Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 02/25/1999Excerpt from Water Board Minutes February 25, 1999 Each year after the irrigation companies have established their annual assessment rates for water shares, the Water Board recommends to the City Council the rental rates for the City's surplus raw water. A table included in Board packets showed the assessment rates set by the irrigation companies and the rental rates set by the City for 1997 and 1998 as well as proposed rates for 1999. The proposed rates for 1999 are based on several factors including past rental rates in the area, current assessments and anticipated supply and demand conditions. Staff recommends that the following rental rates be adopted: NCWCD Water (CBT) - Ag NCWCD Water (CBT) - M&I North Poudre Irrigation Co. - Early Ag Use North Poudre Irrigation Co. - Ag Use North Poudre Irrigation Co. - Multiple Use Water Supply and Storage Co. Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal Co. New Mercer Ditch Co. Larimer County Canal No. 2 Arthur Irrigation Co. Warren Lake Reservoir Co. Joe Wright Reservoir Water Sherwood Res. Co. Sherwood Irrigation Co. Reusable Effluent $ 18.00 / ac-ft $ 33.00 / ac-ft $ 10.00 / ac-ft $ 22.00 / ac-ft $ 27.00 / ac-ft $ 2,500.00 / share $ 180.00 / share $ 180.00 / share $ 275.00 / share $ 14.00 / share $ 120.00 / share $ 38.00 / share $ 5.00 / share $ 450.00 / share $ 34.00 / ac-ft For late season rentals, rates may be adjusted to reflect the remaining yield or the prevalent market price of the water stock being rented. Beth Molenaar explained that there were not many changes from last year to this year. There were a couple of major changes last year. One was that North Poudre began renting by the acre foot rather than by the share. "We also established separate rates for ag. versus municipal rentals of CBT water," she said. This year the biggest change is the addition of reusable effluent. "Right now we do not have any specific requests for that water," she said, "but it is possible that people may want to rent that this year, so staff decided to add it to the rental list." "Is that put out at the river by the treatment plant or do you pump it up to Rawhide?" a Board member asked. "Just from the treatment plant," Mrs. Molenaar replied. "We have to do some special accounting to make it reusable. It could be from Windy Gap, Joe Wright or other reusable water we have," she added. "Where does the money go from rental rates?" Tom Sanders asked. "It's its own fund," Mrs. Molenaar answered. Dennis Bode added that it goes into miscellaneous revenue of the Water Utility and is part of the general operating revenue. Dr. Sanders also asked what staff predicts will be the amount of revenue collected this year. "Last year we had $348,000. I am anticipating that this year it is going to be less than that," Mrs. Molenaar replied. "I think we put $250,000 in the budget," she said, "but it may be a little more than that. We probably won't have much revenue from CBT rentals this year, and that was $77,000 last year." Dr. Sanders suggested staff include that information when this item is prepared next year. "We will," Mrs. Molenaar responded. "Are the costs mainly to maintain our costs as far as delivery," Dr. Sanders asked. "For the most part, yes. There are some cases like Water Supply & Storage, where we make significantly more than we pay in assessments," Mrs. Molenaar explained, "but that is because of the market out there. Right now the company owns some shares that they rent to their customers, and they charge $2,000 a share more than the assessment which this year is $760.00. "Do we rent it at the same price?" Dr. Sanders asked. "Actually we rent it for a little less than the company, but we are trying not to compete. In fact we already have 55 shares requested to rent and we only own 24 shares," she explained "We have three weeks left until the request process closes, so I imagine we will have close to three times the number of requests for shares than we own." "Do we have a protocol for how the water is rented?" Dr. Sanders wanted to know. "It's random," Mrs. Molenaar replied. "How is that done?" "I split every request into increments and I throw them into a `virtual' hat, (it's on the computer), and assign random numbers," she explained. Tom Brown asked what the CBT assessment rates are for M&I. "The M&I is up to $16.80 this year for a unit, and the ag. Rate is $6.96," she replied. "Would you explain the difference between the multiple use and ag. rental use?" Mr. Brown continued. "We pay $16.80 in assessments; e.g. last year we had a quota of 50% which means for every unit we received only a half an acre foot. To rent an acre foot of water, we had already paid $33.00 or $32.50 in assessments last year," she said. "But the ag. rental market, because the assessments are so much less, would be high if they had to pay the $33.00; in fact they probably wouldn't pay it. They would probably be able to rent it cheaper elsewhere. We really try to stick with whatever the market is on that water," she stressed. "Do you sell it at the $33.00 rate to anybody?' Mr. Brown wondered. "Sure," she answered. "What happens is individuals that are served by various water districts are charged a surcharge when they use more water than they are allocated. For example, people with a swimming pool or a couple of horses in their back yard, or a large lawn, may go into that surcharge rate. It's cheaper for them to come to us, rent an acre foot, and transfer it to their district, than it is for them to pay the surcharge," she responded, "and the water districts allow that." Dr. Sanders said he would like the extra above the maintenance costs to go into the water fund to buy more water. "What would it take to do that? $250,000 isn't chicken feed!' he insisted. "We pay a lot more in assessments than we receive in rental revenue," Mike Smith pointed out. "Last year we received about 58% of our assessments in rental income." Mrs. Molenaar noted. "Last year the assessments totaled almost $600,000," she added. "Then this money goes into the account that helps to pay for the assessments," Mr. Sanders verified. "Can you explain why the assessments for New Mercer and Warren Lake are at 0 this year?" Joe Bergquist asked. "New Mercer is at 0 this year; two years ago it was $250.00 and Warren Lake is at 0," David Lauer pointed out. "New Mercer had a windfall by selling some stock they had. They had a lot of revenue, so they spread it out over a few years," Dennis Bode explained. "They took whatever they needed for operating revenue out of that windfall and set the assessments at 0 and also sent dividend checks to the City for the remainder." He said Warren Lake sold some property a few years ago which resulted in a similar situation to New Mercer. They had more revenue than what the operating costs were so they were able to provide some dividends and also set the assessments at 0. "Is that because their charter doesn't allow them to keep that much money in the books?" Mr. Bergquist asked. "Not necessarily," Mr. Bode replied. "I don't think there was any reason for them to keep it. The shareholders were more interested in getting that money back than having the company hang onto it," he concluded. ACTION: Motion and Vote Tom Sanders called for a motion. Joe Bergquist moved that the Water Board recommend to the Council that they adopt the surplus water rental rates recommended by staff. After a second from John Morris, the vote for the motion was unanimous. WATER BOARD MINUTES February 25, 1999 3:12 - 5:10 p.m. Fort Collins Utilities Training Room 700 Wood Street COUNCIUWATER BOARD LIAISON Chuck Wanner (Not present) WATER BOARD CHAIRMAN Paul Clopper - 223-5556 STAFF LIAISON Molly Nortier - 221-6681 MEMBERS PRESENT Tom Sanders, Vice Chair, Alison Adams, George Reed, David Lauer, John Moms, Joe Bergquist, Dave Frick, Robert Ward, Tom Brown STAFF Mike Smith, Wendy Williams, Jim Hibbard, Dennis Bode, Bob Smith, Ben Alexander, Roger