Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 01/20/1995January 20, 1995 3:00-4:22P.M Water and Wastewater Utility Conference Room 700 Wood Sheet • Members Present Tim Dow, President, Marylou Smith, Vice President, John Bartholow, Neil Grigg, Tom Brown, Dave Stewart, Paul Clopper, Ray Herrmann, Dave Frick Staff Rich Shannon, Mke Smith, Wendy Williams, Dennis Bode, Ben Alexander Guests John Bigham, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Sue Ellen Charlton, Observer, League of Women Voters Members Absent Howard Goldman, Terry Podmore (both excused) President Tim Dow opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Ray Hermann moved that the minutes of December 16, 1994 be approved as distributed. After a second from Dave Stewart, the Board voted unanimously for approval. Marylou Smith commented that the interaction with former Water Board members at the last meeting was "wonderful. I'm surprised that we haven't done that before," she said. Tim Dow was interested in their comments and reactions to current issues. Water Board Minutes January 20, 1995 Page 2 John Bigham provided copies of the Precipitation report update. He said that the Upper Colorado River Basin is at 88% while the South Platte River Basin is only at 63% "It's obvious that we are low on moisture," he said. "It's our hope that we will get some significant storms in February and March." The District storage is slightly above 60°/% "so we're 60% of capacity in the system." The system is close to normal in storage, "but we'll be hurting if we don't get a lot more precipitation in the next 3 months," he warned. The State Legislature is now in session, "and we all must be diligent in following what is happening there," he stated. To date there are 18 bills and 2 joint senate resolutions that the District will be monitoring. He went on to list some of those: A joint legislative committee to consider federal mandates, an issue that will be followed closely, was created this year. Also, the administration of recreational trails by Parks and Outdoor Recreation, SB44, should be of interest to Fort Collins. "The Drinking Water Revolving Fund" is a bill that ag. interests will be watching because one of it's provisions would involve the regulation of odors; e.g. feedlots. Real estate acquired by County tax deed involves the assertion of a right to a prescriptive easement over private land against the owner of the land. "This is one we are really going to have to follow closely," he said. The Colorado Water Conservation Board Construction Fund "is a long arm type of bill" concerned with the Federal Endangered Species Act, etc. "These are just a few of the items the District will be monitoring, and I'm sure the City will be too," he stated. Mr. Bigham recently spent 3 days on the Western Slope. He found that the Roan Creek Project is again a hot issue. Former Governor John Vanderhoof and Chris Paulson "made quite a pitch" to the Colorado River District Board trying to push for support to develop the project. "The conditional water rights that belong to the oil shale people could be converted in some way into a reservoir and Las Vegas would pay the people in Colorado to build it. The water could be shipped to Las Vegas on a lease for a determined number of years; for a small fee it would come back to the basin of origin," he explained. The Colorado River District has not supported that proposal, and it appears they have again taken that position. He went on to say that, in an effort to protect habitat for Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout, the U.S. Forest Service made a filing on December 3rd on East Middle Creek, located on the Saguache Ranger District, Rio Grande National Forest. "It's high up in the headwaters and probably doesn't affect anyone's water right," he said. The Conservation Board already has an instream flow just below that area. According to a Rio Grande National Forest Service memo from Monte Vista, "This filing follows directions from the U.S. Supreme Court to acquire instream flows using State procedures under State water law. It also complies with congressional requests that the Forest Service file for water rights like other state residents." Water Board Mmutes January 20, 1995 Page 3 Mr. Bigham is concerned that this may set a precedent to reopen the federal reserve right issue. "Is this under state or federal law?" Tom Brown asked. "They are filing under state law, but the Conservation Board can do it on behalf of a federal agency," Mr. Bigham replied, "and that would be bypassing state law." "There is no state statute to support them doing it," Mike Smith remarked "That's right, but they're trying it," M&. Bigham said. He added that he will receive more details on this in the next few days and will make them available to staff. Tom Brown pointed out that he has been reading the Water hrtelligence Monddy for several years, and the last issue was the first one he has seen (as far as he recalls) where there haven't been any CBT transactions. Ray Herrmann recalled that there was one about a year ago. Mr. Bigham said that he "suspects" there will be some transactions reported in the next issue. Mike Smith heard that the District was getting someone to initiate federal legislation on a land trade. Mr. Bigham explained that the District is trying to work with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on a land swap. There is a ranch at the head of Gore Canyon where the District has Azure Reservoir water rights. The BLM desperately wants that piece of property. "What the District has proposed is that we trade some of that land for BLM