Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 10/16/1987MINUTES Water Board October 16, 1987 Members Present Norm Evans, President, Henry Caulfield, Vice President, Mary Lou Smith, Neil Grigg, John Scott, Tom Moore, Ray Herrmann, Tom Sanders, Jo Boyd, Dave Stewart, Jim Kuiken (alt.) Staff Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Andy Pineda Guests John Bigham, Agency Coordinator, NCWCD Jim Martell, Attorney for Halligan Resources Company Judy Harrington, Denver Post Dan MacArthur, Triangle Review Members Absent Chester Watson (alt.) President Norm Evans opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Minutes The secretary said she neglected to add the following paragraph at the end of the minutes: "Rich Shannon announced that staff will be meeting with the Boxelder Sanitation District in September to look at areas of mutual cooperation." The minutes of September 18, 1987 were approved as amended. The secretary also requested that the members discard the minutes of August 21, 1987 (the minutes that contained the metering statements) and replace them with the corrected version given out for the City Council/Water Board work session on metering options. Guests Mike Smith introduced Jim Martell, Attorney representing Carl Judson. Mr. Judson was unable to attend the meeting today for the discussion on Halligan Reservoir. Mr. Smith also introduced Judy Harrington, a reporter for the Denver Post, and John Bigham representing the Northern Colorado Water Con- servancy District. Dan MacArthur from the Triangle Review newspaper intro- duced himself to the group. Update - Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District John Bigham said he had no particular comments. Chairman Evans asked for questions or comments. Board members had no questions. Water Board Minutes October 16, 1987 Page 2 Water Acquisition Opportunity Mike Smith referenced the agenda item summary which is attached. He explained that for a number of years the City has had some interest in Hal- ligan Reservoir. Between 4 or 5 years ago, the City began looking at it more earnestly. However, North Poudre began showing an increased interest as well, and in 1985 they entered into an agreement with Halligan Resources Company (Carl Judson and associates), to pursue the enlargement to the reservoir. Since that time the City has had periodic discussions with Mr. Judson to see if there was a chance for the City to become involved. Earlier this year HRC indicated to City staff that because of the tax law changes, the enlargement of Halligan was no longer an attractive option for HRC to pursue. However, HRC was still interested in having someone pursue the enlargement because it would still enhance their proposed development. Recently staff has been negotiating with Mr. Judson to develop some provi- sions for taking over their role in the agreement with North Poudre Irrigation Company (NPIC). Since becoming interested in the project, HRC has conducted feasibility studies and NPIC and HRC have obtained a conditional storage decree for 33,482 acre feet. The Halligan conditional enlargement decree is senior to the proposed Glade Reservoir but junior to the proposed Grey Mountain Reservoir. What the City is proposing to do is take over Halligan Resources' role in the agreement with North Poudre and work towards some agreement with NPIC to develop the site. It hasn't been determined what that will be but NPIC is interested in seeing the reservoir enlarged. Halligan Resources also wants that to happen, but they no longer wish to be involved. Mike Smith explained where Halligan Reservoir is located for those Board members who have not had the opportunity to visit the site. It is located on the North Fork of the Poudre River about 25 miles northwest of Fort Col- lins. It is surrounded by mostly private property, so it is rather difficult to get there unless you want to walk for a long distance over DOW land. The reservoir was constructed in 1910 and is owned by the North Poudre Irriga- tion Co. (NPIC). The current capacity of the reservoir is about 6,400 AF. Recent preliminary studies indicate that Halligan Reservoir could be enlarged as much as 20-30,000 acre feet. At this point Mr. Smith showed some video footage of the reservoir area taken from a helicopter in April. Some footage was taken of the Water Treatment Plant No. 1 area, including the tunnel that is being constructed near Water Treatment Plant No. 1 to transport raw water from the river to Water Treatment Plant No. 2. He also mentioned that work will begin on the diversion dam shortly. Mr. Smith pointed out that the upper Phantom Canyon stretches are now under control of the Nature Conservancy in order to preserve that unique property. In response to a question from Henry Caulfield about the status of the Phantom Canyon proposal, Jim Martell said that the Nature Conservancy acquired 480 acres in the first transaction. That was closed in September. They have an option to acquire another about 600 acres which should close by Water Board Minute • • October 16, 1987 Page 3 