Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 10/19/1990Water Board Minutes October 19, 1990 3:00 - 5:02 p.m. Light and Power Conference Room 700 Wood Street Members Present Henry Caulfield, President, Neil Grigg, Ray Herrmann, Tom Moore, Tom.Brown, Terry Podmore, Mark Casey, MaryLou Smith, Tim Dow, Paul Clopper (alt.) Staff Rich Shannon, Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Linda Burger, Ben Alexander, Molly Nortier Guests Gene Schleiger, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Loren Maxey, City Council Liaison Tom Shoemaker, Natural Resources Administrator Members Absent Tom Sanders, Vice President, Dave Stewart (alt.) President Caulfield opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Minutes The September 17, 1990 minutes were approved as distributed. Gene Schleiger, Agency Coordinator for the NCWCD, reported that through the end of September, the District had delivered approximately 117,000 AF, which left a balance of about 46,000 AF. The,District anticipates, through October, a deliver of about 6,000 AF, so they expect to go into the carryover season with about 40,000 AF of water available for carryover storage. Currently the CBT system is at about 48% of capacity; Granby is at 48% and is beginning to go down. It is expected that it will go down to about 13-14% by next spring --probably very near dead storage unless more precipitation falls than has in the past few years. On the other hand, Horsetooth and Carter are somewhat above what we would normally have. Horsetooth contains nearly 78,000 AF which is 52%, and Carter has roughly 51,000 AF. When they are combined, we are just a little behind where we were last year at this time. "Fortunately there was enough moisture in the latter part of the summer to be helpful, or we would have been in drastic shape," Mr. Schleiger concluded. Water Board Minutes October 19,1990 Page 2 Mr. Caulfield asked where the District regional study stands. Mr. Schleiger said that they are anticipating having a final draft within 30-45 days. "What about the larger District study on the water supply of the entire region?" Mr. Caulfield continued. It appears that study will be released in about the same time frame, he said. What is the word on the groundwater supply study of the South Platte? "It has been dragging," Mr. Schleiger replied. "The District people have become so tied up in the Thornton issues, that the Samson study has been sidetracked." Molly Nortier distributed the announcement and agenda for the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District fall water users meeting to be held Friday, November 16, at the Raintree Plaza Hotel and Conference Center in Longmont. Environmental Management Plan Tom Shoemaker, Natural Resources Administrator, was present to answer questions and provide background information. Board members received, in their packets, copies of a draft of an action agenda for the Environmental Management Plan. It consists of a series of action recommendations to address all of the issue areas identified in the public involvement process. The memorandum stated that because of the large number of issues and their broad scope, completion of all the elements must occur over a period of 2-3 years. The Action Agenda, thus, is an overview of a long term work program to address the environmental concerns of the community. Natural Resources staff will develop a work plan for 1990-91 from the Action Agenda, to address the most pressing concerns. President Caulfield suggested that the Board consider the six items that he has identified as being of concern to the Water Board. He acknowledged that there may be other items that others wish to discuss. Mr. Caulfield enderstands that the City Council will meet on November 6 to discuss this question and this occurs before the Water Board meets again. Rich Shannon made some introductory remarks. He especially wanted to emphasize that this is one of those "global" projects that is still in the evolving stage. As a matter of fact, the draft the Board received is still not the most current one, but it is adequate for today's discussion. He suggested that the group not try to offer specific changes at this time, but that the Board's review be a more general one. If any of the items related to the Water & Wastewater Utility appear to be much larger projects than a City Council member or a citizen might perceive it to be, Mr. Shannon wanted the Board to comment on those. Part of this process is setting expectations for what the City can and can't do over some period of time, he said. Mr. Shannon said that the document remains in the evolutionary state at this time because he believes it isn't clear that all parties who have had input Water Board Minutes October 19,1990 Page 3 into it agree with what the end product should be. For example, some would say that the process is supposed to produce a scan of all the environmental issues and then identify some very clear high priority issues in which the City should put major effort and show progress. Others would say that there must be a complete matrix that shows total integration of all the various environmental pieces. Debate is continuing among staff, various boards and the City Council of what exactly we are trying to accomplish with the Environmental Management Plan. Mr. Shoemaker concurred with Mr. Shannon that this is indeed an evolutionary process. "This Board meeting is a part of that process," he said. The draft that was distributed to the Board