Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 09/16/1988WATER BOARD MINUTES September 16, 1988 Members Present Henry Caulfield, Interim President, Tom Sanders, Jim Kuiken, Tom Moore, Ray Herrmann, Tim Dow, Neil Grigg, Mary Lou Smith, Dave Stewart Mark Casey, (alt.) Staff Rich Shannon, Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Linda Burger, Andy Pineda, Ben Alexander, Molly Nortier Members Absent Chester Watson (alt.), Terry Podmore Interim President Henry Caulfield opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Minutes The minutes of August 26, 1988, were approved as distributed. Election of Officers More Board members were expected to arrive so this was postponed until later in the meeting. Update: Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District No representative from the District was present to give a report. When Larry Simpson was at the last meeting, there was a thorough discussion of the major issues, so it is possible that an update from the District was not thought to be necessary. Jim Kuiken referred to an item from the District minutes relating to the pressurization of the outlet at Carter Lake, "We should watch that closely," he said, "because that will make it easier to send water south." Henry Caulfield explained that the minutes justify the work in terms of some local water districts. Mike Smith reported that since the last meeting, he and Dennis Bode met with Bob Wheeler, the Boulder Water Utility Director. His perception, with regard to the sale of Windy Gap water, is somewhat different from Larry Simpson's. Mr. Simpson seemed to be saying that it may not happen, but Boulder, Longmont and Greeley apparently are determined to sell part of their Windy Gap water, and are expecting a proposal from Westminster shortly. It is their feeling that a vote of the District Board would be more on the order of 6 to 6 rather than 11 to 1. In other words, they believe that there is support on the Board to allow the sale to occur. Mr. Smith thinks that it's possible the three cities are more optimistic towards their position and Larry Simpson is more optimistic regarding his point of view. Perhaps there is a middle Water Board Minutes September 16, 1988 Page 2 ground, but Boulder, for one, is certainly serious about disposing of their Windy Gap water, he stressed. Tom Moore asked if Mr. Smith considered that to include Westminster's representation on the District board. "No," he replied, " I don't think it necessarily includes their getting a member on the Sub -district Board." Boulder indicated that they do not wish to see the boundary for CBT water go south. The philosophy that Mr. Simpson has conveyed is that the parent District should not be expanded beyond the Boulder or Weld County lines. "Whether it is a foot in the door to allow the Sub -district to go below there, is hard to say." Henry Caulfield contends that "it's a foot in the door, symbolically at least." Tim Dow asked if there is much of a market currently within the existing District membership to acquire some Windy Gap shares from other members, such as Fort Collins? Mike Smith replied that the economics say no on that because everybody in the District can buy CBT water, which can be purchased for $800-$850, and Windy Gap water is $2500-$3000. "I'm saying as opposed to developing water," Mr. Dow clarified. Mr. Smith explained that development costs on Halligan could be as low as $1000-1500 per acre foot. "That's still much less than Windy Gap." Tom Moore added that the pumping charges for Windy Gap are high too. Mr. Smith explained that when Windy Gap was developed the price of water was going up. Had the price continued to rise, it would have made Windy Gap look economical. However, things turned around and the price began to go down "and now it's high priced for here; but for Denver it's not," he added. Henry Caulfield recalls that, essentially, Windy Gap was built because, at that time, it was not proper to be buying water from agriculture. Water Supply Policy Recommendations Each Board member had received a copy of the Water Supply Policy recommend- ations dated September 8, 1988, from the Water Supply Policy Committee. Chairman Caulfield began by saying that from February until the present, the Water Supply Policy Committee, made up of three Council members and three Water Board members, has been meeting. The Committee was created because the Council wanted to thoroughly explore the water issues. None of the Council members other than Gerry Horak, the liaison with the Water Board, have been close to the water problems. Mr. Caulfield pointed out that the report has a consensus of all 6 committee members. The Chairman suggested that the Board take up the report issue by issue; but first he stated that,•after today's discussion, the Water Board will be asked to make a recommendation to the Council, and the Council will act. There is no intention, however, of bringing this before the Council until November because the month of October is the time for budget considerations. Dave Stewart asked if the rate increase is already