Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 03/31/1995WATER BOARD MINUTES March 31, 1995 3:00 P.M. - 4:35 P.M. Water and Wastewater Utility Conference Room 700 Wood Street COUNCIL/WATER BOARD LIAISON Alan Apt MEMBERS PRESENT Tim Dow, President, MaryLou Smith, Vice President, Ray Herrmann, John Bartholow, Terry Podmore, Tom Brown, Paul Clopper, Dave Frick, Howard Goldman STAFF Mike Smith, Wendy Williams, Gale McGaha Miller, Dennis Bode, Ben Alexander, Scott Harder, Molly Nortier GUESTS John Bigham, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District George Reed, Citizen Observer Jim Boswell, Prospective Water Board Member MEMBERS ABSENT Neil Grigg, Dave Stewart Vice President MaryLou Smith opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: MINUTES Ray Herrmann moved that the minutes of February 17, 1995 be approved as distributed. After a second from John Bartholow, the Board passed the motion unanimously. UPDATE: NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT John Bigham provided the latest SNOTEL report as of March 31 st. He reported that the snowpack on the upper Colorado River has increased by 5% in the last four days: from 103% to 108%. However, the South Platte is only at 8 1 % of average with the Poudre Basin in the 60-70% range. Storage in the CBT system is about 60% of active capacity. "We have been maintaining close to that figure for the last couple of weeks," he said. Water Board Minutes March 31, 1995 Page 2 At the next Northern District board meeting, they will set the quota, he continued. "They are discussing a figure between 70% and 80%, plus the carryover. If we get a 70% quota plus the 64,000 Ac-ft that is in carryover, we'll end up with an approximately 90+ quota equivalency," he explained. "If they issue an 801/o quota, well go over 1001/o. Of course a lot depends on the weather." He added that if they need to raise the quota another 10%according to weather predictions in another month or two, there is always that provision to do so. There are three crews working on the Southern Supply pipeline and they are making significant progress. The District received a decision on the Harbor case which is a right-of-way conflict regarding work on the pipeline. Recently the judge decided in favor of the District in all aspects. However, "we don't know whether Mr. Harbor will appeal to the supreme court," he said. "We hope he makes his decision quickly because in a couple of weeks, we will be at his property." It is anticipated that the District will be pumping Windy Gap water with one pump for 60 days. "If we do, that should produce about 22,000 Ac-ft of water," he said. The District has a list of farmers signed up to rent about 15,000 Ac-ft of water. "I have no doubt that our water, and the water from other entities in the area will be rented quickly because the lists are very long, and the phone calls continue to come in," Mr. Bigham stated. He went on to give a brief summary of current legislation. BB 1240, the Roan Creek bill, was killed. However, the Dominguez Project which is the proposed federal storage reservoir between Delta and Whitewater "is still in the mill," he said. Those same people are interested in exporting that water to either Nevada or San Diego. "We will need to watch that closely," he predicts. Richard Hamilton will again attempt to amend the water provisions of the constitution to incorporate the public trust doctrine (that the Conservation Board would have to protect the decrees in the name of the public), changes in District boundaries would require a vote of the entire district to allow annexation of property not currently in the District. "The fiscal impact for that provision would cost the state of Colorado $22 million just to administer it," Mr. Bigham stressed. Two other provisions would require election of directors for conservancy districts, and provide for the dedication of water rights to instream flow uses. The District opposes this initiative. There are nearly 40 amendments currently in the legislature and Doug Bruce has submitted over half of them. "He's causing considerable difficulty within the legislature." One of the proposed amendments to the Tabor Amendments that would affect the utilities, is language to eliminate loopholes for enterprises. He referred to the proposed national wildlife refuge on the South Platte River, between Jackson Riverside and Empire Reservoirs at the Weld and Morgan County line. It's still being proposed to include about 15,000 acres within that particular refuge, and if so, it's land on both sides of the River. If that were approved under national designation, the Endangered Species Act or the Clean Water Water Board Minutes March 31, 1995 Page 3 Act, whatever, it could put a damper on any development at the county line up through this area. "The District is not supporting that unless the landowners want it and want to do it on a local basis, and keep it under the State of Colorado under the Division of Wildlife. "We are very much against any federal intervention," he asserted. He went on to say that the District anticipates that CBT will go through Section 7 consultation within the next five years, and that consultation will be due to critical habitat. There are endangered species listed now on the Colorado River, and some species potentially could be designated