is hopefully a pretty complete list of potential action items that might be taken on various issue. The intent of Natural Resources is to get the Water Board's guidance on various items that relate to their interests. The intent beyond that is to take from this long list and build a work program of the high focus areas for the remainder of 1990 and for '91. Mr. Caulfield requested that the Board begin on p. 4 of the EMP under subtitle Drinking Water, and it states: "Develop a formal policy regarding City goals for raw water quality protection and standards for treatment for drinking water." A few months ago the Board discussed this matter because certain members of the City Council were concerned about having water quality standards. "It has always been the Board's assumption that the City was on target regarding water quality, because, in the first place, we do meet the EPA and state standards. As a matter of fact, our policy is to exceed those standards," Mr. Caulfield began. He added that the staff provided data to the Board confirming that we do exceed those standards. However, we haven't thought of having standards set in numbers. Data were also given to the Board on the quality of Horsetooth water, particularly with respect to viruses and the oil question, etc. Perhaps there should be a general understanding that it would be a good idea for staff to prepare a document that discusses the quality of the water that comes into our treatment plant, both from the Poudre River and Horsetooth. Another feature of the document could be a brief list of the rules and regulations of the County, the State and EPA with respect to control of water quality in the Poudre River as well as Horsetooth Reservoir. Next the question of the water quality after treatment could be presented, indicating that we do meet the standards and often exceed the standards. "I am looking to public understanding of the situation rather than just being satisfied ourselves that everything is okay," he concluded. Ray Herrmann believes that letting everyone know we are already doing a good job is a reactive statement. "I don't think that is what we want to do with a strategic plan," he asserted. "We need to talk about what we need to do about viruses if anything, talk about hydrocarbons, and talk about what we need to do about other problems at Horsetooth and elsewhere in the system." Water Board Minutes October 19,1990 Page 4 Mr. Caulfield responded that the issues that Mr. Herrmann is raising would come up after this document has been prepared and then we can see if there is a need to deviate from what we thought was adequate a few months ago. Mike Smith said the Utility doesn't have a policy that says these are our criteria for providing drinking water to our customers. Essentially the Utility has adopted one, but it has never been formally accepted by the Water Board or Council. MaryLou Smith asked if the study suggested in the Action Agenda for the EMP can be done without much time or expense. "It's actually not much of a study," Mr. Smith replied. Essentially we would be writing a policy concerning our philosophy and standards. The general emphasis would be on policies for our raw water supply, our water shed protection and our treated water, he concluded. "Would this be two policies --one for raw water and one for treated water?" Neil Grigg asked. "It could be one document with 2 or 3 parts, Mr. Smith said. Dr. Grigg suggested that even though we don't control all of our water sheds, there might be some things we could do, even by means of education or advocacy. "It would be good to write that down and also respond to things that would happen," he added. Tom Moore asked if the Utility had input on this section on drinking water. "We had input in that we agree that there is a need to develop that policy," Mr. Smith responded. Mark Casey commented that he understands that we meet or exceed the standards now, and he also understands that the EPA is in the process of adding to and strengthening some of the standards, "Are we likely to have any difficulty meeting some of those proposed changes?" There is.some potential for it, Mr. Smith replied, but it depends on where they end up. We are certainly preparing to find ways to handle those changes, he added. Mr. Casey believes the Utility ought to be looking towards the future. "If there are things we know are coming up, let's begin dealing with those now." Mr. Smith pointed out that one of the things the Water Board helped identify 6-7 years ago was the stabilization of the drinking water or corrosion control problem. That is going to be a mandatory requirement in '91, he said. Ben Alexander stated that Fort Collins is one of just a few utilities in the nation that is treating to reduce corrosion. "We have some background experience now that shows our program is effective." However, we don't know yet what the levels are going to be on lead or what kind of monitoring may be required with that regulation. We feel though that we are in a good enough posture to be in compliance well ahead of when the regulations take effect. Mr. Alexander added that the City has had a few years to optimize the system and it is fortunate that we were able to do that before the regulations were imposed on us. • • Water Board Minutes October 19,1990 Page 5 Tom Brown recalled that Mr. Caulfield said it would be best not to set specific numerical standards stating that we exceed the EPA standards. Is that the feeling in general? "That's been our position