the end of the year, he added. Then they would have a conservation easement over the surrounding territory. Mr. Smith explained that the banks are very steep around the reservoir. To enlarge it would not inundate very much property. "You take a 6500 AF reservoir and transform it into a 20-30,000 AF reservoir and expand the area very little." Henry Caulfield remarked that, as he recalls, if you do that, you would probably put the banks up where they would be more accessible for recreational use on the north and west sides. Tom Sanders asked if it is entirely surrounded by private property. Mr. Smith replied that it is all private land except for the Division of Wild- life (DOW) which owns a sizeable portion to the northwest. There is a piece of BLM land across from the dam also. Dr. Sanders asked if there were any restrictions about septic tanks and cesspools etc. Mr. Smith wasn't certain but he said according to the investors up there, there are no plans for extensive development. Mr. Martell concurred with that statement. The plan, following completion of the Nature Conservancy transaction, he said, is to sell the balance of the property in large parcels. Under the County regula- tions, the smallest possible parcel would be 35 acres. The intent is to sell them in larger parcels, about 200-300 acres per parcel. Jo Boyd com- mented that even if you sold them at 200-300 acres per parcel, there would be nothing to stop that person from breaking them up into 35 acre parcels. Henry Caulfield added that you could approach the County for under 35 acre sections as well. The new County plan does not discourage this kind of thing. Dr. Boyd thinks it should be specified in the title, transfer of ownership, or whatever is involved in the transaction, that development would have to be regulated to maintain a certain water quality. Mr. Martell suggested that one way of handling that would be through protective cove- nants. Dr. Boyd pointed out that there has been a good deal of trouble with developments around Horsetooth Reservoir that do not have adequate sanitary disposal "to the point where it has been a problem for the people running water utilities." Henry Caulfield asked if it is true that the County has septic tank regulations for sub -divisions with 2 to 3 acre lots. Mike Smith said, Yes. Mr. Smith pointed out on the video where the new dam site would be located. All the property where that new dam would be is owned by North Poudre. The land that would be inundated is owned by several entities, including Halli- gan Resources, BLM, NPIC, DOW and a private owner. "Does the contract that HRC has with North Poudre contemplate passing the title from North Poudre to Mr. Judson," Mr. Caulfield wanted to know. "That's not part of the agreement," Mr. Smith responded. The agreement they have now is to work together to come up with a final solution to the prob- lem. If the City assumes Mr. Judson's interest in the agreement, our next task is to talk with North Poudre and negotiate a final agreement stating who is going to do what with Halligan. It may result in our doing nothing after we do some in depth investigations. It may result in the City acquir- ing the reservoir from North Poudre totally. "These are the extremes of the situation," he said. Water Board Minutes October 16, 1987 Page 4 Dr. Sanders asked if that was a masonry dam. Mr. Smith said it is and it was built in the early 1900's "How does the state Engineer's office regard the dam as far as safety," Dr. Sanders asked. They had some concern about that years ago and they did a detailed study. They gave it fairly good marks, at least for the present, Mr. Smith related. He pointed out that there is a spillway in the center of the dam. Henry Caulfield remarked that in reading over the information which was dis- tributed, one of the things he is sensitive to, given his background, is the question of a public enterprise relating to a private enterprise on the question of recreational and exclusive use. "I know that North Poudre is a mutual company, so it is not a public body, but we are a public body." He noted in sections 33 and 34 which states, "The City shall grant to HRC and PCR the surface rights of Halligan." Is that exclusive rights, he asked. Mr. Smith stated that in the agreement one of the benefits the City receives for its $100,000 is all rights that HRC and PCR had with North Poudre. "We get their engineering reports, legal work and their part of the conditional decree. We also get an option on all the land that would be inundated that HRC and PCR own, which is somewhere between 160-200 acres of property. Dr. Boyd asked if there was any price put on what that option would cost to exercise. If you want to exercise the option, the price is trading the sur- face rights as described there, for the property, Mr. Smith explained. We are paying for the option, but they would convey the land to the City if we would give them the surface rights. This is an option that the City has control over, Mr. Smith stressed. If we decide we want to build the reser- voir and