on the east side. He announced that the NCWCD Spring Water Users meeting will be held on Wednesday April 12, in Longmont. He encouraged Board members and staff to attend "but the District needs to know by Monday April 1Oth if you plan to attend," he added. Mr. Bigham provided copies of the Resolution passed by the District on Interim Guidelines on Limitations on Ownership of Colorado -Big Thompson Allotment Contracts for Domestic or Municipal Purposes. He mentioned that Thornton was supposed to re -file a brief today and responses will be scheduled at a later date. John Bartholow asked for a clarification of a provision in Hamilton's proposed bill regarding annexation of property outside District boundaries. The provision says that anytime you expand the boundaries of the District, land is annexed on which taxes will be imposed, Mr. Bigham explained. "That is an increase in taxes so a vote of the people in the District would be required." The only entities it would affect are those currently on the District boundaries. "If an annexation took place, all of the back taxes would have to be collected; is that correct?" Mr. Bartholow asked. "Yes," Mr. Bigham replied. "So even a City that has added itself to the District boundary, say 10 years ago, and went through the process and paid all of the taxes, and now wants to expand one portion of their boundary, those individual landowners in that section also must pay?" Mr. Bartholow continued. "That's right," Mr. Bigham replied. Mr. Bartholow also had questions about the Resolution regarding ownership of CBT water. "I don't get the rationale for the resolution from the whereas clause," which says: The Board of Directors of the NCWCD has determined that interim guidelines are appropriate for limitations on ownership of CBT units for domestic or municipal purposes while the District is considering revisions to its rules, regulations and policies. "Why limit the number of shares any one entity can have?" he asked. First, the project was built to supply supplemental water for agricultural irrigation, and the secondary purpose was for municipal and industrial use, Mr. Bigham explained. "At this time the ownership of M&I is almost equal to that for agriculture, but actually most of that water is leased back to farmers," he added. The provision to reduce that cap to basically two times your use, is related to the 50% Water Board Minutes March 31, 1995 Page 4 quota; that's one of the reasons. The second reason is to keep Greeley, Fort Collins or Boulder, "whoever" from purchasing a lot of water and then marketing it and making a profit from it. The Bureau requires us, under the payment contract, to treat all of our customers on an equal basis. "Do you feel the Bureau is putting pressure on you to do this?" Mr. Bartholow asked. "Not specifically, it's just implied," Mr. Bigham replied. "Even though a substantial portion of Fort Collins water is leased back to agriculture, that doesn't have any bearing on this formula?" Mr. Bartholow continued. "Not specifically, because we can't guarantee anything that's on a year to year basis," Mr. Bigham responded. He added that whether we agree or disagree, this happens to be the philosophical position of the Board. "At the same time, however, you are not counting water that is covered under the interruptable supply contracts, and it's still water that's almost always used by agriculture, but contractually it would be ours," Mr. Bartholow pointed out. "I suspect that this could be fine tuned later on when the interruptable contracts are in place; so far there aren't any in place," Mr. Bigham replied. Tom Brown referred to the first paragraph of the Resolution where it says that "these are interim guidelines ... (in place) while the District is considering revisions to its rules, regulations and policies." Is this considering of revisions something that's going on right now, or something for the future? "This revision has been going on for the last three years," Mr. Bigham replied. Because there are so many complications, and it's an ever -changing thing with the legislature, they haven't been able to target it sufficiently to get it printed. He emphasized that he is sure there will be some fine tuning of the document. Mr. Brown asked if the deliberations of this item are in the District minutes. "Yes they are," Mr. Bigham answered. "They are pretty sketchy," Mr. Bartholow remarked. "Actually, the deliberations that are important are at the planning sessions. You are always welcome to come to those; they are open meetings, but they don't take any action," Mr. Bigham said. "Has this resolution been adopted by the Board?" Mr. Bartholow asked. "Yes," Mr. Bigham replied. MaryLou Smith assumes that these are interim guidelines. If the Water Board or we as individuals have concerns, could we address those concerns prior to the permanent guidelines being adopted, and what is the mechanism for that? "If any of you have comments or concerns about the guidelines, put them in writing and send them to the Board of Directors, or the District Manager, or attend a planning session or a board meeting," Mr. Bigham suggested. Ms. Smith recalled that a few years ago when the Water Supply Committee made some aggressive moves to purchase enough water for a 1-in-50 year drought, "we were concerned that the amount of CBT water