in the past," Mr. Caulfield replied. We could change that and use numerical standards if that is what staff and the Board want to propose. "Is this informal policy we have, specified informally with numbers?" Mr. Brown asked. "Yes, the treatment plant operators have procedures on how they operate the plant," Mr. Smith said. The next item on the document that Mr. Caulfield brought to the attention of the Board, was on page 5, Sludge Disposal, which reads: "Evaluate alternatives and develop a plan for future beneficial use or disposal of sewage sludge." Mr. Caulfield stated that whoever wrote that recommendation wasn't aware that the City Council has already committed us to a large purchase of land north of the City for sludge disposal. The next step is a management plan for that piece of property. Various detection devices will be installed that will continuously monitor our use of that land. With this in mind, 3.2 of the EMP should be revised to reflect that. It's already being worked on, Mr. Smith concluded. Dr. Grigg asked if the Natural Resources Board had a special interest in the sludge program. Staff spoke with them after the Council considered this and the chairman of the board said his Board probably isn't interested in the purchase, but when we do the management plan, they would like to review it. We will make certain that they, along with some other agencies, review a draft plan. The next item for discussion in the document was section 5.5--"Develop a strategic plan to identify opportunities for enhancing river flow to achieve multiple management objectives." Mr. Caulfield related that enhancing the river flow has been the topic for discussion for the Water Board on various occasions. "However, we are aware of our limitations in this area," although we have achieved, at least at this point, a recent victory in terms of flow at Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 2. Short of building a dam to enhance the flow, Mr. Caulfield doesn't believe the City has ever considered buying water to improve the flow. Mr. Smith acknowledged that this is something the Utility probably won't be working on right now because the need is undefined. Mr. Shoemaker pointed out that the origins of this particular proposed study came from the coordinator of the on -going work on the Poudre River. He said he wasn't certain that she or those from Natural Resources are aware of all the work that the Utility has already done to look at the possibilities. "We are looking for guidance," he stressed. Linda Burger related that this is part of the work plan for the Poudre River Corridor fishery plan. For the fishery plan we are not looking at multiple management objectives, she said. The City, in conjunction with the Poudre Water Board Minutes October 19,1990 Page 6 River Trust and Trout Unlimited, is doing the study. They are at a stage now where they are seeking financial support for the next phase. Whether what the City is doing is reflected in the particular language of the EMP document is the question. "I'm not sure it is our top priority, but it is something we have been putting effort into off and on for several years," she concluded. Ray Herrmann commented that in terms of how you look at it, you can relate this to several different issues: it can relate to sediment erosion; it can relate to dilution at Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 2; it can also be related to the fishery plan. He suspects that it can even be related to a number of storm drainage issues. Mr. Caulfield mentioned that the Board has discussed improving the flow for recreational purposes, but in that case it was stated that it should not be paid for from the Utility budget. On the other hand, the Utility has an interest in maintaining the flow at certain times in order to dilute the effluent for our wastewater treatment plants. Of course, that, unlike enhancing the flow for recreational purposes, is a City Utility interest. Under 6.0, Hydrologic Systems, the overview states: "Several of the resource elements of concern in the EMP (Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Water Quality, Water Quantity, and Irrigation. Ditches and Reservoirs) are closely linked in a complex hydrologic system. As such, a thorough understanding of the hydrologic systems of the Poudre River, Spring Creek, Fossil Creek and other basins in Fort Collins, is important to integrating programs to manage wetlands, riparian habitat, stormwater, water quality, and water supplies for a variety of purposes." Section 6.1 proposes that the W&WW Utility or Stormwater compile and review available data on the surface and ground water hydrologic systems in Fort Gollins, and their relationship to resources management issues and assess the adequacy of the information base for resource management purposes. 