Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 02/21/1986Water Board February 21, 1986 Members Present Norm Evans, President, Henry Caulfield, Vice President, Marylou Smith, Jim O'Brien, John Scott, Tom Moore, Ray Herrmann (alt.) Staff Present Bill Carnahan, Mike Smith, Dennis Bode, Webb Jones, Andy Pineda, Linda Burger Members Absent Neil Grigg, Tom Sanders, Dave Stewart, Stan Ponce (alt.) President Norman Evans opened the meeting. The following items were discussed: Minutes The minutes of January 17, 1986, were approved. Surplus Water Rental Rates A memo was distributed with the packets in which the staff reccamiended a list of rates for adoption. Dennis Bode, Water Resources & Planning Manager, explained that each year after the irrigation ccanpanies have established the annual assessment rates for their water, the Water Board recamnends to the City Council the rental rates for the City's surplus water. The memo sent to the Board contained a table which showed the assessment rates and the proposed rental rates for 1986, as well as the corresponding rates for 1984 and 1985. The proposed rates were based on several factors including past rental rates in the areas, current assessments, and anticipated supply and demand. Mr. Bode reviewed the changes from the 1985 rates. After discussion and clarifications, Marylou Smith moved approval of the proposed rates. After a second from Tom Moore, the Board accepted unanimously the staff s nation for rental rates. Chances to Sewer Rate Categories A memo was sent to Board members in their packets. Mike Smith, Water & Wastewater Utility Director, explained that the Utility, during the past two years has received inquiries fram a few non-residentail customers, primarily churches, about the method used to compute their sewer bills. The monthly sewer service fees for non-residential customers are based on monthly water consumption. Customers who do not have a separate water service line for irrigation could experience high sewer bills during the summer months as a result of lawn irrigation. The churches that have Water Board Minutes February 21, 1986 Page 2 contacted the Utility fall into that category and have requested that we amend the City code to correct this situation. As the Board is aware, the Utility is in the process of conducting a wastewater cost -of -service study which is nearly completed and the consultants have indicated that they support using the winter quarter concept for customers such as churches, along with other customers with similar water use patterns. Since the water use pattern for churches and perhaps other non-residential customers, is similar to multifamily residental units, it is proposed that the City code be amended to allow the inclusion of these customers in the same rate classification as multifamily units. Marylou Smith asked if it is true that irrigation water does not return to the sewer. Mr. Smith replied that it has an impact on the ground water table which can result in sewer infiltration. There is some relationship but, of course, not as direct as putting it right into the sewer. Henry Caulfield asked if perhaps we aren't subjecting ourselves to further complications by setting a precedent for others who might expect the same treatment, e.g. a metered residential customs with a large lawn. Mike Smith explained that metered single family and duplex customers are on a flat rate sewer charge. Jim O'Brien thinks that Mr. Caulfield's point should not be discounted. If we eventually go to a water meter system for residential customers, then we should be charging people for sewer based on volume. Mike Smith said that the draft wastewater rate study should be available for the next meeting when we will discuss the kinds of concerns which Mr. O'Brien has raised. One of the options is to base residential customers on their winter quarter consu4ticn. Many area communities base sewer charges for residential customers on winter quarter use, he added. Tom Moore asked haw much of the charge is fixed in order to cover Transmission lines, PIFs, etc, and how much is actually based on use. Mike Smith responded that there would be a large fixed cost. Ray Herrmann asked if there are currently any exceptions to the rule. Mr. Smith said that he doesn't believe so. Mr. Herrmann tends to agree with Mr. Caulfield that this exception could open up complaints from other customer classes. Mr. Caulfield asked if there is really an urgency to move on this ahead of the wastewater rate study's completion. Mr. Carnahan, Utilities Manager, responded that it is really a matter of timing. By the time we receive the final draft with everybody's comments on the sewer rate study, it is likely to take a few months. We will be into the summer season by then. Also, this group of customers does call us, and we think there is some legitimacy to their problem. We too were thinking it would be good to dovetail it with the finalization of the sewer rate study, but that could extend beyond the summer season. Thus, this amendment to the Code could be a way to handle it so these customers won't be coning back for another year with the same complaint. Water Board Minutes• • February 21, 1986 Page 3 Jim O'Brien asked what magnitude of costs are we looking at? Mike Smith said that in the winter, these customers may pay $15-20 per sewer bill; in the summer, they are up to approximately $60-70 per bill. Henry Caulfield asked if there is any other category but churches that have lawns