that nobody on the Water Board had anything to do with the development of this document?" Mike Smith reiterated that the ordinance was cut and pasted by staff at the City Attorney's office. They used the existing sections of the City Code that related to each of the Boards. ORGANIZATION ISSUES FOR NEW BOARD At the Water Utilities Board workshop in September, participants listed key problems, frustrations, difficulties, misunderstanding, etc. that face the newly integrated board. These were put into categories in outline form. Staff also drafted a diagram that attempts to define the role of the Water Utilities Board relative to City Council, the City Manager and Water Utilities staff and the Water Planning Committee. Both were included in the packets. Mr. Clopper asked for discussion on this item. Mike Smith emphasized that the diagram is a draft. (Note: To clarify this discussion, a copy of the diagram is attached to the minutes.) Ms. Adams asked what the direction of the arrows means. It means that "things can go both ways," Mr. M. Smith replied. For example, with respect to the Council and City Manager, the Council may have some direction for input to the City Manager regarding some activities and vice versa. "Does the uni- directional arrow imply that it's just one way?" Ms. Adams continued. "Yes," Mr. Smith answered. "The dotted lines for the arrows are policy issues and the solid lines are routine staff activities," Mr. Clopper explained. Mr. Smith also pointed out that as a policy issue goes to the Board and then Council, it also goes through the City Manager to Council. There are two tracks that staff has to follow at the same time. Staff is providing information to the Board. The Board makes a recommendation to the Council. Meanwhile, staff is working with its boss, the City Manager, to get the same thing done. "On the dotted arrows, which policy issues don't go through this Board?" Mr. Clopper wanted to know. "If we have a rate issue, for example, and we bring the rates to the Board, it goes to the City Manager too," Mr. Smith explained. Staff is doing two things at the same time; taking it to the Board and City Manager. The City Manager will take it to the Council as the Board recommended it. "So the City Manager could take a recommendation that is different from the Board's?" Ms. Adams asked. "Yes," Mr. Smith replied. "I highlighted that so you would recognize that there are two Water Board Minutes October 31, 1996 Page 6 different tracks going on," he said, "and frankly, it's a higher priority track since he is our boss," he added. Mr. Smith emphasized that if it is a policy issue that the the Council is considering, the Board will see it. There are a number of issues that may be administrative, or other items that the Council will see, that the Board will not be asked to consider because it's not policy. "For example?" someone asked. "We may be talking about purchasing property, an administrative process, or re -organizing the Utility, for example," Mr. Smith said. "So something like Meadow Springs Ranch might not come to us?" Dave Frick asked. "We always seem to bring things like that to the Board, but there is a possibility we wouldn't," he responded. "Currently, staff is purchasing some property for the Water Treatment Plant that won't go through the Board, and the City Council doesn't even have to approve it," he related. He added that the Council occasionally acts on things that the Board would not see. "Frankly, staff doesn't have very many items that go to the Council. Sometimes we have cooperative agreements for water quality monitoring that don't come to the Board. He thinks that there are probably more things that go to the Board and Council than don't. Bob Havis wondered if the arrows going through Water Utilities, Council and City Manager indicate a duplication in the process. "The line that goes from the Utilities Board to the Council, could also have an arrow back to the Board, because, at times, the Council may come to the Board and ask their advice on something,"' Mr. Smith explained. "Is the Water Treatment Master Plan one of the policies?" Mr. Reed asked. "Yes, it is (actually it's a master plan rather than a policy); and we have traditionally taken those to the Board," Mr. Smith responded. Once the plans are adopted by Council, the only time you will see anything else associated with them, is during the budget process. Mr. Lauer asked if there ever is an instance where the City Council will ask the Board a policy question. Mr. Smith said, in those instances, the arrow would be going back to the Board. "Because the arrow is going from the Utilities to the Board, does that indicate that the Board doesn't provide any guidance to the Utility?" Mr. Frick inquired. "We may ask for the Board's guidance at times," Mr. Smith stated. "So anything that has to do with how you operate, how you organize, or anything like that comes directly from the City Council or City Manager to you, and the Board has no review power or authority to override." Mr. Frick concluded. He went on to say that when the decision was made to merge the two boards, he didn't recall any recommendation made, one way or another, from either