6.2 states that if warranted based on preliminary investigations, develop a model of streamflow, groundwater levels, wetlands and riparian habitats, and water quality in order to assess the potential impacts of water diversion proposals or alternative water management strategies. Mr. Caulfield pointed out that the W&WW Utility or Stormwater have been listed as possible lead agencies. He isn't certain of the motivation for the Utility to do a hydrologic study. Mr. Shoemaker explained that this was a particularly difficult area for Natural Resources to wrestle with. The decision was based on discussions with both the Utilities. W&WW and SW were listed as leads because of the expertise that exists there. A lot of the motivation for doing the study is outside of those Utilities' areas of interest because of questions such as: Water Board Minutes• October 19,1990 Page 7 If we are protecting environmentally sensitive areas, many of them are wet and depend on hydrologic relationships. "It demands a lot more consideration as to where the lead lies," he agreed. Mr. Caulfield brought up the question of non -point source pollution. He believes the lead on this should be the Stormwater Utility and Board. Non -point source has nothing to do with improving the water supply for the drinking water of Fort Collins. However, the W&W Utility and Water Board could have some contribution since non -point source pollution may have some impact on wastewater due to the infiltration of storm water into our wastewater system. Neil Grigg thinks this is a particularly tough issue because basically what we are talking about is the environmental water. He differs with Mr. Caulfield on who should take the lead. There isn't any one entity that should logically take the lead, he said. Stormwater has been assigned the non -point source role, but to them that is a secondary role in the sense that it has been assigned just recently. Initially they were assigned to construct the storm sewer systems and provide some flood plain management. Because this is so difficult to deal with, it seems the only way the City can really handle it, is if we find some way to assign it logically to a group that has the capability to at least chair an inter -departmental task force. "In that sense I see it as being related to the raw water issues because protection of raw water is the same issue as tracking water quality through the hydrologic system," Dr. Grigg explained. Since we are also concerned with water quantity, even though we currently aren't using any groundwater, it still makes sense that any data base that would be compiled on water resources, should be managed by the water utility. According to Mr. Caulfield, this is something that, in order to do a first class professional job, would take some time. Ray Herrmann said that some of these studies are already being done, most of which partially fall under the purview of the Utilities and the Water Board. Both of these issues fall under a long term strategic plan. It is something that is not going to be accomplished within the next 10 years, he believes. Dr. Grigg suggested that the coordination for the long term effort be assigned to a particular department, e.g. Water & Wastewater. Tracking hydrologic systems is like a data management effort and would logically fall within other data management efforts in the department. He doesn't see embarking on a big study. Compiling information to get ready for the future would be the major effort. What were the origins of this item? Mr. Caulfield asked. "There were actually 2 areas of origin," Mr. Shoemaker began. "One relates to the concern of Natural Resources and Stormwater with respect to riparian habitats and wetlands. Also the question of if the City gets into the Water Board Minutes October 19,1990 Page 8 business of managing some wet lands under public ownership, would part of that management be related to surface or groundwater? The second area of origin relates to Thornton's plan, and how those plans may affect, not only water supply, but other aspects of the City such as riparian habitats, etc. A small step that identifies what the scope might be, can help set the direction for the future, and that is what Natural Resources is trying to accomplish. Modeling is going to be done on what Thornton plans to take out of the basin or out of the Poudre River, and on what Thornton is proposing to send back to the basin in the form of effluent, Rich Shannon said. This is the part the Utility will be dealing with. Tom Brown stated that it is very important to think about what data will be needed in the future to accommodate future "Thorntons." Water scarcity is going to become a bigger issue as time goes on. There will be more pressure to do analyses, and it's all going to depend on data. In his opinion, it would be a mistake to build huge models at this time. Thought could be given now as to what those data are that are collectible without spending too much money. Mr. Caulfield asked if stormwater is collecting water quality data on Spring Creek. Paul Clopper said there will be a project starting towards the end of November. They will be looking at Fossil Creek, Mail Creek, etc. Linda Burger said there was a preliminary study done on Spring Creek as kind of an initial effort to set a model for what should be done in the various storm drainage basins. Both biological and chemical data were collected. The next section for the Board to consider was Water Quantity, 10.0, 10.1 and 10.2 on p. 12. in 10.1 the recommended action is to implement the water metering program required by state law which the Council/Water Board Demand Management Committee is in the process of doing. The Committee will then review the existing water conservation policies and programs and revise them as needed, as stated in section 10.2, and whatever else the Committee intends to bring up. Mark Casey suggested that if there are any other ancillary items that could be included now while we are installing meters, besides metric meters, it would be a good idea to include them now. Mr. Caulfield pointed out that staff is trying to organize the process in such a way that a telephone connection could