Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 06/27/1986MINUTES Water Board June 27, 1986 Members Present Norm Evans, President, Henry Caulfield, Vice President, Neil Grigg, MaryLou Smith, John Scott, Tom Moore, Tom Sanders, Dave Stewart, Jo Boyd (alt.) Staff Present Rich Shannon, Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Webb Jones, Andy Pineda, Curt Miller, Ben Alexander Members Absent Stan Ponce, Ray Herrmann (alt.) President Norm Evans opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Minutes The minutes of May 16, 1986 were approved as distributed. Introduction of New Member Josephine Boyd was introduced as the new Water Board alternate. It was also announced that Dave Stewart was appointed to a second four-year term; Stan Ponce was appointed to complete the unexpired term of Bill Elliott; Ray Herrmann now becomes the first alternate. Out -of -City Service Agreement Board members received in their packets, a letter and map relating to this request. Webb Jones explained that a Mr. C. A. Musgrave is developing a golf course -- Link-N-Greens, Inc, on East Lincoln Ave., west of Lemay, immediately north of the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 1. Mr. Musgrave asked that the City allow him to connect his club house and maintenance building to two sewers that currently cross the property. There has been a delay in processing the application because the Planning Department was considering requiring that the property be annexed. If they were to annex, it would no longer be considered out -of -city service. They have since decided that annexation is not currently possible, so they are going through the out -of -city service process at this time. Mr. Jones related that the Utility doesn't have a particular problem with granting two taps on those lines. It can be seen on the map that the lines surround and bisect the proposed golf course; thus staff would recommend approval. Water Board Minute, June 27, 1986 Page 2 Rich Shannon asked why annexation was not possible. Mr. Jones replied that he understands they are not eligible for annexation since the property does not have the required 1/6 contiguity with,existing City boundaries. Also, the developer resisted annexation. Henry Caulfield contends that there should be some way of forcing this property into the City, since it is so close to downtown. Mr. Jones explained that the out -of -City service agreement, of course, indicates that before he takes service he agrees to participate in annexation if he becomes eligible. Tom Sanders asked who was resisting annexation. Mr. Jones said the developer, Mr. Musgrave, who is leasing the property from the owner whose identity Mr. Jones does not know. It was asked, "shouldn't we be dealing with the owner?" Mr. Jones replied yes; it will be the owner who will sign the agreement. Of course the taps go with the property. Mr. Caulfield believes that this is a P & Z Board responsibility, not the Water Board's. Tom Sanders moved to table Water Board action until the facts are clearer with regard to the owner of the property and the annexation issue. After further discussion, Dr. Sanders withdrew his motion. Henry Caulfield moved that the Water Board approve the request contingent upon the owner not resisting annexation and that the City deal with the owner on the agreement for taps, not just the leasee. Rich Shannon offered an ammendment that staff be asked once again to find out for certain if there is no way that annexation could take place. Tom Moore seconded the motion. It carried unanimously. Water Issues Committee Report Norm Evans reminded the Board that a committee was appointed to help interface for the Board with the staff, the Council and others concerned with water supplies in the basin. Neil Grigg was appointed chairman with Tom Moore and Dave Stewart as committee members. Neil Grigg reported that the committee has been very active and, in fact, has met six times since the last Water Board meeting. At those meetings they have delt with two sets of issues: the first was the proposal of WSSC to increase the number of shares of the Ditch Co. by 300 and to trade the City 84 of those shares for an equivalent amount of water in the Southside Ditches. The entire Board, with the exception of two members who were out of town, met on this and gave their approval of the plan. The City Council met on June 17 and approved it by emergency ordinance. The second issue the committee deliberated was the possibility of making an offer to Greeley for some of their high mountain reservoirs. Briefly, Greeley has asked Thornton if they would like to make an offer on those 5 reservoirs. Thornton came back with an offer of $6.2 million which includes $5.2 million in cash plus $1 million worth of water rights in the Thompson system. The Water Board again met to discuss that on June 19. Neil Grigg and the staff prepared a memo with recommendations to the City Council. Water Board Minufes • June 27, 1986 Page 3 Board members were sent copies of that memo. After considerable debate at the special meeting, the Board reached a general consensus on the following points: 1. From a strictly business point of view, the Water Board does not advocate the full acquisition of all five reservoirs that Greeley desires to sell. At the $6.2 million price, and an estimated net yield of 50% of the capacity, the cost would be about $1500 per acre foot. In addition, several of the reservoirs are in need of substantial repair work. With repair costs and uncertain future costs for operation and maintenance, the cost may be 2 to 3 times higher than the current prices developers are paying to satisify their water right requirements. The Board believes this cost is unattractive to Fort Collins as compared with other options. 