Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 03/22/1997• WATER UTILITIES BOARD MINUTES May 22, 1997 3:10 - 5:22 p.m. Light and Power Training Room 700 Wood Street COUNCIL LIAISON Chuck Wanner (Present at meeting) .pp STAFF SUPPORT PERSON Molly Nortier - 221-6681 MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Clopper, Chairman, John Bartholow, Vice Chair, George Reed, John Barnett, Randy Fischer, David Lauer, Dave Rau, Tom Sanders, Ray Herrmann, Howard Goldman, Joe Bergquist, Tom Brown, Dave Frick STAFF John Fischbach, City Manager, Mike Smith, Wendy Williams, Gale McGaha Miller, Dennis Bode, Ben Alexander, Molly Nortier GUESTS John Bigham, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District MEMBERS ABSENT Bob Havis, Alison Adams, Robert Ward, John Morris (all excused) Chairman Paul Clopper opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Water Utilities Board Minutes May 22, 1997 Page 2 MINUTES The minutes of April 24, 1997 will be approved at the June meeting, along with the May 22, 1997 minutes. John Bigham provided handouts that gave the reservoir storage. "Obviously with the rain occurring now," he said, "there have been some increases in flows off the Grand a couple of times a day." The District has put about 500 ac-ft of water into Granby filling it at about a half a foot every day. "Right now it's filling such that in about 3-4 days it should be full. Willow Creek is spilling already. "We haven't pumped any water out of it, so now we are bypassing almost 1500 cfs out of Willow Creek because we have no place to put it. In fact, if it gets a little higher, we're going to have to pump Willow Creek into Granby and let it spill down the Colorado to keep it from destroying the spillway on Willow Creek. Of the non -charge water that was put out a couple of weeks ago, the 41,000 ac-ft will have been delivered by this Saturday or Sunday. "Everything is moving very well," he said. He pointed out on the second page of the handout, where it tells what's running out of the Colorado River over in Utah, this morning at 3:00, there was 28,200 cfs going out of the state and eventually into California. "It's been disappointing to us that the Fish & Wildlife Service has asked us to dump additional water on top of this peak for flushing; I don't know how much flushing flow you need unless you want to drown the fish," he laughed. Paul Clopper reminded the Board that they had talked, at the last meeting about ranking the goals/objectives that Alison Adams had listed from one of the earlier Coalition meetings she had attended. Ms. Adams was not able to be at the meeting today, so she asked John Bartholow to fill in for her. Mr. Bartholow said that he and Ms. Adams agreed that participating in the Northern Coalition is probably to our advantage for a couple of reasons: The future holds an ever more tightening array of constraints, slow and incrementally small, but ever-present. The "solution" is to explore opportunities for relaxing those constraints. The Northern Coalition is one potential avenue for doing so. Water Utilities Board Minutes May 22, 1997 Page 3 Mr. Bartholow said, "whether or not you agree on the participants of the coalition at this time or what seems to be the principal motivation for the group, which I would say is probably protecting water for growth, I don't think is really the point. The point is, could the City's involvement, in fact the City's leadership position in such a group, help us to forestall additional constraints, or provide opportunities to get us around some constraints that appear to be coming into the future." He went on to say that "power can be found in partnerships with various groups. That has been the basic thrust of conversations of the Water Utilities Board over the last several months. He said the Board's charge is to formulate and communicate by: a. putting forth a clear vision of what we want b. communicating that vision c. motivating others toward that vision d. and then "working the system" He suggested that the Board take the 22 items that had been submitted by the various players and group them into what would seem to be logical categories. "Ms. Adams and I didn't necessarily agree on which elements fit into which categories. She only received your reply to the actual 1-22 ranking. "I would recommend that we look at it at a higher level, the overall objective point of view, and to tally the top four that you think are important. Actually ranking them at this point may be counter productive. To serve to give the staff a charge of what the relative importance is, we could tally up the four and send it around the table and announce the results at the end of the meeting. Ms. Nortier recalled at the last meeting that if a Board member felt strongly about adding another item, that would also be acceptable. George Reed pointed out under "conservation and environmental protection," one is conserve natural resources including water, and he felt that water conservation without any place to store it didn't seem logical. "There are other duplicate numbers as you have seen, so it's not unprecedented to have one of the responses listed in two places." Mr. Bartholow agreed. "In fact when I first sent over my version of this categorization to Ms. Adams, I had several of the individual items placed more than once, and several split. Rather than argue about that kind of categorization, I think it is more important to look at it at this higher level. We don't have a clearly articulated vision of what our objectives really are," Mr. Bartholow suggested. "So you are saying to actually disregard the elements in there, and, for now, just look at the main categories?" Mr. Reed asked. "That would be my recommendation, and I think Ms. Adams'also," Mr. Bartholow replied. "Are the objectives hierarchical?" Mr. Sanders asked. "The 22 items are just a collection," Mr. Bartholow explained. "I understand that we as a Board are to come up with a prioritization of those," Mr. Lauer recalled. "How many people were actually involved in setting the priority rankings as they were calculated?" Mr. Herrmann asked. Dennis Bode said there were about 25 participants; these are from individual responses. The District didn't do any categorization of those," Mr. Bartholow recalled. Water Utilities Board Minutes May 22, 1997 Page 4 Mr. Clopper summarized that we need to get a straw poll, if you will, from our Board as to what kinds of issues are more important and which ones may come in at the bottom of the stack. Mr. Bartholow acknowledged that many of them are kind of"motherhood and apple pie" statements, but therein perhaps lies some of the benefit because it well could be that some of the participants in this group