be installed in the future when it's available, and to prepare for other advancements in the devices used to measure water use. The final section that Mr. Caulfield wanted to discuss was 16.0, Irrigation Ditches and Reservoirs on p. 15. The overview states that in addition to their primary use for water conveyance and storage, the system of irrigation Water Board Minutes • October 19,1990 Page 9 ditches and reservoirs within the City may offer opportunities for recreation, wildlife habitat, and other purposes. Recommendations are aimed at exploring potential future alternatives for use of these areas. Section 16.1 recommends establishing a policy on City representation on the boards of directors of irrigation and reservoir companies and 16.2 recommends developing options and a strategic plan for future management of irrigation ditch corridors within the City. Tim Dow deals with ditch companies in his law practice, and he thinks that City representation on irrigation company boards would not always be accepted with open arms. Tom Moore, the president of an irrigation company, thinks that there should be City representation on the boards, but he agrees that there could be some problems at times. Tim Dow asked if City representation is suggested only for companies in which the City has stock or water shares. Mr. Caulfield replied that it refers in general to the southside ditches. Tom Shoemaker clarified that they are asking in general, "should we pursue representation at all and if so when?" Mr. Caulfield stated that members of the Board are well aware that for a long time the City has had difficulty converting its rights in the southside ditches and putting them into flow or storage upstream to be useful to us as water supply. "We accomplished that with Pleasant Valley and Lake," he said. Mr. Caulfield said he has been on the Water Board for many years, and the Board has always taken the view that we need to approach these things diplomatically so the City people and the rural people don't start having conflicts. He contends that using our shares in a company is the wrong way to approach this. We have a minority interest in all of the southside ditches except Pleasant Valley. It seems to Mr. Caulfield that we need to approach this problem, not through our shares, but through what the City wants out of the ditches. "Let's say the City wants them cleaner than the companies do, or we want them for recreational or esthetic reasons." Another question is the trees, and why they are removed. The ditch companies appear to be concerned about the question of liability, e.g. if a tree falls down on somebody's property. "Let's assume that we want to have the trash removed, that we want the grass mowed on the ditch banks and that we want to keep the trees even though there may be some question of their falling down and causing damage." If all of those assumptions are correct, it seems to Mr. Caulfield that the City should approach this issue from the point of view of: "these are things within the City we would like to see Water Board Minutes October 19,1990 Page 10 done and we are prepared to pay for them." From their perspective, the farmers on the end of the lines shouldn't be expected to pay for what the City wishes to accomplish. Paul Clopper believes that rather than have representatives on the boards, it would be preferable to have a formal liaison process. Rich Shannon related that staff's suggestions are to drop reference to a policy to be on the board of directors, and to say we need a better set of policies to govern and guide City staff on what role we ought to play in the ditch companies. Should the City be assertive and pay for what we value, or keep our hands off and allow the ditch companies to run themselves the way they want to? This action item is one that should be clarified between Council and staff as to what direction Council is giving staff in terms of involvement with the ditch companies. Dennis Bode informed the group that he is on the PVLC and Larimer No. 2 Boards, and in both cases there was a pretty strong desire expressed by other Board members that they would like a City.representative on the Board to provide liaison with the City. Tim Dow believes there are some issues to look at sometime in the future regarding maintaining the water flows in the ditches if they are abandoned in the event that all the farms served by those ditches are ultimately developed. Is the City at some point going to be required to maintain the ditches and the water rights in those ditches? Mr. Caulfield pointed out that the City has been acquiring shares in those ditches as farmers go out of the irrigation business. That is how the City historically has become owners of shares in the ditches. "Let's say we bought all the shares in Arthur Ditch. Does that mean we would own the ditch?" The company still owns the right of way and if we own the stock, Mike Smith suspects that the company still owns the land until the company is dissolved. There are different situations among the ditch companies as far as ownership of land, Dennis Bode explained. In some cases, there are adjacent owners who just provide easements for a right of way across their land. Mr. Dow added that there are times when the water is restricted for agricultural purposes and "we could be talking about a change of use here." Mr. Caulfield acknowledged that this is what is taking place in our legal actions, in that we are converting the water we now own into urban use. Mr. Caulfield