Buffington, Susan Hayes, Dennis Sumner, Beth Molenaar, Molly Nortier GUEST Gene Schleiger, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District MEMBERS ABSENT Paul Clopper, Chair, Dave Rau Vice Chair Tom Sanders opened the meeting in the absence of Chair Paul Clopper. The following items were discussed: MINUTES David Lauer moved that the minutes of January 28, 1999 be approved as distributed. John Morris seconded the motion. Dennis Bode pointed out on p.9 under Other Business, Metro Water Supply Investigation Report, that the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District did not produce the report. The Board voted unanimously to approve the minutes with the correction. Water Board Minutes February 25, 1999 Page 2 UPDATE: NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT Gene Schleiger distributed the SNOTEL sites update as ofFebruary 25th. It lists the latest snowpack and reservoir storage information. He reported that currently we are running 90-91% with about 3 5% of the snow season behind us. "The biggest part of our moisture is still to come in the next 60-80 days," he said. Regarding reservoir storage, some data is missing because all of the state systems have been down for the last week. The District had hoped to be filling Horsetooth Reservoir for the last 30 days, but the no. 3 unit at Flatiron had problems with the cooling condensers and the Bureau had to order parts from France. "We were getting into a critical bind. As you can see, Granby was within 7-8 feet of being totally full, and yet we were falling behind on our filling schedule at both Carter and Horsetooth," he related. There wasn't a problem of being able to move it over, but it will become timely when the snowpack starts running off early on the West Slope. "If we haven't vacated some of that storage there to get it over here, then it goes on down the River and we've lost it," he stressed. Last week they were able to get the unit up at Flatiron, and the intention is to run the tunnel at full bore of 550 cfs. probably until the first to the middle of June, and fill both Horsetooth and Carter. "When you look at the graph, you can see that Carter has made a substantial jump. We are putting most of the water in there now; we will fill it first. Part of the reason for that is the drilling people are still installing instrumentation on the dam. We'll try to hold the head pressure off of that for as long as we can, but there is water coming in now." "Is that instrumentation to do the analysis on the strata?" David Lauer asked. "Yes, they will be installing the instruments over the next 3-4 years," Mr. Schleiger replied. He added that you have to understand that the CBT system is 50 years old, and something that old needs some maintenance. "If you do the maintenance today, it's going to cost you less than if you have to do it 10 years from now. Also, from the safety standpoint, we would like to get in and determine what the problem is. The indications we are getting at this point are that the dam is fully sound structurally." It appears that some of the shale formations that the dam is built on have mineralization occurring, causing some layering effects of some of the flows through that. At some point it will call for deep deep pressure grouting at 300-450 ft. "The instrumentation will help us determine where this is all coming from and what the best repair alternatives, if any, may be," he concluded. Mr. Schleiger announced that the Spring Water Users meeting will be held on April 7, 1999 at the Raintree Inn in Longmont. "When you bring water over now do you use that bypass or do you pump all of it?" Mr. Bergquist asked. "We wanted to use the bypass," Mr. Schleiger replied, "but we ran into a problem because, with every acre foot of water you move through the bypass, there is no power generation for the western area. We were trying to hold off to the very last moment before we were going to allow use 11 • Water Board Minutes February 25, 1999 Page 3 of the bypass. We were at that stage when we finally received the parts that were needed. If the parts hadn't arrived, we would have used the bypass." David Lauer noticed in the District minutes that there were some downriver people on the western slope who had some major concerns about topping over. "Could you tell us what effect that has on the downstream homeowners and ranchers, etc. Are they saying that the surges are too great and they are getting flooded out?" "What we have run into over the last couple of years is that we have been put into a no win situation," Mr. Schleiger began. "In the last couple of years when we were in the January/February time frame, we were looking at most probable runoff, and with that there was the anticipation of a spillage; you weren't going to be able to hold it. The first year when this was occurring, in the latter part of January, we started bypassing some flows through the outlet works, because the last thing we wanted was an uncontrolled spill going over the spillway. You can still see part of the spillway hanging on the side of the mountain from the first time Granby overtopped. The rest is downstream somewhere. When we started limited control releases early in the year there was icing. When it reached Burns Canyon below Hot Sulphur Springs, it startedjamming up and the water backed up into Hot Sulphur Springs and they didn't like it." "Last year we waited until the icing problems were gone and we began making larger releases. As you probably know, people over there have built along the side of the river, and when we began getting over 2,000 feet in the river, the water was up against their porches. On the other hand, if we would have let it go, there would have been 3200 feet and it would have been in the houses," he stressed. "It seems to me a long time ago, there were some warnings put out about building along the river" Mr. Lauer recalled. "Did people just ignore those warnings?" "Yes," W. Schleiger replied. Dr. Sanders thanked Mr. Schleiger for his report. PROPOSED SURPLUS WATER RENTAL RATES Each year after the irrigation companies have established their annual assessment rates for water shares, the Water Board recommends to the City Council the rental rates for the City's surplus raw water. A table included in Board packets showed the assessment rates set by the irrigation companies and the rental rates set by the City for 1997 and 1998 as well as proposed rates for 1999. The proposed rates for 1999 are based on several factors including past rental rates in the area, current assessments and anticipated supply and demand conditions. Staff recommends that the following rental rates be adopted: Water Board Minutes February 25, 1999 Page 4 Type of Water NCWCD Water (CBT) - Ag NCWCD Water (CBT) - M&I North Poudre Irrigation Co. - Early Ag Use North Poudre Irrigation Co. - Ag Use North Poudre Irrigation Co. - Multiple Use Water Supply and Storage Co. Pleasant Valley & Lake Canal Co. New Mercer Ditch Co. Larimer County Canal No. 2 Arthur Irrigation Co. Warren Lake Reservoir Co. Joe Wright Reservoir Water Sherwood Res. Co. Sherwood Irrigation Co. Reusable Effluent Proposed 1999 Rental Charge* 18.00 / ac-ft 33.00 / ac-ft 10.00 / ac-ft 22.00 / ac-ft 27.00 / ac-ft 2,500.00 / share 180.00 / share 180.00 / share 275.00 / share 14.00 / share 120.00 / share 38.00 / share 5.00 / share 450.00 / share 34.00 / ac-ft For late season rentals, rates may be adjusted to reflect the remaining yield or the prevalent market price of the water stock being rented. Beth Molenaar explained that there were not many changes from last year to this year. There were a couple of major changes last year. One was that North Poudre began renting by the acre foot rather than by the share. "We also established separate rates for ag. versus municipal rentals of CBT water," she said. This year the biggest change is the addition of reusable effluent. "Right now we do not have any specific requests for that water," she said, "but it is possible that