we would purchase for that guideline might make the District uncomfortable. If we were to do that same thing again would these requirements allow us to do that? "I think that with the Utility's policy that says we will stay above the 1-in-50 criteria all the time, suggests to me that unless we drop below that, we would not be eligible," Dennis Bode responded. "If you could go out and buy i • Water Board Minutes March 31, 1995 Page 5 water and have a permanent contract to lease back the water to that owner for 5 years or more, it doesn't count in your cap," Mr. Bigham explained. He added that it's a longer term kind of policy and it can be reviewed every two to five years. "There are ways to do this, and yet not keep municipalities from looking towards the future," he said. The District is trying to stretch out the same amount of water with more and more demand, and it's getting more difficult to make it stretch in a drought period, he stressed. "What if we had that 5-year contract and the 50-year drought occurred in that 5-year period?" Mr. Bartholow speculated. "That's probably a good point," Mr. Bigham agreed. Ms. Smith asked if the Board was interested in asking one of our committees to study this further, and perhaps respond to the District with our thoughts. "I presume it would be the Water Supply Committee," she said. "I think members of the Water Supply Committee would be interested in looking into it," Tom Brown, Committee Chair, responded. REIlyIBURSEMENT AGREEMENT - INFLATION FACTOR Wendy Williams said that this is a routine housekeeping item to amend Sections 26-121 and 26-285 of the City code which authorize the City to recover from adjacent development, some of the costs incurred in installing water and wastewater mains. Reimbursement assessments for City developed lines are currently limited to actual costs, including engineering, project administration, materials, labor and right-of-way acquisition expenses. This amendment authorizes the City to include an adjustment for the effects of inflation. Board members received in their packets, a copy of the suggested change in the code that was recommended by the City Attorney. There is currently a discrepancy between the way reimbursements to developers and reimbursements to the City are handled. Ms. Williams explained that developers who extend a water or sewer main at their own expense, and adjacent property is developed further down the road, get reimbursed for the actual cost, plus the inflation factor. The inflation factor is based on the construction cost index for Denver. "What we are recommending is putting that same language into the code to allow us to collect the inflation factor for development for extensions of water and sewer lines that are paid for by the City," she said. "We currently have 30 of them out there; only eight of them were actually financed by the City, 5 for sewer and 3 for water mains." She noted that the issue was brought to the Utility's attention by the City Attorney who recommended that we should be consistent. "There wasn't anything contentious that triggered this?" Paul Clopper asked. "No," Ms. Williams said. "Essentially the code calls for the person who is now going to take advantage of this existing line to pay what it costs to construct it today, rather than pay what it had cost ten years ago," Tom Brown Water Board Minutes March 31, 1995 Page 6 clarified. "Exactly," she answered. Ms. Williams added that currently the earliest ones on record were installed in the early 80s. "That makes sense to me as long as a line in the interim hasn't lost some capability; in other words, if it is as good as a line you would put in today," Mr. Brown commented. Ms. Williams said that materials that are used now have a much longer life than they had several years ago. It seems to Ray Herrmann that people worry about the inflation factor going up, "but what about subtracting out the life term of the pipe also; if it's been in there 10 years, it has 10 years less life span," he added. "In most of the reimbursement agreements that we have, development takes place within 5-10 years," Ms. Williams responded. The agreements with developers, where they are developer funded, are for ten years, and they can request from the City Council that they be extended for another ten years, she explained. "Another way of looking at this is as the depreciated value of the pipe over the term of the contract. Since we fully fund depreciation through our rates, ratepayers are paying for and maintaining the line, including its being oversized for future customers," Scott Harder pointed out. "We should be able to collect on moneys we fronted for the un-depreciated cost of that pipe because the ratepayers are paying for it," he stressed. "How often does the adjustment for inflation change," Howard Goldman asked. The adjustment is based on the construction cost index for Denver, as published monthly by the "Engineering New Record," Mr. Harder replied. He explained further that the person who administers these contracts for the Utility checks the date of the transaction, checks the most recent "Engineering New Record" and updates the adjustment. "If a water or wastewater main needs to be replaced at sometime in the future, is that a cost the City bears?" Tom Brown inquired. "The ratepayers bear the cost," Mr. Harder