land where the pipeline right of way is for the Windy Gap Project, or some other places that night benefit the District or the Sub -district," he said. "Whether that would take some legislation, I don't know," he admitted, "but right now it's just in the talking stage." Indications are the land the BLM wants to trade to the District is worth about 101/o of what they want. "They refuse to come up with the difference," he added. He stressed that the District is not looking for the dollars so much as the benefit of having more land that would clear rights of way for them. Mr. Smith mentioned the District/BLM land trade idea because the Cities of Fort Collins and Greeley have land that the Forest Service wants. There has been discussion about perhaps using some kind of land exchange, and it may take legislation to arrange it. "If folks in Northern Colorado are talking about pushing legislation, if may be worthwhile to try to do something together," he suggested. Mr. Bigham thinks that might be a good idea He also mentioned that the District has some land in the forest that could affect this too. Tim Dow thanked Mr. Bigham for his report. Mike Smith reminded the Board that at the last meeting members expressed an interest in pursuing a discussion of Boxelder Sanitation District's options at a meeting with their Board of Directors. "The issue we discussed last time was whether to have the meeting before the site application issue goes to the Water Quality Control Division, or wait until after a decision has been made, later in the spring or summer." Tim Dow recalled that there appeared to be a consensus at the last meeting that it might be more productive to wait until after the Division's decision. Mr. Smith stated that Rich Shannon felt there were also some advantages for meeting before. Water Board Minutes January 20, 1995 Page 4 Dave Stewart asked if there was a time line to get the approval of the Division. "I have not seen anything yet," Mr. Smith replied. Mr. Stewart thinks the question for the Board may be, if Boxelder is planning to get the site application and submit specs for bids for construction in fall of 1995, we ought to have the discussion beforehand if we're going to talk options. On the other hand, if their time line is a year away, it may be best to talk alter approval. If it's not approved, Boxelder doesn't have any other options then to come into the City. "If it's not approved, they will certainly be back to talk to us," Mr. Smith remarked. Mr. Dow suggested that something be done this year to at least get a higher level of dialogue going with Boxelder. "We expect that Boxelder will submit the application to the State sometime in January, February or at the latest in March. Once it gets into the process, it moves rather quickly, and hopefully it will be completed by April or May," Mr. Smith stated. Mr. Stewart reiterated that because there is an advanced wastewater treatment plant less than a quarter mile away, he thinks there is a good chance the State is going to deny them a site application to expand their lagoon system. Paul Clopper asked if staff has formally notified the State that we have an interest in tracking their review and approval process. Also do we have a contact person who will be working with the process? "The City is part of the process, and Gale McGaha Miller is our contact person," Mr. Smith responded. He stated further that when the site application goes to the County Health Dept., "they will come to us as a 'management agency' for the area to get our comments. And we have another chance to review it through the 208 Committee." "Do you think we'll have a clearer picture of this in a month or two?" Tim Dow asked. "Between now and the next meeting staff can make some calls and determine when Boxelder plans to do something," Mr. Smith replied. President Dow suggested that staff do that. John Bartholow suggested that the first objective of the Board should be to make sure the Boxelder Board knows what the intent is, that there are no hostile feelings, and that the Water Board would like to work together on this issue. "If that's the objective, the sooner we get together the better, before they get any plans laid down." 'Ihe second objective would be regionalization, he continued. "That's down the road, long term, and could come any time. It's actually good to have that as the second objective on the table, so they don't think we are trying to box them in on the first objective," he emphasized. He concluded that the sooner we get together the better. Dave Frick suggested the approach of telling them that we would like to talk to them "just in case they get turned down. We can then offer our help in exploring some options with them." "Are you suggesting a separate meeting just for that purpose, or part of another meeting?" Mr. Dow asked. "Probably a separate meeting." MaryLou Smith thinks that approach seems less awkward and more productive. We haven't met with other boards in the past except for the annual joint meetings with Greeley and Loveland. Mr. Dow proposed that staff get a better idea Water Board Minutes January 20, 1995 Page 5 prior to the February meeting as to Boxelder s timing, and then we'd have a better feel as to how to proceed. Tom Brown stated that earlier discussions had given him the impression that perhaps Boxelder's Board members weren't all up to speed on what's going on with their situation." He acknowledged that he may have misread that. Paul Clopper asked if there were any City Council members who want or need to be involved in the discussion between the Boards. Mr. Dow suggested that the Water