people may want to rent that this year, so staff decided to add it to the rental list." "Is that put out at the river by the treatment plant or do you pump it up to Rawhide?" a Board member asked. "Just from the treatment plant," Mrs. Molenaar replied. "We have to do some special accounting to make it reusable. It could be from Windy Gap, Joe Wright or other reusable water we have," she added. "Where does the money go from rental rates?" Tom Sanders asked. "It's its own fund," Mrs. Molenaar answered. Dennis Bode added that it goes into miscellaneous revenue of the Water Utility and is part of the general operating revenue. Dr. Sanders also asked what staff predicts will be the amount of revenue collected this year. "Last year we had $348,000. I am anticipating that this year it is going to be less than that," Mrs. Molenaar replied. "I think we put $250,000 in the budget," she said, "but it may be a little more than that. We probably won't have much revenue from CBT rentals this year, and that was $77,000 last year." Dr. Sanders suggested staff include that information when this item is prepared next year. "We will," Mrs. Molenaar responded. P Water Board Minutes February 25, 1999 Page 5 "Are the costs mainly to maintain our costs as far as delivery," Dr. Sanders asked. "For the most part, yes. There are some cases like Water Supply & Storage, where we make significantly more than we pay in assessments," Mrs. Molenaar explained, "but that is because of the market out there. Right now the company owns some shares that they rent to their customers, and they charge $2,000 a share more than the assessment which this year is $760.00. "Do we rent it at the same price?" Dr. Sanders asked. "Actually we rent it for a little less than the company, but we are trying not to compete. In fact we already have 55 shares requested to rent and we only own 24 shares," she explained "We have three weeks left until the request process closes, so I imagine we will have close to three times the number of requests for shares than we own." "Do we have a protocol for how the water is rented?" Dr. Sanders wanted to know. "It's random," Mrs. Molenaar replied. "How is that done?" "I split every request into increments and I throw them into a 'virtual' hat, (it's on the computer), and assign random numbers," she explained. Tom Brown asked what the CBT assessment rates are for M&I. "The M&I is up to $16.80 this year for a unit, and the ag. Rate is $6.96," she replied. "Would you explain the difference between the multiple use and ag. rental use?" Mr. Brown continued. "We pay $16.80 in assessments; e.g. last year we had a quota of 50% which means for every unit we received only a half an acre foot. To rent an acre foot of water, we had already paid $33.00 or $32.50 in assessments last year," she said. "But the ag. rental market, because the assessments are so much less, would be high if they had to pay the $33.00; in fact they probably wouldn't pay it. They would probably be able to rent it cheaper elsewhere. We really try to stick with whatever the market is on that water," she stressed. "Do you sell it at the $33.00 rate to anybody?" Mr. Brown wondered. "Sure," she answered. "What happens is individuals that are served by various water districts are charged a surcharge when they use more water than they are allocated. For example, people with a swimming pool or a couple of horses in their back yard, or a large lawn, may go into that surcharge rate. It's cheaper for them to come to us, rent an acre foot, and transfer it to their district, than it is for them to pay the surcharge," she responded, "and the water districts allow that." Dr. Sanders said he would like the extra above the maintenance costs to go into the water fund to buy more water. "What would it take to do that? $250,000 isn't chicken feed!" he insisted. "We pay a lot more in assessments than we receive in rental revenue," Mike Smith pointed out. "Last year we received about 58% of our assessments in rental income." Mrs. Molenaar noted. "Last year the assessments totaled almost $600,000," she added. "Then this money goes into the account that helps to pay for the assessments," Mr. Sanders verified. "Can you explain why the assessments for New Mercer and Warren Lake are at 0 this year?" Joe Bergquist asked. "New Mercer is at 0 this year; two years ago it was $250.00 and Warren Lake is at 0," David Lauer pointed out. "New Mercer had a windfall by selling some stock they had. They had a lot of revenue, so they spread it out over a few years," Dennis Bode explained. "They took whatever they needed for operating revenue out of that windfall and set the assessments at 0 and also Water Board Minutes February 25, 1999 Page 6 sent dividend checks to the City for the remainder." He said Warren Lake sold some property a few years ago which resulted in a similar situation to New Mercer. They had more revenue than what the operating costs were so they were able to provide some dividends and also set the assessments at 0. "Is that because their charter doesn't allow them to keep that much money in the books?" Mr. Bergquist asked. "Not necessarily," Mr. Bode replied. "I don't think there was any reason for them to keep it. The shareholders were more interested in getting that money back than having the company hang onto it," he concluded. ACTION: Motion and Vote Tom Sanders called for a motion. Joe Bergquist moved that the Water Board recommend to the Council that they adopt the surplus water rental rates recommended by staff. After a second from John Morris, the vote for the motion was unanimous. POTENTIAL ACQUISITION OF GRAVEL PITS Dennis Bode said that Utilities staff and Natural Resources Department staff have been discussing the possible acquisition of several gravel pits and the associated land along the Poudre River between Shields Street and Overland Trail. He indicated the location on a map attached to the agenda summary. He said Board members may recall about 10 years ago this same property was considered for purchase by the City and the Water Board. "For various reasons that deal never went through. Over the last year or so there has been renewed interest from that party to sell that property." Proposal The proposal includes purchase of the following • 273 acres of land in the Poudre River corridor (of which 52.7 acres are to donated to Poudre School District). • Approximately 1,800 acre feel of water storage capacity • Water rights in the John Brown Ditch • 26 shares of Arthur Irrigation Company The offer being made to the present owners would cost the City $913,000. This cost would be split between the Utilities and the Natural Resources Department as follows: Utilities Natural Resources Land and storage capacity $361,000 $361,000 John Brown Water Rights $ 35,000 26 shares of Arthur Ditch $156,000 Total $552,000 $361,000 Water Board Minutes February 25, 1999 Page 7 Mr. Bode said that Lafarge Corporation (formerly Western Mobile) holds first right of refusal for this property. Once the City makes a formal offer to the present owners, Lafarge will have 30 days to match the offer. "We will not know until after this option period whether the City will actually be able to purchase the property." If Western Mobil purchases it, Mr. Bode understands there have been other discussions, particularly with Natural Resources and Western Mobile about working together on some of their property. "I'm not sure where it would go in that case," he acknowledged. "Basically this would get us lined up to make the offer and move forward. Use of Property Mr. Bode went on to say that the Utility has recognized for the last 10 years, that it would be desirable to have some local storage along the River. He pointed out on the map that these sites are close to the Larimer No. 2 and New Mercer Ditches, and also the Arthur Ditch. "It creates a place where we could divert water through any of those ditches and get it to the ponds quite easily. Other water, such as from the Michigan Ditch or Joe