Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 01/17/1992WATER BOARD MINUTES January 17, 1992 3:00 - 4:55 P.M. Water and Wastewater Utility Conference Room 700 Wood Street :_. � , I Fi s 0�1 Members Present Neil Grigg, President, Paul Clopper, Dave Frick, Terry Podmore, Mark Casey, Ray Herrmann, Tim Dow, Tom Brown, MaryLou Smith, Dave Stewart Rich Shannon, Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Linda Burger, Ben Alexander, Andy Pineda, Molly Nortier Guests John Bigham, Agency Coordinator, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Tom Shoemaker, Natural Resources Administrator John Reed, Citizen Observer Judy Harrington, Media Member Absent Tom Sanders (excused) President Neil Grigg opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Minutes Tim Dow moved that the minutes of December 20, 1991 be approved as distributed. After a second from Dave Frick, the Board voted unanimously for approval. Adoption of the Water Board Bylaws The revised bylaws were discussed at the previous meeting. the procedure is that they are discussed at one meeting and adopted at the next. Tim Dow moved that the Water Board approve the bylaws. MaryLou Smith seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously to adopt the bylaws. Water Board Minutes January 17, 1992 Page 2 John Bigham distributed the latest basin snow report. The current percentage of water stored in District reservoirs hasn't changed; just from one reservoir to another, as water from Granby is put into either Carter or Horsetooth Reservoirs. Carter is now up to 86%. Snowpack in the Poudre and Walden areas are probably as low as anywhere in the state, W. Bigham said. Some of the percentages aren't critical because we still have three good snow months left, he assured the Board. In the last 16 days, Fort Collins has officially received .34 inches of moisture; Loveland .46; Longmont .54, and Greeley .32. He went on to say that the state legislature has introduced over 370 bills, so it looks like a busy year to keep up with proposed legislation. It appears that there will be about 20 bills that the District is going to be concerned about. There are several basin of origin bills that have been proposed. There is also an impetus to have the directors of conservancy districts elected by the general public. A bill related to the transfer of general fund monies from the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the Water and Power Authority, is being introduced. Other topics for proposed bills are: weather modification, dam construction, livestock water tanks, payment in -lieu -of taxes from exempt property owned by local governments, and contracts for public works. "I am assuming you will have people who will be watching these and others," he said. Mr. Bigham said there are people still showing interest in the pipeline. Nothing is specific yet as far as deadlines. Neil Grigg asked if there were any bills that the District is particularly concerned about at this point. Mr. Bigham indicated that the bill on the transfer of water from natural river basins to locations outside of the basin, is one. There are some others that are going to be crucial. "We have the names and numbers, but haven't been able to get the bills," he said. Apparently the printing office is having difficulty keeping up with the volume. Uodate on Halligan Reservoir Draft A ment There have been lengthy discussions of this subject at the last two Water Board meetings. Mike Smith reported that staff sent a letter to North Poudre Irrigation Co. (NPIC) outlining some of the concerns that were expressed by the water Board. Staff recently met with their board, but a new agreement hasn't been prepared. "We hope to have it by next month," he said. After some discussion, the North Poudre Board felt that the termination clause in the agreement could be re -worded and include a refund to the City of half the option payments for the last 5 years. Water Board 111inutes January 17, 1M Page 3 Mr. Smith continued by saying that there will be additional re -wording to include some other options. We also discussed the initial option payments and the North Poudre Board agreed begin them at a lower number and move up at a faster rate. The total ends up being over $100,000 less than what was in the previous agreement, he said. Und&M on North Poudre Irrigation Co. M-1 1 Reservoir No 6 Mike Smith reported that staff made the counter offer suggested by the Water Board to the North Poudre Board. At staffs meeting with the N.P. Board they conveyed that they will not negotiate over the 800 Ac-ft, but they expanded the offer saying it is 800 Ac-ft if the City wants it guaranteed to be exchanged into Horsetooth. "If you want to take care of your own exchanges, we will give you the 1200 Ac-ft," they said. They also "put the offer on the back burner" themselves because they have some issues regarding their tax situation that need to be discussed and clarified. "It may take them awhile to work that out," Mr. Smith concluded. Is staff comfortable that the Utility could work those exchanges, so we can actually realize the extra water? Tim Dow asked. Mr. Smith stated that it may be a better option to take the 