and are metered that could have a similar argument. Mr. Smith answered that there may be those like that but as yet the .Utility has not heard from them. Webb Jones commented that he occasionally receives complaints from restaurants because their volume varies considerably at different times of the year. Jim O'Brien proposed that we do nothing about this until the sewer rate study is completed. Mr. Carnahan suggested, on the other hand, that this could be an interim solution until the study is concluded. Ton Moore moved that the Water Board accept, at least for the interim, the staff recommended amendment to the Code regarding the changes to the sewer rate category. Henry Caulfield seconded the motion with the stipulation that we keep ourselves completely open to the question of what we are going to do in the future about this question. MaryInu Smith thinks that it is important for the Board to go along with the staffs recommendation to work with the churches on this issue because at times we forget about some of the grass roots issues and feelings that involve people in the City and churches represent a large segment of the population. Anything we can do to meet people's needs and meet them rather quickly without a lot of bureaucracy, will project a better image for the City, particularly since staff feels comfortable with the recommendation. The question was called. Those voting for the amendment to the code were: Norm Evans, Henry Caulfield, Ton Moore, Marylou Smith, and Ray Hermann. Those voting against were: Jim O'Brien and John Scott Revisions to Six Cities' Acre*++ Water Board members received a memo regarding the draft of revisions to the Six Cities' Agreement. Dennis Bode explained that this proposed agreement has been discussed at length for several months by the "Six City Water Comnittee," The Committee is composed of people primarily from the participants in the Windy Gap project. The original Six Cities Committee agreement dates back to 1969. Since then, there has been some thought that modifications are needed to provide the grand rules for existence of the committee and the relationship between the Six Cities Committee and the Municipal Sub -District Board of Directors of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The proposed agreement has been examined rather carefully by all those involved and the Committee feels comfortable with allowing it to progress to the various governing boards of the Six Cities participants for their approval. It is set up to include not only the paying participants to the Windy Gap project, but also those that have property in the sub -district such as Fort Collins. There is the requirement with which we are all familiar, that those that have first use Water Board Minutes February 21, 1986 Page 4 of Windy Gap water be included in the Sub -district. 'There is provision that this group continue to be represented on the committee. The agreement stimpulates the requirements for membership and officers, explains the function of the Committee, and what is required to conduct business. Henry Caulfield referred the Board to p. 3 of the proposed agreement, section 3 called Functions which refers to the attached resolution. Since the Board did not receive copies of the resolution, he asked if the staff had looked at that. Mr. Bode said staff has examined it. He apologized for not including the resolution with the packets because he had intended to attach it. The function he said, is primarily one of advising the Municipal Sub -district; spelling out specifics such as reviewing proposed budgets, audits as necessary and advising the Stub --district on any of the standard operating procedures of the District. It also mentions that the Sub -district Board will inform the Committee through its chairman of all meetings. Henry Caulfield asked, from the City's point of view, is everything that could possibly be thought of that we might want to offer advise on included in that subject? We are talking about advise, not decisions or authority, he stressed. Mr. Bode answered yes and added that the other participants who are paying members, have more interest in looking at this than the City does. In fact, it took several months to arrive at the current agreement. Mr. Caulfield drew the Board's attention to p. 4, section 5 on Termination. which states, "Except as modified by this agreement, the agreement of February 24, 1969, shall remain in full force and effect." What is there in that agreement that needs to be kept, Mr. Caulfield wanted to know. Why not "wash out" the old agreement? Mr. Bode replied that the original agreement has six parties to it — the original group. It was established before the Municipal Subdistrict actually took over that project. It was probably the group's thought that it was desirable to maintain the original agreement. There are some areas related to first rights of refusal of the original participants that were important to retain. Mr. Caulfield reiterated, "so there are some substantive commitments in the original agreement that they are preserving —is that correct?" Mr. Bode said yes, he thinks that is how they viewed it. Norm Evans mentioned that he had some concerns about this initially which, after talking with Mr. Bode, have nnow been alleviated. His concern was that it was a very weak committee without provision for a quorum and without a voting procedure, and without some attention to voting representatives from the various participants even though