replied. Paul Clopper moved that the Water Board recommend that the City code be amended as described to correct the inconsistency in the way reimbursements are calculated. John Bartholow seconded the motion, and the Board approved the motion unanimously. RESOLUTION: BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEMBERSHIP LIMITATIONS Molly Nortier said the resolution was included in the packets only for the Board's information. The Board had taken action by forwarding a letter on this matter to the Council prior to their decision. This resolution clarified that board and commission members, at the time of appointment and during the entire term of office, must reside within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. John Bartholow remarked that "it's too bad the Council didn't allow for some kind of transition period." Other Board members agreed. Water Board Minutes March 31, 1995 Page 7 The Water Board President Tim Dow, and Vice President MaryLou Smith recently moved out of the Urban Growth Area, and as a consequence, were required to resign from the Board. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Because both the president and vice president of the Board were required to resign, the Board needs to elect new officers. Vice President MaryLou Smith asked for nominations for president. John Bartholow nominated Dave Stewart. Ms. Smith said that Mr. Stewart has written a letter to former president Tim Dow, CC the City Clerk's Office and the Water Utility, stating that he will not seek re- appointment to the Board at the end of his term which expires in June. Paul Clopper nominated Ray Herrmann who declined because his job requires that he spend a significant amount of time on the road. Howard Goldman nominated John Bartholow who declined because he has only been on the Board for a year and a half. Tom Brown was asked if he would be interested, and also declined because of he is already over -committed. Paul Clopper was asked about his status and agreed to be nominated. He was nominated and elected president by acclimation. President Clopper opened nominations for vice president. MaryLou Smith nominated John Bartholow. Dave Frick moved that the nominations cease. After a second from Howard Goldman, the Board unanimously elected Mr. Bartholow as Vice President. STAFF REPORTS Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported that water use for February was 97% of what was projected. March is almost over, "and we are running slightly below what was projected." Financial Status Report Scott Harder stated that we now have a couple of months of revenue history of the first year of our three-year phase in of the cost of service adjustments. "In all of our customer groups the revenue seems to be moving in the right direction," he said. Along with a warm winter and some customers sprinkling a little earlier than usual, both water and wastewater operating revenue are about 5-6% above what they were last year, which is about where we would expect it. On the Plant Investment Fee (PIF) side, "we are out of the gate this year reporting January and February results. We are about where we were last year with a rapid clip in permits and PIFs, so we are right about where we thought we would be." We have seen an adjustment in PIFs due to the higher interest rates, but "we still seem to be seeing a lot of development occurring through the winter." Boxelder Sanitation District Update At the last Water Board meeting Gale McGaha Miller told the Board that the Utility expected to Water Board Minutes March 31, 1995 Page 8 receive a letter from Boxelder Sanitation District requesting information on cost of treatment so that they could do an alternatives analysis precluding a site application. "We were expecting them to submit a site application to the North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association before March, but none of that happened until March," Ms. McGaha Miller explained. In the first week of March the Utility received a letter from Boxelder asking a myriad of questions, only a few of which were related to cost of treatment, cost of service kinds of issues. Others were more rhetorical in nature. "Those questions were intended to be answered so that Boxelder would be able to use that information for the alternatives analysis for their site application, but it was just a few days after we received the letter that we received their site application for review," she related. She stressed that the turnaround time that they needed to incorporate our answers into the site application was insufficient for us to be able to respond to those questions. She said that the Utility will answer some of those questions in the form of comments submitted to Latimer County on the site application itself. Their site application will go before North Front Range Water Quality Planning Ass'n. in April. The City also will have an amendment to our site application for the Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility. "Just to recap," Paul Clopper began, "when you say alternatives analysis, is that looking at the alternative of working cooperatively with the City of Fort Collins for us to take over a portion or all of their service area?" "Yes," Ms. McGaha Miller replied. She explained that the alternatives analysis actually happens on a couple of