board. "In other words, it was kind of like the ordinance. It was cut and pasted and put together and given to us," he asserted. "I think Chuck Wanner was very clear about soliciting both boards' input on the matter," Mr. Smith stressed. "We were asked to comment, but never for a formal recommendation," Mr. Frick insisted. "We never took a vote," Mr. Clopper recalled. "A vote would have been inappropriate," Mr. Smith stated. Mr. Frick pointed out another area in which he thinks the Water Board was "left out of the loop," and that was with the Water Planning Committee." He said that the Water Planning Committee had made some policy decisions that he recalls never came to the Water Board. "Is this how staff Water Board Minutes October 31, 1996 Page 7 envisions it should be or what you think it has been?" "I think it's more of what it has been and if you ask me how it should be, I think the Water Planning Committee, to this point, has been very beneficial on some previous policy issues, but maybe it's getting to the point of not being that way," he said candidly. Mr. Frick contends that during his fairly short time on the Board, he has seen that Committee become more of a policy setting entity than the Board itself. "I began to wonder which was really the advisory board," he asserted. A former Storm Drainage Board member asked, "what is the Water Planning Committee?" The Committee was created a number of years ago with 3 Council members and 3 Water Board members to educate the Council on water issues before the Council took up the issue as a whole, Mr. Smith explained. Staff spent considerable time with those 3 Council members in that education process. Ray Herrmann recalled that the original committee pre -dated the time when a Council member was assigned as a liaison to the Board. Mr. Lauer asked if that Committee still functions in tandem with Water Board members. "Yes, it does; for the last approximately three years, it has focused solely on the water Master Plan," Mr. Clopper replied. He explained that the Committee convened when Black & Veatch was selected as the consultant on the master plan. Since a new consultant was selected about a year ago, the Committee has met only once, and that was on October IOth. "If we want to re -work this, we can have it as part of the bylaws," he added. Tom Brown's perception was that the main role of the Water Planning Committee is to educate Council about specific issues; recently it has been about the Water Treatment Master Plan. In the future, it could be a Stormwater issue, for example. If we have a good system of sub -committees that address specific issues, that committee could meet with selected City Council members if they want to go into an issue in detail, he suggested. Thus, it wouldn't be a committee only made up of three Water Utilities Board members, but it would be a committee of the Utilities board that would meet on a specific issue. Mr. Clopper pointed out on the diagram that the 4 dots in the square are the existing sub -committees of the Water Board, and the two question marks are a possible Variance Committee and a Liaison Committee. The Variance Committee would handle storm drainage variances. The Liaison Committee was proposed by Howard Goldman about a year ago. The Water Board never came to a conclusion about the establishment of that committee. It might be a good opportunity to settle that question with the finalization and approval of the bylaws, and some administrative and institutional things coming up, he said. The idea of the Liaison Committee was to be proactive in addressing contentious issues that could be "nipped in the bud" before they become contentious. Robert Ward pointed out that Mayor Azari's and Commissioner Janet Duval's proposed water commission has almost the same mission. "In fact, what's happening is, while we have had the same idea, things beyond us are rolling along a lot faster than we're able to go," he said. Howard Goldman explained that, as the Chair of the Legislative and Finance Committee, he had the opportunity to think about the legislative arena which is one place where rules are hashed out. His Water Board Minutes October 31, 1996 Page 8 thought was there are other bodies and other areas besides the Legislature, and perhaps even besides the courts, where there are relationships that we ought to be concerned about developing and forming with other communities, other agencies and different branches of government. The Water Board didn't appear to have one place where we could focus on that; hence, the idea of the Liaison Committee emerged. Furthermore, the Water Board had issues come up that had centered on our relationship with another agency, commission or district. "We were trying to determine how we were going to solve the problems or "put out that little fire," instead of, on a broader scope, putting our efforts into improving those relationships." A liaison committee might allow us to put our focus on that kind of activity. Tom Sanders suggested that we should try to formulate a new role for the Water Utilities Board. The direction of the arrows on the diagram are important; for that reason, he thinks the Board should be moved up to the