its function is merely advisory. Mr. Bode pointed out that others bad some of the same concerns that Dr. Evans expresssed. Henry Caufield indicated that there is now a provision for a quorum in the agreement. Mr. Caulfield said that the idea of having a consensus for voting is probably sound because there are some unequal partners. It would be complicated to have proportional representation. All this group is trying to do is find the concert of opinion. If they can't, they will go independently to the Sub -district Board. f Water Board MinutP February 21, 1986 Page 5 Bill Carnahan views it somewhat differently in that he thinks it is an attempt by the Six Cities Commmittee to get more formalized recognition from the Board that they exist and that input is requested from them. This agreement is, in essence, as much as the two parties could agree to. At least there is some recognition of input that the Committee can provide to the Board in the decision -making. The Na-M and Sub -district Boards, made up of the same people, actually have project authority granted to then and theoretically don't have to come to the Committee for anything, but they have, nevertheless, asked for the group's input. John Scott asked about the item listed on the agenda for last =nth's meeting — City 's Representative on Municipal Sub -district Board. Norm Evans explained that the item was on the agenda because he, for one, has been concerned about that question. He is unclear about legislative action taken concerning ren ership on conservancy district boards and thinks the Board should be brought up to date. Dennis Bode said he understands there are two bills pending in the legislature on either electing or appointing members to the Board. Linda Burger, who has been following the legislation, said that the main emphasis of the Bill from last year was to provide the option where a district could either elect the Board members, or have the option of remaining with the current system where Board members are appointed by judges. They have established a procedure whereby the members of the district could set up an election process. Bill Carnahan said that the election process doesn't work in all areas of the state. Linda Burger added that one of the problems with elections, particularly in the southern part of the state is that there are counties where most of the land in a district is owned by one landholder. Thus, the Legislature determined that the election process simply would not work statewide. To answer Mr. Scott's question, the purpose for putting this item on the agenda last time, was to have Attorney Paul Eckman give the Board some clarification regarding the status of this item. Henry Caulfield explained that Nancy Gay, having been a former mayor of Fort Collins was considered, in the judge's viewpoint, to be a representative of the City. Norm Evans suggested that until we hear the status of the item from Paul Eckman, there is nothing the Board can do at the moment. We will try to get Attorney Eckman's response at the next meeting. Ray Herrmann moved that the Board support the agreement and recommend the City Council support it. Following John Scott's second the Board voted unanimously to support the motion. Reaional Report Board members were given a copy of the regional report in their January packets. However, at that meeting there was not enough time to discuss the report. Water Board Mutates _ February 21, 1986 Page 6 Mike Smith summarized the memo distributed with the report. A Committee composed of several area water entities began meeting in the Summer of 1984 to discuss the concept of a regional water treatment facility. They later agreed to investigate the joint/regional concept in more detail. After many meetings and considerable work by staff members of participating entities, the committee prepared a report summarizing their findings. The committee believes there are many opportunities, not only to develop new joint/regional facilities, but also to share existing facilities. The report was prepared to provide information for the governing boards of the entities and to get their input and support of the concept. Mike Smith first pointed out the regional facilities nap at the back of the report. The entities involved are Fast Tarimer County Water District, City of Fort Collins, Fort Collins -lovelorn Water District, City of Greeley, North Weld County Water District, West Fort Collins Water District, Town of Windsor, and the City of Ioveland. Mike Smith related that there are existing connections between some of the agencies. During the process of going through these, the possibility for pursuing other connections was raised. Norm Evans offered the comment that he has met with the group a couple of times and was excited about what the group has done and the cooperative initiative they have taken. Henry Caulfield moved that the Water Board advise the City Council to support the concept of working together and coordinating major capital improvement programs with the other entities for the purpose of developing joint/regional water supply, treatment and tsarLsmission facilities. Jim O'Brien provided a second. Henry Caulfield presented a point for discussion. This concept is good on the water supply system, but what about on the sewage side? We have the South Fort Collins Sanitation District, and the Bmmlder Sanitation District and Fort Collins involved on that side. Are we in consultation with these entities? Mike Smith related