different levels: they will look at alternatives to certain specific treatment processes as well as water issues such as whether Fort Collins should take over some or all of their wastewater flow. The engineering section of their document actually does look at some treatment alternatives. There is an appendix in that document that talks about their conclusions regarding the alternative or lack thereof of consolidating with Fort Collins. Mr. Clopper asked if Ms. McGaha Miller would be soliciting review and input on this from one or more of the Water Board committees at this point. Mike Smith responded that the time frame is quite short. "We have to respond by April 14." John Bartholow asked if there are to be two responses, one to the letter and one to the site application? Ms. McGaha Miller has already responded to the letter, basically saying that "we are unable to respond to your letter in time for your site application submittal." She also mentioned that the answers to some of their questions would be incorporated into the Utility's comments to Latimer County. "Does the City now have a good cost of service set of figures that they could transfer to Boxelder, or that we as a Board could have in hand when and if the boards ever get together, so we could have a concrete proposal?" Mr. Bartholow asked. "Yes, at a general level of detail," Ms. McGaha Miller replied. "At a more detailed level, we don't have enough information about their flows, etc., but Scott Harder is working on cost of service kinds of issues just for this purpose." Water Board Minutes March 31, 1995 Page 9 "To take it on a large scale in terms of what the customer has to pay, when dissecting that to treatment costs or partial treatment costs, it becomes far more difficult," Mr. smith stated. He continued by saying that more than likely if you compare part of our treatment costs to part of theirs, it costs more to do advance treatment, but when you look at the rates, their customers pay more than ours. Mr. Bartholow remarked that we have talked for a long time about incorporating that service, and they now have a formal expression that they at least want to know those figures, so we should have something to respond with. We aren't withholding the figures; we just don't know enough about the specific wastewater costs to determine those figures," Mr. Smith replied. "Then we have to have some questions to be able to get the answers for them," Mr. Bartholow insisted. Mr. Smith concluded that staff has to know what Boxelder wants. "They ask questions that are so broad that they are difficult to answer." "Is there something where either the City loses or Boxelder loses," Howard Goldman asked. "Our bottom line concern doesn't have anything to do with politics or taking them over. If the State lets them off the hook and lets them discharge into the River at a higher number than what we have to, it means they use up capacity in the stream, and, as a result, we have to have lower numbers, in theory," Mr. Smith explained. "If it looks like we are not cooperating with them, somehow, does that jeopardize that position with the State?" Mr. Goldman wondered. "That's not likely. The stream standards are more of a technical issue," Mr. Smith replied. The bottom line is if they can run that system so they have to meet the same standards that we have to meet. The political issue relates to the growth in the northeast quadrant, and you can debate that at length. "Is there some kind of statutory procedure requiring them to write a letter and that the Utility is supposed to have so many days to respond before they submit their site application; and does it matter?" Mr. Goldman continued. "No, that doesn't really matter," Mr. Smith answered. When Boxelder wrote a letter and then three days later sent the site application, they knew there was no way that the information could be provided to them." Mr. Bartholow asked why they submitted the letter to the City since they are not required to ask the City for its input. Ms. McGaha Miller stated that the County and the Front Range Water Quality Planning Ass'n. told Dean Smith during his last site application that he must perform an alternatives analysis, otherwise they would deny the site application. They didn't respond in a timely fashion. Mike Smith related that Dean Smith, in negotiating, wants the Utility to quote a number and say, "this is what your cost of treatment would be, but no one pays that cost; that's just a number in the whole scheme of things. If somebody comes to you and says let's make a deal on treating wastewater, what's the price, that's when you get Scott Harder busy to crank out a number," he said. That way you can determine the true cost, and how we can treat the wastewater and come out ahead; that's not an Water Board Minutes March 31, 1995 Page 10 audited treatment cost. Mr. Bartholow said he didn't know what an audited treatment cost is. "I'm not sure anyone does," Mr. Smith remarked. Paul Clopper thinks it would be helpful if the Board would get a discussion of the process from here on out. He wants a "road map type description of what's going to happen next, when does it happen and who's going to be doing it in terms of agencies involved?" Staff will write a response to the site application, and cc Boxelder. There will be a meeting of the North Front Range