the City, the Water Board and the Council do not want to trade away the surface rights, if we have them, (North Poudre may want to keep the sur- face rights), then we don't have to exercise the option. All that means is we must find some other mechanism to acquire the property. "We may have to pay for it, negotiate for it, etc.," he added. Henry Caulfield was still unclear about what that surface right constitutes. There are several ways to look at this, he said. It could mean that they are not necessarily exclusive surface rights. As president of the Long Pond Association, Mr. Caulfield is familiar with these concepts. Residents around Long Pond think of themselves as having exclusive access through their property to Long Pond Reservoir, but they don't think of themselves as having exclusive rights to have a boat on the lake. There are those who are not property owners who have rights to fish on the reservoir. "I understand the feeling of property owners to want to have good access for use." In federal reservoirs the general policy is that the federal govern- ment owns all the land the water occupies so there is public access to walk all around the reservoir. This is probably the kind of access that Mr. Jud- son does not want to have, Mr. Caulfield concluded. He cautioned that a public body must be careful about how they deal with the public with regard to a reservoir that has a public investment. Mr. Martell said there is an additional complicating factor, in that part of the property is owned by the BLM. When you get to that point you may or may not acquire the BLM property. The City may decide to condemn that prop- erty if the City has power of condemnation. "You may acquire all the pro- perty or you may just acquire a permit to inundate it." If you inundate Water Board Minute • • October 16, 1987 Page 5 it, you may not acquire the surface rights, and may not be able to give Phantom Canyon the kind of surface rights that we have be@n talking about; simply because the City doesn't have them. Mike Smith passed around a small scale colored map of the reservoir area which indicates the locations and ownership of the property. Jo Boyd asked about the minor property owners in that area. "There is only one other one," Mr. Smith said. Would they have property bordering the reservoir and not have access to it, Dr. Boyd continued. Mr. Smith replied that in the enlargement process they would have some shore line. The City would have to address acquiring the property. Just because you acquire the property and inundate it doesn't mean they have the right to use the reser- voir. Dr. Boyd contends that having a public reservoir with private indi- viduals having surface rights would not be politically acceptable. "We have the option of saying no or yes," Mr. Smith repeated. Today is probably not the time for an answer. That is why it is written as an option, he emphas- ized. For purposes of consideration, Mr. Caulfield said: If Mr. Judson's interest could be met by making that exclusive, there is no question that the land bordering the reservoir would continue to be privately owned, but the actual boats on the reservoir could be public access. Mr. Martell admitted that the entire Canyon is somewhat of a sensitive area, and that is why the Nat- ure Conservancy was interested in it. He thinks Mr. Judson's intent is to maintain that natural state to the greatest extent possible. His concern would be the public use of it. Mr. Caulfield commented that the Nature Con- servancy usually has public use of their lands also. "To some extent that is true, Mr. Martell said, but they control the amount of use." Mr. Caulfield pointed out that the BLM land has a large frontage on the reservoir. He would think that the City would not have a difficult time getting that scat- tered track from the BLM. "It is policy under either Republicans or Demo- crats to get rid of land like that," he stressed "unless there is something special about this particular piece of land." Mr. Martell agreed completely with Mr. Caulfield;'s analysis of the BLM property. The BLM would probably be most receptive to someone's interest in purchasing it. The City would acquire all the ownership of the Phantom Canyon property that is inundated as well. Mr. Caulfield said "you would want the actual shore line (however that is defined) to remain without pub- lic access. That's the key point," he stressed. Tom Sanders asked if there was going to be a ban on boats. Mr. Smith replied that it is Mr. Judson's intention to have no boats at all. Ray Herrmann asked, "no boats or no motors?" Mr. Martell said that to date there have been some small boats -- mostly sailboats, things like that, which some of Mr. Judson's partners have used. Mr. Smith clarified that presently Mr. Judson leases the surface rights from North Poudre for the whole reservoir. Water Board Minutes October 16, 1987 Page 6 Tom Sanders believes that in the future, if we take advantage of this pro- posal, it would be wise to ban motor boats, because this reservoir would be used as water supply. Henry