2. The Water Board would not oppose a Council decision to make an offer to Greeley based on an overall water planning strategy for this region. 3. If any offer is made, the Water Board would favor an offer on Barnes Meadow Reservoir, and possibly Peterson Reservoir, perhaps working with the Water Supply and Storage Company. Despite the relatively high price, acquisition of these reservoirs may provide a window of opportunity that may improve the City's working relationship with WSSC and could provide additional flexibility in the future management of water for the City. 4. The Water Board advocates a planning/acquisition mode that will preserve supplies in this region at reasonable costs. The City should work aggresssively and cooperatively with its neighboring cities, irrigation companies and water districts to establish a regional approach to water supply planning and management. On June 20, Neil Grigg, Mike Smith and Dennis Bode met with WSSC representatives. Dr. Grigg related that there hasn't been an indication that we should move ahead on this proposal at this point. It seems to require more study. He has had a discussion about the proposal with Mr. Farr of the Greeley Water Board as well as a conversation with a member of the Loveland Water Board. It appears that what we "are working up to," is the need to meet with these other water boards and talk about some regional cooperation in planning rather than any specifics right now. Dr. Grigg suggested a general area where the Water Board could take some action and make some recommendations. There is a general need for the Board to undertake planning -- to have a process that can be followed; perhaps including some joint meetings with other water boards and other appropriate people in the area. Mike Smith suggested that the Water Board needs to work on a policy -- "Are we going to actively pursue water deals or are we going to operate somewhere in between that and what we are doing now?" He added that Council will probably be looking for recommendations or direction from the Board on what the Board proposes to do. Henry Caulfield reminded Mr. Smith that he was going to report on Thornton's reaction to the increase in the WSSC shares. Mr. Smith understands that Thornton was angry about the transaction, although they Water Board Minutt June 27, 1986 Page 4 indicated to the media that it was "okay." Mr. Smith thinks that they intend to take some appropriate action. He also understands that they want to meet with people from Northern Colorado to try to pursue some long range joint plans. Norm Evans responded that this is the sensible direction for all of us, and that is the direction in which the water leaders are moving. Henry Caulfield commented that if it were just Thornton it would be one thing, but what would happen is we would essentially be inviting the whole Denver area as well. Mr. Caulfield asked why Greeley is interested in selling their reservoirs. Mike Smith answered that they want to concentrate on developing a supply system on the Thompson River. They have three water treatment plants-- one of them at Bellvue and two at Boyd Lake. They have a transmission line problem between the Bellvue plant and Greeley. They have more treatment capacity than they have transmission line. It would cost several million dollars to fix the transmission line, so they feel they need to shift •some of their emphasis to the Thompson system. They have too much water in the Poudre system so they are contemplating disposing of some of that and buying more in the Thompson system. The Thornton offer included $1 million in water rights that are in the Greeley/Loveland system which Greeley wants, plus $5.2 million which they could use to purchase more water in the Thompson system. Mr. Smith stated further that some of the reservoirs they are offering are not in very good shape which means costly repairs. President Evans added that Greeley has been trying to trade off some of these reservoirs to Fort Collins for about 15 years. In 1977, the two Cities conducted an appraisal of those reservoirs as well as the Rockwell site etc. The Greeley/Fort Collins joint ownership of the Rockwell Ranch and then the Greeley sites for the other reservoirs are all a lot of pieces in the forest. The Forest Service "wanted to get us all together and trade us some land so it could consolidate the Greeley/Fort Collins land into one piece and free that fragmentation." In connection with the Forest Service proposition, we had a very good appraisal made of the