in the new budget. "No, it is not." "Will this be a problem?" "It shouldn't be; it will be a separ- ate issue." Mr. Smith added that the rate increase shown in the budget information that staff sent out, does not include anything for raw water. It's strictly an operational '89 budget. The raw water increase would be in addition to that. Water Board Minute September 16, 1988 Page 3 "There is an issue that's in the budget," Mr. Caulfield began, "connected to the rate increase, and that's what is called the PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) question. The city manager recommended a 1% increase in all the util- ity enterprises. "You may have noticed in the Coloradoan that the Council is divided on the subject. Some members believe that the electric utility should bear an increase, but not the Water & Wastewater Utility. One of the Council members suggested to Mr. Caulfield that the Water Board take up this issue. "Do you want a PILOT increase," the Council member asked. Mr. Caul- field responded, in his view, the Water Board would probably say it was a general issue that concerned government in general and therefore is not some- thing thattheWater Board should be concerned with. It does come up only in the sense of the Water Supply Policy Committee -recommendations in that one of the percentage points in the increase is related to the PILOT. Mike Smith explained that in the proposed '89 budget, of the 4% increase in water, 1% of that is due to the increase in PILOT. As for the wastewater increase, the total is due to the PILOT. There wouldn't be an increase in wastewater otherwise, he said. Jim Kuiken believes that it would be very appropriate for this Board to take a position on it, because, within the next 10 years we are going to be faced with a $25 million wastewater expansion, and a water plant expansion probably at the same magnitude. In addition, we are considering expansion of Halligan Reservoir. (A study is currently being done on that.) Furthermore, we are talking about major water acquisitions to get up to 10,000 AF of new water. "I would be reluctant to go to the general public," he said, "to dip into their pockets for another 1% for PILOT to fatten up the general fund when we have some serious needs for rate increases." Tom Sanders agreed. "Is there any analysis which gives the city manager a rationale, backed up by empirical analysis, for his proposal, Mr. Caulfield asked, or is this merely a budget expediency?" The professional argument for PILOT is that there is a general service provided by the city manager's office and the finance office, and others in the City which should be paid for by the PILOT. At least in Mr. Caulfield's experience, these arguments are quite common in other utili- ties elsewhere. Besides being a Charter requirement, Mr. Smith responded, the city manager has looked at other utilities. Rich Shannon has put a great deal of informa- tion together for the city manager on this, he said. Mr. Shannon paraphrased the charter wording: "The Council shall set a PILOT payment to the general fund equal to what the electric, water and wastewater utilities would have paid in taxes and franchise fees had they been provided by a private util- ity." He remarked that the grey area is: Would water or wastewater ever be provided by a private utility? "They are in many parts of the country; par- ticularly in the east, Mr. Caulfield related. Mr. Shannon continued: At the last budget discussion the Council basically left with two questions. Should the existing PILOT be raised by 1% for W&W? There appeared to be four Council members who supported leaving it at 5%. Two Council members put on the table, without full discussion, the question of whether there should be any PILOT. Mr. Shannon doesn't believe they were aware of the Charter Water Board Minutes September 16, 1988 Page 4 language when they said that. His sense is that they will wrestle with the issues of whether to raise the water ILOT or leave it at 5% while raising the electric ILOT by 1%. Mr. Caulfield's reason for raising this issue was not so much to help the Council one way or another, but to look at it from the Water Board's perspec- tive. He went back to his original question. Has the city manager conducted a study and has he come to the conclusion that a lq increase is appropriate when comparing a private utility to a public utility? "On the electric side," Mr. Shannon responded, "there is considerable analysis that can be done." The language in the Charter states that it should be "at least equal to what the private utility would pay." On the electric side the ILOT plus the payment of the bill for street Lighting equals about 2 times what that formula is. In comparison, there are at least 8 other public power cities up and down the Front Range that show the average is about 8%. "Our total pay- ment here is about 7%. That was the manager's "empirical" study, if you will." Is there no comparable empirical study on the W&W side? "There has been but it is less definitive because half the cities don't pay any ILOT and the other