1200 Ac-ft and arrange the exchanges ourselves. However, staff has not had much time to talk about it, so there may not be anything to bring to the next Water Board meeting. Framework for Environmen1W Action for C4 of Fort Collins Tom Shoemaker gave a short presentation on the history of the Environmental Management Plan. He said he is hoping for a recommendation for acceptance from the Water Board. The plan is currently on the Council's schedule for next Tuesday. What the Water Board decides today will depend on whether Natural Resources moves ahead with that. Mr. Shoemaker explained that the project that the preliminary report summarizes, comes from a very broad Council goal to enhance the quality of the environment. One way that the Council asked Natural Resources to accomplish that was to develop an environmental management plan. Natural Resources has spent considerable time with related boards trying to come to conclusions about what that plan should be. One conclusion they have reached is that various policy and planning improvements need to be made, which would require taking specific actions to look to the future and improve our environmental management throughout the City. The document the Board reviewed is an attempt in that direction. He said that in a lot of ways, the document summarizes a process that is well underway. The document itself has three purposes: 1) To try to include in one place, a reasonably concise summary of the City's current approach to environmental policies and programs. Water Board Minutes January 17, 1992 Page 4 2) To identify some broad issues that Natural Resources has gathered through public involvement. 3) To attempt to bring it all together through a work program Mr. Shoemaker stressed that one of the reasons this is a complex task is that the City is already doing a lot. One of the things that needs to be done is policy development. There are many general statements, but there is not a lot of substance that says how we are going to accomplish these goals, how much it will cost, and how we will know when we have "gotten there." An important area of the document discusses public information and involvement. Part of that is citizen access to environmental programs and policies. Natural Resources is also recommending that additional emphasis be given in our public involvement programs to bringing people with diverse perspectives together to talk about issues. Organization and management issues should also be discussed through the City organization. Since it is decentralized, it makes it a little more difficult, Mr. Shoemaker said. The final part of the document attempts to bring it all together through a work program. It's trying to capture the on -going work and some future work that needs to be done across the City to fill policy gaps and take specific action to improve the environment. Mr. Shoemaker wanted to make it clear that they are not trying to set policies at this time. Utility staff have commented on the document filling in some gaps. Natural Resources has incorporated those changes in the document. Mike Smith concurred with Mr. Shoemaker's assessment of the document and Utility staff contributions. "The document is pretty much as it was when the Board looked at it previously," he said. Ray Herrmann asked if Water Board comments also are accounted for in the document. As he recalled the Board didn't have much to say generally about the plan except for a few factual errors. Mr. Shoemaker said the Board's suggestions would have been incorporated in Section 1. Sections 2 and 3 are new. "This report addresses a number of different environmental concerns," Mark Casey said. He wondered what the greatest environmental challenge is for Fort Collins. "We know we have some air quality problems, and some very specific ground water problems," Mr. Shoemaker responded, "but the main challenge we have is maintaining the quality of the environment." Certainly hazardous waste is an issue that is out there also, he added. Water Board Minutes January 17, IM Page 5 Rich Shannon mentioned that there are 5 areas for which the Council has given a preliminary nod, and these are the areas that should receive primary attention. It helps staff in all departments to be able to have a little more focus out of a document like this, he said. Mr. Shoemaker said there are actually ten areas which are: air quality, natural areas, Poudre River, hazardous materials (risk reduction and management), hazardous waste management, surface water quality aimed primarily at storm water system response, energy conservation, water demand management, recycling and solid waste reduction, as well as asking how we in City operations are doing as leaders. Neil Grigg pointed out that the plan included issue identification that says the process included public outreach to determine issues citizens felt should be addressed. Are the results of that in the plan? "The two ways we attempted to capture that are contained in chapter 3," Mr. Shoemaker replied. One was simply to list the components of how people define the environment in Fort Collins and the second part of that was the discussion of how we need to improve. Natural Resources