property values. At that time the 5 reservoirs were valued by the appraiser as roughly $4.4 million. The last time Fort Collins made Greeley a somewhat informal offer was on the Barnes Meadow Reservoir. Evidently they didn't think it was a good enough offer. Neil Grigg pointed out that the Thornton offer, if you include the repairs, makes it about a $10 million offer. Norm Evans emphasized that Greeley would also find the irrigation water part of it enormously attractive. Mr. Caulfield asked if this sale would upset the North Poudre exchanges. Mr. Smith answered that it is hard to say. Dennis Bode clarified that Greeley has released water from their reservoirs in the late summer and fall and exchanged it with North Poudre for CBT water. Mary Lou Smith was interested in having further information about Neil Grigg's conversation with Mr. Farr from Greeley. Did Dr. Grigg pick up any clues of Greeley's antagonism towards Fort Collins? Dr. Grigg was able to detect somewhat of a barrier between the two cities. When he called Mr. Farr, he said he hoped that Greeley would take the time to talk with Fort Water Board Mines • June 27, 1986 Page 5 Collins before they went ahead with the sale. Mr. Farr was very polite and related that a few years ago, Fort Collins had a chance to look at the reservoirs and didn't seem to be particularly interested. Their offer from Thornton was very nice, he said, and was equivalent to a $10 million deal. Mr. Farr talked about some of the things Mike Smith had pointed out about the advantages of the sale. He also said that Thornton needed some water and they wanted to work with them to get it. He didn't indicate any willingness to work with Fort Collins rather than Thornton. However, when they concluded their conservation, he conveyed a willingness for the Fort Collins and Greeley Water Boards to get together. He didn't emphasize any antagonism or separation, but one could sense the aftermath of the offer which Fort Collins rejected in the late 1970's. Tom Sanders suggested, after seeing the memo by Neil Grigg, that the Water Board should have their own stationery so that there will be no doubt who the communication is from. He also proposed that Mike Smith and Norm Evans set up a meeting of the Fort Collins and Greeley Water Boards -- not staff, just the boards. He thinks the boards should sit down and talk about the issues facing them and find out first hand, not by innuendo. His third point related to the Greeley Bellvue Treatment Plant. If they are putting emphasis on the Big T system, this may be an opportunity for us to get a physical plant at a reasonable cost that may only be operated in the summer time, for example. He suggested that the staff look into the feasibility of doing this. Neil Grigg concurred with Tom Sander's suggestions. He referred to the Regional Report which all Board members received a few weeks ago. In the report, they make the point, that there is abundant treatment capacity around. If we could get together and study it and evaluate it, we night see some things we could accomplish that would be to everyone's benefit, he advised. Norm Evans added that there is a regional group that has been meeting regularly for about a year and a half. The group made a recommendation to the Councils of the cities represented. Mike Smith revealed that all the entities but Greeley have taken action on the recommendation. Henry Caulfield noted that when the Future of Water in Northern Colorado meeting was held on May 20, Greeley was represented by its water manager only, which could imply some problem. Dr. Evans added that for so many years Greeley and Fort Collins have cooperated so well, it is a shame if that level of cooperation were to break down. Henry Caulfield asked to return to the subject of the control of stock in the WSSC. Is there any way we can tell how much more ownership has to be in "responsible" hands in order to be safe with majority control of WSSC? In our perspective to help WSSC, it seems that we need to know something about that question, he urged. Mr. Caulfield was prepared to make a proposal that could help in that regard. Tom Moore related that Thornton does not now own a majority of the shares. They have about 280 shares, Fort Collins has 107 shares. Water Board Minuts June 27, 1986 Page 6 Mr. Caulfield went on to state his proposal. He said that Anheuser-Busch's first installation is going to be 4280 acre feet of water. At one time they were contemplating two more additions. "Let's say they were an equal size of 4280 each which would be 8,400 acre feet of water for ultimate expansion. If we could negotiate with A-B in terms of their own contingency plans as well as own plans for their future expansion, we could make a deal where we would acquire it and rent it like we do in our ordinary rental procedures. Let's say we would pay the assessment costs. Assuming they didn't go through with this expansion, they would give us first right of refusal of purchase for those shares from them if they ever walked away from those two expansions. That way we would avoid the Utility getting into debt." Mr. Caulfield realizes that he does not know what