have different long term goals in mind, but we might be able to share some of the means toward achieving them. "I prefer to leave that open-ended right now," he said. Mr. Sanders raised a question about the conservation aspect of this. "In the future I would like to talk about conservation in two categories: (1) conservation of water in general and (2) conservation of treated water." There is no argument that we have trouble meeting the demand for treated water in the summer. "I don't want to be using that as a basis for not purchasing future water supplies," he stressed. "It appears that I'm against conservation, and that's not true," he added. ACTION: MOTION AND VOTE Mr. Bartholow moved that the Board recommend to the City Council that (a) staff continue to participate in this effort, (b) that we (the City) work toward a semi -leadership position to the degree that seems commensurate with the effort and the potential reward, and (c) that progress be reviewed on an annual basis. After a second from David Lauer, the Board voted unanimously for the motion. "We will recommend to the Council that we continue to support the Northern Coalition," Mr. Clopper concluded. The tally from the Board is listed at the end of the minutes. In their packets Board members received a draft letter from the WUB to the NCWCD Board of Directors regarding the District's Interim Base Water Supply Policy. The WUB shared their concerns regarding the interim policy, specifically, the "Guidelines on Limitations on Ownership of Colorado - Big Thompson Allotment contracts for Domestic or Municipal Purposes," adopted February 10, 1995. The letter stated: "We have two concerns with the ownership limitations cap, the first being one of equity among C-BT water users. Entities like Fort Collins that have conscientiously developed or acquired a supply that equals or exceeds the 1-in-50 year drought criteria would be ineligible to acquire additional C-BT units except those transferred during annexation. In contrast, an entity that is short on supply and remains below the 1-in-50 drought criteria can acquire all of its supply through the purchase of C-BT units. The second drawback for Fort Collins is a related, but operational, Catch-22. Our water supply policy mandates that we maintain a supply that is sufficient to meet at ]grit a 1-in-50 reserve. Thus, we are prevented from purchasing additional shares at opportune times without breaching one policy or the other." Water Utilities Board Minutes May 22, 1997 Page 5 Additional details of the Board's concerns and ideas are contained in an attached letter sent to Eric Wilkinson on February 29, 1996. Paul Clopper reminded the Board that they would be given the opportunity to review a draft letter at this meeting. He asked for comments and suggestions. Tom Sanders said it was a very good letter, "but I don't thinkit's.aggressive enough," he added. He hopes the Mayor will take this as a basis to write a letter supporting the Board's concerns on a higher political level. Mr. Clopper acknowledged John Bartholow's and Dennis Bode's efforts in preparing this letter. They did an excellent job. Mr. Bartholow asked if Mr. Sanders thinks the letter should come from the Mayor. "I think it would have a lot more impact," Mr. Sanders replied. Mr. Clopper suggested that he and the Mayor could co-sign it, or it could be sent with just her signature. "How about a letter from the Board and the Mayor?" Dave Rau suggested, "or there could be two documents." Ray Herrmann wondered it instead of just discussing policy, perhaps the letter could stress prudent drought management; The City's I-in-50 was determined to be a prudent drought management tool -- "actually we were thinking in terms of 1-in-100, but we compromised with the Council on a 1-in-50," he recalled. He emphasized that the City's 1-in-50 policy is based on research of drought management. Mr. Clopper asked if he had some specific language to strengthen the letter. "Just stress that it's a violation of our prudent drought management policy," he responded. "We mention the policy a number of times, but it leaves me with the feeling of 'so what?' The District might be thinking, 'just change your policy,' but the policy was established for some very good reasons." Both John Barnett and Dave Rau thought it should be emphasized by a separate sentence, one that indicates that the policy is based on sound research. Tom Brown remarked that, "it's a judgement call." Tom Sanders, repeated, "It's more than just a judgement call, it's based on research." Mr. Herrmann pointed out that if the City an went lower th 1-in-50, "we would be courting disaster." "I'm not arguing that,"Mr. Brown responded. Mr. Brown had an additional question about the 1-in-50. "The third paragraph of the letter hinges on whether we are above or below the 1-in 50," he pointed out. As he understands the City's Water Supply Policy, the board recommended and the City purchase a large amount of water about 10 years ago to bring the supply up to the 1-in-50 level. The Raw Water Requirement was set to maintain that level, and the RWR was composed of actual water shares and cash -in -lieu -of that were turned in by developers. The City has acquired about $2-3 million from the cash -in -lieu -of payments that has not been used to purchase water. "That suggests to me, in terms of our actual water, that we have fallen below the 1-in-50," he said, "if the policy was accurately set in the first place. If that is the case, then we could be purchasing water from CBT." Mr. Bartholow asked, isn't it reasonable to not think about just the current situation, but also the foreseeable future? "You mean if we were to spend the money on the water, we'd be back in the same situation?" Mr. Brown wondered. He added, that's true, but, in the meantime, aren't we below it if our policy is set accurately? Therefore, aren't we within the limit of the proposed guidelines? Water Utilities Board Minutes May 22, 1997 Page 6 Mr. Bode doesn't think the City is below that level and the reason is that when the policy was set, the City was looking at a target of40 years in the future. "We were aiming at maintaining the 1-in-50 through the whole period. We acquired a fairly large quantity of water to help meet that target, and once we did that, we jumped above the 1-in-50 by quite a lot. We are above that level now, and, as we continue into the future, it will gradually decline into something approaching a 1-in-50." Mike Smith pointed out that the metering program will add to that. "So we set the RWR essentially lower than we would have had the 1-in-50 not been above that level?" Mr. Brown asked. "That's right. We did two things at the time, we adjusted the RWR, and we