raised the question in these cases of making certain that we leave enough water in the ditch, even if we own it, to allow the water to get to the end of the ditches. If there are users at the end of the ditch you must make certain that they have their water supply, Mike Smith stressed. Water Board Minutes• October 19,1990 Page 11 Mr. Dow said that it is very tricky to manage that because you usually don't have enough for the end of the ditch or you have so much you don't know what to do with it. Ray Herrmann raised the issue in section 2.0 relating to hazardous materials. He thinks someone needs to determine where the W&WW Utility fits, e.g. with the septage facility. Mike Smith related that the Utility has already conducted its own hazardous materials audit. Linda Burger commented that this section is not very clear as to whether it is referring to better management of hazardous materials by key departments or whether it is referring to clarifying the relationships between the City, the County and the other agencies that have authority for managing hazardous wastes, and then having Poudre Fire Authority deal with the industries that locate here that may have hazardous materials on site. The Utility is already dealing with how its wastes are handled. If the EMP is supposed to get at those issues, then Mr. Herrmann is correct and the Utility should be involved. On the other hand, if it is a matter of clarifying the relationships among City Government, County government, the Poudre Fire Authority and the State, then "I'm not sure we have a role," Ms. Burger said. "We have our own EPA numbers for the materials we have, and we deal with our own compliance with hazardous waste regulations, and that shouldn't change." Mr. Shoemaker explained that section 2.1 conveys the need to review and clarify some of the roles with respect to who is doing what with various aspects of hazardous materials and hazardous waste. Sections 2.2 through 2.5 get at dealing with businesses and industries in the community in terms of reduction of risk, and this is a program that the PFA has been working on for some time. Section 2.6 relates to the City's internal practices on haz/mats and it is his understanding that the utilities have already accomplished this task. Mr. Herrmann also believes the same thing should be considered on 3.3 which is non -point source pollution. It seems to him there may be a water interest in 3.3.2 and also in 3.3.4. Mr. Caulfield stated he thinks that in all of the areas we have tried to stay within the water utility function, and not get into the broader water questions. Linda Burger said that Mr. Herrmann makes a good point. As storm drainage becomes a points source in terms of the regulatory system, they will be treated just the same as the wastewater treatment plants, and we run into the potential of the state enforcing some sort of waste load allocation between the storm sewers and the wastewater treatment plants. In that sense, it would be logical for us to coordinate and be involved in a minor way in what happens in terms of the stormwater. Water Board Minutes October 19,1990 Page 12 Mr. Herrmann also pointed out a potential water utility relationship on p. 6 under Environmentally Sensitive Areas. The Water Board has had a number of discussions about acquiring ponds, particularly gravel pits, and using them for water storage and recreational opportunities. He suspects those discus- sions will come up again in the future. What our role might be needs to be determined. That concluded the discussion on the Environmental Management Plan. Mr. Caulfield told Mr. Shoemaker that the Water Utility will provide a copy of the minutes for Natural Resources so they will have available the points and comments that the Water Board members and staff have presented at the meeting today. He also stated that if a substantive difference emerges with the Water Board's view in the course of staff and Natural Resources discussions, it is Mr. Caulfield's understanding that the Council would like the Board to present those differences to the Council. Mr. Caulfield explained that the Natural Resources Dept. will make a report to the Council on Nov. 6. That report will reflect the opinions and comments from the Boards involved as related by their staffs. Mr. Shoemaker said that they will be conveying the discussions with the Water Board and 7 other boards, and presenting the recommendations from those boards and how Natural Resources responded to them. Mr. Caulfield thanked Mr. Shoemaker for being present at the meeting. Demand Management Committee Update Water Board members received the minutes of the September 17, 1990 Demand Management Committee meeting. Mr. Caulfield asked if there was anything in the Committee's conclusions that the Water Board should give an endorsement to. Mike Smith said that the conclusions will appear in the resolution and ordinance that will be presented to the City Council on November 20th. The items that will be included in the resolution are listed on the last page of the minutes. The next committee meeting will be on Monday, Nov. 5th at 2:00 in the Light and Power Conference Room. Essentially there is nothing new to report, Mr. Smith stated. He said that the next substantive information from the Committee will be after they begin meeting and talking about other demand management issues. Staff Reports Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported that for September the water use was 9% above the projected water use