that there have been discussions with these groups. It is just a matter of time before something similar is formed with them. The motion, as stated by Henry Caulfield, carried unanimously - Mr. Caulfield asked about the point with regard to representation on the ccmmmittee. Mr. Smith had suggested a Water Board member and a staff member as representatives. Norm Evans thinks a Water Board member and staff member would be a good combination given the direction the group may go. He offered to represent the Water Board on the group because he has an enormous interest in the regional concept. Water Board MinutsP• February 21, 1986 Page 7 Jim O'Brien moved that Mike Smith, Director of the Water & Sewer Utility continue as the staff representative and that Norm Evans, chairman of the Water Board, represent the Water Board. After Tom Moore's second, the Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Ray Herrmann thinks it is important to tie in all the areas including water treatment, wastewater treatment, transmission lines, etc., because the real benefit to the City in regionalization is probably going to be on the sewer side. Norm Evans clarified that part of the benefit could also result from the coordination and integration of supplies. Jim O'Brien offered two items for discussion. If we went to regional treatment, who would have control over the existing facilities, he asked? Also, if we go to regionalization, will there be a mechanism that will give the group the ability to tax, bond, or raise money? Norm Evans responded that there has been some discussion of an authority type approach. There are several forms of authority that could be considered. Henry Caulfield ccmoented that the Denver area is in the process of forming an authority of some kind. By the time the concept that we are considering becomes valid, we will have institutional experience around what is acceptable and what is not. He added, whatever is done has to meet the conditions of Colorado law. Mike Smith related that the committee has explored some of the aspects related to Colorado law. There are some methods of forming an authority under present statutes where such an authority has the ability to bond. There are two or three such authorities already existing in the state; one is the Fountain Valley Authority, north of Pueblo. Hence, that mechanism is available to use now. Henry Caulfield asked about the Denver Authority. Dr. Evans explained that they began with what are called the metropolitan water providers. They have contracted with the City of Denver, supporting the EIS for the proposed Two Forks Reservoir. The prescription is that each has bought a certain number of shares on the project. The metropolitan authority was formed to be the financing instrument for them, but not all of the providers are already members of the authority. The Authority isn't doing anything now although it is fully organized and has officers. Caulfield asked what staff would manage the Two Forks Dam. Dr. Evans thinks that Denver would be the agent. The providers would probably contract with the Denver Water Board to manage it. Jim O'Brien cited another point of interest. Obviously, there is going to be a non -uniform growth here. In addressing this whole issue of regionalization, the distribution in the system must be as efficient as possible. Although you want to centralize the system, at the same time you want to make it cost effective by limiting the distribution as much as possible. Norm Evans concluded that it is safe to say that everyone has been exploring the paths of regionalization. In thinking ahead it seems that Water Board Minutes February 21, 1986 Page 8 all those involved see a similar target. There is a spirit among the participants of real cooperation and enthusiasm. Economic Development Task Force Mike Smith explained that Board members should have received a copy of a memo from the City's Community Development Dept., Plannu g Division. The memo encouraged citizens to participate in a public meeting on February 6, to give their input to the Economic Task Force formed recently by the City Council. Linda Hopkins from Planning noticed this item on the Water Board agenda and contacted Molly Nortier to offer her assistance at the meeting, if needed. She encouraged Water Board members to prepare individual cents and send them to Planning or comments from the Water Board, as a whole would also be welcomed. Dr. Evans and Mike Smith asked if there were comments from the board. Receiving none, individual members were encouraged to respond individually if they wished. Further Discussion of Report: "Evaluation of Water Demand Management Options" Water Board members received revised copies of the Report which addressed those issues raised at the last meeting. The staff believes that the report now includes all of the main issues that have been raised by Board members within the'past few months. A preliminary summary report has been prepared by staff that summarizes the recommendations that have evolved out of the study and provides a plan to implement the recommendations. Henry Caulfield had spoken with Dennis Bode about allowing Professor Danielson of CSU to look at the part of the report that relates to the "green lawn" issue. After Dr. Danielson examines the technical aspects of that segment, he can determine if he has any differences with the staff, particularly where the results of his study are cited. Mr. Caulfield will take Prof. Danielson a copy of