Board's Council liaison be invited. Ms. Smith agreed that was a good idea. Mr. Dow suggested that the Board think about this and "we can finalize what our game plan should be next month." John Bartholow gave the following response to Dave Frick's comment: "I think he's right, and we should come across as cooperative, but the City has already responded to the State in what Boxelder may consider a negative process, and is likely to do so again. In other words, we shouldn't come across as if we think everything is great, because that's not true either," he contends. Rich Shannon asked what kind of costs Boxelder may incur over the next six months in the site application process. "There will be design costs because they are going to have to put some information together for the State to look at; perhaps in the range of $10-20,000," Mr. Smith replied. Mr. Shannon thinks it might be unfortunate if we wait too long and they invest more money in their perceived solution, and second, the perception of hostility may be: "You knew this all along and you didn't tell us, and you let us keep spending money out of our minimal budget." MaryLou Smith thought that was a good point. Mr. Dow concluded that when the Boards meet there should be some kind of a pre -agreed agenda with some guidance from staff; not just a free -wheeling meeting with little structure. T}eated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported that for 1994 we ended up using just under 28,000 Ao-ft which is 99% of what was projected. The weather was a little warmer than nominal and precipitation was slightly below average. Essentially it was a pretty average year. Financial Status Report Scott Harder reported on some of the 1994 year-end finances. Operating revenue for water was $13.7 million; wastewater was close to $9 million. Both are about 5% above year-end 1993 revenue. That's relative to about 2-2 1/2% growth and a 6% wastewater rate increase. Regarding Plant Investment Fees (PIFs), for water we came in at about 7% over where we were in 1993. Water Board Minutes January 20, 1995 Page 6 "If you remember, in mid -year I was talking about being 30-40% above that, but toward the last quarter, water PIFs in particular, moved down to where they were in 1993," he said. "What I'm suggesting here is not that growth seems to be slowing but it certainly seems to be shifting to the south. If you look at wastewater PIFs we ended up $600,000 over where we were last year, or about 30% above. A lot of growth is shifting to the south with sewer only customers, and customers receiving water from the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District," he explained. Forest Service Update Mike Smith announced that "we now have a 50-year easement for Joe Wright Reservoir." Its terms and conditions will be subject to revision in the years 2014 and 2034. "Anybody who is still on the Board can deal with it then," he laughed. One of the outstanding issues to be resolved is the insurance requirement. The Council needs to decide if they want to self -insure or buy a policy. "We are looking into the costs of doing either of those," he said. Tom Brown wanted to know "with a 50-year easement, what they do when they look at it." "They can open up other issues; e.g. other requirements," Mr. Smith replied "What was the final resolution in terms of numbers and quantity on the bypass?" Tim Dow asked. "It's 1 cfs during the winter and 3 cfs in the summer, which is October through March and April through September," Mr. Smith answered. Ray Herrmann asked how much that is, approximately. Dennis Bode calculated that it is roughly 1400 Ac-ft annually. Dave Stewart asked if we have to winterize at Joe Wright in order to release during the winter. "Yes, we'll be doing some modifications," Mr. Smith replied. "We will probably do the design this summer and install next fall. "Is there a deadline for when we must begin releasing the bypass?" John Bartholow asked. "Yes, we have 2 years to complete the modifications," Mr. Smith said. Regarding the endangered species issue, "we have our interim recovery plan/measures and they amount to about $4900 a year, payable to the National Wildlife Foundation. That will amount to four payments, and in the third year the Forest Service and Fish & Wildlife Service will begin to determine where they are with the final recovery program, Mr. Smith explained. "If things fall apart, we're back to square one," he added. Mr. Dow asked if there is an estimate of the cost for the modifications at Joe Wright. "The initial estimate was in the range of $100-150,000, and could be up to $200,000," Mr. Smith replied. "Does the City get any residual benefit from that in temis of being able to spread out our deliveries, so it's not all just for the bypass flows?" Mr. Dow continued. "Frankly, under normal operations we wouldn't use it," Mr. Smith answered. "We are doing it just to accommodate the bypass flows. Once the water is released from the Reservoir into the stream, we're not sure it will make it to Chamber's Lake. Staff will keep track of the releases and we'll get credit for them eventually," he explained. Water Board Mmutes January 20, 1995 Page 7 Dave Frick asked if the City is involved in the joint operations plan. Dennis Bode replied that we expect to be. "It's not a part of the permit condition, is it?" Mr. Frick asked. "It's not in ours, but it is for the others involved," Mr. Smith said. "So the bottom line is that this is costing the City roughly $150,000 in cash, plus 1400 Ao-ft a year for 50 years, plus the annualized maintenance costs," Tim Dow reiterated "I wouldn't say it is 1400 