half do," Mr. Shannon replied. Mr. Caulfield suggested that they proceed with the water supply policy recom- mendations report and keep this issue in mind. The report does not cover this point, he said. A. What level of drought protection should the City's water Supply provide? Recommendation: The reliability of the Fort Collins water supply should be maintained to meet at least the 1 in 50 drought event. Note: This is a change from the 1 in 100 previously recommended by the Water Board. Ray Herrmann wanted a further explanation as to the rationale for the 1 in 50. Mr. Caulfield explained that the initiative for this came from the Coun- cil members. They saw that going with a 1 in 100 would mean a larger water requirement for the future. They saw that as having more of an implication on the increase in the Raw Water Requirement (RWR), and they didn't think that any real damage would be done by having a 1 in 50. The sense of risk was not all that great, they thought. Tom Sanders asked if they used risk analysis in this. Mr. Caulfield answered, "no." Mary Lou Smith, a committee member remarked that the committee did draw on the drought study findings. In addition, there were two other factors that provided a safety net. One is that this is unmetered and in the next several years we would probably reconsider metering and would change the 1 in 50 to something in between 1 in 50 and 1 in 100. Also, if we purchase the water that we are contemplating purchasing for the next 50 years, and if we buy it within the next 5 years as we are recommending, that, in effect changes what the actual amount of drought protection is anyway. She emphasized that the committee was saying at least 1 in 50. Neil Grigg, another committee member, agreed basically with Ms. Smith's interpretation and added: Just looking at the economics and trade offs, the ' Water Board Minute • September 16, 1988 Page 5 main argument was that the Water Board's original recommendation, with a pro- jection of low water use, was based on the metered scenario. We had set certain figures with a 1 in 100 level; like the raw water reserve increase, etc. "If we selected the 1 in 100 but with the non -metered scenario, which meant that the need for additional water was greater, and then looked at how much it was going to add to the RWR, we didn't like how much it added, so we backed down to the 1 in 50," he concluded. Mike Smith maintains that actually there is not a lot of difference between the raw water required for the non -metered 1 in 50 drought and the metered 1 in 100. The numbers were very close. Tom Sanders said that what he likes about this is that you don't go below the I in 50. "If we assume there is a 50 year planning period, there is a 64% chance in that period that we will have the 1 in 50 drought. The question is, what's it going to cost the city? Seven chances out of 10 in the next 50 years that this drought will occur, means that 1 in 50 is a little low. Neil Grigg responded: "We have another reserve built in. All this is based on 230 gallons per capita per day, so if we hit the 1 in 50, there won't be an emer- gency because we have various restrictions that are available." Dr. Sanders pointed out that if we get into a prolonged drought where lawn watering is prohibited and sod needs to be replaced, etc. related costs become a problem. As a next step to the drought study, he suggested a study to assess the economic impacts of a prolonged drought and multiply that by the risk and compare that with the annual costs. He added that there is nothing on the horizon to indicate that we will decrease our water use. B. What amount of water needs to be acquired to meet the designated drought during the planning period from 1988 to 2035? Recommendation: An additional 42,700 acre feet of water should be acquired to meet projected water demands by the year 2035. Discussion: With the 1 in 50 drought protection, an additional 42,700 acre feet of water above the existing supply of 52,400 acre feet will be required by the year 2035. This is based on a projected population of 183,300 and a demand of 230 gallons per person per day. Historic per capita use was reviewed and assuming that water use patterns will be similar in the future, 230 gallons per capita was believed to be appro- priate for purposes of making projections. The 42,700 acre feet provides for varying demands and reduced yields during drier years. It is recog- nized that the particular sources of supply obtained in the future may have an effect on the net yields. Mr. Caulfield related that the committee had a lengthy discussion about the 230 per capita number, because it appears to be high given what we know about other places. Staff thinks there were errors made in measuring the water a few years ago, particularly at Water Treatment Plant No. 1 that showed lower numbers than what probably should have been. The 230 figure represents a better gross estimate, he said. On the other hand, from what we Water Board Minutes September 16, 1988 Page 6 know from other cities, that is a pretty high estimate. Of course