top, level with City Council. When the Board was formed, it was primarily there to advise the Council. He emphasized that the Board must decide how to handle some of the Storm Drainage issues. "When the variance decisions are made, do they go directly to the City Council or to the Utility?" he asked. "They would be implemented by the Utility," George Reed replied. "That would mean a black line back to the arrow," Dr. Sanders confirmed. He stressed that "what this Board does in the next two months will affect the Board for the next 20 years! As far as I'm concerned, that ordinance needs to be re -written." He reiterated, "move the Water Utilities Board level with the Council, eliminate the Water Planning Committee, and put that function back in the sub -committees." Ms. Adams pointed out that there is supposed to be two-way communication between the Council and the Utilities Board, "but since I've been on the Board we have never had two-way communication," she asserted. "We send our minutes to our Council liaison and, for whatever reason, we never see our Council rep. at our meetings, " she said. (Note: At that point Chuck Wanner, the Council Liaison, walked in the door, and was there for the remainder of the discussion.) "Somehow that communication needs to improve, whether that's a breakfast between the Board chair and a Council member, or a committee, or whatever." She contends that we don't have enough two-way dialogue. "What if the Board came up with their own policy they wanted to discuss, which may be contrary to the Utility staff. How do we relay that information to the Council? We always seem to be dealing with what the Utility staff deems are appropriate policies for the Board to consider. On the other hand, what if the Council has a policy they want the Board to look at that may be contrary to the staff's position. How do they deal directly with us? Paul Clopper related that Chuck Wanner, George Reed and he met with Mike Smith about this subject directly following the Water Planning Committee meeting on October 10th. Historically, the issues brought to this Board with regard to policies, are action items that require Council action. "Who initiates that?" Ms. Adams asked. Wendy Williams responded that traditionally it's something that either staff sees the need for or City Council has asked specifically for input from this Board, or perhaps another citizen board is asking for input. Water Board Minutes October 31, 1996 Page 9 "That's part of my frustration," Mr. Frick remarked. "It seems that we get to review what staff wants us to see. What staff decides they don't think we should see goes right to the Council or the City Manager. In retrospect, there have been some of those issues we have read about in the newspaper. It seems that there are policy issues involved in those items that the Board should have been allowed to discuss previously. At any rate, it appears that we have been bypassed, for whatever reason," he asserted. He acknowledged that it's difficult to dictate what comes to the Board and what doesn't. However, there doesn't seem to be a clear definition about what goes which way. A policy issue that requires Council action always goes to the Board, Ms. Williams stated. "I guess what Dave Frick is saying is who decides what requires Council action," Mr. Lauer pointed out. "I think we have seen everything that requires Council action when it relates to this Board," Ray Herrmann began. "Yes, staff gives it to us; but we see it. I haven't had the same kind of problem as others have expressed. There are items that have no policy issues, or later have policy issues, that you read about in the paper, but mostly this Board has been brought up front on most things." Regarding the Water Planning Committee, he agrees that it should be returned to the list of ad hoc committees. If we need it again, or if Council decides we need it again, then it can be re-formed. "I don't think it was ever a box of its own as shown on the diagram. The issues were discussed by a board committee and were funneled to that group, and brought back to the Board as a whole." he recalled. Mr. Clopper wanted to discuss more of the items that were categorized from the workshop. He said that they are as important as the diagram. Ms. Adams said she already brought up one of the items under liaison issues, and we've had one board member say it was a problem and another say it isn't. "As you put it in context, when we've had serious issues to deal with, the Council has even had meetings with the full Water Board," Mr. Herrmann responded. "We have also had the full Board making presentations to the Council. He admitted that there are things that the Board doesn't have a lot to do with. There were times that the Board had a lot more to do with some issues than we cared to." (Mr. Herrmann noted that he has been on the Board for nearly 12 years.) He thinks the key is for this Board to have communication with the Council when things get contentious. When they are contentious, communication is pretty good. On the other hand, on a day-to-day basis when there are no real problems to deal with, communications may be fairly loose, or non-existent. Robert Ward