and that was primarily due to the very warm September weather. For the year so far, we are at 97% of the projected use so we are slightly below average. Our precipitation has been above average. Committee Reports There were no committee reports. Water Board Minutes • October 19,1990 Page 13 Mike Smith reported that City Council approved the purchase of Meadow Springs Ranch for sludge disposal. The closing on that property should occur at the end of November. Marylou Smith was surprised by the environmental questions raised in the article in the Coloradoan. It was her understanding that the plan was environmentally solid. Mr. Smith explained that the people who raised those questions are really not familiar with what is going on. Staff hopes that including those people in the process when the management plan is developed will help educate them enough so they will at least understand and accept what is happening. "However, they still may not like it" he conceded. Elections of Officers President Caulfield left the room since he was to be considered to continue on as president. Tom Moore assumed the chair since Vice President Tom Sanders was not present. Mr. Moore opened the nominations for president. Tim Dow nominated Henry Caulfield with the understanding that he has chosen not to be re -appointed to the Board when his term expires in July 1991, but said he would be willing to serve as president until then if that was the Board's wish. A lengthy discussion about the election process took place when Council liaison Loren Maxey related that other boards and commissions elect their officers following the Council appointments in July. He suggested that this might be an appropriate time to make the change since Mr. Caulfield's term will end in July. Tom Moore proposed that the Board make the change in the Bylaws now and go ahead with the current officers until July and then re-elect new officers then. Tim Dow suggested the Board check the Bylaws first. Having been chairman of the Bylaws Committee at one time, MaryLou Smith stated that all that needs to be done to amend the Bylaws is for the Board to agree that they want to do it at one meeting and then a vote is taken on the change at the next meeting. Ms. Smith suggested that the Board vote today to amend the Bylaws next month, and elect officers in July. She also proposed that the Board give serious thought to the election of officers. It's an important and difficult decision to make, she said. Ray Herrmann agreed that this procedure gives the Board ample time to give the decision serious thought. Molly Nortier read from the Bylaws that the Board shall elect by December 31 of each year a president, vice president and such other officers as required. Ms. Smith pointed out that the Bylaws do not give the length of the term for the officers. Water Board Minutes October 19,1990 Page 14 The members voted unanimously to retain Henry Caulfield as president until his Water Board term expires in July. Mr. Moore informed Mr. Caulfield when he returned that the Board will consider changing the Bylaws to elect officers in July to be more in line with the other boards and commissions. Mr. Caulfield opened nominations for vice president. Paul Clopper nominated Tom Sanders. Mark Casey nominated Neil Grigg. The nominations were closed. Neil Grigg was elected vice president. Further discussion ensued on taking action to amend the bylaws to elect officers in July. Loren Maxey spoke to this issue. He explained that there are several items that are going to be dealt with in the next few months relative to the Water Board. Some of the aspects of the Water Board fall under the City Charter which is an unusual place to have one of the boards. Prior to the election next April the Council is hoping to amend the Charter in order to remove that reference and place it in the City Code where all references to the other boards and commissions are included. The subject of Alternates will be clarified as well. He suggested that the Water Board may want to include the change in election of officers along with these other items when the Board considers amending their Bylaws. The Board decided that they will make it known that they have the intent to look at the Bylaws regarding election of officer when the other issues that Mr. Maxey mentioned are dealt with. Ray Herrmann stressed that he thinks it is important to have all the members present when the election of officers is discussed. Mr. Caulfield pointed out that since new board members are appointed in June they would begin their terms in July, so all new board members would be there for the election. Other Business Loren Maxey mentioned that through some citizen contacts recently, concern was expressed that a growing portion of the City is not receiving its water and/or wastewater services from the City. There is the view that those citizens may be paying for more than they are receiving or not receiving what they are paying for. Henry Caulfield said that he raised this issue in a memorandum earlier, saying that we need, where citizens are involved, to have common policies for all the Districts and the City. "We have never been able to move ahead on that," but there has been agreement to have it studied, he said. He agreed with Mr. Maxey that in the future, this could be a serious problem if the City and the Districts don't have common policies. Water Board Minute• • October 19,1990 Page 15 Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:02 p.m. Water Boam Secretary