HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 11/16/1990• 0
Water Board Minutes
November 16, 1990
3:00.- 4:30.p.m.
Light and Power Conference Room
700 Wood Street
Members Present
Henry Caulfield, President, Neil Grigg, Vice President, Tom Sanders, Marylou
Smith, Tom Brown, Tim Dow, Tom Moore, Terry Podmore, Dave Stewart (alt.)
Paul Clopper (alt.)
Staff
Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Linda Burger, Webb Jones, Wendy Williams, Jim
Clark, Molly Nortier
Guests
John Bigham, Agency Coordinator, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy Dist.
Dorothy Huff, Observer, Larimer County League of Women Voters
Members Absent
Mark Casey, Ray Herrmann
President Henry Caulfield opened the meeting. The following items were
discussed:
Minutes
The minutes of October 19, 1990 were approved as distributed.
Update Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
John Bigham distributed the lastest snow precipitation update from the
SNOTEL sites. He reported that the District finished the year by delivering
over 120,000 AF of water which is 73.7% of the 50% quota that the Board
issued. Because of the 50% quota it is anticipated that there will be better
storage in Granby than if the Board had issued a 70% quota, for example.
Approximately 40,000 AF of water will probably be carried over, which will
be in the carryover program for those who want to call for it in the spring.
"Our combined active storage is down to 47% and Granby is at 45% right now,"
he said. "Of course we are moving water across." Horsetooth and Carter
will be filled during the winter, he concluded.
He went on to say that there is a great deal of pressure for lease and
purchase of Windy Gap water. In addition, there are many CBT units being
traded. At the District board meeting a week ago, the Board approved a
temporary lease for the City of Erie for Windy Gap while they develop a
permanent supply. There are other towns on the edge of the District that are
having water quality problems and/or supply problems. He suspects that in
the coming months, there will be a number of different proposals from those
towns.
Water Board Minutes
November 16, 1990
Page 2
The District is continuing to finalize several studies. The South
Platte study will be coming along rather slowly because of the Reserved
Right Case and the Thorton situation. These cases have taken up the
majority of the time of the District's attorneys and engineers. They
...hope to complete the regionalization study. by.the end of.the year..
Neil Grigg asked what Erie's water supply is. Mr. Bigham didn't know, but
he said they will be getting water from Left Hand Water District on a
temporary basis. They have some surface water rights, but their problem is
lack of storage.
How is Nunn going to get water? Mr. Caulfield asked. "From North Weld," Mr.
Bighman replied.
Board members were provided with a copy of the draft agreement. Mike
Smith related that in the past couple of years the Water Board has
reviewed two agreements with the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District.
In 1989 there was a fairly sizeable agreement involving the exchange of
treated water between the City and the District using a 16 inch water
line. When the Board discussed this agreement, there was considerable
concern about water quality issues.
This year the City and the District entered into an agreement on May 31st
which involved the sale of up to 3 mgd of drinking water to the District.
This agreement was fairly straight forward and seemed to be a better
approach than the 1989 document.
The District has returned with some preliminary results of the regional
study and, as a result, have asked to increase the quantity of water and the
time frame of the second agreement. Specifically, they are asking: (1) to
increase the quantity of water which the City would sell them from 3 mgd to
5 mgd (They don't intend taking the 5 mgd for awhile.) and (2) to extend the
agreement until December 31, 1999.
Mike Smith said that the City and District have agreed to terminate the
first agreement. The water quality issues would have continued to be
troublesome with that agreement. Moreover, Mike DiTullio, Director of the
Fort Collins -Loveland Water District, has said that if in their long range
plans they can negotiate agreements to purchase enough water from the Cities
of Fort Collins and Loveland, they may consider getting out of the water
treatment business.
Henry Caulfield pointed out that the District supplies the City with
raw water which we treat. "That's in the original water sale
agreement," Mr. Smith explained.
Mr. Caulfield asked about ELCO. Mike Smith explained that they and
North Weld are saying to Fort Collins -Loveland: "If you can guarantee
us that you have another source of supply for awhile, and you don't
need additional capacity out of the Tri-district Plant, we don't see
Water Board Minute r
November 16, 1990
Page 3
the need to expand that plant." "So essentially that plant will be
increasingly used for ELCO and North Weld," Mr. Caulfield added. Mr.
Smith suspects that the Tri-district will still go ahead with some
modifications at the treatment plant to handle the corrosion control
problem and.other treatment issues. .. .