commer- cial and industrial is a portion of the total. MaryLou Smith added that when the committee looked at the 20 year sample period, the water use was closely tied to weather. They also looked at winter versus summer and it was the summer use that was up. If this 230 represents a dry year, do we have a safety factor, Dave Stewart asked, and therefore, are we buying too much water? Neil Grigg's impression was that the 230 represents an average year. Ray Herrmann asserted that 230 doesn't sound low to him. Tucson is supposed to use less water than many areas of the country and they are just under 200. Dr. Grigg stated that the average per capita use in the country is 176 accor- ding to the AWWA. Dennis Bode showed a graph that represents historic use over the years from 1960-1987. There was a period in the early '80s where they thought the use was fairly low; under 200, "but in looking at the long term and in the last couple of years when we recognized there might have been a problem with meas- urement, we think the long term average is still fairly realistic," he said. Ms. Smith asked what the highest use on that graph was. "It was about 270-280," Mr. Bode replied. "And the Lowest?" It was 180. Ms. Smith agreed then that the 230 was an average and not the high use. C. How should the 42,700 acre feet of water be acquired and funded? Recommendation: About 32,700 acre feet should be acquired through the existing raw water requirements for new development and the remaining 10,000 acre feet should be purchased by the City during the next five years using funds derived from general water service fees. This requires a 20% increase in the RWR and a 7% increase in the water rates. Mr. Caulfield explained the consequences of not having a 7% increase in the rates. If that had not been recommended, there would have been a 58% increase in the RWR. "This was viewed as being intolerable," he stressed. With regard to the rates increasing, the committee considered several alter- natives presented by the staff. The committee believed the 20% increase in RWR and the 7% in the rates to be a fair distribution. Comparing the charges with the electrical utility, it isn't the new people to the community who pay for additional capacity. All the customers pay for the added capacity. We don't have a similar policy on the electrical utility side as we have on the water utility. Some people on the committee felt it was fair and reason- able for the existing population to hel.p pay for additional supplies because it benefits them. On the other hand, some people felt, in terms of strict principals, that it may not be a good idea, but taking into account the threat of the Denver metro area, the whole community should accept the idea of the 20% and the 7%. Mike Smith observed that this was the toughest decision the committee had to wrestle with. ' Water Board Minuto September 16, 1988 Page 7 Tom Moore asked how much water in terms of acre feet is required for a single family home. Dennis Bode replied, "about .64 AF for an average size lot." Mike Smith explained that the per capita number is based on the total use divided by the number of people. Henry Caulfield pointed out that the 20% relates to the formula for the RWR. It doesn't change for an Anheuser-Busch. They are going to contribute the full amount of their estimated water requirement. He also pointed out that the 230 gpcd does not include A-B. What we are buying water for here is not to provide water for a future expansion of the brewery. "Any estimates of future industrial growth are not in here," he said "except for smaller industrial growth." Mike Smith added, "what's typical of Fort Collins with- out A-B." Mr. Caulfield saw the numbers for HP, for example, and they are way down compared to A-B. Tom Moore has difficulty with the practice of lumping industrial, commercial and single family homes together. Their water needs and use are signifi- cantly different, he contends. "Our formulas for determining the RWR are different for different categories," Mike Smith explained. Mr. Moore claims that we are not saying that here. "As a matter of fact we are blurring it by saying 230 gpcd," he asserted. Marylou Smith believes we can look at what it takes for all of us to live in the community. For all of us to live here, it takes a specified amount, and that includes industry. Dave Stewart contends that "the business community is paying twice. The in- dustry pays when it comes in, the developer or whoever, and they pay on a metered rate also." Then the home owner is paying for it again. Neil Grigg pointed out the argument of "why should anybody already here bear any of the cost through rates to acquire new water?" Dave Stewart gave an example of his argument. An industry comes to town, he began. Either that industry or the developer is going to pay the tap fee which pays for the raw water, and pays for the plant expansion. Then they pay for the water they use through their meter. "If you projected what raw water was going to be added for all of those that will be here in the future, " Dr. Grigg explained, "as