purchased water in the short term," Mr. Bode explained. `Both of those things were built in to meet the 1-in-50 over the long term. The target date was set at 2035 to meet the 1-in-50, so we anticipated that we would be above that level clear out to that year," he said. "So does that mean that we don't intend to acquire additional water with the cash -in -lieu -of that we have been acquiring?" David Lauer asked. "Does it mean that we don't need to spend it to stay at 1-in-50?" Mr. Brown added. "Not immediately, although at some time, providing those projections are accurate, we would need to spend that either on additional water or storage facilities to make use of the water that we have acquired," Mr. Bode replied. The cash -in -lieu - of is intended for the purchase of water, Mike Smith said. "It's such a small percentage of what is turned in that it would take many years of not spending it to make that line dip below; it might be 2020 before that happens." "Aren't we sticking our necks out too far with the 1-in-50 developing this kind of criteria. Maybe, in the future someone may use that as criteria for whether we get water or not," Tom Sanders wondered. "That is a part of the District's policy," Mr. Bartholow stated. "Doesn't their policy deal mostly with the base supply?" Mr. Sanders asked. "There are two aspects, as I understand them," Mr. Bartholow related: one has to do with the 1-in-50 and one has to do with the ratio of foreign water, CB-T water and native water. "Did they get the 1-in-50 from us?" Mr. Sanders asked. "I think that is a common level that a lot of people are comfortable with," Mr. Bode replied.. "A few other cities also use that as criteria." That's a District -wide standard, David Lauer thinks. Howard Goldman's concern about the letter is that he still thinks "we are missing the interest the District has in trying to establish a policy. If this is going to be an effective process, we have to understand somehow what the District's interest is. It seems to me that the District wants to maintain a label of being a supplemental supply, and they are trying to operationalize what it means to be a supplemental supply. Somehow we have to say we respectfully disagree with the criteria they have established as a supplemental supply. We think we can maintain 1-in-50 and still purchase CB-T and it's still supplementing our native water supply. I'm not sure that's come across here. We are still saying, we think you are being unfair to us by not letting us buy any more. The District has said several times, 'we're sorry you feel that way, but this is what we need to do because we are afraid that Washington is going to assess huge amounts of fees on us if we get labeled non -supplemental,"' he explained. He went on to say that somehow staff and the Board must convey to them that we sympathize with that and that we understand their problem. However, we also need to tell them that we don't think they are in any danger of losing their supplemental label if they allow us to buy CB-T water, Mr. Goldman contends. "I'm not sure we've done that yet," he concluded. Water Utilities Board Minutes May 22, 1997 Page 7 "If we take the approach of trying to validate their contention about supplemental water, John Barnett began, "maybe there needs to be two definitions for supplemental water: (1) more urban and (2) more agricultural, in that maybe 1-in-50 is excessive for agriculture and maybe it's not; I don't know," he admitted. "Maybe we ought to be saying to the District, that it's important for them to have a definition of supplemental water, but it's important to Fort Collins that an urban definition of supplemental water includes protection for a 1-in-50 drought." John Bartholow suggested another approach: if supplemental is defined on an allottee by an allottee basis, you end up with one set of consequences, but if supplemental is defined on a regional basis, amongst all of the allottees, you come up with a different set of operational characteristics. The District, apparently has opted to go with the allottee by allottee, "which I think is probably shortsighted, but I'm not sure I have thought about all the issues," he acknowledged. He also mentioned that he agrees with Howard Goldman that we don't fully understand the rationale for the policy. "If those of you who have read Eric Wilkinson's letter could adequately translate that for me, maybe we could get somewhere," he asserted. "Frankly I was lost in both the letter and his discussion, although some elements came through, and I think, in general, Mr. Goldman is right," he added. "I have no problem with stating to the District that we are trying to understand; I think that's very appropriate." Mr. Goldman reiterated that he doesn't think the District is going to change its policy at all unless somehow we can convince them that letting us buy water does not at all risk their change in status with Washington. `But can we say that?" Mr. Bartholow asked. Mr. Goldman asked Mr. Bode if that is what he understood. He noted that his thoughts about this come more from meetings he has attended at the District than from Eric Wilkinson's letter. "Maintaining the supplemental nature of the water is certainly one of the issues," Mr. Bode agreed. "I think there are some other issues involved in terms of equity and how you treat different users of the water. The base water supply is certainly geared towards maintaining the supplemental nature of the water. That's not so much an issue for us because we have a good base supply. It's more an issue of, since we have a good base supply, we would be saving that additional CB-T water for others when they need it," he explained. Mr. Goldman contends that fairness is not one of the things the District is worried about; they're concerned about what's going to happen to them and to the whole region if Washington chooses to change their label. "I think the other issue is trying to maintain a certain amount of CB-T water in agriculture too," Mr. Bode pointed out. "They want to keep the clamps on a bit so it doesn't all end up with municipalities," he added. Mr. Clopper asked if any other staff had any comments on the draft letter. Mr. Smith said that Mr. Bode has reviewed it carefully. Mr. Bode said that he is comfortable with the content. He added that he sees it as more of a reminder than anything. He thinks the management and the Board at the District are well aware of our position on this particular issue, and he repeated that he thinks it's a reminder for them to keep this issue and our concerns in mind. Water Utilities Board Minutes May 22, 1997 Page 8 "I think Howard Goldman has a good point, and I think we ought to weave that into the letter," Dave Rau