the current talk is with A-B on their future, and perhaps there are some political ramifications in terms of even getting out front on such a matter, he admitted. Henry Caulfield contends that control of the entire WSSC system is far more important than the Greeley reservoirs. Is seems to him that the A-B deal is worth looking into. Mike Smith said staff could approach A-B about Mr. Caulfield's proposal. Mr. Caulfield commented that given the Thornton issue the NCWCD probably wouldn't restrict the amount of CBT water the City could own ahead of our demand. John Scott related that he had recently spoken with Larry Simpson and he gave the impression he was going to look at the amount of surplus again. Mr. Scott doesn't know whether that means future demand, 50 years from now, or what. Mr. Caulfield countered that "they can't hold that restriction and expect us to help in this fight." Mike Smith said the City has also pursued this question with respect to the Great Western Sugar Company; they had 2400 acre feet of water available after they declared bankruptcy. Representatives from NCWCD told staff that they would probably not oppose the City's acquiring that water because it was industrial use to start with. Mr. Caulfield asked what is happening with that. Mr. Smith responded that there is a legal firm in Boulder handling the disposition of it. What happens is they take offers for it and the Court settles on those. The City hasn't agreed to buy it; only to pursue it. Marylou Smith asked who else is going after it. Mr. Smith said he doesn't know. Ms. Smith also asked why this is particularly attractive. Mr. Smith said first of all, there is not that much water on the market and second it was used for industrial purposes, so the District may look favorably on transferring it to Fort Collins, and third, the price may be fairly reasonable. Henry Caulfield added, "so Thornton wouldn't be a competitor." John Scott pointed out, "if they went after the state law they could." Tom Moore related that Monfort has purchased 300 shares of the Great Western water. "Why don't we go after the remainder of it," Tom Sanders urged. Mike Smith responded that the staff has been asked to look into it. The next action would require a firm recommendation to buy it and take it to Council. Water Board Mines • June 27, 1986 Page 7 Neil Grigg advised that we need to look together as a region what our needs are going to be for the future. If there is more than enough water, we can feel comfortable about turning some over to Thornton; if there is not enough, we need to know about it --then we can enter into joint ventures to "nail down" the water we need. Until we start planning and begin thinking about joint interests, we are not going to be able to answer that question because we'll all be looking at individual interests. Our next step is working with the ditch companies starting with WSSC, but with others too. We need to look at service areas, where we want to go and how much water is going to be needed. It will then be clear who ought to acquire water and what our relationships might be. Henry Caulfield said he has no problem with that but he reiterated that keeping control of WSSC is the immediate urgent problem, until we are assured by Ward Fischer or Harvey Johnson that there is no longer a need for concern. Henry Caulfield moved that the staff investigate within the City Council, City staff, the Water Board sub -committee, as well as whatever liaison the City has with A-B, whether there is a possibility to make a deal with them regarding the water they contemplate using for further expansion. He also stressed that the staff talk with Ward Fischer about the question of how desirable it is that we move ahead on this for the purpose of helping to keep the majority control in "responsible" hands. John Scott seconded Mr. Caulfield's motion. Tom Moore abstained due to his close ties with WSSC. The remainder of the members voted in favor of the motion. Henry Caulfield brought up the point that the Bylaws provide that the city manager is an ex-officio member of the Water Board with a right to vote. Traditionally, the city manager has not attended Water Board meetings. Considering the current reorganization, Mr. Caulfield thinks staff should learn how this will be handled in the future. John Scott returned to the question of a meeting with the Greeley Water Board. He asked Tom Sanders to put his proposal in the form of a motion. Dr. Sanders moved that the staff and the Water Board President arrange a meeting of the Water Boards of Greeley and Fort Collins on or before the next Water Board meeting. Neil Grigg considers it important to have an organized mechanism to follow-up the regional effort including Loveland, the Districts and Windsor too. Norm Evans mentioned that the Loveland Water Board chairman indicated that she was anxious to have her Board meet with ours also. Dr. Sanders thinks that, at this time, we need to concentrate on Greeley. Norm Evans reminded the Board that we already have the regional coordinating group that is well organized to fulfill the function to which Dr. Grigg referred. Perhaps that could be