has working papers that summarize the specific items. Dr. Grigg wondered if any of the items the citizens identified are in the water and wastewater areas. "Water conservation measures to reduce consumption seemed to be on peoples' minds," Mr. Shoemaker responded. People are generally concerned about the environment, but there are a wide variety of ideas about how to get there. There are couple of issues that relate directly to the Utility. There were no public comments about water quality, wastewater treatment or sludge disposal. "We have included them in the document because not to do so would not be looking into the future. That signals to me that basically, those things are well in hand," he said. The other two general areas would be inter- departmental coordination and cooperation. "Folks sense that that's not always happening." Dr. Grigg asked if the public expressed any attitudes about water storage. "If we or the District decided to push on the Poudre project, how would the citizens react?" Mr. Shoemaker said he would guarantee it would be controversial. Dave Stewart asked if any economic impacts would be addressed. He commented that there are a "lot of lofty goals" that we would all agree are good, but they may be difficult to reconcile if it costs a lot of money to implement them. Section 3.1 under Future Directions, discusses that. Mr. Shoemaker said there is a commitment to look at trade-offs, both in terms of relationship to other programs —the cost and benefits --and also the cost environmentally of not having them. What about this document and its relationship to the Land Development Guidance System (LDGS)? "Are you going to try to incorporate that into the plan?" Dave Stewart asked. This Water Board Minutes January 17, 1M Page 6 document is actually comparable to the audit of the LDGS that the Planning Dept. conducted last year in terms of saying, "here are some things we need to work on to address issues," Mr. Shoemaker responded. The LDGS is a tool to implement the City's land use policies. Do you see a cross -over between this activity and the Chamber's environmental committee efforts? Neil Grigg asked Dave Stewart, who is involved with that committee. The Chamber has reviewed this carefully and one of the concerns is the economic impacts that raise the cost of doing business as well as attracting other industry, Dave Stewart responded. It's a dilemma in that a quality environment makes Fort Collins a good place to raise a family, but can everybody afford it? Dr. Grigg asked if an analysis has been done that shows environmental policies increase the cost of doing business. Dave Stewart commented that a lot of it is due to the general public's perception that development pays its own way. City Council has an item on their work calendar to look at the cost of development. Moreover, there is a study in the beginning stages that looks at those issues, Mr. Shoemaker related. He went on to say that this document per se, does not change anything except some ways that we are going to go about our business internally, and it certainly influences our work program, but the outcome is certainly not prejudged, he insisted. Mark Casey was interested in the other side of it, which is the cost of not doing anything. There is a sub -set of economics that looks at this side of the equation, he said. Typically those things are outside of the way we measure economic success, but there are some economists who look at the dollar costs of e.g. a child getting asthma versus not getting asthma. "I think we would be remiss by not saying there is a cost associated with not doing anything," he concluded. Ray Herrmann moved that the Water Board recommend to the Council, acceptance of the Environmental Management Plan. Tom Brown seconded the motion. Neil Grigg asked what that action means if Council adopts this report. Tom Shoemaker said that number one it brings to closure how we are going to address the Council's goals, and also brings forward a work program for the City. Mike Smith pointed out that one of those items will be brought before the Water Board in the next 6 months; the drinking water quality policy. Is there anything in the action plan that the Water Board is agreeing to, that they shouldn't be agreeing to? Dr. Grigg asked. Mike Smith reiterated that he doesn't think there is anything new in the document. Dr. Grigg also asked if there is anything that the other City agencies are agreeing to do that would impact the Water and Wastewater Utility; e.g. the stormwater area. "It's really hard to assess that," Mike Smith replied. On the surface there don't appear to be any. On the other hand, "our policies may impact other people." Water Board Minutes January 17, 1M Page 7 Dave Stewart wondered if the Water Board should couch the motion to approve the items that affect the W & W W Utility, and not address the plan overall. Ray Herrmann thinks that is implicit in the actions of any of the boards. Mr. Stewart believes it might be implicit if we say it's implicit. Tom Shoemaker stated that the action plan is the result of inter -departmental efforts and it will influence the W & W W Utility work plan, because there are a number