Ao-ft," Mr. Bode responded "We will determine a way to use it, so we really can't consider it a cost." "There is the $200,000, the recovery program (whatever it amounts to), insurance costs (whatever those will be) and the operation and maintenance of the facility," Mr. Smith summarized. Kodak Shales Dennis Bode reminded the Board that the Kodak Shares issue was mentioned a few months ago. Kodak and staff have continued to explore ideas. Currently they are working on a tentative proposal. He may ask the Water Supply Committee to look at their proposal in February. Basically Kodak would like to get rid of their North Poudre shares, and their CBT water eventually and work out an agreement where they provide North Poudre shares to the City and we agree to provide X amount of water to Greeley for Kodak. "We expect within a month or two to be able to bring a proposal to the Water Board," he said "Would there be a net gain in our water supply to pick up some shares, or is it just an exchange?" Tim Dow asked "I think we would see a net gain to our supply the way it is structured right now," Mr. Bode replied. He added that it depends on the type of year, but overall, we would see a gain. Mr. Bode clarified that Kodak gets their treated water from Greeley. Dave Stewart asked why Kodak is coming to us. Primarily because we are one of the logical parties that can use North Poudre shares, Mr. Bode answered. Water Supply Tom Brown said the Committee didn't meet this month, but he wanted to take the opportunity to raise an issue that came up in December when the Water Board met with former members. The implication was that the City should be purchasing more water, and we shouldn't be working against growth. It was also implied that buying water and being pro -growth work together. "That didn't quite match with the way I have understood it," he stated. He summarized how he sees growth and buying water work together. "As I understand it, when an area is developed that is going to be served by the Water Utility, we require PIFs to handle the additional capital costs, and we require water or cash -in -lieu," he said. The water that we require essentially handles, as well as it can be calculated, the additional water we're going to have to provide because of the growth. "So that's a neutral stand toward growth," he pointed out. Water Board Minutes January 20, 1995 Page 8 "If we buy water, what's the impact of that on growth? If we take existing ratepayers' money and buy water, what are we doing? Mainly what we are doing, as I understand it, is increase the security of the users; increasing the ability for the City to deliver during dry times. And to the extent that security would be available to fiture residents, as well as people who already live here; it's positive towards growth, but its not really an effort that is made for growth. Anybody who lives in the City benefits from the additional security. He went on to say that the negative effect of buying water, and it's a small effect, is if the City is buying water, it is reducing the supply of water that is available in the market, tending to raise the price for developers who are trying to buy water to turn over to the City. He emphasized that these effects are neither pro nor anti -growth, but residual effects of a reasonable policy. Paul Clopper said that his experience on the Water Board with respect to the policy of buying water (and when and how much), has been that "we always tend to lag the market to avoid the implication that we are driving up the market for developers." He stressed that there has been a major attempt to not be perceived as having that kind of an impact on the water market. Also, his understanding of our policy has been to promote growth neutral decisions. Tom Brown agrees. Ray Hemnann dunks we are hearing two different arguments: the pro side encourages as much water as you can to support growth, and the con argument promotes getting as much water as you can to protect the trees to keep Fort Collins green. Paul Clopper thought he heard at the last meeting that a number of studies have shown that growth is going to occur whether or not abundant water is available, as seen in the metro -Denver area. "It's not a case of 'if you've got it, they will come."' MaryLou Smith thinks that most of the time people tend to draw conclusions about what appears on the surface instead of looking below the surface. "Last year I remember coming to the same conclusion Tom Brown just explained to us, and saying what am I missing here? I find I do that with a number of Water Board issues," she said. If you look below the surface you realize that the facts don't measure up to your first reaction to the issue. If we were to buy water in excess of what we need right now, it could at some point be used in such a way as to allow us to have more growth. We could bank it and use it as a broker for other municipalities or use it to be able to accommodate our own growth. "At least as our policy currently stands, that isn't the case." "Looking at it from an historical standpoint, and recalling some of the views of some of the former members, one of the arguments we've always had was metering vs. non -metering," Dave Stewart began. "I can spend money in many different ways. I can have PIFs and cash in -lieu -of water rights, and I have a pot of money; now I need to do something with it." One argument was, we can spend that money on conservation measures and get the same use out of it, only its a long term solution, versus going out and buying water with it, and not using conservation. "All Water Board Mmutes January 20, 1995 Page 9 