Caulfield pointed out that on Long Pond, they ban motor boats but permit electric motors for trolling. Mr. Caulfield said further that the people Mr. Judson would sell the land to would be interested in fishing. Mr. Martell said he believes that is correct. Chairman Evans summarized what the Board should be considering. At the pre- sent time, the City has an option possibility that is being brought to the Water Board. If we choose to pursue the proposal, it would cost $100,000. We may or may not choose to exercise the option and make the commitment. If we do not, we loose the $100,000. The question is, "Is that a good risk?" The answer is, yes, it is a good risk because the firm yield estimate for the reservoir makes it about $10 an acre foot of firm yield. If we pursue the option, the questions that Mr. Caulfield is raising will be pertinent. "How extensive are the engineering studies," John Scott inquired. "Is the proposed new dam site geologically sound?" The studies that have been done, don't get into depth about the geology as much as we would like, Mr. Smith responded. That would be one of the things we would want to do, he added. "Have you had any conversations with North Poudre about cost sharing for a new dam Dr. Scott continued. "That would be the next step, assuming this agreement puts us in a position to negotiate with North Poudre; otherwise we can't because they are partners with someone else," Mr. Smith explained. Mr. Caulfield asked where the $10 figure which Dr. Evans referred to comes from. "The $100,000 divided by the firm yield that we would get out of the enlargement, Dr. Evans replied. Mike Smith added. "You are talking a fairly competitive price compared to other water acquisition alternatives." That's approximately $1,000 an acre foot firm yield -- not total storage; whereas CBT water at $700 an acre foot does not give you that firm yield. Mary Lou Smith pointed out, "and that's including our development costs." "Basically what we are acting on if we enter into this agreement, is we are buying the right to negotiate with North Poudre to build the dam," Mr. Smith clarified. Right now HRC and PCR own that right. Marylou Smith asked that staff try to attach some percentage of probability in their own judgement, that we would eventually enlarge the site and build a dam. "That would help me decide how much of a risk it would be," she said. "The biggest risk besides constructing a dam, is in the next couple of years of negotiating with North Poudre," Mr. Smith replied. In other words, "Can we strike a deal that we can agree on regarding how to build the dam?" North Poudre is willing to work with us because the agreement they have with HRC expires in about 2 years. They have already agreed to extend that by another year if we acquire this agreement, Mr. Smith stressed. Dr. Evans said that we should also note that Halligan with 9-10,000 AF of firm yield and 30,000 additional capacity, fits with NPIC reservoirs 5 and 6 where there is about 18,000 AF of potential. They fit so well together in a J • • Water Board Minutes October 16, 1987 Page 7 management sense, that getting this Halligan capacity and location has advantages beyond just the amount of water. "But you aren't willing to place a percentage on this" Marylou Smith repeated. Neil Grigg explained. "If we have 10,000 AF firm yield, and if we are going to save roughly $400 per AF, (because this is a good deal), and if the probability is 10%, then the number is $400,000 in benefits that we are buying for $100,000. The benefit/cost ratio is 4 to 1 on our investment. This is if we pick 10%. Staff believes it will be more than 10%. Mr. Smith believes that it has a greater potential of being developed than Rock- well has. In addition, it probably has a greater potential than any other proposed projects as well (Grey Mountain, Glade, e.g.). He added that the Nature Conservancy would probably be a proponent of seeing this project go ahead. MaryLou Smith believes it is an exciting concept for the future because it is a unique public access situation that would be very low key and conserv- ing. Mr. Smith emphasized. "What we are saying is that we are willing to spend $100,000 on a water supply development opportunity, knowing that there is some chance that we may decide not to do it." "What's the chance that we will be precluded from doing it by some outside force," was Ray Herrmann's concern. "There could be," Mr. Smith replied. One of the negatives is if the NCWCD, for some reason, builds Grey Mountain Dam which is senior to the Halligan right; Glade is not. If the District decided they would not subordinate Grey Mountain to Halligan, it would diminish the value of Halligan. It would still be good, but not as valu- able. What we would do in looking at this, would be to approach the District and ask if they would subordinate Grey Mountain to Halligan. "Could you do that before you spend the $100,000," Mr. Herrmann asked. "You could, but I'm not sure it is that big an issue to worry about now," Mr. Smith responded. Dr. Evans brought up another