staff did, then at 2035 we wouldn't be at 1 in 50 drought protection. We would need more water. The question is, do we increase what the industries have to contribute when they come in or do we split that 32,700 and 10,000 and put 10,000 on the existing rate payers?" The committee's idea was that they would put 10,000 on the existing rate payers because they are going to get a benefit too from extra drought protection and bringing industry into the City." Mary Lou Smith added, "and especially buying the water now or it may not be available because of Denver -metro and also at the current low prices." Dennis Bode explained that there are basically two categories of water cus- tomers in the RWR ordinance; the residential has a formula based on density and all non-residential accounts are based on tap size. A tap size below 3 Water Board Minutes September 16, 1988 Page 8 inches has a set amount. Above 3 inches it is negotiated based on actual usage. For that type of customer, you get into an A-B type of situation. Mike Smith went through the process for large commercial users. "We keep records, on the computer, of what a commercial customer turns in as a water requirement," he said. Each year the customer's water use is added up. If they go over what they turned in, they are surcharged for an additional water requirement. Tom Moore stressed that "we all should be especially clear on this." He is concerned that water rates are going to go up 7% and people will say, "You sold out to A-B." Mr. Caulfield explained, "That's why A-B is separate from this." Tom Moore claims that we should say that. "Let's state how the water is being used," he asserted. Dave Stewart is concerned that the rates are going to go up 7% for three years. Mr. Caulfield stated that the Council members are fully aware of this. "The irony of this is," Marylou Smith remarked, "is when we look at the rate increases over the last 10 years, they have been much larger than what is currently being proposed, and nobody said anything." Jim Kuiken' contends that "the bottom line shouldn't be whether people scream about it but whether it is fair and equitable." Mr. Moore countered, "but you must be able to justify it as clearly and succinctly as possible!" Ms. Smith believes that the most difficult part of this is how we are going to present this in such a way that people can clearly see the benefit. "But the developers aren't going to favor a 20% increase in their RWR," Tom Moore argued. Dave Stewart agreed. "They don't want to have a million dollars worth of water just sitting around to wait for development, even if the cost is less now." Mike Smith thinks that developers have to realize if you had an "anti - development sentiment in town where people say, pay your own way, you would be raising the RWR 50, 60, even 70%." "It was people on the committee," Marylou Smith related, "who were thinking the way Tom and Dave are thinking that got it down to 20q." She also stated that there are people in town, including developers, who say, "let's be aggressive about making sure we have enough water before the Denver area gets it." If you go from that approach, and say, "you asked us to have enough water available while it is available, so here is what we have come up with." "We must have a meeting with them beforehand," she stressed, "and help them understand what we are doing. Henry Caulfield said that he thinks it is fair to say that the members of the committee from the Council are less concerned about this than the Water Board is, rightly or wrongly, in terms of politics. "If I were doing this on a federal level, I would be doing a lot of homework on an individual basis with a lot of different people," he said, "and trying to gain key support." As a result, by the time it is discussed at the City Council level, you already have a lot of support, he added. Mary Lou Smith recalled that, in her opin- ion, "the Council members thought we were meddling when we brought up this ' Water Board Minut4 • September 16, 1988 Page 9 issue." "We are," Tom Sanders contends. "This is a political decision." Mr. Stewart interjected: "Wait a second, we are on this Board to represent the community and if we don't bring up the questions, it's a little late at a Council meeting when you are asking for the ordinance to be passed!" Mr. Caulfield clarified: "We are talking about the method of getting consent at hearings." "If you believe in what you are promoting, then you need to make sure that the vessel in which you promote it is going to make it acceptable, Ms. Smith stated. "I don't believe you can separate the two," she added. Philosophi- cally it is difficult to know what the Water Board's role is in presenting this. Mr. Caulfield said that this didn't come up explicitly but it is his percep- tion that the City Council members involved would not particularly be interested in having the Water Board schedule a public hearing and invite a lot of attention to this matter. "Looked at in other ways, you could argue that a public hearing might be a good thing." He emphasized, however, that he