What percentage of their total water supply does this represent? Marylou
Smith asked. "Right now their peak day is 8-9 mgd. They are anticipating in
10 years that it may be 15+. At that time the 5 mgd. will be about 1/3 of
the peak day.
Tom Sanders had a question about the $.50 per 1000 gallon charge for
delivery. "That's okay today, but 10 years from now it's going to cost a
lot more." Mr. Smith responded that the District's rate will escalate the
same as City metered customers will. In their rate structure we have
included the cost of treatment plant capacity, transmission line capacity,
and 0&M costs for transmission, distribution, treatment, and water quality.
Also, most of their system is residential customers.
Mr. Caulfield pointed out that this whole thing is based on the notion that
we have improved our capacity substantially with the last investment of
approximately $3 million. Furthermore, because of the installation of
residential meters, we are assuming for the next few years, some savings in
water use.
Staff had prepared and distributed a chart with peak -day water demand
projections to the year 2000. It was very helpful in understanding what
will be happening with water use. It showed the plant capacity now and in
the future. Now we can treat about 74 mgd. If we can make a few more
improvements, as a recent study indicates, we can expand to 80 mgd. Those
improvements will be accomplished in the next couple of years. The chart
also showed possible reductions of 10% and 20% in water demand due to
metering.
Mr. Smith said that the chart also indicates that by the turn of the
century, if we continue with the District agreement, we will need to add
more capacity to accommodate them.
Dr. Sanders said that "we will have to think about adding capacity around
the year 1995." Part of the regional study helps us to look at some of
those options, Mr. Smith suggested.
MaryLou Smith stated that the agreement is a good idea because it will help
with the regional concept. Others agreed.
The District Board has not approved the agreement yet, but they have
approved of pursuing the idea, Mike Smith related. He also said that the
District needs to have some kind of approval from the City by the end of the
year so they can inform ELCO and North Weld that it won't be necessary
to expand the Tri-district Plant. He added that the agreement needs to
go to the City Council either the first or second meeting in December.
Water Board Minutes
November 16, 1990
Page 4
Dr. Grigg asked if the Board has to take action to terminate the first
agreement. "Yes, and that is in the amendment," Mr. Smith replied.
MaryLou Smith moved that the Water Board endorse the amendment as it has
been presented in the draft agreement. Paul Clopper seconded the motion,
The Board voted unanimously to approve the motion.
Henry Caulfield directed the Board's attention to the last paragraph on p.5
of the October Water Intelligence Monthly, where it says: "The developer
sold the units as a condition for receiving service from Fort
Collins -Loveland Water District for a new development. Parties wanting
service from Fort Collins -Loveland must either dedicate water rights to the
District and receive credit for the value of the water, or sell water to the
District for cash."
Mr. Caulfield wondered if there might be an error. He thought that all the
surounding water entities requried that water be furnished for the water
they use, as Fort Collins does. In other words, any new developments must
contribute the water. Dennis Bode believes Fort Collins-Loveland's method
of obtaining water from developers is quite close to ours. The paragraph may
be somewhat mis-stated, he said.
Mr. Caulfield brought up this point bacause of a statement Water Board
liaison Loren Maxey made at the last Board meeting about the importance of
all the neighboring water entities having the same policies. Evenutally
they will be serving many citizens of Fort Collins.
1991 Water Board Work Plan
Each year in November, City boards and commissions are required to submit a
work plan for the coming year to the City Clerk's Office. Staff provided a
draft of a plan for 1991 for the Board's review. Tom Moore said it appeared
to be a broad based plan which a number of items could fit into. Tom Moore
then moved that the Water Board accept the work plan as submitted by staff.
After a second from Tom Brown, the Board unanimously approved the motion.
Linda Burger reported that the Demand Management Committee (DMC) has met and
approved the recommended adjustments to the water PIFs.
Webb Jones provided a one page summary of each of the recommended PIFs for
both water and wastewater. Board members also were sent the same report that
the DMC received.
The single sheet summarized some of the proposed changes. Water PIFs paid by
new customers were reevaluated during preparation of the City's metering
program. The Water Demand Management Committee determined that changes to
the water PIFs were necessary to more accurately reflect the cost of
providing service to new customers. The proposed PIFs are based on the
peak day water use of existing customers in each category.
Water Board Minute
November 16, 1990
Page 5
Mr. Jones said that essentially what is being proposed is a more equitable
PIF system --one based more on customer demand characteristics than "how much
water you can get through your meter."