factor to which Mr. Herrmann has eluded. There are other entities who would like to enter into such a negotiation; e.g. Westminster, Northglen and others. He asked Mr. Martell if he had a comment on that point. "I'm not personally aware of any negotiations with any other municipalities. If the Judsons have talked to others, I have not been involved," was Mr. Martell's response. Dr. Evans stated that "we do know that others have investigated 5 and 6 and other reservoirs in that vici- nity." He mentioned other possibilities with the Halligan situation; for example importing water via the North Fork from the Laramie River. They may sound like wild and remote possibilities, he admitted, but they exist. There already is some import from the Larimie River, although a small amount. Halligan has seemed to be a very strong possibility for us, and we have con- sidered it in the past. Now we have a chance to be involved. He strongly recommends that we proceed with this option. Mr. Judson is anxious to be released from his arrangement with North Poudre, Mr. Smith related. "Frankly, he has said at meetings I have attended, that if the City doesn't want to do it, he won't have a problem finding some other partner." Water Board Minutes October 16, 1987 Page 8 Dr. Sanders recalled that a few years ago we were concerned about whether the reservoir would ever fill up. Do we know that we can get a safe yield of 10,000 AF? Dennis Bode replied that the flow above Halligan, averages 50-60,000 AF. Do we have data? Yes, there have been two studies dealing with this, Dr. Evans assured. Henry Caulfield moved that the Board approve the staff proposal concerning Halligan Reservoir. Marylou Smith seconded the motion. Dr. Sanders asked where the money is coming from. Mr. Smith confirmed that it would come out of our water acquisition funds. Jim Kuiken asked that Mike Smith run through the agreement that Board mem- bers received. At this point Norm Evans asked to be excused because of another commitment. Vice President Henry Caulfield assumed the chair. Mike Smith explained each of the provisions. (The provisions are attached along with the agenda item summary.) He noted that the studies that have been done on Halligan are valued at about $50,000, Someone mentioned that there was an investment in obtaining a decree also. Jo Boyd asked for a clarification on the option to acquire the property. The City has 21 years to exercise this option, Mr. Smith explained. If the City wishes to exercise the option, the option is that we trade surface rights for the property. If we choose not to exercise the option, we buy the prop- erty at a negotiated price. Tom Sanders asked if we can stipulate what the surface rights entail. "We are in total control of what we want to do," Mr. Smith stressed once again. Henry Caulfield asked if the City would own the land under the high water line. "That's correct," Mr. Martell answered. The agreement does specifi- cally provide high water line, which he believes everyone anticipates to be at an elevation of 6,420 feet. Tom Sanders asked about Provision 5, which states: "If the City acquires the NPIC property near Halligan, it shall grant to HRC and PCR an easement over and across the property for agricultural and recreational purposes." Is that going to be an easement the public can use as well, he asked. Mr. Martell said that easement is a non-exclusive perpetual easement," as stated above. Dr. Sanders asked if we can sell this option to another party. Mr. Smith responded that this right to negotiate with NPIC is transferrable. Henry Caulfield suggested another way to handle the recreation problem. If we made a deal with North Poudre to stay in ownership and Mr. Judson is in private ownership and the City was only getting water out of it, then this problem of public use/recreational use would vanish. "The other way it would vanish," Mr. Smith said, "is negotiations with North Poudre may reveal that they want to maintain use of the recreation rights." That means they are in private ownership," Mr. Caulfield asserted. If we took over the ownership, Water Board Minute • • October 16, 1987 Page 9 that would put us in fullest public exposure as a public entity and that is where it would become more difficult to exclude the public, Mr. Caulfield contends. Mr. Smith maintains that there are ways to address that. Tom Moore asked if NPIC can sell their part of the agreement. "I think we are putting up $100,000 and not really getting anything." Mr. Smith believes that it is almost impossible that North Poudre would sell their part of the agreement. Ray Herrmann said they would also have to sell 5 and 6; you can't manage 5 and 6 without Halligan. Neil Grigg addressed Mr. Moore's comment about "not getting anything for our $100,000." There is a conditional storage right involved here. What is the legal nature of the right? Mr. Smith explained that the City may pay something and we may not get anything if we don't get an agreement with North Poudre. NPIC has a conditional storage right, Dr. Grigg pointed out. "We share that as