of things that are going to cross department work boundaries. The commitment that is explicit in here is that Natural Resources will be working closely with the boards to complete the process. Neil Grigg said that one of the areas that will affect the W & WW Utility is the National Heritage Corridor designation. Has the Water Board ever taken action on that? Ray Herrmann recalled that the Board supported it. We supported the Heritage designation as opposed to the National Recreation Area designation. "As long as it didn't affect our ability to use our water," Dave Stewart added. Linda Burger didn't recall the Board taking action on it; if they did it was prior to the extension of the 18 mile stretch to the entire river corridor, she said. President Grigg asked Ray Herrmann if he would accept Dave Stewart's friendly amendment. Mr. Herrmann said he would, although he thinks it is already implicit in the motion. The second Tom Brown also agreed to accept the amendment. The motion then included the statement that the approval of the document relates to the areas in the document that are under control of the Water Board. The Water Board voted unanimously to support the motion. ProceduresPrxedures for Time payment of Wastewater PIFs Staff prepared a draft time payment policy for Wastewater Plant Investment Fees (PIFs) which was included in the Water Board packets. The policy was reviewed and approved by the members of the Wastewater Master Plan Committee (W WMPC), and the Water Board was asked to make a recommendation to Council concerning the policy. Linda Burger began the discussion by saying that in January of 1991, the City was facing fairly substantial increases to the wastewater PIFs, and smaller increases in the water PIFs. When staff took those to Council there was some concern expressed by Fort Collins, Inc. and some individual developers about the size of the wastewater PIF increases, and the impact that may have on development. Ms. Burger stated that on the water side, there was already provision that requires immediate payment of PIFs unless Council adopted policies allowing time payment. Similar language was then adopted for the wastewater PIFs, so for either fund, Council could then adopt policies for time payment. Water Board Minutes January 17, 1M Page S When the Demand Management Committee (DMC) and WWMPC looked at these issues, the DMC decided not to recommend time payment for water PIFs, because those increases were smaller, and they also thought that any plan to provide for time payments should be looked at City-wide for all impact fees. When the Wastewater Master Plan Committee met, the City had adopted, for the first time, wastewater PIP fees that considered strength of waste as one of the factors in establishing the fee. That caused some substantial increases in the fees for high strength users. Ms. Burger surmised that there was enough concern about that change in policy, that the W WMPC thought that having the time payment available would help to alleviate the impacts of the increase in fees. Over time, staff worked with the W WMPC to come up with the concepts and develop the procedures that were included in the Water Board packets. At this point, staff would like to have the Water Board review the proposal and make whatever recommendation it thinks is appropriate for the Council when they take this item up on February 4th. Tom Brown wanted to clarify his understanding of the situation. We are suggesting offering a 4% loan, above prime, with a 25% down payment, when the party could supposedly go to a local lending institution and get a 3-3 1/2% loan. If that's the case why are we doing this? Ms. Burger believes that the Master Plan Committee thought that, for one thing, since this is a new policy, that developers may not be anticipating it when they plan their financing. Also, there may be a situation where the developer has already made the arrangements for financing, and would have to go back and renegotiate their loan. So, if a particular developer is in a difficult situation where he/she may have stretched his/her capacity to get a loan, the City would then be able to offer a loan that does not compete with the private lending institutions. Mike Smith said there are not many customers that fall into that category. It only applies to those who have meters of 1 1/2" or larger, so it would be a very small number, Ms. Burger added. There are probably under 20 of those a year, and in that group, those with high strength would probably be 3-4 a year. Paul Clopper assumed that the process involved would not be burdensome to administer. Is that correct? "We don't think it would be a burden to administer because we think there would be a very small number of loans, and we already have a process in place," Ms. Burger replied. "I basically can't see any advantage of this to anybody except to bail out some developer who gets himself overextended," Ray Herrmann contends. "If the bank doesn't think he is credit worthy, is the City then going to take on his credit?" he asked. Water Board l[nutes January 17, 1992 Page 9 "I would probably agree with that, if it weren't so difficult to get a loan lately," Dave Stewart