suggested. "I also think we ought to propose something different instead of saying we don't like it." Mr. Clopper pointed out that that has been done; e.g. with the sliding scale concept. He also mentioned that there was supposed to be an attachment that contains some of the details. He stated that he agrees that Howard Goldman's perspective needs to be hammered a little more forcefully. George Reed disagrees somewhat with Mr. Goldman in that he thinks the District is interested in fairness because he has seen that in some other areas, but he thinks it's definitely unfair that those people who go the extra mile trying to help the District maintain their status as supplemental, then get penalized for it. "I think that's the situation we're in." He believes that the City of Fort Collins is a leader in establishing a base supply. "A sliding scale or some other point system that then could recognize those entities that do contribute to that status could be implemented," he suggested. Mr. Goldman agrees with that. "I wasn't trying to suggest that they are not concerned about fairness." Mr. Reed agrees with Mr. Goldman that there isn't much incentive for the District to change their policy right now, unless we offer to continue to support their position by our maintenance of a base water supply. "We could push that issue again of a solution of the problem from our point of view," he concluded. Mr. Clopper reviewed suggestions from the Board: Mr. Herrmann's suggestion about the prudent nature of the 1-in-50 policy, Mr. Goldman's idea of making the case that the CB-T will still be supplemental and won't jeopardize that federal interpretation that is of concern. David Lauer mentioned what John Bartholow said about the definition of supplemental possibly being different in an urban setting than in an agricultural setting. Mr. Clopper asked John Bigham from the District if he had an answer for that. Mr. Bigham said that the repayment contract doesn't speak to that at all; "it says supplemental is supplemental. Whether we like it or not, that's the Fed's interpretation. Unless something changes with them, I suspect that will be what is handed down to our Board. "Have they ever defined supplemental?" Mike Smith asked. "I believe they have, but off hand I can't quote it," Mr. Bigham replied. He added that the general definition is there but he didn't recall the legal version. "They did discuss whether to apply it regionally or individually, and I think currently, that the Board has chosen to apply it individually," Dennis Bode recalled. Mr. Clopper asked if the direction from the Board is to rework the letter and bring it back next time. Mr. Herrmann said rework it and go with it. Mr. Clopper said the people who drafted the letter are Dennis Bode and John Bartholow with some input from himself. "We will make sure that Mike Smith is involved as well." Mr. Herrmann pointed out that the decision has to be made whether it goes out under the Mayor's signature or both. Mike Smith suggested that since the Board works with the Council that the Board should stay in touch with Chuck Wanner and Ann Azari on these things. "I think it's important that they are informed about these kinds of actions," he stressed. "The Mayor may want to sign it or just co-sign it." John Fischbach advised that if the Board wants to send a letter, that Water Utilities Board Minutes May 22, 1997 Page 9 they send it under the Board's signature, and if the Board wants the Mayor to send a letter, it should ask Chuck Wanner to ask the Mayor to send a separate letter. If she wants to she can talk with the Council, because the Mayor is one of the Council members. Mr. Reed asked for a clarification. "At the present time are we capped on buying CB-T? "By calculation, we are close," Mr. Smith answered. Mr. Bode added that he thinks we are over the limit. Tom Sanders thinks this approach is wrong, "because we are doing it de -facto now. We have the $3- 4 million in the bank for the purchase of water, and if this policy becomes intrenched, we won't be able to buy water for years from this particular source." Mr. Clopper said the letter would be re- drafted with some guidance from Chuck Wanner, John Fischbach and Mike Smith. Gale McGaha Miller distributed the 1996 Water Quality Policy Annual Report to allow the Board to peruse it and perhaps discuss it further at the June meeting. In 1993, Council adopted a Drinking Water Quality Policy and one element of that policy is to report back to the Board annually in May. The high points of that policy include understanding and realizing customer expectations; proactive monitoring and testing; protecting source water; continued improvement of treatment and distribution; assuring quality of water service; and coordinating with other City departments and outside agencies. All of these items are reflected in the report. "We have included the items we have been working on this past year," she said. At the end of the report there is a copy of the resolution that adopted the policy as well as a summary of our drinking water quality data for 1996. "If you have any questions, we can either discuss it next month or feel free to contact me directly," she said. Paul Clopper said that this item was requested by David Lauer at the end of the Board meeting in April. "This is something the Board has discussed off and on for the last few months, probably ever since the Water and Storm Drainage Boards merged to form the Water Utilities Board." He pointed out that Chuck Wanner had not yet arrived but generally gets here around 4:00. He felt the Board could begin the discussion using the draft mission statement that was included in Board packets. John Bartholow, Dave Frick and Paul Clopper drafted the statement. The need for a mission statement came about during discussions when the bylaws from the two individual boards were merged. Some Board members expressed concern that references to Board tasks had been excerpted from the document. The feeling was that since such references weren't in the bylaws, they should in the City Code. "This is the first cut at what our mission statement might look like," he said. Referring to the draft, he indicated three specific duties of the Board: An introductory statement said: "The Fort Collins Water Utilities Board is appointed by the City Council for the purposes of advising City Council, providing regulatory review, and representing the Water Utilities Board Minutes May 22, 1997 Page 10 citizens of Fort Collins related to the responsible management and use of water resources by the City for Fort Collins, and providing a vision for the changing demands of the future." Advising the City Council regarding water rights planning, acquisition, and