the report and get his response as soon as possible. Ray Herrmann moved that the Water Board accept the report as revised. Marylou Smith seconzIed the motion. Henry Caulfield announced that Ray Anderson sent a response to the information that was sent to him after the last Board meeting. Copies of his letter were distributed to Board members today. Mr. Caulfield restated the Board's position on two of the more important points which Mr. Anderson addressed in his most recent letter. There were no other comments from the Board. Ray Herrmann stressed that accepting the report is not going to resolve the basic issues generated by the report. People will still be pro and con on "green lawns." They will still be for and against metering. The report discusses these questions; it lays them out for examination. It recommends a position with which the staff is comfortable. He believes that it is time to accept the report and go on with the other issues. Water Board Minute • February 21, 1986 Page 9 Henry Caulfield contends that "the world is not going to come to an end if Fort Collins does or does not have meters." Given the history of this issue, it seems to Mr. Caulfield, that we need to put the best pro -meter study before the council; in other words, a technically adequate study that properly considers the "green Lawn" issue, the cost of service matter, the equity issue, etc. Mr. Caulfield emphasized that this is not going to be an easy issue to present to the public. "Let's put our best foot forward," he said. At this point a vote was taken on Ray Herrmann's motion to accept the report. It passed unanimously. ion of Summary of Reconmendations and Imolementation Plan for Water Dennis Bode reported that he and Webb Jones prepared this document to present a fairly short and concise summary of what the recommendations are and a plan for implementation of those recmmmendations. Their plan was to give this to the Board today and allow the Board to review it prior to the next meeting in March. Mike Smith said that whatever evolves after review and input from the Board will probably be the presented to the Council and to the public. Bill Carnahan added that the public will not, in most cases, want to look at the longer document. They will want to know what the report says and what we plan to do about it. What kind of condensation needs to take place for people to understand the concept, he asked. Norm Evans assured staff that the Board will be prepared to discuss the document and the approach at the next meeting. Tom Moore asked how refined are we going to be? Henry Caulfield asked, are we going to be specific about the rate increase for the flat rate customers, or just say there will be an increase and leave it to staff to determine had much by ordinance? Bill Carnahan pointed out that page 9 specifically states: "An ordinance adjusting the flat rate structure and the rates will be adopted in October 1986 for implementation on January 1, 1987," and goes on to say that "staff will develop the revised rate structure and rates and incorporate them in the ordinance adopting 1987 water rates." Mike Smith referred to P. 8 which discusses some of these things in general terms. Mr. Caulfield asked why not be more definitive rather than less definitive? Dr. Evans replied, if you are more definitive you are more or less committed to something. Ray Herrmann thinks there are a couple of issues; one is Ray Anderson's argument ent that meters are meant for "taxing." What a meter means is an automatic increase and that money will be used as a money -raking venture, Water Board Minutes February 21, 1986 Page 10 Mr. Anderson's letter contends. This is not meant to be a rate increase but, if you will, a redistribution of equity, counters Mr. Herrmann. The next part of that is that we should be able, for example, to tell a person with a 9,000 ft. sq. lot what it is going to cost him, and offer him the option of going to a meter at the same time. If he goes to a meter, will he save money? We need to have that information, Mr. Herrmann believes. Mr. Caulfield suggested that perhaps we should not come up with rates. Council will need to say we are going to raise the rates for this reason to some appropriate level. This way, you are leaving yourself some flexibility between now and October. Dennis Bode explained, in terms of rates, staff thinks they may need to refine them somewhat before releasing them. Mr. Caulfield interjected, "you are talking technically, I'm talking politically." Ray Herrnann contends that as a citizen, there are two questions he world ask: 1) How much are my water rates going to go up? 2) Can I get a water meter and if I do, can I keep my water rate down? Mr. Caulfield believes that this document is one the -Council will either buy or not. The question is do you put that rate in this for them to buy now? There is probably some merit to referring to the probable owner of magnitude of the rate in here, but leaving technical discussion between now and October. John Scott commented that in looking through the summary he noticed that it has been put in percentages. It doesn't specify rate but gives them an "order of magnitude." Dr. Evans concluded that these are good questions for all of us to ponder in had to approach this. Mr. Caulfield asked if this is going to be an action document; is it in the form of an action document? Bill Carnahan said are of the things we need to look at is the form. If we are going to use this as a