long as we have an agreement with North Poudre," Mr. Smith replied, "and if we don't get an agreement, the whole thing stops. We do have the engineering studies as a tangible item, he added. Jim Martell clarified an earlier question about North Poudre. "It is my interpretation that NPIC could theoretically assign their half of the agree- ment to someone else," he stated. Mike Smith assured the Board that from what he knows about North Poudre, he believes they wouldn't even think about doing that. Dave Stewart called for the question. Chairman Caulfield allowed one more question from Dr. Sanders. Does North Poudre want us in this, he asked. Mr. Smith said, "yes, they think it is a good opportunity for them." Mr. Caulfield called for the vote. The motion passed with 9 votes in favor and 1 abstention from Jo Boyd. (Since Norm Evans had to leave early alter- nate Jim Kuiken voted in his place.) Henry Caulfield pointed out the letter that Mike Smith had received from Boulder indicating that they too are opposed to changing the District bound- aries. Mr. Smith added that Boulder basically wanted to clarify their posi- tion. They were concerned that there was a perception that they were closely involved with Westminster in their water acquisition plan, as was reported in the news media. They wanted to inform us that was not the case. At the last Water Board meeting, Mr. Smith began, the Board voted to recom- mend that the Council endorse a resolution stating that the City is opposed to any changes in the NCWCD parent boundaries. This action was the result of Westminster's water acquisition plan that was presented to the Board at that meeting. Staff prepared two alternative resolutions for the Board's review: Alterna- tive one is somewhat generic and Alternative 2 is more specific. The Board can decide to use one of the two resolutions as they are or with modifica- tions, or they can choose not to submit a resolution to the Council. Water Board Minutes October 16, 1987 Page 10 Neil Grigg spoke in favor of alternative 1. He believes that the District has not yet stepped out to say that they will be the group that "represents us up here." They have the enabling statutes that give them a number of broad powers. Dr. Grigg thinks the District Board is mainly concerned with operating the District facilities and the District program but not looking at itself yet as being the main group that represents us in an organiza- tional sense. Alternate 1 says we encourage the Denver area entities to discuss their water needs with those in Northern Colorado -- it doesn't say who "those" is, Jo Boyd said. Therefore, it is generic and covers all kinds of situations instead of one specific one, she added. Marylou Smith agrees that Alt. 1 is more broad based and it also gives Westminster "less power" because they are not mentioned specifically. Ray Herrmann is somewhat bewildered about why we are doing a resolution. The District philosophically thinks the same way we do about extending the boundaries, he contends. Henry Caulfield said "it gets us more on the line committed in a formal sense." Jo Boyd believes that this will alert the Council as to how serious we are about this issue. MaryLou Smith believes that, more than anything, it is a direct answer to Westminster. We wanted to let Westminster know that although we appreciated their being up front with us, we want it to be understood that we don't want those boundaries extended. A resolution is the Water Board's opportunity to make a statement about it. Tom Moore was doubtful about "whereas" No. 2 which says that the Water Board expressed a desire for Denver area entities to openly discuss their water needs and plans with Fort Collins and others so as to explore acceptable solutions for all. Mr. Moore contends that we are saying, in effect, that we want you to come by and talk and then we will pass a resolution after you leave. Ray Herrmann thinks the result of the resolution will be that nobody will come forward again like Westminster did. Henry Caulfield said we are only foreclosing one thing and that is changing the boundaries. There is a lot of other water up here that doesn't involve the boundaries. Mr. Moore argued that the point is there is no other water here that doesn't involve the boundaries. The major ditch companies all have CBT water. Mr. Caul- field said there are other districts here that have early rights on the River. He admits, however, that you would have to collect a lot of them to get much water. MaryLou Smith stated that the Board, at the last meeting agreed, after long discussion, to send this resolution. She thinks that the debate should end on whether or not to send a resolution. We should rather be talking about the wording we want, she asserted. Chairman Caulfield determined that so far most members have spoken for Alternative 1. He asked if there was anyone who wished to speak for alter- native 2. MaryLou Smith moved that the Board accept the first alternative as written. Dave Stewart seconded the motion. Tom Moore was interested in hearing Jim Kuiken's