management of Stormwater Utility policies; Acting as a quasi-judicial body in certain Stormwater-related areas; Providing advice and citizen input to the Water Utilities Staff: (Chuck Wanner arrived at the meeting at this time; approximately 4:10 p.m.) Mr. Clopper noted that the only regulatory authority the former Water Board had was for drought emergencies. Mike Smith said there was one that carried over but it wasn't that one. He thinks what was carried over was the setting of raw water conversion factors and acceptance of certain waters for development. "I think that's still in the code," he said. Dennis Bode read a segment from the Code: "In the event of drought or water shortage, the City Council may place restrictions on all uses of City water and even prohibit, if necessary, all non -domestic uses of City water if the Water Utilities Board so recommends." "It's a recommendation to the Council," Mr. Bode added. "Should conversion factors be added to the statement?" David Lauer asked. "It should be in there," Mr. Smith agreed, "and staff can provide some wording on that." Mr. Clopper referred to item 3, Providing advice and citizen input to the Water Utilities Staff. "The thinking there was that WUB members bring community values on behalf of all citizens of Fort Collins." This means that the Board helps staff with their decision -making as far as planning and management and implementation of some of the policies. Mr. Clopper pointed out that the Water Supply Committee is planning to use this mission statement to guide some of the things that they have been discussing over the last couple of months regarding "what we mean when we say water supply. At the Committee meeting a couple of weeks ago, we were asked to draft a mission statement to help support some of the concepts that were being discussed in terms of water supply and use of water for purposes perhaps broader than what was originally defined," Mr. Clopper explained. "That's right,"Tom Brown responded. "Essentially, we were wondering whether to propose a change in the mission statement that would encompass environmental uses of water; uses such as increasing the flow in the Poudre River through City boundaries. Mr. Clopper asked Board members for questions and comments. Someone said that it needs to include the one quasi-judicial function that Mike Smith referred to earlier. There was general agreement that the mission statement was well done, and comprehensive. "We'll work on some final details, and perhaps at the next meeting, we can approve it as a final document," Mr. Clopper concluded. Water Utilities Board Minutes May 22, 1997 Page 11 John Bartholow stated that the last time he read the draft, he was left "a little cold, in the sense that I think it's a good enumeration of what we do or what we should do. It doesn't necessarily convey the spirit of how that should be done, and I don't know how to better state what I'm getting at," he admitted. "It's not visionary." He wondered if anybody had any ideas of how this could be turned from a fist of what we do, or what constitutes the agendas of what we work through each month, into a description of what we are really trying to do. "If we were doing an excellent job, what would it be that would bring the light into the Council's life?" he asked. "Even though this isn't particularly visionary, it pretty well summarizes what we do," John Barnett pointed out. "In that sense, I like it the way it is." "In advising the City Council, what role do we have?" asked Howard Goldman. "Maybe this gets down to if this is the Water Utilities Board or if it is the Water Resources Board," Mr. Bartholow responded. Mr. Clopper asked David Lauer what was on his mind when he asked for this to be on the agenda. "There seems to be some uncertainty as to what comes or does not come to this Board,"Mr. Lauer replied. What is supposed to come to this Board and then go to the Council or what goes directly to Council? In other words, is there some categorization of issues and responsibilities that Chuck Wanner and Council understand to be a set policy?" Dave Frick said the draft mission statement is getting us there. I think there are some key issues and one is that we represent the citizens of Fort Collins, and another is that we are looking at water resources management. Once we begin talking about those two areas we begin to expand somewhat from what we have done historically," he believes. Historically the Board has dealt with Utility issues, but the Utility doesn't serve all citizens. We are now beginning to look at water resources as a whole; e.g. perhaps the use of water resources to enhance the flows in the Poudre or use of water resources in natural areas. "I don't know whether that's acceptable to Council," he admitted. "I see it as somewhat of a change in focus that we are bringing to this mission statement." Mr. Clopper said his initial thinking, when the Board was going through the bylaws, was that he wanted to put back what had been removed when the two Boards' bylaws were merged. "This statement helps to alleviate that." He asked if Chuck Wanner wanted to comment. "It looks fine to me," he said. John Fischbach asked what the City Code says. "This particular enumeration was found originally in both the Water Board and Storm Drainage Bylaws," Mr. Clopper replied. "I don't believe this specific language is found in the Code," he said. "I think it should be," Mr. Fischbach stressed. "I think the Code sets forth what the different boards and commissions should do. If you want to expand that, you are talking to the wrong group. I think you should be talking with the whole City Council." "This group agreed that the bylaws were not the right place for this particular enumeration, and the Code was, and that's why we have done this," Mr. Clopper explained. "Are you intending to take this to the Council if approved and amend the Code to include this?" Mr. Fishbach asked. "Yes, this Water Utilities Board Minutes May 22, 1997 Page 12 statement in some fashion," Mr. Clopper replied. "Then City staff gets involved because we will have recommendations pertaining to that," Mr. Fischbach pointed out. John Barnett explained that at the time the two boards were merged, the charge for each Board had been written at different times with different levels of detail. "I think that the feeling of former members of the Water Board, in particular, was that there was a need for more detail in what they did." The sense was that what we as the Board should do, is carefully enumerate those changes and develop a mission statement, and if it required changes in the Code, we would simply request that as an update in the form of a housekeeping type of item. Tom Brown stated