began. A commercial entity trying to get a loan today is nearly impossible, he emphasized, and the equity being asked is incredible. If the City is not competing with the lending institutions and it's not an administrative hassle, I don't see why there is a problem in offering it; especially since it is something other cities don't offer," he concluded. "It's important to keep in mind that, in many cases, these PIFs really are not paid by the developer," Tim Dow explained, "they are paid by the lessee." The developer, for example, leases to a restaurant that's planning to come in, so those costs are passed directly to the lessee. "It's not the big bad developer that's being hit; it's some person who's trying to come in and make a go of a business. "I think this policy is a reasonable proposition," he stated. Dave Frick asked what happens when the business goes out of business. "I think this is set up so that the successor coming in on that tap would be responsible to pick up the balance," Tim Dow explained. Ms. Burger pointed out that the City files liens in these situations. "If the building sits empty for years, does the interest still accrue?" Dave Frick continued. The tap is part of the capital investment, and the whole process should be cleaned up, "and not be left to ride for the future," Ray Herrmann asserted. "If I were the lessee having this passed on to me, I'd want the 3-3 1/2% from the bank rather than the 4 % from the City," Tom Brown stressed. He is worried that a marginal project, which a bank might refuse to finance, would be more likely to fail under the City's loan. Neil Grigg said the limitation would be five years, so a building sitting vacant wouldn't be a factor. The developer would still be required to pay his payments once the agreement is enforced. "Yes, that would be whoever signed the promissory note," Ms. Burger added. Tim Dow went on to say that this is a rather unusual situation because the PIF is a reimbursement to the City. The plant and the capacity have already been built, and in most cases, is being paid for with bond payments. So the City gets its 25 % down payment as well as the payments on that --even if 1 or 2 businesses "go south on the payments, the City's not going to be hurt by that. It's different from the normal kind of loan or transaction," he stressed. Dave Stewart pointed out that when you consider trying to induce start-up companies, for example, $30,000 for a high strength waste is a large investment. If you are talking about a bio- tech company, that's probably the kind of wastes they are going to generate. Mark Casey, who was a member of the W WMPC, thinks that Dave Stewart and Tim Dow have made some good points. As he recalled, the idea of the Committee, was to try to figure out a way that would make a difference for a smaller company that might be considering coming here; Water Board Minutes January 17, 1M Page 10 obviously a large fortune 500 company would not use it. Right now, with a prime of say 8% and 4% on top of that, for a bio-tech company that is getting a 20-25% return on their capital, they can handle 12%, but they may not be able to get a loan elsewhere. "I think it would be a viable tool with the credit crunch we're in," he concluded. Neil Grigg wanted to know if there are any other impact fees where this is being done, or does this set a precedent? "We did have an ordinance passed about 2 months ago that allows time payment of tap fees where there is a hardship situation," Ms. Burger responded, but as far as commercial PIFs this would set a precedent, as well as for impact fees in general. Ray Herrmann wondered why this couldn't be handled the same way as the hardship situation for tap fees, instead of a whole new program. Mike Smith explained that the hardship case situation was on the water side where there was a potential for a public health problem, and was aimed more at residential than commercial. Neil Grigg stated that the argument for approving a time payment appears to be along the lines of whether we encourage growth to help the economy. "The arguments against this are not quite as clear to me," he added. Dave Stewart moved that the Water Board approve the time payment plan for wastewater PIFs. MaryLou Smith seconded the motion. President Grigg asked if there was further discussion before voting. Ray Herrmann recapped his arguments against the motion. "There is no value to the Utility one way or the other," he contends. "It's a little extra service that they will provide if necessary." The other side is when it is necessary, you are encouraging high strength waste that's going to be hard to handle, he pointed out; and I don't know why we should encourage high strength waste! "When we refer to high strength waste, we are talking about high BOD or high suspended solids; we're not talking about any toxic wastes," Linda Burger clarified. Rich Shannon pointed out that when this goes to City Council, the City Manager's Office and Mr. Shannon will probably be recommending against adoption. "Having this policy before the Water Board, we didn't have a recommendation, partly because we view it as an economic development policy and not a policy directly related