the mechanism that is needed. Neil Grigg asked if it is an active group. Mike Smith replied, "active but waiting for Greeley to respond." Dr. Grigg suggested that at the joint Water Board Minute June 27, 1986 Page 8 meeting of the Boards could we formally ask Greeley to be a part of that regional mechanism? Henry Caulfield believes that we should confine the meeting to Greeley and let others know that this will be a special bi-lateral meeting. After that we will proceed to something more regional. Neil Grigg thinks what needs to be added to the effort is the consideration of the exchange of raw water and bringing the agricultural groups into the picture. There are many questions here that need active play and consideration, he stressed. Dr. Evans agreed with Dr. Grigg's point and reiterated that the regional group could be at least a nucleus to begin with. MaryLou Smith said, "we can meet, but what we are waiting for is to see if Greeley wants to participate." At this time it was pointed out that there was not a second to Dr. Sander's motion. Neil Grigg provided a second. Marylou Smith questioned what the agenda would be for such a meeting. She doesn't think a strictly social get together would accomplish much. The Board seemed to agree that a less formal gathering, perhaps with a dinner, would be more effective to allow a genuine exchange of ideas, but that some specific topics should be addressed. It was also suggested that the meeting be held on neutral territory, such as in Windsor or Loveland. The vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. Neil Grigg is convinced that the broader question is one we are going to have to deal with. At the Marriott meeting, it was suggested that there would be a follow-up meeting. We are going to have to declare that we are not going to have another meeting or eventually plan for it. He asked if staff has sent meeting notes to the participants. Mr. Smith replied that staff is preparing to send a memo along with the notes which asks the participants to review the possible solutions that emerged from the May 20 meeting, and comment on those; let staff know what kind of working group they think might be able to best organize, study, or develop the appropriate solution; should we hold another large meeting to discuss this issue or attempt to establish a smaller working group; let staff know what kind of involvement their organization desires. Mr. Smith added that perhaps a meeting might be planned for July or August. Dr. Grigg suggested that rather than that soon, perhaps fall would be preferable. He stated further that what needs to be accomplished is the strategy planning where we look at the total raw water needs for the area. It is the perception in the Denver area that there is plenty of water up here. If this isn't true, we must be prepared to say so, and to make the move to protect what we have. Dr. Evans related that there have been two Poudre Basin studies done. Essentially, what they have done is assess the supplies and demands. He wonders if we don't already have information that should provide most of the information Dr. Grigg is proposing that we need. Tom Moore referred to the newsletter the Board received which states that the latest study should be available in August. Dennis Bode agreed that there is an abundance of Water Board Mines • June 27, 1986 Page 9 information available. Part of the problem is that demands can change and there are external demands now, and since the agricultural demands are the major part of it, a lot depends on what happens to the agricultural lands. Is the water that is removed from ag. use going to municipalities and perhaps a change in the market? The one South Platte Basin study concludes that there is approximately 1.8 million acre feet per year available in the basin as a whole. "If you get into the ag. water, yes, there is plenty of water in the basin to serve the Denver area needs." It's much more complex than that in terms of who gets the water, Mr. Bode stressed. Due to that complexity, Neil Grigg said he is tempted to suggest that a study is needed -- it doesn't appear that it would be the usual staff study of the water facilities, but a broader study of the linkage between water and economic development in Northern Colorado. It seems that this kind of study would be appropriate for CSU. He would like to see the Water Board request such a study, because without one, we're almost at a loss to really know how far to go to protect our water, he concluded. Dennis Bode pointed out that part of the Poudre Basin study is economic. A separate consulting firm did the economic part. Neil Grigg commented that he thinks we need something that is more locally directed. Norm Evans said that Dr. Grigg's suggestion would be noted and kept on tap until the results of the Poudre study are available. He went on to say that there is no doubt that our first priority should be to protect the waters that we now own, and that we have reasonable expectation of acquiring, and that may involve cooperative actions with others both near and far. It will eventually involve the coordinated management of the whole South