that he felt everything listed is what the boards have been doing all along; I don't see anything new on this fist that hasn't been done for years." Dave Frick suggested that the problem is we haven't had a lot of direction since the Boards were combined as to what the Board's goals or mission are. If you read the Code, basically about 90% of the Board's activities relate to Storm Drainage variances. There is probably about one line that relates to water and wastewater activities," he said. Several members didn't feel that is consistent with what is being asked of the Board. "That was when we decided to develop something and take.it back to staff and Council for review, and get feedback to see if we can't come to a common ground on which we can work. Two meetings back, three of us volunteered to come up with a draft. We met and hammered out what we are presenting today for discussion and input," he concluded. "What's important to me, as the City Manager, is that we have a great working relationship between the staff and the boards and commissions," Mr. Fischbach related. "I don't think this mission statement is a bad idea if the staff is involved in preparing it. You are advisory to the City Council. The staff is what is helping you to get to that advise. Mr. Clopper claimed that he didn't intend for anybody to make a motion on the statement at this Board meeting. It was simply put together as a first round of thoughts and comments. "I was asked by the Water Supply Committee to have something for this meeting to talk about," he related. "Let's take it back to the writers with Mike Smith and other staff who would like to be involved for next time," Mr. Clopper suggested. Mr. Smith said there are a lot of good things in the mission statement. "You have done a very nice job. You have a list of advising Council on certain items. The issue that staff is concerned about is, how active or proactive are you going to be on these items? Are you going to be initiating these items or are you going to be responding to these items? Mr. Smith emphasized that staff has operational responsibilities for the Utilities and that the Board's role is not to micro manage, but rather to help staff with policy issues and make recommendations regarding such to Council. John Barnett said he hears Mike Smith saying that he is as interested in clarity in the mission statement as the Board is. "You bet!" Mr. Smith replied; "there's an obvious need for clarity for the Board and staff. We want you to be comfortable that you know what your job is." Mr. Smith Water Utilities Board Minutes May 22, 1997 Page 13 continued by saying that it appears when the Boards were combined, people lost focus of what they were doing. Part of the problem is that the Water Board operated for so many years under a very limited statement in the Code: they knew that they "advised Council on water and wastewater issues," and that's all it said. Now with the detailed tasks listed for the former Storm Drainage Board, and very little written down for the former Water Board, it's being said that something is not equal here; "we don't know what we are supposed to be doing," he explained. "Those of you who were on the Water Board know what you've been doing because you've done it for years," he insisted. John Fischbach emphasized that we are an open organization. "Everything that you conclude goes to the Council; they get your minutes. Chuck Wanner is usually here, so even he can report to them what is going on. I can report what's going on via Mike Smith, so I don't think there's any problem there. If anybody thinks there is, please let me know that," he stressed. Mr. Smith went back for the last three years and looked at all the items the Board brought to the Council. "The items you didn't see were administrative things. For example, we take things to the Council like temporary use permits for CBT water. If we buy CBT water, we must have Council approve a temporary contract to get that. We don't bring it to the Board because the Board has already acted on buying the water or what is to be turned in for new development. Staff took something recently to Council on a Code change that was an omission on the budget where the in - lieu -of taxes was changed to 6%. The Board was involved in that during the budget process. This was purely administrative; the Board already acted on the policy. The land exchange with the forest service was another item. The Board had already dealt with that some time ago. I didn't see anything in those three years that should have gone to the Board," he concluded. When an item comes from the Board for the Council, an excerpt from the minutes is always included. "Molly makes good minutes and the Council reads them." "What might be more helpful from my perspective," Mr. Fischbach said, "is to turn the question around: what do some of you think you should be involved in that you are being denied access to?" Dave Rau stated that when he was on the Storm Drainage Board, "and that was for several years, we responded to things that were brought to us by staff, and that's how we operated, and that's how we always operated. "Frankly, that's how we have acted on the Water Board," Mr. Smith remarked. He added that staff has enough items to bring to the Board to keep them busy for a long time. "One of the difficulties is that it's a matter of opinion what's policy and just management," Tom Brown pointed out. "It's hard to know where you are drawing the line between what you think is policy and what you think of as management; it's hard for everybody to know where to draw that line. Maybe we need to get a little more specific," he advised. "Does this mission statement help?" Mr. Rau asked. Chuck Wanner asked Mr. Smith how the Board should proceed when a policy issue comes up that Board members, because of their expertise, have questions about. "Bring it up at a Board meeting or ask staff," Mr. Smith replied. "We get board people asking us those questions all the time." Water Utilities Board Minutes May 22, 1997 Page 14 "Sometimes Board members may call you asking questions as citizens," John Moms said. "That's fine. You have two hats; you have a Board hat, and a citizen hat," Mr. Smith explained. "We don't want to treat you any differently than any other citizen." Mr. Smith reiterated that the mission statement list is good, but it's more a matter of the attitude involved in doing it. "Perhaps just a slight wording change would take care of that." Dave Frick said he thinks the intent here is to decide what the Board is supposed to advise Council on. "That's all we're trying to define here. That's what I have been unclear about in the past. On the question of whether the Board should take