we have to do is change our policy. If we want a 1-in-20 reserve instead of 1-in-50, we have more than enough water to last for a long time," he emphasized. "Or eventually we could see not requiring developers to provide water when they develop land, and I would hate to see that happen, but its possible," Tom Brown remarked. "The point is the system we've had since the 60s has served us well, and we need to continue that same philosophy," Mr. Stewart stressed. "I think if the Water Board, through its policies, thinks it can control growth, we're fooling ourselves," Dave Frick contends. "If we don't buy the water, ELCO or Fort Collins -Loveland or some other district will, and we'll just lose that service area; we aren't going to lose population growth. The best thing we can do is have a good sound water supply. Essentially we can control when and if we want to pursue regionalization. I don't think we can ever control growth by how much water we acquire," he stressed. Tom Brown added, "or foster growth." Because its a scarce resource, Tim Dow thinks that generally whenever we can acquire good quality rights at a good price, we ought to take advantage of it. "The 50-year drought protection policy has served us well as a bench -mark with which to make major water decisions," Paul Clopper remarked. "It's an ideal tool in that way." Legislative and Finance Chair Tim Dow said the Committee had not met, but Wendy Williams would report on some of the major legislative issues. Ms. Williams said there are two bills dealing with unfunded mandates. Sen. Norton's bill requires the JBC to oversee any unfunded mandates. Another bill stipulates that federally mandated programs that receive less than 50% of federal funding can not receive state general funds. That would affect Clean Water Act programs because they receive only 29% from the EPA. The Safe Drinking Water Act here is funded over 50%, so that's not affected. The City will be monitoring a bill which changes the current practice of only the State being allowed to hold instream flow rights. Private entities would be able to purchase water rights and convert them to instream flows. The Small Community Environmental Flexibility Act is another bill that has been proposed. It would allow communities of 2500 or less population to have up to 10 years to comply with environmental programs. "This is something we are thinking about opposing in its current form," she said. There could be some problems because communities in the area would be operating under different compliance deadlines, and it would also be a disincentive for regionalization. The Drinking Water Loan Fund Program would create a revolving loan fund similar to the State Revolving Fund used for wastewater projects, Ms. Williams related. Water Board Minutes January 20, 1995 Page 10 A bill to elect members of water boards seems to return every year. This year's version would also apply to local water boards. John Bigham mentioned that the Roan Creek Transfers is the subject of pending legislation. The issue involves leasing water to out-of-state entities. There are bills both for and against that, she concluded. Conservation and Public Education Chair Marylou Smith reported that the Committee met prior to the Board meeting today. They received a draft Demand Management Annual Report from staff. When finalized, the report will be forwarded to the Council to inform them of the progress in 1994 in meeting the requirements of the demand management resolution. The Committee had a few suggestions, but Ms. Smith said that the report looks good and staff has made good progress this year. Prior to the next meeting the Committee asked staff to make the changes in the report, and provide a couple of figures that were suggested. Water Board members should be receiving copies of the Demand Management Annual Report in their packets. Ms. Smith said that the Committee members who weren't at the meeting will have a chance to review the draft report before the next meeting. Paul Clopper wanted to know, in terms of the Demand Management Resolution goals, which ones are being easily met and which ones are proving to be more difficult. "It will be more interesting for us to talk about that next month because Jim Clark will be coming to the Board meeting to discuss the report," Ms. Smith responded. She did mention, however, one area in particular where we haven't met the goal, and that is charging all City departments 100% for the water they use. We're almost there, though. "I think the Board will be pleased with the overall progress," she concluded. Engineering No report Appointments and Resignations - Standing Committees Tim Dow reminded that Board that this is the time to take care of committee resignations and new appointments. Marylou Smith said she wanted to relinquish her role as chair of the Conservation and Public Education Committee, although she will remain on the committee. Her membership on the Council/Water Board Water Planning Committee takes more time than she had anticipated. She recommended that Terry Podmore assume the role of chair of C&PE, and he has agreed to do that. Mr. Dow is comfortable with having the committees select their own chairmen, rather than having the president appoint them. Dave Stewart asked to have his name withdrawn from the Conservation & Public Education Committee. Mr. Dow emphasized that anytime anyone wishes to drop off or join another committee, please let him know. He also reminded the Board that the Water Board president is an ex officio Water Board Minutes January 20, 1995 Page 11 member of all the committees, and that all Board members