thinks that having a Water Commission or a Liaison Committee that deals with those contentious issues ahead of time, is a good way to head off those problems; in other words, to be proactive rather than waiting for the crisis to arise. Ms. Adams attended the Mayor's perspectives meeting on water, last night. "From what I heard there, some people in this community think we have a heck of a problem with water. Where does this Board fit in with that discussion?" Chuck Wanner explained that this is the kind of issue that deals, in the larger picture, with relationships, and it sounds, in a sense, like the relationship between the Board and the Mayor. When the Mayor thinks there is a problem with water, what's the first thing she does? Is it uppermost on her mind to find out what the Water Board thinks, or does she go out and look outside? Right now Water Board Minutes October 31, 1996 Page 10 she is looking outside. To Mr. Wanner that appears to be a potential flag for a problem with the relationship. "When the Council thinks about the day -today things, we are dealing with the problems that are urgent. "It's on our agenda, we have a deadline, and we must make a decision. There are times when we, as a Board, are going to have to look at the larger issues. There are people out there in the political parts of the arena who automatically will come back to us and ask us what we think early on in the process, rather than reading about it in the paper." "Although I think this is a fiuitful discussion, it could go on for session after session," John Bartholow began. "Perhaps the best thing to do would be to create an ad hoc committee that would look at the bylaws in the context of trying to deal with, not only our historical structure and function, but also our list of concerns that was generated at the workshop. That committee would come back to the Board with suggestions and recommendations." Mr. Clopper said he anticipates that the City Attorney will have a draft of the bylaws for our November meeting. "I would suggest that it may be prudent to look at forming a bylaws committee at this meeting, to look at the draft and work with staff. Mr. Frick asked what the requirement is for approving the bylaws. Molly Nortier said the draft of the bylaws would be presented to the Board for discussion at the next meeting, and generally they are approved at the following meeting. George Reed pointed out in the ordinance on p. 4 that "Bylaws may be adopted by the board, which bylaws shall not be inconsistent with the Charter and the Code. A copy of the bylaws shall be filed with the City Clerk immediately after adoption. They may be subject to the approval of the City Council." Mr. Herrmann thinks a bylaws sub -committee is premature. He would prefer that the document be reviewed by the entire Board, and then if it is necessary to do further work on them, a committee could be formed with direction from the Board. Mr. Frick is fiustrated that the bylaws have been drafted by the City Attorney, and this Board hasn't even discussed what the overall goals of this Board should be. "We're going to be given that just like the ordinance which was passed by the City Council without it being reviewed by this Board." "The City Council is, in essence, our volunteer boss," Mr. Hen -Mann pointed out. "Right, and I realize we're an advisory Board to the Council," Mr. Frick acknowledged, "but we were never given an opportunity to review the ordinance or provide any comments to the Council. Things are being done that pretty much are setting our direction as a Board, and we're sitting back and taking what is being given to us without even being given a opportunity to comment," he contends. Howard Goldman commented that he has never considered the Council to be his volunteer boss. "The Council is supposed to be a representative of the people, and I always considered myself to be representing the citizens of Fort Collins. Therefore, I am supposed to be an adjunct for cooperating with the Council to help bring to them the views of the citizens I represent. I want to know what it is that I am supposed to be advising them about, and I want to have a meaningful opportunity to be heard. We never have had a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and we are not even sure what you want to hear from us. When the Board was formed, there wasn't much staff expertise and the Board had experts in water. Now, with the knowledge the staff has, maybe they don't need a Board for Water Board Minutes October 31, 1996 Page 11 advice, and maybe the Council doesn't need the Board for advice. We need a meeting of the minds between the Council and staff to provide guidance about why they need a Board and how do they want to use it, and if we are not needed, I can find something else to do with my Thursday afternoons. It's not something to be angry about; it's just something we need to figure out," he concluded. Joe Bergquist said, in listening to the comments, he wondered where we are headed. Are we going to take these ideas back to the Council? Are we going to make a recommendation like that? Mr. Clopper said he just threw that out as sort of a jump start for this joint board. "Institutionally