Staff also looked.at.demand characteristics expected of.metered customers.to
develop the single family PIF. "The numbers that were developed are, in
most cases, slightly higher than what we currently pay, but not
substantially higher."
Neil Grigg asked if there is a reason for the differential between the
increases. Is it based on cost of service? Mr. Jones replied that the PIFs
are based on a unit cost of capacity and the peak demands of the average
customer in each customer category.
Mr. Caulfield referred to a sentence that states: "Since the last
adjustment, there have been a number of changes to the variables used to
calculate PIFs." Besides inflation, he asked, what other variables are
involved? Water use characteristics of a single family customer will be
less since they will be paying for metered water, Mr. Jones explained. Also
the peak day demands are anticipated to be lower because of metering.
In the past the Utility based commercial PIFs on the capacity of the water
meter. What they have done now is look at the average peak day demand of
customers with that size meter. Staff presumed that future customers will
have similar demands.
Do you have a fair amount of data on 1 112" and 2" Meters? Neil Grigg asked.
There are quite a number and variety of customers in that category, Mr.
Jones replied. What staff did was develop a PIF based on the peak day
demand of an average 1 112" and 2" customer. There are certainly some that
should be more and some that should be less, he acknowledged. The increases
in PIFs for those size water taps are primarily the result of a lot of
irrigation taps that size being installed. They seem to require more water
at the worst times.
Tim Dow asked how the increases will be implemented. "We anticipate
increasing them on Jan 1," Mr. Jones stated. Linda Burger clarified that it
probably will be a little later than that because of the delay in the
wastewater PIFs. It may be Feb. 1 when the increase is implemented, because
staff would like to take both water and wastewater PIFs to the Council at
the same time. With the Board's action today the water PIFs will be ready
to go.
Will there ever be a time when existing users will be affected by the change
in the PIFs, e.g. if the property is sold? Mr. Dow wanted to know. "Only if
they were to change the size of service they needed for another use," Mr.
Jones responded.
Mr. Caulfield referred to the top of p. 3, where a disadvantage was listed
which said that "developers may be discouraged from including common areas
irrigated with treated water in new residential developments if they are
required to pay a PIF for irrigation services." How does the the Planning
Water Board Minutes
November 16, 1990
Page 6
Dept. react to this? He contends that it has been the policy of the City to
encourage green belts, etc. Has that changed? he asked. Mr. Jones
responded by saying that we need to look at what we do currently. There is
actually a dual system of PIFs for single family development. Each home in a
development with.common areas,.pays $420 more than if the.development did
not have common areas. So PIFs for greenbelts are currently being paid by
each new homeowner rather than the developer. Developers may be a little
more careful in the way they design the irrigation systems and landscape
common areas if they pay the PIF," Mr. Jones added.
Mr. Jones said that staff will be talking with the Planning staff about that
specific issue.
Marylou Smith, a member of the DMC, didn't think the Committee would have
approved this adjustment to the PIFs if they felt it would be a major
disadvantage.
Is this a situation where the total fee would be about the same? Tom Brown
asked. Is it just shifting who is paying it from the home builder to the
original developer of the area? "In some cases that is true," Mr. Jones
replied, "although there are situations where we collect far more than we
should for an irrigation tap." For example, there might be 100 homes in a
development that has one irrigation tap, so we collect $42,000 for 1 tap.
On the other hand, there may be 10 homes in a development, for which we
collect only $4200 when we should have collected perhaps 2-3 times that.
Another member of the DMC, Tom Moore agreed that, "it is a pretty strange
system." He wasn't sure how it evolved. He thinks this proposal should be
more equitable.
Terry Podmore pointed out that in the disadvantage that was stated, treated
water was stipulated. This may encourage the use of raw water, he said.
Mr. Caulfield added that the City will probably be pursuing that when those
circumstances arise.
Mr. Caulfield recalled that it has only been in the last 20+ years that
developments have included open areas in their designs. It has since become
a policy, and "I would hate to see this discouraged," he asserted.
Mr. Jones related that over a week ago, staff sent letters to developers and
contractors telling them of the intent to change the system. "I haven't
heard yet from anyone personally," he said.
Mr. Caulfield proposed that there ought to be a real consideration of this
issue with the planning people; especially since the point system is up for
review at this time.
Neil Grigg moved that the Water Board endorse the water PIFs subject to
review by the planning staff. After a second from Tom Moore, the motion
was approved unanimously.