to the management of Water Utilities," he stated. The Water Board always has the option of telling the Council about its thinking on any subject it wants," he stressed. "As we said in the memo, we're neutral on the impact on us, but the overall City administration position is that we are pretty nervous about the precedent it sets. The discussion we're having certainly shows two sides to this issue, but it is very reminiscent of the discussions in the past about the value of Special Improvement Districts (SIDs)." Water Board Minutes January 17, 1992 Page 11 He went on to say that the administration's concern is that it will evolve to "the son of SIDs." For some of the larger fees, traditionally for major industries, the transportation (street over - sizing) fee is the largest. Soon the amount of dollars becomes substantial for which the City is taking on the role of being the banker. If those businesses do fail in their second or third year, the City has a sizeable capital investment, and in some cases a debt service paying for those. In these economic times, we need to ask the Council if this is an economic development course they want to pursue. Furthermore, the proposal doesn't necessarily benefit existing customers of the W&WW Utility. Dr. Grigg asked if there is data on the rate of growth of the City now that would suggest that PIN impact fees are affecting economic growth one way or another. Rich Shannon replied that he doesn't think we have good data comparing impact fees because different cities have different requirements. Linda Burger explained that when this issue was fast looked at, staff did a comparison of what our new wastewater PIFs were going to look like compared to other communities in the area. That's one of the reasons there was concern, because our PIFs have been middle to low/high, and the increase brought them up to where they are now fairly high; especially to high strength customers, compared to the other communities. The reason for that is we are financing our own wastewater treatment since the elimination of the federal grant program. What we don't have is data that look at all the impact fees. "But I don't think we have good data to compare what it costs to put a business here, considering all the impact fees, in comparison to other communities," she concluded. When we vote on this, I guess it will be clear to the Council through our minutes that we recognize it as an economic development issue more than it is an issue that affects the Utility directly, Dr. Grigg remarked. He wanted to clarify, however, how it might impact the Utility if a business "went south" when we were holding a loan with them? Mike Smith assured Dr. Grigg that it's just a collection problem; a dollar amount on any of these isn't great unless you have a large commercial enterprise like an Anheuser-Busch. Tom Brown doesn't think this is clearly a growth or anti -growth issue. "I'm not in favor of it, but my no vote is not anti -growth. I can't see where it offers much to developers." At any rate, it's not enough of an advantage to overweigh the bureaucratic costs involved in administering it, he concluded. Mark Casey asked if there have been quite a number of defaults among the SIDs. Rich Shannon answered yes, the City is holding a lot of property right now; it's several hundred thousand dollars a year, so those SID notes are not in default reflecting on the City. The City is hoping eventually to recover that by selling the properties. Water Board AI mutes January 17, 1M Page 12 Neil Grigg commented that the SIDs all involved existing properties and businesses rather than having to do with new property. Mr. Shannon explained that most of it is dealing with vacant ground where streets and utilities have been built. Most SIDs revolve around the development of the street systems and when the development goes out of business, the City must make the payments. "Having served on the street over -sizing committee," MaryLou Smith began, "I recall that it has a lot to do with building the network of streets to connect to the areas that are being developed, so we are talking large expenditures." On the other hand with time payment of PIFs we are talking about more immediate development. It's a different situation because you are not having to develop a huge network to accommodate the business. Dave Stewart reiterated that the capacity is already built. If at some time the waste stops, that is capacity that is given back to the City. In addition, we are not putting huge amounts of materials to build a vast network that we then have to pay for, MaryLou Smith added. "I think it's a different scenario," she concluded. Paul Clopper compared the theme of this discussion to the one on water certificates that the Board talked about several months ago. "At that time we were discussing the City's willingness to extend a measure of good will, and this seems similar." We have made significant changes in the rate structure and are concerned about how that may impact the regulated community. "It seems to me that this proposal is a way of demonstrating that we are willing to come half way back in terms of mitigating that impact. I am willing to support