reason for his negative vote on a resolution at the last meeting. Water Board Minutes• October 16, 1987 Page 11 Mr. Kuiken is opposed to passing this on to the Council unless we have an answer. We haven't given Council enough background and strategy to deal with the whole Denver -metro issue, he stressed. Neil Grigg contends that getting the Council involved in the problem is appropriate in many fronts because this is one of the major political problems to face Northern Colorado. "It isn't the kind of problem that we can develop a strategy for; one that is neat and all tied up in a package to pass on to the Council," he stressed. We must move on multiple fronts, and a resolution is one of them. Mr. Caulfield emphasized that this is a strategic action; namely to not change that boundary. As Tom Moore says, there is not much water up here that doesn't involve Colorado Big Thompson. MaryLou Smith called for the question. Mr. Caulfield called for any amend- ments. Tom Sanders moved that the second paragraph of alternative 1 dis- cussed earlier be removed. Tom Moore provided the second. Dr. Sanders believes, as Tom Moore mentioned earlier, that this says, "We want others to tell us what they are going to do so we can stop them." MaryLou Smith reiterated that this shows that we appreciated Westminster's doing that. Mr. Caulfield added, and it also says that we are willing to explore acceptable solutions for all. John Scott said, "and there may be ways we could help them out." The vote was called for on the amendment, with the following results: Henry Caulfield, no; Tom Moore, yes; Neil Grigg, no; Dave Stewart, no; Jo Boyd, no; John Scott, no; MaryLou Smith, no; Tom Sanders, no. Ray Herr- mann and Jim Kuiken both abstained. The amendment failed 7 to 1 with 2 abstentions. Tom Moore called for the question on the previous motion to accept alterna- tive 1 as written. The motion passed 8 to 0 with 2 abstentions from Ray Herrmann and Jim Kuiken. Mike Smith commented that he thinks the District Board would like knowing that we appreciate their stand on this issue and that we encourage them to keep doing it. He added that Jim kuiken has a good point too. Review of Council Work Session and Water Board/Staff Workshop Mike Smith said that the intent of this item was to see if there were any comments on either or both sessions. MaryLou Smith is adamant about completing the Bylaws at today's meeting since closure of this task has been pending for nearly 2 years. Ms. Smith also hopes that a sub -committee will be appointed to continue with the goals and policies formulated at the workshop. She would like to include this at the next meeting so it won't be delayed or forgotten. Mike Smith related Water Board Minutes October 16, 1987 Page 12 that staff will try to put the workshop information together in a form that a sub -committee can do something with it. Dave Stewart related that at the workshop there was a discussion about con- flict of interest. Mr. Stewart proposed that this issue be discussed at a Water Board meeting at which Assistant City Attorney Paul Eckman would be present. He feels that as a consultant trying to work in this community as well as trying to serve the community as a volunteer on the Water Board, he is concerned that there is some hesitancy from the staff with regard to con- flicts of interest. He wants it made clear what the ground rules are, and make certain everybody is informed as to what they are and what is expected of them. Mr. Caulfield asked the secretary to make a note that this is a matter to be brought up in the future with Paul Eckman present. Bylaws MaryLou Smith referred to the proposed Bylaws with portions accepted at the August, 1986 meeting. The Board needs to discuss whether a proposed new Article VII concerning relations with staff, should be inserted. In the proposed revision presented by Henry Caulfield, there was a recommended change to replace Section D. That suggested change is in italics. MaryLou Smith moved that the italics version replace the proposed section D. Jo Boyd provided a second. Tom Sanders thinks that the Board is telling staff what to do in this article. Do we have the right to do that? Henry Caulfield explained that his purpose in this was to line it out with the staff as to what our rela- tionship is and not, in effect, tell them. It is reflective of our rela- tionship, in other words, he said. Dr. Sanders asked if the Council agrees with this. This doesn't go to the Council he was told. These are our own set of bylaws, Ms. Smith stated. Mr. Caulfield repeated that this is just a clarification of our relationship with staff. Mike Smith agreed. Mr. Caul- field recalled that there had been problems with the staff in past years --not in recent year, he hastened to add. This article to the bylaws does not mean that staff and Water Board don't have the right to have differ- ences, he stressed. However, the Water Board has a right to know what those differences are. Everyone should be open with each other is the main point. The Bylaws, with previously approved