we are sort of running by the seat of our pants until we have a set of bylaws, and we need those to become official. The bylaws will give us rules and regulations under which we can operate." John Barnett explained that there are two pieces to the bylaws, and one of them is pretty basic. We meet at some time, we have officers, and we don't use our fists to make decisions. It's perfectly okay for the City Attorney to draft that for us. The other side is more contentious, and the point of a lot of the discussion that is going on here today: why are we here; what are we going to do; and what are some of the larger long-term questions? There's an underlying question that we aren't ready to answer yet. Is there going to have to be a housekeeping change to the ordinance itself.? The Council has already passed it. I wouldn't go into that with any kind of deadline in the short term; it's going to take some time for us to resolve and for Council to understand what they have created. I think we need to get started by adopting bylaws. The long term questions like regional issues, and how we deal internally with the disparities in the missions between the two boards, need time to resolve. George Reed agreed with Mr. Barnett. There is another part that is pretty simple to him. "I think the Board is needed for credibility and integrity. The issue is that there is a third party of citizen volunteers who provide, to a large extent, the credibility and integrity of the government process." "Do the Council and staff need us to rubber stamp what they are doing so they will have credibility with the citizens, or is there a meaningful way for us give them information?" Mr. Goldman asserted. Mr. Wanner said there is not a simple answer. Mr. Herrmann wasn't sure that that's the question. "The key is how much of what this Board does is self -generated as opposed to how much is generated by the Council who are the real elected officials. They stand up there and get elected; we don't. In my nearly 12 years on the Board, I found that what the Council and staff gave to the Board to do was more than enough to use my time. I also found there were issues that would pop up that the Board would bring to people's attention that would end up on the agenda. I think there are citizens who have knowledge they want to input into the political system; I don't know that that's what this Board does. It would be nice if the political system came to this Board for advice in that arena, but I don't know that that's ever been our role. It could be our role, if that's what Council wants, but I think the Council has to ask for that." Water Board Minutes October 31, 1996 Page 12 Mr. Sanders thinks one of the problems the Board is having today, is the purpose for which the Board was originally established. As pointed out previously, the Board had the expertise. "At one time if the Water Board had a view on a policy and the Board had another view, it was a little tough for Council to overrule the Water Board. The Board almost had political decision -making power because of its expertise. That is one reason the Board was removed from the Charter," stated Mr. Sanders. At one time they had power that was probably stronger than any board. When that vote occurred, it was done quietly and secretly. He concedes that a Board should not have the power of the Council on decision -making because the members are not elected. The problem is that the chopping has come to such a point, that there is a question as to whether we are useful now, and we must move it back up. With the Storm Drainage Board merging with the Water Board, the new board will also be able to issue variances, which gives us more power again, and I'm not sure I want that; variances are a political decision as far as I'm concerned. We must understand the political reality that we are not decision makers, we are advice givers. What is frustrating is when we are not asked. Council created us to advise them. If they believe that staff can handle it, maybe we aren't needed any more," he concluded. Mr. Wanner wanted to answer Howard Goldman's question. The Board does rubber stamp some things, but there are two sides. The Board doesn't always understand the financial stuff, but you understand enough that you are willing to sign off on it to make policy decisions. On the other hand, the Council didn't choose the boards from people off the street. We make a good effort to choose people who have good backgrounds and skills to fit the Board for which they are being selected. He also wanted to address Alison Adams' question about the Council Liaison not attending Water Board meetings. Because of business commitments on Friday afternoon he has not been able to attend the meetings, but now that the meetings will be on Thursday, he will come to most of the meetings by 4:00. Mr. Wanner emphasized that Council values the Board's contributions in helping them make policy decisions. "You give us the technical input necessary to do that." He went on to say that he feels bad that the Council didn't come to the Water Board first about the "keeping water in Larimer County" issue, "but, frankly, I think you're going to have to talk to the