Wright Reservoir, could also be stored in the ponds. There are a number of possibilities for using this water. First of all, it provides a place for us to use some of the peak flows from our water rights from the Southside Ditches. "We could store some of that and smooth it out so we could use it later in the season. We could release water to the River for exchange of CBT water in Horsetooth Reservoir or for exchange of water diverted upstream at the City's pipeline. Water could also be released to the River to meet return flow obligations or augmentation requirements of the City. It was mentioned that the Natural Resources Dept. is interested in using these lands along the Poudre River for open space and/or natural areas. Another use is for the extension of the Poudre Trail to the west toward Overland Trail, Acquisition Costs Mr. Bode pointed out that these ponds have some area that is owned by two other parties. On Pond No. 1 the northern part is owned by another party. On pit No. 3 the northwest comer is owned by another party. It is anticipated that if this deal went through, the City may also want to acquire the two small parcels that are adjacent to the property. "If we purchase it, there would be some added costs to put a dike across there or work out something with the other property. It is estimated that it could cost an additional $170,000 to purchase these parcels and for miscellaneous legal and appraisal fees. Utilities and Natural Resources anticipate that this cost would be shared half and half. Combining the initial purchase cost of $552,000 with the purchase of the additional two parcels ($85,000), the cost to the Utilities is estimated to be $637,000. In order to proceed with a firm offer Water Board Minutes February 25, 1999 Page 8 to the present owners, the Utilities need to have an ordinance adopted by the City Council to appropriate funds from the Utilities' water rights reserve fund. Development of the Site If the site is acquired by the City, Utilities and Natural Resources would work together to develop the site to meet the needs of the City. The Utilities' primary purpose would be to develop some regulation storage capacity to more fully utilize the City's water rights. By having some capacity at this location, it is anticipated that the firm yield of the City's supplies to meet our treated water demands will increase by the approximate active storage capacity of the ponds. Because of this, the site becomes very valuable and attractive to the Utilities. There will be additional costs to develop the site for use as operating storage ponds. If acquired, additional analysis will be conducted to determine the best way to convert it over to a useful storage reservoir and also meet the needs of the Natural Resources Dept. "We'll probably want to line the pits to make them watertight so we wouldn't have problems with augmentation requirements," Mr. Bode said. He also said there would be some cost to get water into the pits. If water was brought down from Larimer No. 2, for example, it may require a small pipeline. "There would be some costs to get water back out with some kind of outlet and some way to get it into the river," he explained. It is estimated that the cost of developing it for a regulating storage reservoir will be about $1,000 per acre foot of capacity. "There would be some fairly substantial costs, but I think it would be worth it," Mr. Bode concluded. "Are you talking about building pipelines? They aren't in existence now, are they?" Mr. Lauer asked. "There would certainly have to be some kind of outlet from the ponds," Mr. Bode responded, "whether it was a pipe or even an open ditch; or maybe even pump the water somehow from the pit back into the River. There are several alternatives we would need to look at," he added. "Is that included in the $1,000 per acre foot of capacity?" Tom Sanders asked. "Potentially, yes," Mr. Bode replied. "That's a little rough at this point, but it's probably a pretty good ball park figure." "What was the asking price 10 years ago?" Mr. Lauer asked. "Considerably less, I think, but I'm not sure of the number," Mr. Bode answered; "it was something like $265-300,000." Dr. Sanders asked who else would want to buy the ponds and this property other than Lafarge. "I think there are other entities, such as Thornton ---entities to the south," Mr. Bode said. "There are many municipalities that are turning to gravel pits to get a little added storage. It is relatively cheap compared to some of the big storage projects." "But you would have to pump it out and get it running in through gravity," Dr. Sanders noted. "Maybe," Mr. Bode replied. "We would probably look first at a gravity option. Also, with Natural Resources, we will probably look at some options of trying to preserve the natural areas to the extent we could. We probably would not want to drain it completely either," he stated. "That's the other issue," Dr. Sanders pointed out. "I think if we are going to get into this, we want to have the flexibility to work this like a reservoir and do Water Board Minutes February 25, 1999 Page 9 augmentation which might be dropping it 10-20 feet. Would Natural Resources be willing to go along with that?" "We would certainly have to work out the arrangements," Mr. Bode answered, "so it is usable to us, and at the same time, if they are participating, to get some benefit from their viewpoint. In talking to Tom Shoemaker, I think we can work out some arrangements," he assured the Board. "What is happening in the area that is not included? Is that being mined now?" Mr. Bergquist wanted to know. "I'm not sure what the plans are for the piece in the middle," Mr. Bode said. "There is some land south of the railroad tracks too that I think is still being farmed. Some of you may recall that the existing trail ends at Taft Hill right now. There has been a lot of interest to get that trail through there somewhere, and this would provide a possible opportunity to do that." "Have you bumped into the I. C. Woods Drain?" Mr. Frick asked. He said there is apparently some conflict between Lafarge and the owners of that drain which has to go east of Shields and extends almost right through the middle of one of the pits. I don't know what's going on with that, but are there any legal complications that we could get ourselves into?" "I haven't had any recent discussions with anybody about this, but, at one time, I think the owners had approached the City about buying it." Mr. Bode replied. "Those kinds of issues may come up and we will have to deal with them. I think we could work something out." He added that there would be some other water rights issues that we would have to deal with, particularly in terms of legally storing water in the pits. "For the most part the Southside Ditches water rights have been set up in a way that they can be used for augmentation to meet return flow obligations, and in a variety of other ways," he stated. "By doing this are we essentially restricting the River channel in that area?" Mr. Frick asked. "Do we want to move high flows into the ponds at some point and have we factored that into our thoughts?" Mr. Frick wondered. "Not much right now, but that will need to be addressed when we get into the design of the ponds," Mr. Bode responded. "You may need to design it for a big flood to go through that area." "I know there are some soft spots; we would probably have to factor that in," Mr. Frick said. "Whether Natural Resources would like to tame the River down is the question." Mr. Bode repeated that he thinks it really is a design issue, "but I think Natural Resources recognizes that if we are going to do this, we are going to have to get the benefit to use it for storage." "Does the City own any other land in this area?" Robert Ward asked. "There are a lot of parcels up and down the River, but I don't think there is too much in this area," Mr. Bode replied. "I thought Natural Resources owned some of it between Shields and Taft," Susan Hayes said. Mr. Bode pointed out on a map the ponds in question. "The brown areas are natural areas. Downstream Natural Resources owns a lot of that land. The green is parks." "Is there any potential for getting any of the ponds down below?" Mr. Frick asked. "Maybe some of them," Mr. Bode replied. "Some of you may recall a gravel lands study that was done by the City about a year ago. They tried to include some areas that could be used for reservoirs and other areas that could be left as natural habitat. There may be one area downstream that could be used for a reservoir." Water Board Minutes February 25, 1999 Page 10 "How did you arrive at a price for the Arthur Ditch?" Tom Brown asked. "The Southside Ditch shares are going for somewhere around $1800 per acre foot, based on our conversion factors," Mr. Bode responded, "and with Arthur we have 3.4 acre feet per share; it's roughly $6,000 per share, which makes it $6,000 x 26. "What's the donation to the school district?" Mr. Brown continued. Mr. Bode said he hasn't been involved in that part of it. "That's a Natural Resources issue. The owner was interested in making some kind of a donation to help this sale. "Who is the owner?" W. Lauer asked. "The owner is Garth Rogers, and I think he may have a partner who is involved," Mr. Bode answered. "He owns roughly 273 acres." "Are there any concerns about mineral rights?" George Reed asked. "I don't know of any mineral right concerns," Mr. Bode answered. "Most ofthe gravel has been mined out; I was wondering if they would be looking at any other mining" Mr. Reed continued. "The ponds that we are looking at for the Utility's use are already mined," Mr. Bode related. "So there should be no reason why we can't retain the mineral rights when we purchase the property just to prevent someone from coming in later claiming they have mineral rights," Dr. Sanders pointed out. "You might have to ask that," he added. Tom Sanders asked about the water rights for the Arthur Ditch and the John Brown Ditch. "Would that money come out of the water fund and the $361,000 come out of another fund?" "They would come out of the same water fund," Mike Smith replied. Mr. Bergquist asked about the price ofthe land. "This price was based more on a value of the storage capacity rather than land," Mr. Bode explained. "In some of the negotiations there was discussion about whether this land could be developed or not. I think the City was making the argument that it wouldn't be land that could be developed, and therefore the price should be based on the storage capacity which is less than the value of land that potentially could be developed in the area. If it is developable, I think the price is more in the range of $7-10,000 an acre," Mr. Bode said. "This price turns out to be quite a lot less than that." "Is there water in the ponds now?" Mr. Ward asked. Mr. Bode said he thought there was water in the west ponds. "Also, there is water in Pond No. 3 near the bike trail. "On the south side, the ponds are basically all dry and mostly mined out." "Has the current owner purchased water rights to cover the evaporation from those ponds?" Mr. Ward continued. "Some ofthese were grandfathered in; that happened before 1980-81," Mr. Bode answered. "That was the cut-off date for the augmentation requirements." "So we wouldn't be purchasing liability on that end?" Mr. Ward wondered, "and if you turned this into a storage facility, you wouldn't have to purchase rights for that?" "If we purchased the property and made the pits watertight, so they wouldn't be collecting water from the groundwater or the River adjacent to it, then those requirements should go away," Mr. Bode explained. "Would others kick in?" W. Ward continued. "If you used water that was reusable then you wouldn't have the augmentation requirements. You would continue to have evaporation, but that would come from whatever water you put in there. You wouldn't have to augment the River for that," Mr. Bode responded. Water Board Minutes February 25, 1999 Page 11 "Can we separate the water rights from the property and just buy them and not the property?" Tom Sanders asked. "They probably want to do this package, although, if it falls through, there may be some potential to buy the 26 shares of Arthur," Mr. Bode replied. "Do the gravel companies have to buy that water when they are doing their gravel operations?" Dr. Sanders asked. "They need to be able to meet any augmentation requirements," W. Bode answered. "If all of these pits have been mined already, and there isn't anything of value to Lafarge as far as gravel goes, what would be their motivation to take the first right of refusal," David Lauer asked. "They may have some other operations where they have some mining going on and where they need to provide some augmentation water," Mr. Bode replied. "So they would use the pits for water storage too?" Mr. Lauer asked. "They could," Mr. Bode answered. Mr. Frick asked about the 57 acres that would be donated to the school district. "My understanding is that they are looking at the parcel of land that is on the north side of the River," Mr. Bode said. "Are they getting a hole in the ground too, or are they getting usable land?" Dr. Sanders asked. "I don't know much about that piece," Mr. Bode said. There were a couple of questions about access and easements. Mr. Bode acknowledged there are some access issues that need to be resolved. Dr. Sanders was concerned about the next issue the Board was going to discuss which is the out -of - City service request for connecting to City sewer for an RV park. "Should we keep the two separate?" he asked. "I'm not sure that I see them tied together," Mr. Bode said. "I think the sewer line would come down Taft Hill and I don't see that it would interfere with this piece of it." Dr. Sanders was concerned that a sewer line connection would make this area prime real estate. "You would have to change the zoning; it's all ag. right now," Mr. Lauer pointed out. Dr. Sanders also pointed out that with the land development, the price of the land we are talking about is bound to go up in a couple of years. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Utilities work cooperatively with the Natural Resources Department to acquire the identified gravel pits and associated land for development as a regulating reservoir for the Utilities and for other uses as identified by Natural Resources. It is recommended that Utilities' staff prepare an appropriate resolution and/or ordinance for City Council consideration to appropriate $637,000 from the water rights reserve fund for the possible purchase of this property. ACTION: Motion and Vote Robert Ward moved that the Board accept stafrs recommendation. After a second from Alison Adams, the Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Water Board Minutes February 25, 1999 Page 12 OUT OF CITY SERVICE REQUEST - NORTH TAFT HILL RD. The Water Utility received a request for sanitary sewer service for a proposed RV campground located east of Taft Hill Road and north of the Lafarge (formerly Western Mobile) gravel operation. City Code requires that out -of -city service requests for developments other than single family be taken to Water Board for a recommendation to the Utilities General Manager. Roger Buffington said the proposed campground will contain approximately 175 RV sites and 25 tent sites. Water for the campground will be provided by the West Fort Collins Water District. He pointed out the exact location on a map. The property involved is just outside the Urban Growth Area (UGA). The City limits zigzag around in the Vine Dr. area. Service for the proposed development would be provided by the existing Northwest Trunk sewer which serves the area northwest ofFort Collins, including the town ofLaporte. The Northwest Trunk crosses Taft Hill Road approximately 3A mile north of Vine Drive. As was mentioned previously, the City limits zigzag around in the Vine Dr. area. When this sewer was constructed in the mid-1980s, a 21-inch sewer was stubbed to the north on the east side of Taft for future extension. A sewer to serve the proposed campground would extend north along Taft from the Northwest Trunk sewer approximately 2,750 feet to the campground entrance. The sewer line from the campground would connect to the trunk sewer extension at that point. Mr. Buffington related that the Wastewater Collection System Study completed in 1990 projects that the Northwest Trunk sewer downstream (east) of Taft Bill has excess capacity for several years into the future with the exception of a stretch of 18-inch which may require replacement. The timing of additional needs in that area is totally dependent on the rate of development that occurs. "We have also done some additional flow monitoring in the Northwest Trunk area and have found that the flows are even lower than what were used for that original collections system," he said. Potential Impacts to the City Service Area Extension of the sewer north along Taft Hill Rd. may generate interest for some sort of development. Downstream Capacity "We don't see any immediate problems there," Mr. Buffington said. "Although we get calls each year inquiring about sewer service from as far north as Taft and County Road 54G (the old 287), the sewer has never been extended due to the river crossing, and in many cases, the distance involved," Mr. Buffington continued. "After the 1997 Flood we received a number ofcalls from people who were having problems with septic system failure. The County also contacted Water Board Minutes February 25, 1999 Page 13 us at that time to see if sanitary sewer was available in that area. Though it's not guaranteed, it's possible we'll get additional requests once the line crosses the river and farther north. Financial Considerations The developer of the campground would be responsible for the cost of an 8-inch sewer, and the City would be responsible for oversizing the line in accordance with the sewer oversizing provisions of City Code (Section 26-371). The City's portion of the cost would come out of the annual oversizing budget or the capital projects budget if constructed as a City project. "Are you saying the developer would be responsible for the 2700 feet?" Tom Sanders asked. "He would be responsible for the 8-inch," Mr. Buffington replied. Mr. Buffington went on to say that Larimer County has approved the proposed campgrounds with a number of conditions: one is that the sanitary sewer service is obtained from the City for the campground. Staff Recommendation: Staff supports the out -of -city service request and asks that the Water Board recommend approval. Discussion "Funding a 2700 foot sewer is a lot of money for just an RV park." Dr. Sanders contends. "It's quite an ambitious project," Mr. Buffington pointed out. "They are looking at 200 sites, most of them RV sites and a few tent sites." "Are these going to be permanent emplacements for some of them or is it going to be limited to summer hookups?" Mr. Lauer asked. "I believe the County put come conditions on the length oftime someone could stay in a site," Mr. Buffington replied. "They don't want permanent residents there." "Is that area in the 100-year floodplain?" Mr. Lauer continued. Mr. Buffington didn't know but he asked Susan Hayes to check it out. He thought the County might have addressed that. Mike Smith pointed out that extending the sewer has some advantages if it can be extended farther to connect to residences with septic tanks. "The City has a problem with water contamination with the use of septic tanks." "How far would you extend the sewer; would you go all the way to 287?" Mr. Bergquist asked. "Initially the project would be just to get it to the entrance to the campground, but the campground developer indicated that he has already had contact from other people wanting to know when that might happen. I think there is interest," Mr. Buffington responded. "I don't know if it would go all the way to 287; perhaps in the future." Water Board Minutes February 25, 1999 Page 14 "Would the line be right along Taft Hill?" Mr. Lauer asked. "I really don't know for sure. This initial part of it will depend a little on where we can get a good crossing on the river, so it may not be right within the Taft Hill Rd. right-of-way," Mr. Buffington explained. "It will go under the river," he added. "Will you go the full 21 inch?" Mr. Bergquist asked. "We haven't looked at the final size yet," Mr. Buffington answered. "When the Northwest Trunk was extended a number of years ago, there was a 21 inch sewer stubbed out to the north, but I'm sure we would review the sizing to see if that was still appropriate. "Would you go from the development north going east?" Mr. Bergquist asked. "If we received a request we would probably look at that area," Mr. Buffington replied. "There hasn't been a lot of study of the potential out there. The topography would probably limit how far east we could go. There is the potential to extend it quite a ways to the north without getting too shallow." George Reed asked how you determine the sewer bill for an outfit like that when the City doesn't supply the water. "In this case the West Fort Collins Water District currently supplies water to the Lafarge operation, and they would supply water to the campground," Mr. Buffington replied. "We work closely with them on a number of customers where we provide sewer service and they provide water. We base the sewer bill on the water meter readings we get from the WFCWD," he explained. "If you oversize that line, do the future users pay the City back for any of that oversizing investment?" Mr. Reed asked. "Typically in an area like that, if there were development adjacent to the sewer, we would have the ability to recoup some of the cost. In this case I'm not sure there is going to be too much adjacent development because we are going across the Poudre floodplain," Mr. Buffington responded. "So you wouldn't oversize it very much?" Mr. Reed continued. "We would look at potentially what capacity we would need for an area that would be practical to serve to the north," Mr. Buffington answered. Jim Hibbard said, as the additional area is developed to the north, they would pay for their respective portion of that through their Plant Investment Fees (PIFs) which are hook up fees for both treatment plant and sewer expansion capacity. There wouldn't be a direct component but indirectly through their PIFs they fund those types of expansions. "In our capital budgets we carry projects like this for oversizing." After checking maps Susan Hayes reported that apparently a portion of the site is in the floodplain. "Our Development Review Department has reviewed the site. Marsha Hilmes is trying to track down the letter with comments we sent to the County. There were issues about access, emergency response, evacuation during a flood, etc.," she said. "In any case, the County has jurisdiction," Mr. Hibbard related. "That's correct," Ms. Hayes said. "We give them comments but they are the entity that controls the land use issues," Mr. Hibbard added. "There is a portion in the southern part of the site that has some kind of pond or gravel pit," Mr. Buffington pointed out "The developer is planning on having a lake or fishing pond in that area." I Water Board Minutes February 25, 1999 Page 15 "What's the advantage to us for doing this other than being a good neighbor?" Dr. Sanders asked. "It keeps people off septic tanks and we're in the business," Mike Smith replied. "Does it help us in the future to expand our water area," Dr. Sanders wondered. "It expands the wastewater service area," Mr. Smith answered. "What Mr. Buffington will do is look at the potential for what it can actually serve up there, and try to size it so that it serves a reasonable size." "If you put that line up there, and it goes by these folks, would they be for to connect?" Dr. Sanders asked. "When there is a question of the proper operation of their septic systems, the County can require somebody to tie onto the sewer system if they are within 400 feet," Mr. Smith explained. "Most of the development is going to be to the north though; more than 400 ft. to the north." Mr. Lauer pointed out. "That's right, you can't require them, but many of them will be motivated simply because they are experiencing failed septic systems," Mr. Smith said. "Will the West Fort Collins Water District always supply the water up there?" Mr. Bergquist asked. "That boundary probably will not change," Mr. Smith answered. He added that the City sells them water. Mr. Hibbard related that some of the service area boundaries and basins are totally political. "What bothers me about this is the 2700 feet of pipe. Could that approach a million dollars?" Dr. Sanders asked. "A million dollar investment for a sewer just for 270 RVs, seems high." "If they were the only potential customer out there, I would agree with you, but just from the calls we have received in the area, we expect a lot more interest," Mr. Buffington responded. "Also, from discussions with the County Health Department they have a lot of interest in getting sewer service out there," he added. Mr. Smith doesn't think it will cost that much. He thinks it would be about a quarter of a million dollars. "In addition to the cost of an 8 inch sewer line, would the developer pay a PIF to cover the impact to the City's treatment plant?" Tom Brown asked. "Yes, the developer will be required to pay a wastewater PIF for his connection and that would be based upon the size of his water service as is the case for other commercial customers," Mr. Buffington explained. "If this were an RV park, could it later be used for houses?" Dr. Sanders asked. "It would have to be redeveloped," Mr. Smith said. "It would have to be rezoned too," Mr. Lauer added. "An RV park on a floodplain or contiguous to it, is probably not as bad as a housing development," Dr. Sanders observed. Mr. Lauer said if the Board recommends this, he thinks we should go along with staffs recommendation with the condition that there won't be any elevation of the floodplain. Susan Hayes said the City's comments were discouraging to say the least to not approve the development. "We need to track down the comments about this." "It seems to me it's a different issue," Mr. Reed said. "If the RV park is approved, I think we ought to supply sewer service." Alison Adams agreed. They both think the configuration of the park is the County's business. "The City is not recommending this. Staff is recommending the extension," John Morris pointed out. "Historically, what happens when Water Board Minutes February 25, 1999 Page 16 these are out of City, especially when it's out of the Urban Growth Area," Jim Hibbard said, "the land use components of the decision aren't within our purview, so we normally bring them to the Board to look at the engineering and the economic impacts regarding the Utility. Issues about whether an RV park is suitable there or not, or whether it's in the floodplain or not, would be addressed by the County and their floodplain or zoning regulations. Moreover, this vote will also go to the City P&Z Board from the land use perspective." "But the Utility staff thinks it's a prudent investment?" Mr. Morris asked "Yes, we are recommending approval," Mr. Hibbard answered. "We really want to try to separate the issues," Mr. Smith stressed. "Staff has commented on the stormwater issues to the County. The question for you when you put your wastewater hat on is, if that development is approved, will we provide sewer service?" ACTION: Motion and Vote Robert Ward moved that if the development is approved, the Board recommends that the City provide sewer service. George Reed seconded the motion. Tom Sanders asked Marsha Hilmes to give the Board a brief summary of staffs remarks to the County. Ms. Hilmes recalled that it is in the Poudre River floodplain; part of it was bordering right on the floodway. "I know I commented on the access issues of how they would get those RVs out ofthere during flooding, and what their emergency response plan was. We also talked about elevation of the ground in that area, and how we would deal with that given the code for mobile homes which also goes for RVs. They also discussed how long the RVs would be on site. If they are there for more than a certain number of days, they have to be elevated just like a mobile home. "Isn't there a requirement for the pads to be elevated?" Mr. Frick asked. "If it is considered a parking lot, how do you figure that?" Ms. Hilmes replied. "We have never had one in the City quite like that. I know Development Review had a number of comments too." "What happens is the County approval bodies take all the comments into consideration," Mr. Hibbard explained. "They can ignore it, they can implement part of it or they can implement all of it. Historically, we don't see the end result. We don't see what they did to address those concerns." Dave Frick explained that when the site is in the 100- year floodplain, the sewer connections would be below that, and would be subject to taking in all the water during a 100-year flood. "Is that correct?" "Yes," was the answer. "Normally those come right up to the ground level," Mr. Frick said. "Does the motion apply to only the 8 inch sewer line or to a larger line to handle potential additional customers?" Tom Brown asked. "Whatever the City decides to put up there, I would assume that this is approving how we agree we are going to extend and then act on the size of the extension," Mr. Ward said. "Any future connections, or future developments other than a single family house, would have to be approved by the County and would have to come back to the Board," Mr. Hibbard explained. Mr. Smith pointed out that the County has already approved the RV park subject to the City providing sewer service. Mr. Buffington pointed out that the condition for sewer service was just Water Board Minutes February 25, 1999 Page 17 one of about 35 conditions, some of them dealing with the floodplain. They had to meet County floodplain regulations. Vote Tom Sanders called for the question. Dave Frick asked that, along with the motion, there be a condition that the sewer line be protected from a 100-year flood. Mike Smith said certain kinds of elevated connections can be required. The motion, with DaveFrick's amendment, passed 8-1. David Lauer abstained. VIDEO ON WATERSHED PROTECTION Ben Alexander reminded the Board that he gave a presentation to them about two years ago trying to rally support for the regional watershed protection program. He said the video is a further effort to provide outreach and inform people in Fort Collins and the surrounding area about the program. After the Board watched the excellent video on regional watershed protection there were a few questions and comments. Robert Ward asked Mr. Alexander if the video is being distributed around the area. "We are getting ready to," Mr. Alexander said. "This is only the second time we have shown it." The Board agreed that it was very well done. "I wish they had included a list to start getting ready for the things that need to be done to protect the watershed instead of keeping it rather vague," Dr. Sanders remarked. Mr. Alexander stated that the organization has to come into its identity and determine its own course. "It would be inappropriate for us to prescribe what needs to be done. We want to be part of it, but it's not up to us to do it other than participate as a stakeholder to make sure it happens through the identity of that group that we are trying to form." Mr. Ward said the Water Resources Research Institute that he directs at CSU, has gone through a complete evolution. "We just created a new advisory committee. Our Legislature has re-established our state -based research program. The top prioritythat has been identified by the advisory committee, which consists ofthe chair ofthe Senate Ag. Committee, chair ofthe House Ag. Committee, the head of the Public Health and Environment Dept. and the head of the Department of Natural Resources, is to interface with forest operations and watershed protection. When I issued the call for proposals last December, I received no proposals on that. I went to the advisory committee and they were beside themselves that nobody was willing to submit a proposal to do that. They have instructed me to work with faculty in watershed sciences, forest sciences, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District staff, Denver Water Board staff and others, to actually develop a project to which they would direct a certain amount of funding for next year to begin quantifying that. As I talk to people, there is quite a bit of uncertainty about if we know all the information about the relationships between the forest and the water quantity and quality or do we not? That's one of the first issues we need to look at. The way the video begins fits perfectly with what I'm being asked to do," he concluded. Water Board Minutes February 25, 1999 Page 18 STAFF REPORTS Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported that February has been quite dry. "Our use is a little above average at 1,510 ac-ft., but it's close to what we projected," he said. Update: Rainfall Study Bob Smith reported that staff met with Council for a study session last Tuesday on the rainfall study. Next Tuesday night the study will be the second discussion item after the consent calendar. This will be the second reading of the ordinance which recommends the adoption of 3.67 inches over a two- hour period as the rainfall standard for a 100-year flood. "Who is speaking for the minority opinion?" Mr. Bergquist asked. "I expect that Don Heyse will," Mr. Smith answered. "We are hoping that somebody from the Water Board will be there to speak about the Board's recommendation," Mr. Smith said. Dr. Sanders said that he and Paul Clopper will be there. He invited other Board members to be present. Report on Floodplains Regulations Task Force Meeting JoeBergquist said that the Floodplains Regulations TaskForce had a productive meeting on February 22nd. Bob Smith reported that at the previous meeting the group wrote down all their ideas of possible changes in floodplain regulations as they relate to the Poudre River. At the last meeting they were asked to prioritize that list. Mr. Smith handed out the list that began with 52 ideas narrowed down to 12 priority items. Those were identified in bold print. Generally there were three themes: Make sure you notify people, don't allow development in the floodplain, and clarify the definition for critical facilities. At the March 25th meeting they will be discussing pros and cons and the definition of critical facilities. Mr. Bergquist commented that the task force is made up of a broad cross section of the community. Dr. Sanders asked Mr. Smith to provide a list of the members of the committee in the March packets. In going through the list, Dr. Sanders said he noticed a lot of good ideas. He would like to discuss those ideas further as a Board when there is more time. Report on Utilities Strategic Planning Initiative Meeting Dennis Sumner said there was a presentation on February 4' for the Water and Electric Boards. The consultants gave a presentation on the preliminary findings of the Utilities Strategic Planning Initiative. They collected information and came back to share what they thought they saw and what they are picking up on. There were a number of critiques offered to them from staff and the Boards. "Through March they will be giving us a next level draft report, and we hope to be finished with this first phase towards the end of March. At that point we should have something to share with the Board," he concluded. 0 0 Water Board Minutes February 25, 1999 Page 19 COMMITTEE REPORTS The Water Supply, Legislative and Finance, Engineering and Liaison Issues Committees had no reports. Conservation and Public Education David Lauer reported that staff gave a presentation on the education program. He passed around some of the items that are part of that program. Staff discussed both youth and adult education. The watershed program for elementary school students is divided into three areas: preventing pollution on surface water, treating water to mitigate the impacts of pollution and protecting and restoring habitat. These are done through working with PSD staff and field trips. The sample materials that Mr. Lauer brought to the meeting are used by Utility staff to train teachers so they can incorporate water education into the curriculum. In addition, schools are using the Utilities Web Site to bring up information on the internet, as well as some of the other curriculum materials. "The education program is a lot more extensive than any of us realized," Mr. Lauer stressed. "What we usually think about is the Children's Water Festival in the spring. Some of this is tied into the festival where some 1,800 third grade students are involved in the water festival activities. There is a lot of work involved in preparing the students for the festival." Staff then discussed the adult education part of the program. There are brochures and articles written by staff that appear in newspapers and various other publications. There is also the upkeep and development of the City's Xeriscape demonstration gardens. The downtown library has a large display on water that is maintained by staff. By the summer of 2000 there will be a large semi - portable display of the Poudre River watershed at the Discovery Center. A third of the display goes through the reaches of the River in the canyon, another goes through the urban area of Fort Collins, and the remainder is agricultural and prairie. "You will actually see water flowing down this model," he said. Stormwater staff talked about floodproofing and prevention and the extensions of this material on the web site. "Is there any way that the effectiveness of this program on the children can be measured?" Dr. Sanders asked. "One concern that staff has is they used to work with fourth and fifth graders and now because of PSD and state changes in the curriculum, they are now required to work with third grade kids. This age group can't pick up a whole lot of the conceptualization. They don't even know about percentages," Mr. Lauer explained. "The next time the students in PSD study water in any major way isn't until the seventh grade, so there is a rather wide gap there. One of the staff members suggested that Water Board members write letters to the PSD curriculum committee suggestingthat they extend the water program to the fifth grade. Staff is going to contact some fifth grade teachers and ask if they would be willing to extend their environmental curriculum to develop more concepts around Water Board Minutes February 25, 1999 Page 20 water in the fifth grade. "If they are willing to do that, we will ask the Water Board to make a recommendation to that effect and I will write a letter enforcing staffs suggestion," Mr. Lauer said. OTHER BUSINESS Bottled Water Robert Ward said he was at a meeting of the Central Arizona Project. At that meeting they put bottled water from the Central Arizona Project at each person's place at lunch. He thought that was a wonderful marketing idea. "Have we ever thought here about having promotional type things which cause you to view your water from the tap the same way as the water you buy in the grocery store, and thus make the connection between the two? Putting Fort Collins water, right out ofthe treatment plant, in a form like this, would make people realize that what they buy in a bottle isn't that much different from what comes out of the treatment plant," he said. "Our water is good enough that maybe we should think about doing that," Tom Sanders suggested, "and marketing it in other places." ADJOURNMENT Since there was not further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m. Water Board S cretary