a proactive stance or wait until staff brings it to them, I think it's both. If we are going to have a vision of what we want to see in the community, we need to bring up some of these issues, question them and have staff respond with what they think we can do if we want to guide things in a certain direction. I think we need to be goal oriented in our policies, and we need to be proactive, if we, for example, want water in the Poudre River. I see this Board as the driving force that says to the staff: 'let's look at some options of how we might be able to do that,'and let staff bring information to us; we aren't doing the work, we just see something we want to accomplish as a community and ask staff to help us. I don't see this document as being invasive," he concluded. "I don't think you should ever encourage this Board not to be proactive," Mr. Rau emphasized. "I think it's time for closure on this," Mr. Herrmann said. "I think we've had statements from a number of people. It's obvious that the problem has existed since the two Boards combined." He thinks the result of this will be that people will better understand what they are doing. "I think there needs to be trust on both sides for this to work," Mr. Rau stated. Mr. Clopper said that those who drafted the statement will get together with Mike Smith and whoever else from staff would like to join them, and present a new draft at the June meeting. Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported that treated water use for April was 1,787 ac-ft, which was 87% of what was projected for April. For the year we are about 95% of what was projected. The main reason for the lower use in April was that it was fairly wet. May appears to be a little bit warmer and somewhat dryer so far. David Lauer wondered if the first graph is related to one of the figures on the first page. "Yes, it is," Mr. Bode replied. "The one line that is labeled average projected is related to monthly deliveries where it says projected. Those numbers should track. The only difference is that, on the graph, you will notice it starts as of the first of November and that's when the water year begins, whereas the table begins the first of January." 201 Study Update Gale McGaha Miller reported that the consultant has continued to make progress evaluating the current facilities and beginning to develop treatment alternatives. Water Utilities Board Minutes May 22, 1997 Page 15 "What we are doing right now is putting together the first of two phases of public information and outreach. We are meeting next week to go over what we plan to present and provide input," she said Presentations will be made to various boards and commissions: Larimer County, our Water Utilities Board, various other entities' water boards, etc. in the month of June. That will be an agenda item for next month's Board meeting. She said that the first round of public outreach is basically a problem statement presentation. It will present capacity needs that we see in the future for these entities; we have begun to look at some alternatives, and we are giving the public and the boards and commissions a chance to provide input. We are doing that rather than coming in with everything is figured out. It is better to give people a chance to provide input a little earlier in the process," she stressed. After the presentation is made to the boards and commissions, there will be a public open house and presentation. It is scheduled for July and will be held on relatively neutral ground at the REA building. "After that we will continue to take input and use it to develop some treatment and transfer alternatives, look at some management alternatives, and then we will go back to the public, probably in August with a near final selection of alternatives to take." Mr. Smith said that this is a very sensitive subject. "I urge you to make it to the next meeting so that you can be on the ground floor with this information." "Will this be taken to the neighborhood level?" Mr. Clopper asked. "We will not be able to take it to the neighborhood level. It will be more of a City-wide level for the Fort Collins Water Utilities and at the service area level for the other participants. Reducing Board Membership Mike Smith pointed out the memo included in Board packets regarding membership attrition. The memo explained where staff stands on the issue. He explained that in the interest of conducting good, efficient meetings, staff prefers the adopted approach. He emphasized that staff respects the Board's opinion. "I'm glad you included that memo because I had no idea that staff had a difference of opinion about this whole thing," David Lauer said. "I had no idea that staff does not support the Board's desire to modify the attrition policy," he added. "While not a big issue, staff wanted the Board to know our reasoning on this," Mr. Smith explained. "Regardless of which option is ultimately chosen by the Council, are there things we could do as a Board to reduce staff time?" John Bartholow asked. "In general, the logistics of getting together a larger group of people, taking into account all that is involved with that, it is more time consuming," Mr. Smith replied. "It's been my impression that it has been two former boards trying to do their jobs altogether; suddenly we have more to do," Tom Brown observed. "It has also required more committee meetings," he added. Mr. Smith that said staffs preference is for a smaller Board. John Fischbach mentioned that Chuck Wanner brought this up last week at the Council Organizational Development Committee. The committee, consisting of Ann Azari, Chris Kneeland Water Utilities Board Minutes May 22, 1997 Page 16 and Chuck Wanner, supports the language in the Code which reduces the membership to 11 within two years. Randy Fischer asked the current and future size of the Board for the next 5 years using the method suggested by the Board. "Now the Board has 16 members," Molly Nortier replied. It would take until the year 2004 to reduce Board members to 11. This assumes Members would serve their three term limit. This would change if Members resigned from the Board or moved out of the Urban Growth Area. Chuck Wanner said the Committee made their recommendation based on the fact that it seemed reasonable to proceed with the original approach. "You can still bring anything to the Council that you wish and I will take it; that's not to say I would argue for it," he said. Dr. Sanders said he had been opposed to the merger of the Boards because he felt it dilutes the ability of either board to provide input to the Council. The transition to become familiar with each of the Board's functions is a slow process. As he sees it, the issue should be, how