changes, and a new Article VII which included the italicized version of section D were accepted by a unanimous vote. There were no staff reports or committee reports. Other Business Jim Kuiken praised staff for bringing the Halligan proposal as far as they have. Other members of the Board added their approval. Water Board Minutes• October 16, 1987 Page 13 Dave Stewart expressed his gratitude to Paul Eckman for answering his inquiry about inclusion of lands in the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District in a memo sent out to Board members. Tom Sanders asked if the Michigan Ditch is now in good enough shape to col- lect the winter runoff. "It's in good shape," Mr. Smith confirmed. The only issue related to the Michigan Ditch at this point is not the operation, but a filing that has been made on the North Park area from a group called Excalibur. They are making serious accusations about the viability of the Michigan Ditch. "It's going to result in a bloody court battle," Mr. Smith predicted. The filing is making the point that we have abandoned a part or most of our rights on the Michigan Ditch, and that we have rights to a very small part of the water. It appears there are some Denver developers behind the group. An engineering group called AquaSan Network is doing the engineering work. The City has hired John Carlson out of Denver for special legal counsel to look into the situation. He is doing a good job investi- gating this, Mr. Smith assured the Board. "These folks are serious," he stressed. He also emphasized that the City doesn't believe that the rights are abandoned. What has happened is when the CBT project came into being, North Poudre Irrigation Co. didn't use the Michigan Ditch as much as they used to. North Poudre eventually sold the Ditch to the City of Fort Collins. The City has gone through a lengthy period of rehabilitation. There was a 20 years period in which the Ditch was not used very much. Previous to that the historical use was 5,000-6,000 AF per year. That is what our intention is again, he said. They are saying that we shouldn't be allowed to do that. He added that Ward Fischer is also objecting to this accusation from Water Supply and Storage Company's viewpoint. Mike Smith announced that the Council meeting on November 3 will probably be the evening for the public hearing on the metering issue. Marylou Smith believes that staff should prepare information for the hearing which would include the percentage of the PIF funds that might be used for homeowners who volunteer to convert to meters. It would be helpful to know if a certain percentage of the community exercised that option, would that use all of our PIF funds, or 10% or whatever? One of the problems with this whole issue is that it is very confusing, she contends. There are many dif- ferent ways of looking at it, but the PIF issue is one that keeps recurring, she stressed. Mike Smith assured the Board that staff is preparing some information to try to answer some of those confusing questions. It will be prepared in a ques- tion and answer format. He also explained that two resolutions will be pre- sented: one that favors phased metering and one that advocates no metering program. Henry Caulfield asked about the format of the meeting. Is staff going to make a presentation? Mr. Smith responded: Usually the format of any agenda item is that the staff has an opportunity to make a presentation. The Coun- cil offers a motion. There is discussion from the audience and then from the Council. Questions from the audience and then from Council comes next. Finally there is the concluding discussion from the Council. Following that, Water Board Minutes October 16, 1987 Page 14 the Council votes on the item. Staff may make a brief presentation. Mr. Caulfield asked what information the public has other than from the newspa- pers. They have any of the information we have given to the Council via the press, Mr. Smith replied. They will also have the agenda support material. Tom Sanders: "There's not going to be any money spent by the City to go out to the public and sell them on metering? Mr. Smith answered, "no." Mr. Caulfield asked if the Council has asked the Water Board to be there and talk. The Board and Commissions are always welcome to come and address the issue, Mr. Smith assured. Jo Boyd related what she considered to be an appropriate remark from Council member Horak stated at the work session. Since the only thing that would be put before the public would be yes or no on mandatory metering of new construction, the only people to whom this decision would be important, are primarily those who do not yet live here. Mr. Caulfield thinks that President Evans would like to keep it low key as far as the Board's participation is concerned. Unless there is someone who feels the Board should have a special role, Mr. Caulfield proposed that they "play it low key and just be there and watch." There was no opposition to this suggestion. Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. -2,4 7%ZYC7� Water Board Secretary