Water Quality Assn. on Thursday April 20th. That group will make a recommendation. All of that will be followed by everyone else's recommendations to the State, Mr. Smith explained. "If the State denies, then what happens?" Ray Herrmann asked. "They will deny for some reason, and Boxelder will have to go back and address the reason for denial," Mr. Smith replied. He added that there is no formal hearing per se, where there is testimony. "When the 208 agency makes a recommendation to the State, what kind of turnaround time is typical?" Mr. Clopper asked. Ms. McGaha Miller replied 30-45 days if its fairly straight forward. If they are likely to deny it, it takes a little longer. Update: Domestic Use Plant Investment Fee Policy Wendy Williams reminded the Board that at the last meeting staff brought a proposal dealing with how the Utility would calculate PIFs and Raw Water assessments for customers who were just going to use treated water for domestic purposes. "The Board raised a number of questions," she said. As a result, staff looked at those questions and decided that it was a more complicated issue than they had originally thought. It's going to impact the way we assess P1Fs. "What we are proposing to do is take a look at that as we review our PIFs, which we were planning to do this year anyway. "As I recall last month, we were talking about two residences both with quite large lots," Mr. Clopper said. "Are there any more since then?" "Just those two," Ms. Williams replied. Drinking Water Quality Annual Report Gale McGaha Miller prepared a Drinking Water Quality Annual Report which was included in the Water Board packets. Mike Smith related that with the Drinking Water Policy adopted by Council about 2 years ago, staff is required to submit an annual report to the Council. "Ms. McGaha Miller did a very nice job on the report," Mr. Smith stated. Paul Clopper said it was a great report, particularly considering it was the first one since the Drinking Water Policy was adopted. John Bartholow asked Ms. McGaha Miller to explain a phrase under Strategy No. 8 on p. 10: Cooperating with Other Water Providers and Users: ..."the Utility also collected and shared the concerns of the Tri-District Utilities in the Larimer County parks master planning process." In Water Board Minutes March 31, 1995 Page 11 developing the parks master plan, it was necessary to look at some of the County reservoirs to determine how recreational opportunities could be enhanced, she said, and of course there was concern about water quality issues. It's good that the Utility participated in the process "because there was a lot of brainstorming about things that could adversely affect the water quality; e.g. putting a swimming beach near our intake valve," she noted. "Some of those things didn't occur to people who do recreational planning. As a result, water quality protection became a top priority in each master plan for each reservoir," she concluded. COMMITTEE REPORTS Water Supply No report Legislative and Finance Gale McGaha Miller included a legislative status report in the Board packets. She said that John Bigham, in his report earlier, had covered a number of the items. She reported that the Governor vetoed the "Wolf Bill." The one bill that she was tracking most seriously was the Small Community Environmental Flexibility Act (BB 1228). "It has been stalled in committee for quite some time. There was a hearing yesterday, but I haven't been able to find out the status of the bill," she said. "We continue to monitor Water of Streams Public Property, a ballot initiative," she continued. Mr. Bartholow asked what the letters WPA stand for. Water and Power Authority, she replied. Mike Smith said the official name is the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority. "It's not a state agency and is separate from state government," he explained. It was initially formed to do master planning for water development, and that changed to also administer the wastewater revolving loan program, and domestic water supply program. Currently it has become a kind of banking agency. "I'm on the Board of Directors," he said, "and basically we loan a lot of money to people. We sell bonds, and loan that money to entities for wastewater and water improvements. The last five years we have loaned close to $200 million." Paul Clopper asked about BB 1151 -- Springs and Wells. The description says that it clarifies that shallow groundwater cannot be mined as "spring" water without the well adjudication process. "I noticed that it passed both the House and Senate," he said. "Is there any involvement in this bill with our City program?" "I don't think so," she replied. "This evolved out of a specific incident where someone was mining very shallow groundwater and saying 'this isn't really groundwater because it's so near the surface, we'll call it a spring,' to circumvent the adjudication process." It became a little water rights type of battle between a couple of property owners. Conservation and Public Education No report Water Board Minutes March 31, 1995 Page 12 Engineering No report REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY STRATEGY UPDATE No report REGIONAL WASTEWATER SERVICE ISSUES UPDATE This was updated under staff reports. OTHER BUSINESS Replacement Process for Open Board Positions Applications