Platte River Basin. "The long range target is clear enough for us and others in the South Platte Basin," he added. Henry Caulfield clarified the direction of the Board. He said it seems that the Board is proceeding in three proposed levels of discussion: first is our meeting with Greeley; second, discussion at the professional level that will be involved with the regional group of which Mike Smith and Norm Evans are members; and the third level will be the large meeting as a follow-up to the meeting on May 20. MaryLou Smith shared some helpful information about public relations which she learned at a recent AWWA conference. One of the points she stressed was that if you anticipate a time when the public is going to be concerned about what you are up to, one of the wisest preparations you can make is to hold a series of briefings ahead of time. She proposed that staff think about the possibility of holding some briefings at which the media would be invited, giving the public, through the media, a general idea of what our water supply situation is. She thinks the public is very confused about this whole Thornton issue and whether we have enough water. The public has received fragmented information over the past few years about the drought study, the rate study, and the proposed metering program. "We don't seem to present them this information in the form in which we would like them to have it. For example give them the information about our water supply, telling them, here are our problems and here are the ways we intend to work Water Board Minute June 27, 1986 Page 10 them out." She pointed out two documents that could form the basis of those briefings; one is a memo put together March 20 on the City's Water and Wastewater system in terms for the lay person. The other document dated April 29, on Water Supply History would also be an excellent source for a briefing. In conclusion, she emphasized that if you lay the ground work before things "get in an uproar," you will be rewarded later when problems arise. Norm Evans concurred with Ms. Smith's ideas of informing the public. We all recognize the great confusion that has occurred in recent months due to the Thornton issue, he said. Ms. Smith also made the point that there are a substantial number of newcomers to town and thus, the confusion becomes even more pronounced when a major issue emerges. Rich Shannon commented, "we could become more aggressive with the press if that is your desire." Rich Shannon directed the Board to think further about the meeting with Greeley. He thinks the subject was left with unclear expectations. Is it a general meeting from which we leave saying yes, we are interested in meeting regularly to talk about regional concerns? Or is it a meeting where we expect to have a well orchestrated set of questions where the staffs have agreed on the agenda in advance and you are actually trying to get some business accomplished, or are you trying to agree to do business in the future? As you think through that, is there an advantage to having a sub -committee of each group meet rather than the full boards.? Norm Evan's "gut feeling" may not match what Tom Sanders had in mind; namely, that we would have an informal meeting. Maybe that is impractical, he said; perhaps you can't do that under today's circumstances. Henry Caulfield suggested a compromise. We could have a formal meeting, then, the Boards could have dinner together which would provide informal contact. Neil Grigg proposed that behind our discussion are two goals for the meeting with the two water boards. Our second goal would be to have them agree to join the regional group. Leading up to that should be an expression of interest on our part for working together with some specific suggestions of things that might be candidates for that. What appears to be indicated is a preliminary discussion of staffs of the two cities before the boards meet, with a joint presentation by the staffs. Tom Sanders objected to using the boards to get Greeley to join the regional group. He just wanted to meet to hear what they are thinking, not to prod them to do anything. Dave Stewart said the other problem is they will be put on the defensive right away. We need to say we have a regional problem. How are we going to work together to solve it? Rich Shannon commented that there is nothing wrong with having a casual conversation at dinner. You come back with some sense of what their sentiment is, and maybe that is enough for the first meeting. He added, in line with what Neil Grigg proposed, staff could give the Board a position paper prior to the dinner on the types of items you might want to discuss. Water Board Mies • June 27, 1986 Page 11 MaryLou Smith asked Mr. Shannon if the City has a public information person. He replied that there isn't one now, but the intent is to recruit a public information officer soon. Neil Grigg concluded that the ball is in the staff's and Norm Evans' hands to get the Greeley meeting organized. There are several parallel activities going on. He and his committee will continue to work with staff in the development of those. He stressed that he doesn't think