it," he stated. MaryLou Smith added that it may have more of an impact in extending a gesture of good will from the City to Fort Collins, Inc. and others, because there probably won't be too many businesses that will take advantage of the offer. Dave Frick was still concerned about insuring payment because the City can get into a situation where it can basically have the plant capacity, and has a commitment to serve those people, "but we still have to pay off the bonds." It may not be a large amount, but it could open the door for other things occurring, he insisted. Is there some way to limit the risk? Linda Burger explained that there is already kind of a ceiling in that the City negotiates plant investment fees on the larger tap sizes. The rules don't allow the City to do it on a case by case basis exactly. We have to have a Council policy or else we are in a position of taking each individual development to Council. Neil Grigg suggested that it may be the best position to even out all the impact fees and take that to City Council. Water Board Minutes January 17, 1992 Page 13 Linda Burger agreed that setting a precedent for other impact fees may be the biggest concern. As far as collections, we have the tools to be able to do that. "However, I am not in a position to judge what sort of precedent this may set, and what sort of pressures it will cause on other impact fees," she stressed. Ray Herrmann called for the question. President Grigg called for the yes votes to be registered first: Mark Casey, Tim Dow, Dave Stewart, MaryLou Smith, Terry Podmore, Paul Clopper and Neil Grigg. Those casting no votes were: Ray Herrmann, Tom Brown and Dave Frick. The reasons behind the split vote are clearly indicated in the previous discussion. The motion passed on a 7 to 3 vote. Linda Burger stated that staff will send the record of the Board's vote on to the Council with the recommendation to adopt the time payment policy for wastewater PIFs. Neil Grigg directed that this discussion from the minutes also accompany the recommendation. Staff R@p= Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported that this is the final report for 1991. The Utility used 27,680 Ac-ft of treated water which is 93% of the projected amount. For the year overall, because of the way the rains came, particularly in the month of June, the water use was a little less than normal. Joint Meeting of Water Boards in Greeley Mike Smith announced that the joint meeting of the Loveland, Greeley and Fort Collins Water Boards has been finalized for Thursday, February 6th at 6:30 for cocktails and conversation, and 7:15 for dinner, with the meeting to follow. It will be held at the Ramkota Inn in downtown Greeley. Water Board members and staff who wish to car pool will meet at the Service Center at 5:30. Update on Thornton Vial Staff members will be back in Greeley for the trial on January 21st for another three weeks to complete the case for the opposition. In March there will be more hearings. Code of Ethics Information Staff noted the handout from the City Attorney's office regarding board members making presentations to their own boards. It was distributed as part of the Code of Ethics for the Board's information. Committee Reports Water Supply Mark Casey announced that there will be a committee meeting prior to the February water Board meeting on February 21st at 2:00 in the small conference room. He said that it is important that Water Board Minutes January 17, 1M Page 14 all committee members attend to put closure on the subject of rental rates. Legislative and Finance Chairman Tim Dow met with the Council's legislative committee at noon today. Mike Smith was also there. As the Board requested, Mr. Dow asked what the committee expects from the Water Board through our Legislative Committee. Essentially what the Water Board Committee plans to do is continue to monitor what they consider to be significant legislative items, and make recommendations through the appropriate channels to the Council's legislative committee on positions. He also said that process will be the channel of communication, so any letters or contact positions that come out of City Hall are centrally directed there with Council's authorization. Pursuant to that, the Committee will meet at lunch on Tuesday, Feb. 11th at the Utility office to look at the bills that are in the process of introduction. "We'll have comments on them at the next Water Board meeting," he said. Neil Grigg asked if something has to be done quickly between our Board meetings, how would that be handled? When Mr. Dow asked that question, the Council members on the legislative committee commented that things seldom move quickly through the legislature. If it is a true emergency someone could be notified, they said. Dr. Grigg said the Chamber is organizing a legislative coalition. He can see that could have some water implications that could relate to what the NCWCD does too. "I think it would be good if we could get all of this coordinated," he suggested. Conservation and Public Education MaryLou Smith asked if staff had anything to report on a response to the Council from the work session. Dennis Bode and Jim Clark have