•
Water Board Minutes
November 16, 1990
Page 7
Recommended Adjustments to Wastewater Plant Investment Fees
According to the information that staff summarized for the Board, during
preparation of the Wastewater Master Plan, it was determined that changes
were needed to the City's wastewater plant investment fees (PIFs) to fund
the proposed expans.i.on.alternative. Based upon recommendations by.James M..
Montgomery (JMM), the consulting engineers who prepared the Wastewater
Master Plan, increases in the non-residential PIFs are being proposed.
Webb Jones explained that some of the increases in the wastewater PIFs for
non-residential customers are more dramatic than those for water. The reason
for that is they are based on the amount and strength of the wastewater
discharged by an average customer in each commercial category. Currently,
non-residential wastewater PIFs are based on the flow capacity of the water
meter obtained by the new customer.
The proposed PIF schedule includes a strength surcharge for customers who
discharge high strength wastewater. A negotiated PIF is also proposed
for new customers with water meters 3" and larger since the amount and
strength of their wastewater could be far greater than other customers with
the same size.water service.
Tom Sanders contends that wastewater PIFs have not been equitable and these
proposed adjustments would help remedy that.
Neil Grigg asked if the restaurants all have 1" meters. We don't have an
absolute PIF for a restaurant. There may be a restaurant with a 3/4" meter
or a restaurant with a 1" meter, he explained. There are 33 customer
categories that are currently surcharged. They pay a surcharge on their
monthly bill for the strength of their wastewater. With the proposed system
we are going to ask them to contribute to some of the capital costs to treat
those wastes, he concluded.
Is this capital cost increase a fixed ratio to the surcharge on the monthly
bill? Dr. Grigg asked. The surcharge is based on fixed values listed in the
City Code for BOD and Suspended Solids, Mr. Jones answered.
What's the relationship of this to the obligation of a customer to clean up
their own wastes? Mr. Caulfield wanted to know. Most of the customers who
are obligated to do that are monitored industries, Mr. Jones began. What
we are proposing is that we will negotiate the PIFs for larger customers who
discharge high strength wastewater. In the past, we had predetermined PIFs
for larger customers, he continued.
After looking at the history of existing customers with large water meters,
it was found that there was significant variability. In the future, by
determining what their characteristics are, staff will be able to decide
what their PIFs should be.
"Are these just organic wastes?" Mr. Caulfield asked. "Right, the
parameters were based on the organics of a natural rather than a chemical
variety."
Water Board Minutes
November 16, 1990
Page 8
"Is all this based on some objective data that we have?" Mary Lou Smith
asked. We have, in the code, specific values assigned to each of the 33
customer categories, Mr. Jones explained.
Is .there some.objective data.that these customer characteristics are based
on or is it just our general knowledge? Ms. Smith reiterated. "I believe
those categories were established with the EPA guidelines," Mr. Jones
responded. Linda Burger explained that the values that are in the Code
are those generated by EPA for purposes of the Industrial Pretreatment
Program. Those values are standardized for those industries throughout the
United States.
Ms. Smith said it surprises her that a restaurant would generate more demand
on waste treatment system than a service station. There is a very high BOD
in a restaurant from all the vegetable matter and grease. A service station
would not have such a large volume, Ms. Burger explained.
Do we have a provision that allows for that commercial or industrial user to
reduce the strength of their waste," Dave Stewart inquired, "and thereby
prevent that surcharge?" "We have offered that option to industries in
the past, but I'm not sure that any of them have taken advantage of it." Mr.
Jones replied.
Are we able to test for the strength of the waste? Tom Moore asked. Have we
been doing that with CSU? Mike Smith replied that CSU waste is being tested
and it looks like the City is going to have to issue them a permit this year
because they are discharging a variety of things.
Tom Moore believes that if someone is capable of cleaning up their own
wastes, they should have a right to do it.
Is the reason for the large increase because we didn't use the strength
parameters before? Neil Grigg asked. "I believe it is," Mr. Jones replied.
If you look at the ratio of the PIFs commercial people have paid in the past
to say a single family, a MacDonald's might come to town and pay $2700 if
they have a 1" meter, Mr. Jones pointed out. So we never have pegged the
PIF to the strength of the waste? Dr. Grigg reiterated. "Yes that's the
major policy change," Mr. Smith said. However, we actually began doing that
with Anheuser-Busch. The amount that they put in the system for the PIF was
$15 million and that was based on strength. After that the City began to
realize that there were other industries that weren't being treated properly
because of the strength characteristic and the residential customers were
picking up too much.