his committee can go much further without a way to see the integrated picture. For example, with the case of A-B; that would be a piece of it. Mike Smith suggested that staff arrange for the committee to meet with North Poudre. North Poudre is interested in working on some arrangements and developing some relationships, he said. Neil Grigg announced that Stan Ponce expressed an interest in being a part of the committee since he works on water rights. Norm Evans thereby appointed Stan Ponce as a member of the Water Issues Committee. Mike Smith commented that his sense of the problem with Greeley is the city council not the water board. Neil Grigg suggested after the informal meeting which could be considered the first round, that a joint staff presentation could be beneficial in identifying what the advantages are going to be, and we could talk to their board about those. They, in turn, can inform their council in Greeley of the advantages. If it turns out there aren't any advantages, "we might as well forget about it now," he contends. "We're not going to get very far talking about cooperation for the sake of cooperation." Staff Reports Treated Water Production Summary Dennis Bode reported that May water use was running about 30% above the average projected use. We have also continued to have very high days in June, he said. There were 8 or 9 days that have been around 40 MGD, so the peak demands have been quite high because of the dry weather. That use has been on days that have not been extremely hot and with a cloud cover, so it is anticipated that if we get clear sunny days with high temperatures, the peaks may reach 45-50 MGD. Tom Sanders asked if the ET ratings are being printed in the newspaper. The ET for a two and three day period is printed each day in the Coloradoan in the weather section, and is announced several times each day on KCOL. Henry Caulfield asked if much water has been leased this year. Mr. Bode replied that they have leased all the WSSC water and leased to all those who have made requests which haven't been many so far -- not too much North Poudre water. Most of the demand has been for WSSC water. They have leased some CBT water. Mr. Caulfield also asked why the Water Board has not voted on changing the in -lieu -of rate for months. Mike Smith responded that staff is somewhat concerned about where it is going to go. It is currently at $1,000. He is not certain they would want to lower it. Mr. Caulfield said, we must be collecting rights rather than money from the Water Board Minute. June 27, 1986 Page 12 developers; very little money is coming in. Dennis Bode confirmed that little money is being collected. Mr. Smith said that something we may want to consider at some point is if we want to take a more pro -active approach in purchasing water and perhaps changing raw water requirements to obtain more cash. Mr. Caulfield suggested that the Board discuss openly and candidly whether or not we should be buying water. Members do have some fundamental differences related to buying water and the reasons for buying it. Mike Smith thinks the sub -committee has the intention of coming up with some strategies that the Water Board can look at for these changing times. The City's policy now is to collect water from developers as they come in. Perhaps we need to look at that, as a part of the whole picture. Tom Sanders contends that we may need to go into debt to buy water in the future. Committee Reports The bylaws committee requested that if members have suggestions for changes in the bylaws, to please get them to Molly Nortier before the next meeting. Other Business Jim O'Brien said he is discouraged that the Board tabled the proposed plan for phased metering until September. He doesn't see the emphasis of getting a better handle on regional management and planning as precluding our direction of going to City Council with our recommendation for the metering plan. Rich Shannon reiterated as Henry Caulfield pointed out that we are working on three levels of an issue here. Somewhere in our documentation should be a little more about the logic the Water Board has used as we are going from step to step. He suggested a staff memo that follows these three issues as questions: 1. Determine the extent to which WSSC believes the City can be helpful. Do they want us helping them? Are we telling them how we can help them or are we waiting for them to say "here is another piece?" Are we the lead or the support role there? Henry Caulfield said it depends on what our information is from them. Neil Grigg added that he thinks we are just developing a relationship with them. We do need to answer that question, he agreed. 