is not proposing it. Dave Stewart asked the average cost of raw water for an average home in Greeley and Loveland. Dennis Bode said that he doesn't have the exact fig- ures, but as he recalls, Fort Collins is lower than most in the area. Differ- ent communities have different policies, so they are a little hard to com- pare, he added. While they were waiting for some figures, Mr. Caulfield focused the Board's attention on paragraph 3 of section C where the staff has tried to reduce the impact by spreading this increase over a three year period. How about giving us the average monthly cost comparisons? In terms of the home owner it is how much he pays per month that's the question, Mr. Caulfield suggested. Mike Smith related that in Fort Collins the monthly average bill is $18.15 now; yearly it is $226 (without the increase), Loveland is $318, Boulder is $202, Greeley is $196, Longmont is $249 but going up about 40%, and Colorado Springs is $326. We are above Greeley and Boulder, but below everyone else. D. What amount of treatment plant capacity is needed in the future and should restrictions be used to delay plant expansions? Recommendation: Steps should continue to be taken to optimize existing water treatment plant capacity and plan for future water treatment plant expansions that will meet projected demands without imposing restric- tions. Mr. Caulfield summarized by saying that the committee decided to try to build our plant capacity in such a way as to avoid restrictions. Tom Sanders asked the meaning of optimizing in this context. Mike Smith def- ined it as basically taking the existing plant and trying to produce more water by making modifications to the piping, filters etc. MaryLou Smith added that the City is currently paying for a study to determine if we can do Water Board Minutes September 16, 1988 Page 10 that and if so, is it cost effective the next couple of months. The study should be completed within Henry Caulfield reported that after the committee thoroughly discussed plant expansions and restrictions, it came down to a careful statement of the situ- ation in terms of planning ahead in such a way as to avoid restrictions. Marylou Smith said that what made the case for her were the figures staff provided which showed we don't gain much in delaying expansion. Consequently, she couldn't favor restrictions. Mike Smith said "you have to look at the benefits and who they accrue to." Basically, the existing customer is sacrificing something for a new customer. The new customers will get the benefits in reduced PIFs because you are delaying treatment plant capacity, but it would be existing customers on whom restrictions would be imposed. Ms. Smith recalled that staff also pointed out that the increase in PIFs wasn't that great. In summary, Mr. Caulfield believes that what evolved with the Water Supply Policy Committee was a good thing to do in terms of the current City Council. Moreover, members of the Committee from the Council will probably be persuas- ive relative to the other 4 members of the Council. Whether they are persu- asive in terms of the community is another subject, he said. Tom Sanders moved that the Water Board accept the Water Supply Policy Commit- tee's report and recommend to City Council the adoption of the recommend- ations contained within the report. Dave Stewart provided a second. Ray Herrmann had a concern about getting into the Council's options when mak- ing a recommendation of that sort. Mr. Caulfield commented that we are not doing anything more than accepting this report and making a recommendation for Council consideration. The vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. Mike Smith explained that probably in November staff will take to the Council the policy elements with the necessary actions they have to adopt with resolutions, etc. Election of Officers Nominations were opened for president. Neil Grigg nominated Henry Caulfield Tom Sanders nominated Neil Grigg who declined because of work obligations. Henry Caulfield was elected unanimously for president. Nominations were opened for Vice president. Tom Sanders, Tom Moore and Mary - Lou Smith were nominated. Tom Moore and MaryLou Smith declined the nomina- tion. The secretary was instructed to cast a unanimous ballot for Tom Sand- ers. The Board voted to accept a unanimous ballot for Tom Sanders. Committee Reports President Caulfield asked members of the Board to indicate to him on which committees they would like to serve. He listed the current standing commit- tees. The secretary was instructed to send out the current committee list to all members. Mr. Caulfield will be reviewing the committees to determine if their charges are still valid. He suggested that the Conservation Education Water Board Minute 0 September 16, 1988 Page 11 Committee whose chairman is Mary Lou Smith, meet as soon as possible in light of the strong emphasis that the Water Supply Policy Committee placed on con- servation education. He suggested that this committee contact cable Channel 14 and try to promote a conservation program perhaps each