Tom Moore wants the system to be equitable, but he also does not want to see
small businesses getting hit too hard. "They supply a lot of employment
for the area," he maintains.
Mary Lou Smith wondered if it might be worthwhile to try to implement the
adjustments gradually. "If we undercharged in the past, I think we should
change, but I'm not sure we should do it so rapidly."
• •
Water Board Minutes
November 16, 1990
Page 9
If we take an example of a very small business, Dr. Grigg began; let's say
someone wants to open a small restaurant --a mom and pop operation --would
they have a 1" meter, or a smaller one? "Probably a 3/4", Mr. Smith
replied, "but it really depends on the size of the operation."
Tom Moore asked if it is feasible to monitor strength, and how much it costs
to set up a monitoring system. Tom Sanders replied that it very expensive.
You can take a grab sample to see what the strength is, but you can't
continuously monitor and then change the fee, he explained.
Dave Stewart pointed out that in the comparison tables with other front
range cities, Fort Collins appears to be higher. Why is that? Webb Jones
acknowledged that we are higher, but he said that we are probably further
along in the process than a lot of other cities. "We are about to embark on
a $40 million expansion, whereas most communities are not that far into the
process," he emphasized. Boulder, for example, hasn't had an expansion for
some time. Their PIFs reflect the fact that they are still buying into a
very old system.
Tim Dow wondered if we are comparing apples to apples. Do all of these
utilities have the same financing philosophies etc., and help finance the
general fund as we do?
Mr. Jones added that another variable is the water the utilities discharge
into. It may be they are not required to have the effluent as clean. As
far as other potential variables, staff isn't aware yet of what they are.
Dave Stewart contends that if you were a member of the Chamber of Commerce,
for example, and looked at this table, you would be inclined to think
something was wrong. "If the other communities are taking some of the
monthly charges and applying them towards the PIFs--which they shouldn't
do --but that action lowered their PIFs and encouraged development, they
could still meet the same costs at the end of the year," he insisted.
Mr. Jones indicated that Loveland is looking at abolishing their PIFs for
certain large customers and doing it the way Mr. Stewart described; the
reason being that it will make them look more attractive for commercial
customers who are shopping for a place to relocate.
Mr. Caulfield believes it will be necessary for the Water Board members on
the Wastewater Committee to bring this to the attention of the Council
members. He also thinks the Committee needs to take another look at the
data that this is based on.
Dave Stewart agreed and he also suggested that it be looked at over the long
term. "We just lost Woodward Governor's expansion to Loveland," he
announced. "Was that a factor that made an impact on the decision?"
Webb Jones said staff anticipates quite a lot of discussion about this.
Notices have been sent to Fort Collins, Inc., the Chamber of Commerce;
everybody that might have an interest in this. "We are looking for input,"
Mr. Jones stressed.
Water Board Minutes
November 16, 1990
Page 10
MaryLou Smith thinks that the Water Board's endorsement could have a
caveat that recommends that Council look closely at what its philosophy
is about encouraging or discouraging development. Although we think
these fees are appropriate for covering costs, they may be discouraging
to development, and if C.ouncil.is.concerned about.that, they may want
to come up with another way to recover costs.
Tom Brown observed that the philosophy in recent years has been that growth
should pay its own way. Ms. Smith said that has been the philosophy in the
past, but it always must be reviewed because Councils change, and community
ideas change, etc.
Mr. Caulfield asked if there is any way to stagger these payments. Mr.
Smith said that they could be staggered, and there are a number of different
ways that it could be done.
Mr. Caulfield observed that the Council could have some strong feelings
along the lines that were discussed today. "Is there any way to stagger
this as an alternative to putting it in the regular charges?" he asked. "I
would like to see us keep the policy we have had for a long time of having
the PIF cover the investment," he added. He maintains that we need to find
a way to hold to that policy if we can. However, it is not something the
Board has to decide today, he said.
Linda Burger wanted to clarify that this new PIF may apply to only 20 or 30
customers per year, so she was curious about what people mean by
"staggering" it. Dr. Sanders explained that staggering it means spreading
the fee out for new individual commercial customers into smaller increments,
rather than one large payment. In other words, could they pay on this over
time?
Mike Smith related that the Wastewater Committee members from the Council
have also expressed interest in looking at other options.