will be informed whenever there is a committee meeting, and any Board member is welcome to attend. Mr. Dow announced that the Ad Hoc Cost of Service Committee has been dissolved because that effort has now been completed. Nothing new Regional Wa Nothing new Proposed New Poudree Pipeline President Dow referred the Board to the memo in their packets from Dennis Bode on the proposed Poudre Pipeline. He asked Mr. Bode to brief the Board on the pipeline. Mr. Bode said the memo was primarily intended to document the two joint meetings of the Engineering and Water Supply Committees, and to summarize that information for the Board. "How far are we from a decision point on the recommendation for the sizing of the pipeline?" Tim Dow asked. Dave Stewart replied that it would be a couple of years. Mr. Dow also asked if any funds are available for the pipeline, or is it going to have to be a new item? "It will be part of the master plan improvements, and will have to be funded as a totally new item," Mike Smith replied. Mr. Stewart added that it will be funded in phase 2 or 3 of the master plan items with a 6% increase over the next approximately 5 years. "If this were fast -tracked, and in two or three years we knew what we wanted, how big, etc., what would be the time frame for actually having it in place?" Mr. Dow inquired. "If Council decided today to build it, it would probably be nine months to a year in design time, and probably that much in construction; maybe 24-30 months," Mr. Smith speculated. The recommendation right now would be to build it in a later phase, approximately at the turn of the century; five to seven years from now, he added. March Meeting Date Because both CSU's and Poudre R 1's spring break fall during the week of the Water Board's regularly scheduled meeting, the Board often sets another time for the March meeting. After a short discussion the Board decided to meet on Friday, March 31, 1995. Water Board Minutes January 20, 1995 Page 12 Urban Growth Area Policy for Boards and Commission Members Tim Dow stated that Council has a policy included in the Boards and Commissions Manual which states: "No person will be appointed for membership to any board or commission who is not a resident of Fort Collins or the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area" Recently Tim Dow moved out of the UGA and MaryLou Smith will be moving out of the UGA in February. Ms. Smith, Vice President and Mr. Dow, President, may be forced to resign immediately. Mr. Dow has spoken to City Attorney Steve Roy and he sent a letter to Mayor A7ari about this rule. He has not heard from either one as of today. Mr. Dow pointed out that the rule literally says that you can't be appointed It says nothing about resigning if you move out in the middle of a term. Mr. Dow should be hearing something before the next Board meeting. Halligan Reservoir Update Mr. Dow asked if there is anything new on Halligan Reservoir and if staff expects anything significant to happen this year. Mr. Bode said there is nothing new, but staff will monitor it as part of the Water Board Work Plan, and keep an eye on other issues and how they may affect Halligan. "'This month we renewed the option, which we renew annually," he related. The South Platte Recovery Program could have considerable impact on Halligan, Mike Smith said. Mr. Bode mentioned that the City recently received a new conditional decree which is good for another six years. "What did it cost to keep this option open this time?" Tom Brown asked. $40,000, Mr. Bode replied. Water Supply Options Tim Dow asked if there are any "deals out there" and if we have money available to purchase water if it should become available. "We have some money left, and we discussed that with the Board a few months ago," Mr. Smith responded. There wasn't a final resolution. One option is to save our money to increase our fund for Halligan, and others have said, if we are approached with an exceptional deal, we should buy it, and Rankly we haven't seen any exceptional deals," he added. The money is just accruing interest at this point. Mr. Bode added that the account is about $2 million. "What's the going rate for CBT?" Paul Clopper asked "In the range of $1400- 1500," Mr. Bode answered. There is just a slight increase from last year. "What about the Dixon Canyon agreement?" Dave Frick asked. "It's still out there," Mr. Smith replied, and Mr. Bode added that the City continues to work on an agreement, trying to resolve some of the issues involving ownership over the years. Mr. Smith mentioned a plan the Mayor has been working on. She is interested in encouraging agri-business to be integrated into the urban community. They have been trying to avoid the word "preserving" agriculture. She invited a number of farmers and water people to a meeting about a week ago where she talked about her "vision." The comments were mostly positive, but all agreed that it would take a great deal of effort to make it a reality. Some people also brought up the continuing "water bank" idea. • Water Board Mmutes January 20, 1995 Page 13 Mr. Smith reminded the Board that since the Water Supply Policy was adopted we have basically completed the acquisitions that were outlined in that policy. Now it is a matter of deciding what to do with the money acquired from people turning in money instead of water. Do we use it for Halligan or acquiring more water? Mr. Smith stressed that if staff learns of anything exceptional in terms of purchasing water, they will bring it to the Board. Since there was not further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:22 P.M : 0f R grim