June. The Legislative/Finance Committee was active and should be continued, he said. Mr. Caulfield had been chairman, so a new chair will be appointed. During legislative sessions, staff provides the committee with current legis- lation that affects the Water & Wastewater Utility. The committee also received a review of the whole finance set up of the Utility. As a result of this review, each Board member received a copy of a report called "A Cash Flow Cycle" prepared by staff. The Strategic Planning Committee which Neil Grigg has chaired, was put on hold when three of its members were appointed to the WSPC. "In light of what has been decided, is there a continuing need for that committee," Mr. Caul- field wanted to know. Mike Smith believes there is a need for that committee to work with staff on strategy. The Engineering Committee is one that should be available to look at the report, when it is completed, on Halligan Reservoir, or any other technical engineering reports. Dave Stewart is chairman of that committee. Mr. Caul- field assumed that we would expect to continue that committee. The two final standing committees are the Regionalization Committee and the Utilities Services Committee. It was decided that Board members would think through each of the committees and consider what real work there is to do. Ray Herrmann pointed out that normally the Water Board functions as a commit- tee of the whole. If there are specific instances when committees are needed, they should be activated, otherwise, they should be inactive, he believes. At the next meeting, the Board will discuss the need for the indi- vidual committees as well as membership on those committees that remain active. The current committee list will be distributed. Staff Reports A. Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode distributed another table along with the usual summary that was an attempt to give a different kind of comparison of the water use. He would welcome ideas on other ways to present this information. He asked what style of report the Board would like for next year. B. Proposed 1989 Budget Mike Smith reported that each member received a copy of the information the City Council will use showing a couple of sheets that highlight issues and the actual budget sheets from the budget book. "We can't get addition- al copies of the budget books," he said, "so we copied some of the rele- vant information." Dave Stewart suggested that the City consider supporting the AWWA Research Foundation. CSU has received money from that organization, he said. Mr. Water Board Minutes September 16, 1988 Page 12 Caulfield suggested the Board discuss this further at another time due to the lateness of the hour. Mike Smith said if anyone has questions or comments about the budget, he will go over it on a one to one basis with him/her. Next year we will plan to go over the budget in August, he promised. Other Business Water Purchase Opportunity Mike Smith related that while the ad hoc Water Supply Policy Committee has been meeting for the purpose of proposing recommendations on water supply issues, staff has been holding off on buying water. "Last week, he said, "we received an offer that we couldn't refuse." The offer consisted of 125 units of CBT water at $790 per unit.. Previous offers had been anywhere from $825 to $875 per unit. Staff recommends approval of this purchase. Ray Herrmann moved that the Water Board recommend to the City Council that the City pur- chase this water. Tom Sanders seconded the motion. Henry Caulfield asked if there were "any strings attached." "The only thing they asked, Mr. Smith replied, "is if we don't need the water, that they have the right to lease it back, and of course we agreed to that." Tom Moore asked who the party is. "George and John M-ayeda from the Boulder area," Mr. Smith responded. He added that staff learned of this by chance through "one of our attorneys." "We have been somewhat concerned about the market going up," Mr. Smith continued, "and some of that is generated by the water brok- ers." He believes that the purchase of this water at a lower price will help to slow down the market a little. Mr. Caulfield called for the question. The motion to recommend purchase of 125 units of CBT water at $790 per unit, was approved unanimously. Linda Burger announced that the Colorado Water Congress sponsors workshops throughout the year on various subjects. They are proposing offering a workshop specifically tailored for municipal water board members on November 29. Ms. Burger has been asked to help put together a program. She asked if there was interest in attending such a workshop. They propose discussing things like liabilities that water board members face when they make deci- sions, relationships between board and staff, between boards and councils and specific water issues in which there may be an interest. She asked members to call her if they have ideas. There appeared to be an interest in the workshop. Since there was not further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:02 p.m. Water Board Secretary