can the Board best provide good information to satisfy the needs of the Council, rather than worry about the number of members. He admitted that 17 is a rather large number to work with, but, on the other hand, two boards that originally had a considerable amount of work to do, have now been combined. "I don't think we can expect to get the same kind of productivity at this point," he said. He thinks people leaving because of the work load, etc. will reduce the size of the Board much faster than expected. ACTION "At this point, the Board should make whatever recommendation they choose," Mr. Wanner suggested, "and include your reasons to support it." David Lauer observed that he couldn't recall having a Board meeting, since the Board merged where all 17 people showed up. Ray Herrmann moved that the Board rescind the recommendation from the April meeting. The motion died for a lack of a second which indicated that the Board did not wish to rescind the unanimous vote given to this recommendation at the last meeting. Mr. Fischbach had some concerns about the Board's proposal, and said that he would not be supporting it. Mr. Lauer believes that the Board will not be as capable of doing what is required of them without the transition period which will be used to bring all the Board members "up to speed" on the issues. "We want to feel that we are capable of handling the questions that staff brings to us." John Barnett said that, "by the luck of the draw," two of the members that would be going off within the next two years would be former Storm Drainage Board members. The Storm Drainage tasks, as written in detail in the Code, are the criteria for the decision making for the quasi judicial function of Storm Drainage variances. Part of the concern is that we make sure that we have continuity for that function," he stressed. Chuck Wanner explained the procedure for presenting the Board's proposal to the Council. He suggested that a couple of Board members meet with Assistant City Attorney John Duval for his advice and review. Mr. Fischbach suggested that, before any legal work is put into it, Mr. Wanner Water Utilities Board Minutes May 22, 1997 Page 17 bring it to the Council to find out if there are two other Council members who will support the change. Mr. Wanner said he would do so. Mr. Smith pointed out that there are eight people whose terms expire within the next two years; 4 former Storm Drainage members and 4 former Water Board members, so someone could be reappointed in the second year. Fischer said he had kept quiet until he learned more about what's going on, particularly related to water supply issues. He wasn't aware that staff didn't support the Board's position. "To me the issue of numbers is totally irrelevant. I guess if you take it to its logical conclusion, the most convenient thing would be not to have citizen input. It takes a lot of staff time to organize boards and commissions, and to deal with what they have to do. Frankly, I guess I'm taking it a little personally because I am one of the ones who will be going off this year if no action is taken. My main interest is simply to serve the City and contribute ideas that may have some value. I don't want to give up my seat on this Board," he stressed. He was somewhat disappointed in the staff s position on this. "If I had known that combining the two Boards would have been such a contentious issue, I wouldn't have been a whole -hearted supporter of the change," he asserted. Water Supply Tom Brown prepared a summary of the Water Supply Committee meeting on May 8th which will be included in the June packets. He reported that seven Water Supply and Liaison Committee members and Paul Clopper met with Dennis Bode. "We talked about the possibility of expanding the concept of water supply to include environmental uses of water," he began. They discussed specifically in - stream flows in the Poudre River and went through the options of increasing flow and for protecting flow in City boundaries. He went on to read a part of his summary because it was relevant to the earlier discussion: "This discussion of options for increasing instream flow and of the problems of protecting increased flow from diversion within City boundaries served to emphasize the technical and complex nature of the instream flow issue. If the City were to pursue this topic, a thorough analysis of the options and their costs would be necessary, requiring considerable effort by staff and interested Board members. This realization led to a discussion of the more fundamental question: should the Utility formally expand its concept of water supply to include environmental uses of water? It was pointed out that staff is a limited resource, and that there are other important issues that may need careful attention, such as watershed protection, agreements with other water districts supplying City residents, the adequacy of reservoir storage, and regional water policy." He said that it was decided to look more closely, at their next meeting, at proposing to the full Board, a change to the Board's mission statement that recognized environmental use of water as a legitimate City water use. A mission statement amended along these lines would authorize the Board to pursue in more depth, the issue of broadening the City's water supply policy to encompass environmental water uses. He added that staff was very helpful in answering their questions. Howard Goldman said the Liaison Committee has been meeting with the Water Supply Committee because there has been some emphasis, as well, on how that water supply is going to be affected by other entities, and we will communicate with those other water organizations, and how broadening of the role of the Water Supply Committee will impact entities outside the City. None of the other Committees met. Council Work Session Mike Smith announced that the City Council work session will be held next Tuesday evening (May 27th) at 7:00 p.m. on the Water Treatment Master Plan and the Metering Issue. He invited Paul Clopper and John Bartholow, particularly, as chair and vice chair, and any other interested Board members, to attend. Tally of Responses to Regional Water Coalition Goals/Objectives Ranking John Bartholow listed the Board's rankings: Conservation - 9; Control over water resources - 2; Education - 9; Cooperation - 7; Development of Resources & Growth - 1; Construction of new supplies - 2; Markets and Water Banks - 3; Water Resources Planning and Management - 10. ADJOURNMENT Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m. Several Board members went directly to Greeley for a joint meeting of the Loveland, Greeley and Fort Collins Water Boards. l( n z� Water Utilitie Board Secretary