document to inform the public, it probably should have some graphics etc. included in it, and yet be informative. What do we really want this document to do? Perhaps we may be talking n g about two different documents — one educational and one action. Henry Caulfield was under the impression that it was going to be an action document to get the Council to say, "amen." Bill Carnahan added, on the other hand, we are also going to need some mechanism to inform the public. We will need to provide a forum for public dialogue. MaryIau Smith cautioned the Board and staff "not to push the issue along too fast," given the climate in the City at this time. This is likely to be a devisive issue, and she thinks it is important "to wait until we can see same healing taking place." Norm Evans stated that Ms. Smith has raised a very sensitive point and it should be considered. r Water Board Minute • February 21, 1986 Page 11 Henry Caulfield reported that recently he attended a presentation on this issue given by Dennis Bode to a Csu Men's science Club. This was a group that had no previous knowledge about this subject and Mr. Caulfield surmised from the group's reaction that it is quite evident that we must sort out the "gut" problems that Ray Herrmann was raising. Any formulation of this for public presentation has got to concentrate sharply on the "gut" Problem that Mr. Bode and Mr. Caulfield were having trouble getting across to that group. Mr. Bode confirmed that it seemed to him they just wanted to "hear the bottom line." They weren't too interested in the discussion that went along with it. Mr. Caulfield reiterated that this is Ray Herrmann's point. However, the bottom line here is a little complicated. How we sort out this "gut" problem from the other fine things in the report was the problem at the presentation. Jim O'Brien asked how they responded to the cost savings in water treatment facilities? Mr. Bode believes that they had a difficult time understanding and accepting that they wouldn't be subjected to a lot more cost. Mr. Caulfield added that saying the delay of treatment plant construction was a benefit of metering was a point that was not easy to get across. Mr. Carnahan commented that the treatment plant argument is one you would use with a developer about why you would use PIFs to pay for it. The existing customer, in his opinion, would need to know: Is it going to cost me anything to put the meter in? The answer is no. What am I going to get by having a meter? If I use the same amount of water, is it going to cost me more or less? These are the "bottom line" kinds of questions. Mr. Caulfield suggested that since this might be considered a public information d=m ent, could we zero in on the sensitive issues by putting them in the form of questions and answers, not a report: then producing an action document that you expect the Council to endorse. Bill Carnahan agreed and added that the action document would almost be in the form of a resolution. He also brought up the points: "If I am an existing customer what will happen if we don't go to water meters?" Where we get "hung up," he said, is if we don't have water meters, we may still have to have increases in rates. It isn't that meters will necessarily cause those increases. Next, you need to say: If we do have meters, what will the impact be on me as a water customer? MaryLou Smith prefaced her next remark by saying that she gets tired of paying for more and more reports, but she believes that, in this case, it would be a wise use of funds to hire a good public relations firm to help the City arrive at ways to present this too the public. It could be a local group. This issue truly affects people's lives, and they will want to be involved. Recognition of Water Board Members This item was tabled until next meeting because Board member Tan sanders who was to report on it, was not able to attend the meeting today. Water Board Minutes February 21, 1986 Page 12 staff Reports Mike Smith announced that the March meeting falls on the 21st which is during spring break. Normally a number of Board members and staff have plans for that week, so staff has suggested that the meeting g be changed to the following Friday, which is March 28. After discussion, the Board decided to change the meeting to March 28. Committee'. A. Bylaws Marylou Smith and Tom Moore were appointed several months ago to review the Bylaws and return to the Board with their rsccanwidations for revisions. Ms. Smith, chairman of the Committee went through each of the suggested changes to get Board reaction and response. In summary, the items for revision were: Article II, To whom is the Board advisory? The Board suggested that it be consistent with the City ordinance; Article III, Do we refer to the head of the Water Board as President or Chairman; The Board decided on President; Article V, Section A, On open meetings, we need to make our Bylaws consistent with the current "Sunshine law," and the City Code; Article VII, How often should the Board adopt a statement of goals and objectives? The Board concluded that every three (3) years seems to be a workable time frame; Article III, Board Cmgmsticn, There is no provision in the Bylaws for alternates at all. The number of alternates, their selection, their terms, when they are allowed to vote and how, and if they are counted as part of a quorum, need to be addressed. After consulting with Attorney Paul Eckman, checking the City Charter and the City Code, Ms. