Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 01/21/1983A MINUTES Water Board January 21, 1983 MEMBERS PRESENT Ward Fischer, Norm Evans, Henry Caulfield, George Wallace, Tom Moore, Tom Sanders, Ray Glabach, Dave Stewart, Bernie Cain STAFF PRESENT Roger Krempel, Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Keith Elmund, Andy Pineda, Curt Miller, Webb Jones, Cliff Hoelscher MEMBERS ABSENT Ev Richardson, Mort Bittinger (alt.), both excused Chairman Ward Fischer opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Minutes Approved. Raw Water Modeling Presentation Dennis Bode and Andy Pineda have been working on a raw water computer model which will be used as a tool to plan for future water supplies. several Water Board members had expressed an interest in learning more about the raw water computer model. As a result Andy Pineda, a staff water resources engineer, presented some information about the model he is using. He went over some of the purposes of the model which are: 1) to analyze some oT the water supply and demand situations; 2) to help investigate operational strategy questions; 3) to aid in answering some of the "what if" questions; and 4) to increase the ability to determine how long the supply will last under various assumptions. He also explained briefly the operation of the model. The major parts of the model are: 1) the sources of supply which form the data base from which the information is extracted; 2) the water demand points; and 3) the computer program which follows a number of rules and assumptions on how to allocate the water supply and meet the demand. After discussing the benefits, limitations, and some of the results that had been obtained from this model, Andy Pineda and Dennis Bode received questions and comments from Board members. Staff Report on Poudre Canyon Water Treatment Plant Recommendation Mike Smith reported that the staff has compiled the additional information which was requested by the Board to compliment the report and recommendation prepared by the Engineering Committee. He explained that the staff had prepared a Council report along with the information that the Board had requested. The staff thinks that the Board should have the opportunity to review all of the IF before it goes to Council. Theretore, the total package will be distributed to members about a week prior to the February Board meeting. Water Board Minutes Page 2 Discussion of North Poudre Reservoir No. 6 Roger Krempel reported that, recently, Ward Fischer had arranged a tour of the facilities of Reservoir No. 6 for staff members, the Board and the North Poudre Irrigation Co. The State has restricted the capacity of the reservoir because of its poor condition. The group also toured all the possible locations for exchanging that water to other users were the City to own the water in Reservoir No. 6. Drawing a rough map of the area, Ward Fischer expanded further on those possibilities. Following this update by Roger Krempel and Ward Fischer, Board members asked questions and made some important observations. In the meantime, discussions will continue_ among the interested parties. ller Contract Ward Fischer reminded the Water Board that they had been very insistent upon the satisfaction of a number of items from Pete Bailer betore a tinal agreement could be reached. Currently, there are several areas where the conditions have not been satisfied and it does not appear as though that will occur immediately, although all those conditions could probably be satisfied. The main condition is the sign -off by the State Engineer guaranteeing the quality of the dam; another was the decree on one of the rights that doesn't presently identify it for municipal purposes. The City informed Mr. Baller that they would pay him the down payment when the conditions were satisfied. To date the contract sent to him has not been returned to the City. Consequently, Assistant City Attorney Paul Eckman informed Mr. Baller that if the contract was not returned with his signature by February 1st, that it would be revoked immediately. At the time of the meeting the City had heard nothing. Staff Reports A. Water Production Summary A table and graph were distributed to the Water Board summing up the figures for 1982. Dennis Bode reported that the City ended up using just under 16,000 acre-feet which was about 84% of the total projected use. This was attributed primarily to the above normal precipitation of 21 inches which was received in 1982. Mr. Bode added, as a point of interest, that the max day for the year was 40.1 million gallons which occurred on day in July. B. Two -Term Limit Roger Krempel announced that, at a recent City Council meeting, there were a number of items related to boards and commissions that were brought up to date. Among them, the Council voted 5 to 2 to exempt the Water Board from the two -term limit as a result of the eftorts of some determined Board members. In addition, Mr. Krempel reported that the Council adopted a.strong code of ethics for boards and commissions. The new code will be distributed with the new Boards and Commissions Manuals at a future date. j � • Water Board Minutes Page 3 C. Boards and Commissions Training Sessions Mr. Krempel explained that City Council has been encouraging group participation and decision -making training for board and commission members. Hence, on Wednesday evening, February 2nd from 5:30 to 10:UU, the Water Board, the Storm Drainage Board, and the Parking Commission will meet as a group with their staffs for a general training session with a consultant from Lakewood who specializes in this area. Following that session, the boards and commission and their staffs will meet separately with the consultant to concentrate on their own concerns and problems. The Water Board will meet on Thursday morning, February 3rd, from 8 to 12 a.m, in the Water Utilities Conference Room. New Business At the beginning of the meeting Board members received copies of a letter from Attorney Art March for their comments and consideration. the letter was on behalf of Mr. March's client, K. Bill Tiley and Fox Ridge. The client's land is inside the City limits but outside of the interim service boundary which was established at the time of an interim agreement between the City and the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District. An agreement between the developer, Bucain Corp., and the previous owner, Tiley and Fox Ridge, specified that the owner would provide the water rights required for development of the property. The owner had anticipated meeting the City's raw water requirements of three acre-feet per acre. Now, according to the interim agreement, the development will be served water by the District whose water requirement is 1.0 acre-foot per two dwelling units, the owner is not willing to meet the District's water requirement and has requested that the interim service boundary between the District and the City be adjusted. The District is not willing to change the boundary. Other suggestions have been offered to which neither the City nor the District is agreeable. At a recent meeting between the steering committee and the District, the District proposed, as a possible solution, that the City trade CBI water for Josh Ames certificates on a one time basis. After Board discussion of this suggestion, Tom Sanders made the following motion: the Water Board would vehemently object to a trade of CBT water for Josh Ames certificates or anything of that nature. After a second from Dave Stewart, the motion passsed by a unanimous vote. Bernie Cain abstained from the discussion and the vote since he has a conflict of interest. Historically, the position of the Water Board has been that if someone is in the City limits he/she is entitled to water service from the City. the Board has adhered to that philosophy for many years and has never formally changed that position. The Water Board, approximately two years ago, had attempted to resolve what they perceived to be growing problems with the water districts as the City and the Districts tended to overlap. The Water Board and the Districts were unable to arrive at any solution that would be acceptable to, either side. Subsequently, when it was apparent that no agreement would be reached, the City and the District continued pending litigation. Early in 1982, the City and the District agreed to delay the Water Board Minutes Page 4 litigation and attempt to resolve their differences. As a result, an interim agreement or understanding was reached by a committee made up of City Council members and Water District members which attempted to solve some of the problems. The Water Board was never consulted concerning whether it should approve or disapprove of this proposed solution. Therefore, the Water Board retains its policy that if it is in the City it should be served with City water. The Board would like to aid the City Council in solving this problem, but since all negotiations involved in the agreement were done without their advice or consent, they would first like to learn the reasons for the Council actions. Assuming the Council will accept the offer of help from the Board, the Board proposed that a committee from the Water Board be set up with the following members to meet with the steering committee of the City Counci: Norm Evans (chairman), Tom Sanders, Tom Moore, Dave Stewart, Ward Fischer (ex-officio member), and Bernie Cain (it was suggested that he be invited to the meetings in an advisory capacity since, during the past negotiations, he was chairman of the utility committee and was involved in the whole process.) The Board also stressed the necessity for the City Attorney to be present at the meetings to address the confusing legal questions which are certain to emerge. They also proposed that, initially, a memo from the legal staff is needed to clear up the following legal questions: 1) Does a person who is a citizen and resides within the City boundaries have a right to demand water service from the City? 2) How can the conflict between the City's ordinances and the interim agreement be resolved? (In the Board's view, the ordinances and the agreement do not reflect the same philosophy.) 3) what is the propriety of Art March's views and the propriety of everyone else's views that ever come close to the same situation? In the meantime, the Water Board will be awaiting the memo from the legal staff regarding the questions addressed above and the decision from the City Council as to whether the Water Board committee set up to work with the Council steering committee will be acceptable. Other Business George Wallace asked what kind of progress is being made with the Ditch Consolidation proceedings. Roger Krempel said that, for the most part, the City thought the Ditch Companies were pleased with the latest proposed Ditch Consolidation Agreement. According to Dennis Bode, one of the main issues was that there may be future seepage losses of CBT water that wouldn't be occurring now. A few ditch people feel that they should be guaranteed that CBT water would be delivered to them at a certain rate or their traditional yield. This would cost the Storm Drainage Utility approximately $1YUU per year, not a considerable amount. The Storm Drainage Board was concerned that the annual cost of. $30,000 a year maintenance and some of the improvements would take away from the present storm drainage maintenance and construction program. The staff will continue to work with the Storm Drainage Board to inform them more adequately about future conditions. Water Board Minutes Page 5 Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. me!::;� >Ie Water 136%rd 15ecretary