for open board positions have been announced. The last day to submit an application is May 3rd. Each of the applicants will be interviewed by two Council members. Selections will be made in June. New Board members will be present at the July meeting. Committee Assignments President Clopper began by going through each committee to try to fill the vacancies, at least temporarily. Water Suooly Tom Brown, Chair, John Bartholow, Dave Frick, Neil Grigg (until July 1st) Engineering Dave Stewart, Chair (until July 1st), Paul Clopper, John Bartholow, Neil Grigg (until July 1st) Legislative and Finance Howard Goldman, Chair, John Bartholow Conservation and Public Education Terry Podmore, Chair, Ray Herrmann City Council/Water Board Water Planning Committee Council Representatives: Alan Apt, Gina Janett, Bob McCloskey Water Board Representatives: Dave Stewart and Neil Grigg (until July 1st) Paul Clopper and Tom Brown New committee members are John Bartholow, Legislative and Finance with Howard Goldman as chair; Paul Clopper and Tom Brown, (Neil Grigg until July 1 st) on the Water Planning Committee. When new members join the Board in July, new assignments will be made. Water Board Minutes March 31, 1995 Page 13 April Water Board Meeting Terry Podmore asked if there will be a meeting in April since the March meeting was delayed. Mike Smith said it will be left open to see what transpires. If it is canceled Board members will be informed right away. ADJOURNMENT The business part of the meeting was adjourned at 4:35 P.M. FAREWELL RECEPTION FOR MARYLOU SMITH AND TIM DOW Refreshments were provided, letters of recognition were read (attached to the minutes as a permanent record). Board members and staff paid tribute to the long-time members Tim Dow and MaryLou Smith. They were also given gift certificates to their favorite restaurants. Water Board Secretary • i Utility Services Water Board City of Fort Collins With Grateful Recognition To MARYLOUSM]TH for her dedicated service to the Fort Collins Water Board June 7, 1983 - April 1, 1995 The City of Fort Collins and the Fort Collins Water Board are deeply grateful for your nearly 12 years of exceptional service on the Water Board. You have been a valued member of the Board. Your vivacious and warm personality (and those perky hats) have helped to make our meetings interesting and lively. The Board and staff have admired your extensive preparation for each meeting, your ability to learn quickly and your remarkable energy. Your willingness to serve the Board in many ways --even the dreaded Bylaws Committee with Tom Moore --was commendable. You were an outstanding chairperson of the Conservation and Public Education Committee for several years as well as a faithful member of the Water Supply Committee. You also contributed considerable time and effort to three important City Council/Water Board committees during your tenure as a Board member. You have become a friend to several Board and staff members through the years of meetings, social gatherings, tours, conferences and workshops. We will miss your friendliness and your passion for the things you believe in. You have made a significant contribution to the Community and the Water & Wastewater Utility as a member of the Water Board. We are certain that the citizens of this area will continue to benefit from your commitment to our community. Our very best wishes to you and your family, MaryLou! City of Fort Collins Water and Wastewater Utility Michael B. Smith, Director Fort Collins Water Board Timothy Jy Doww, esident 700 Wood Street • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6681 • City of Fort Collins Services Water Board With Grateful Recognition To TIMOTHY J. DOW for his dedicated service to the Fort Collins Water Board July 19, 1988 - March 7, 1995 The City of Fort Collins and the Water Board appreciate the considerable time you gave to serve your community as a member of the Water Board, and as its president for several months. During your nearly seven years on the Board you have been an active and respected member. It will be difficult to imagine the Legislative and Finance Committee without you as its chair. You also will be remembered for your countless hours of service on a number of City Council(Water Board joint committees (some of which met at the ungodly hour of 7:30 A.M.), and other committees and activities that required extra commitment. We will miss your enthusiasm and sense of humor at Water Board meetings. Your intelligent, thoughtful, and thorough consideration of the issues was an asset to Board discussions and decisions. Your profession as a water attorney was an added benefit to the Board's deliberations. There were times when you took a minority stand on some of the issues, and many of us admired the courage and confidence it took to do that. You have been a faithful participant in most of the extra activities and social events of the Board through the years. We are grateful that you were willing to give of your time and talent to this important and influential City board. We wish you well in your professional, volunteer and personal endeavors, Tim. City of Fort Collins Water and Wastewater Utility Michael B. Smith, Director Fort Collins Water Board MaryLou Smith, Vice Presi ent 700 Wood Street • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6681