2. Are we moving into an aggressive water acquisition mode? Lay out the pros and cons. Determine what the negatives are and what might be beneficial. We shouldn't assume that everyone wants us to be in an aggressive acquisition mode. 3. If we are in an aggressive mode, why do we think that does or doesn't fit in with the regional cooperation study we have discussed? From there come some specifics. What does that mean for WSSC? Water Board Mines • June 27, 1986 Page 13 Neil Grigg believes that question 2 was answered in point 4 of the memo to the City Council that: "The Water Board advocates a planning/acquisition mode that will preserve supplies in this region at reasonable costs. The City should work aggressively while cooperating with its neighboring cities, irrigation companies and water districts to establish a regional approach to water supply planning and management." Norm Evans agreed with Mr. Shannon's points about what the Water Board should focus on. Jim O'Brien wanted to debate the aggressive acquisition mode. He is disturbed that the focus is switching entirely because of the Thornton situation. Suddenly we adopted the acquisition mode whereas before, we came out with a drought study that showed we don't need a lot of water for the near future, and furthermore, we were coming up with a water metering program that was going to delay treatment plant expansion etc. He is in favor of maintaining the Board's long term foresight in planning for water needs in the future, but he objects to seeing the focus changing. Henry Caulfield believes that the Board needs to discuss and debate this issue but not at 5:10 shortly before adjournment. There are real differences on the Board that need to be explored. That requires some time. Rich Shannon said he is reluctant to research various ways of acquiring water unless there is concurrence by the Board. Neil Grigg observed that if you took a poll as to whether the Board was interested enough to do the research, there would be a lot of support, but when you "got down to the specific actions," these would vary, he said. John Scott contends that the City should not be in the posture of acquiring all of Northern Colorado's water. Rich Shannon restated, "Is it the Board's interest to discuss the question at the next meeting of whether we should be or not be in an aggressive acquisition posture; with various options being addressed under that and how these integrate or depart from the regional study?" Jim O'Brien agreed that it should be put on the agenda, but along with that we need to review our demand status, he urged. Jo Boyd offered a possible solution to avoid an argumentative meeting on this issue. She believes that Dr. Grigg's summary contains a statement that will cut the argument very short."The Water Board advocates a planning acquisition mode that will preserve supplies in this region at reasonable cost." Reasonable costs is the key phrase. If everyone concurred with that instead of floating bonds for "umpteen" million dollars, the whole point of being aggressive is "shot down" because costs,' as people have stated today, are getting to the point where they may no longer be considered reasonable very shortly. "Thus, we can say we are aggressive, but if we don't have the money, we have wasted a lot of people's time." Dr. Sanders argued that in the past the Board hasn't been buying the water Water Board MinutE June 27, 1986 Page 14 "even at reasonable cost." He went on to say that the idea is growth or no growth and whether or not you want to control the water in Northern Colorado, and whether you want to control you own destiny in Northern Colorado -- It's not just reasonable costs! "Then you have a great basis for a long debate," Ms. Boyd countered, because you said Northern Colorado and then you said your own destiny. They are both quite different; controlling the entire northern part of the state may be a politician's ambition. Dr. Sanders interjected, "Controlling Fort Collins is what I want." Norm Evans concluded that Rich Shannon has put our focus on some direction that we should be pursuing. Although we may not have the agenda for the next meeting completely crystalized, we at least have a focus. Neil Grigg commented, "that may be the agenda for a retreat." Others agreed. MaryLou Smith asked if we still plan to have Ward Fischer attend one of our meetings to get his perspective and insights on some of these issues. Dave Stewart suggested that the Board do that as part of a retreat -- it should be an all day session, he stressed. The Board seemed to agree that a retreat would be a good idea. Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:22 p.m. Water Board Secretary F � s U m O D P ilp.. O W CL m t1 >- a: F-w U s p i L $ $ • L7 $ r• $ N, $ r• $ r� $ -.'D0._ -0 u� $ $ • $ C'J $ m $ 0 $ co # # .r $ • C'J # CJ # P * 7 LD CJ Eli It 7C 7 c7 Ni CJ -am co # $ rov •r10* N nn nP CJ L7 # 7 CJ $ a -D C1 C, CJ L7 # -+ N9 L7 L-) K) $ CJ -� Kii f:1 N i $ N ID CV C' CA m # * * * CC $ } $ # m > m F Ltl # F U N 1 # Z } } O CD F F # F-+CJ_j000 $ u :m a # rL IL Frl sti O F F 0 0 0 0 0 a LL iL IL # LL # L * m F 2 S Z Z m O O 2 W F F F smmc W Z Z F > N N J O QOpLL } x Z U' J ¢ N p CV Nl $ CJ N? * r� N: r' Ni h7 L7 * # # $ # 7 O # v m tn Ci a• -a # $ $ CA •r n m ul Ca a .a 10 N? CJ is # LL * rn is Ld F ? LL p W n F L) J Q } # m r m cF 0 PZ a�: J N •••1 m +-I $ O LL F FNcov' QUmL?Z w L7 # F W P a Ld a a# J CL F Li # • W w E-+ �i A W �n C, W W Cfl A co m c r-4 U � C W z CL � WA H 0 ti U o a t+i 0 Ft Fri U 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 � o E- U O a- W 0 D a J D Z D D i� x Q Q m W LL. Z U W 0 O oZ