Mayor about that," he said. He understands that the Water Board sent a letter to the Mayor responding to her idea of a regional commission. He said the ordinance creating the Water Utilities Board may not have been brought to the combined board, "but that doesn't bother me too much because I think we made an effort to communicate the essence of the proposed combination of the two boards." Mr. Wanner stressed that the bottom line is that there haven't been many substantive policy decisions made by the Council on water in the nearly two years that he has been on the Council, other than combining the boards. When there are decisions to be made, your input is vital, he said. t Water Board Minutes October 31, 1996 Page 13 Mr. Goldman said, "that's part of my frustration. I don't want my comments to be construed that I want additional power or decision -making authority of any type. I just want to be clear about that. What George Reed and Tom Sanders were saying is right on. There is a meaningful, genuine desire for the kind of advice we have to offer. Furthermore, there are a number of us here who feel there are huge policy issues that need to be discussed and considered, and we need an opportunity to make recommendations about them; we're not seeing that we have an opportunity to do that," he asserted. "We ask, is our advice not wanted? And, if that's true, that's fine, but then we don't feel very needed." "From Council's standpoint, if someone brings us a water issue, from the Board or from the staff, telling us that they see it as a substantive issue that is going to create friction, a problem, or a change in the community, whether it's financial, political or environmental, we will respond, and we will look for information and advice," Mr. Wanner stated. "So far, nobody has brought us that kind of issue." He added that, "with the background he has in water issues around here, this has been one of the quieter periods. Perhaps with some of the recent water court decisions, we are going to have to start adding some substantive issues; suddenly things are going to start to heat up again." He reiterated that "if you bring us your concerns, we are interested and we will try to respond." He said that he made an effort to be the liaison for both the Water Board and the Storm Drainage Board because they are both in his areas of interest. He was adamant about his desire to carry to the Council any concerns that board members have. Mr. Clopper summarized that this has been a good discussion, and "we'll all be looking forward to the draft of the bylaws." Dave Frick suggested that the Board ask Mayor Azari to a board meeting or arrange a work session with the Council to try to clarify issues. That communication may help us to understand what they expect of us. Joe Bergquist thinks that there appears to be a desire to re -do the ordinance. "Is that possible?" "Yes, as far as I'm concerned, there is no reason why it's not," Mr. Warmer replied. Dave Lauer thinks it makes a lot more sense to work with what we already have for awhile as far the ordinance and whatever we come up with in changing the bylaws relative to the Board's mission and goals. Then, after a period of about six months, we can talk about re -writing the ordinance based on what our experience has been. John Morris commented that his experience at the workshop was beneficial in that he gained an understanding the role of the board.. "When I walked out of the meeting, I felt comfortable with what our goal is." Dave Frick moved that the Board invite Mayor Azari to the December meeting to discuss the Board's relationship with the Council and to get an update from the Mayor on the new regional water commission, and how the Board can be involved. John Barnett provided a second. The Board approved the motion 15-2 with John Bartholow and Joe Bergquist abstaining. Water Board Minutes October 31, 1996 Page 14 (At this point the tape malfunctioned, so there is no details of the remainder of the meeting.) STAFF REPORTS Treated Water Production Summary Beth Voelkel reported that water use for October was at about 97% of average. "The water year was very average, with average precip. and average water us," she said. She wished the Board a happy new water year, which begins the first of November. Financial Status Report Due to the lateness of the hour, Wendy Williams referred the Board to the written report. There were no questions. PILOT Philosophy Update The Board voted unanimously to include this item on the November agenda. John Bartholow abstained. Update: Regional 201 Study - Gale McGaha Miller Ms. McGaha Miller had to leave, so there was no report. COMMITTEE REPORTS There were no committee reports. The Master Drainageway Plan Committee will be included in Committee reports from now on. REGIONAL WASTEWATER SERVICE ISSUES No report OTHER BUSINESS It was announced that the Mayor's "Perspectives" panel on water can be seen on Channel 27 on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, at 2:00 and 8:00 p.m. There will be a tape available as well. ADJOURNMENT Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Water Utilitieg Board Secretary � 0 FMNW um � ce a E ]0/)%® o\�235 o co } ) \ P. )