Tom Moore believes there is a case for having PIFs for both water and
wastewater paid monthly without any up front charge and that means that
everybody is always buying into the freshest, newest technology; in other
words the newest plant.
Tom Sanders pointed out that it may be more difficult to pay the PIFs on a
monthly basis; the initial investment would probably be money borrowed from
a bank, whereas the monthly payment would probably be from the company
revenues.
Marylou Smith asked if it would be enough for Water Board members to make
their concerns known to the Wastewater Committee since the Water Board won't
be meeting again before this is scheduled to be taken to the Council
Ms. Burger thinks that it would be useful to have a recommendation from
the Water Board as to whether they believe that the strength of the waste
should be appropriately given the emphasis in the PIFs as opposed to
basing it purely on volume, as we have in the past. Clearly strength is a
Water Board Minutes
November 16, 1990
Page 11
big factor in designing wastewater treatment plants and in the cost of
building those plants. In that sense, it is equitable to charge those who
have high strength waste with the cost of treating their waste.
.,Dr. Sanders.related that it is now.conventi.onal wisdom.to base charges on
strength rather than volume. "As sophisticated as our plants are going to
be, change in strength is as catastrophic as a change in hydraulics," he
contends.
Dave Stewart asked how the plant is different based on strength versus flow.
Strength affects the whole operation, Dr. Sanders replied. Why not pay the
surcharge for strength in your monthly charge? Mr. Stewart proposed. "It
really doesn't matter whether it is front end or monthly," Dr. Sanders
remarked.
Mr. Caulfield reiterated Dave Stewart's proposal to take the strength PIF
and put it in the monthly surcharge. Ms. Burger asked over what period of
time. You would need a period of time to recover the capital costs for that
customer --perhaps a five year period, or whatever time is appropriate, she
suggested.
Tom Sanders, as a member of the Wastewater Committee, said he will raise
this issue at their meeting.
Dave Stewart clarified his proposal. We would base the initial PIF on
volume, he said. Then we would take the PIF based on strength and spread
that over a period of time as a monthly surcharge. In other words, it would
be divided into two parts.
Mr. Caulfield summarized that the Board has discussed this matter, and that
there will be 3 Board members at the Wastewater Committee meeting. They will
bring up these matters at the meeting and hopefully everything will be
satisfactorily resolved politically, technically and professionally. If it
is not resolved satisfactorily, the Water Board will be meeting on
December 21 and will consider the matter further.
Staff Reports
Treated Water Production Summary
Treated Water Production Summaries were provided at the meeting. Dennis Bode
reported that to date, we are about 97% of what we projected. That is
largely due to above normal precipitation. October was close to normal
and our water use reflected that, he concluded.
Status of Thornton Case
Mike Smith announced that yesterday, November 15th, at a status conference
for the Thornton Case, the judge set the trial date for July 29, 1991. "So
he didn't accept the Northern District's idea of another year? Mr. Caulfield
asked. "The judge was basically opposed to it," Mr. Smith stated.
"We are proceeding with our case with our lawyer, aren't we? Mr. Caulfield
continued. "Yes," Mr. Smith responded.
Water Board Minutes
November 16, 1990
Page 12
Committee Reports
Legislative and Finance
Mr. Caulfield said that he read that the State Legislative Interim Committee
has reported 4 bills. He suggested that the Water Board committee plan to
meet sometime soon to consider these.
Conservation and Public Education
Chairperson Mary Lou Smith said that the Demand Management Committee will be
meeting eventually to address broader issues related to water conservation.
Is staff preparing some material on that? Mr. Caulfield asked. Jim Clark,
Water Conservation Specialist, replied that staff has a whole list of ideas
ready for discussion. However, there still is a question about the timing
of the meeting, he said.
Other Business
Tom Sanders suggested that staff plan some tours for Board members, perhaps
in the spring, or whenever the weather is favorable, to Halligan Reservoir
and the Sludge Farm, etc. Mike Smith also proposed a trip to the Meadow
Springs Ranch, the new sludge disposal site. He added that the closing date
for that property will be November 29th.
Dr. Sanders also suggested a trip to the new wastewater treatment plant site
near Ptarmigan Golf Course.
At 4:15 p.m., President Caulfield called for an executive session to discuss
a potential water acquisition. If action is necessary for the water
purchase, it will be placed on the agenda for the December meeting in open
session.
After the executive session, the meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m.
7'7'1t%
Water Boa d Secretary