been working on the response, and will be forwarding it to Council when it is completed, Mike Smith responded. A copy of a letter from the Natural Resources Board, sent to the Council prior to the Demand Management work session, was enclosed in the Water Board packets for their information. President Grigg mentioned that Tom Brown has some thoughts about possible studies relating to demand management. He had suggested the possibility of using graduate students to do some of the research. MaryLou Smith said if anyone has possible candidates in mind that could participate in a project like that, please let staff or a member of the Conservation Committee know. Engineering Committee Chairman Dave Stewart announced that a committee meeting is planned for February 13th at 3:00 at the Utility office. Water Board Minutes January 17, 1992 Page 15 Other Business Year of the River Endorsement Neil Grigg mentioned that Mayor Kirkpatrick has declared 1992 the year of the Poudre River. This declaration was made in her state of the City address. It seems to Dr. Grigg that the Water Board ought to acknowledge that and participate as a result of her initiative. Tim Dow suggested that perhaps it would be appropriate to send a short letter or memo to the Mayor's office under the President's signature saying the Water Board is supportive and interested in participating in that, and "basically extending our hand." Mark Casey was also enthusiastic about the idea and proposed going a step further. Could we get the school children involved in some way? he asked. Dr. Grigg reminded the Board that in May there will a "Children's Water Festival" sponsored by the City of Fort Collins Water & Wastewater Utility, CSU Civil Engineering Dept. Poudre R-1 Science, and the NCWCD, so we don't want to compete with that. MaryLou Smith said that the board could also inform the Mayor that the Board's Conservation and Public Education Committee would be interested in working with her to see if we can't get the community involved in some way. Perhaps one idea might be to declare one day as Poudre River Appreciation Day to bring a little more attention to it. The Board endorsed, by consensus, the idea of having the Water Board support the Year of the River idea, and send a letter stating that. Molly Nortier agreed to draft a letter. Clarification of Sale of CBT Units Tim Dow noticed that 663 units of CBT water were sold according to the "Water Intelligence Monthly." Mr. Dow thought that seemed like a lot for a short period of time. Dennis Bode said he didn't think that was a particularly large amount. John Bigham explained that it probably was a year-end type of summary, and he agreed that it wasn't an especially large number. Council Work Session on Communication with Boards and Commissions President Grigg received a letter about a Council work session on January 14th to address issues relating to boards and commissions. There was supposed to be a discussion of the Council's working relationship with the boards. He was not able to attend and asked if anyone could report on the meeting. Rich Shannon was there and provided some observations about the meeting. He said that the discussion started by focusing on a recent action of the Senior Advisory Board which was used as an example of what might be considered good or poor communication. Water Board Minutes January 17, 1M Page 16 That board had prepared a brochure they wanted to send out promoting Fort Collins as a retirement community. As that evolved over time, some of the Council members were questioning whether that was consistent with the City's economic development policy, and what we wanted to support. As Mr. Shannon listened to that discussion and thought about the Water Board, the Stormwater Board and the new Electric Board within his working areas, he came up with a couple of observations. If a board is working on an issue, the dividing line is whether that board chooses to go to another organization outside of the City and represent the City. That is perceived as perhaps inappropriate, unless you fist clear it with the Council. On the other hand, boards can give the City Council as many recommendations on as many things as they would like. The majority of the Council didn't want the boards to feel constrained. It appeared that the Council was encouraging the ideas, but they were discouraging boards representing the City elsewhere without clearing it with them. The other part that was less clear is whether there is a proper protocol for communication between the board members and the Council. What he heard was the Council's preference for boards to use their Council liaisons. "However, no Council member was about to say that other Council members can't attend other board meetings and offer their opinions," Mr. Shannon concluded. Announcement of Mayor's Breakfast to Discuss Expectations for Boards Dr. Grigg announced that the Mayor has scheduled a breakfast on January 23rd where she will discuss expectations of boards and commissions as well as cooperation among the boards and commissions. Both he and Mike Smith will attend. Adjourn Since there was no further business, the Board meeting was adjourned at 4:55 P.M.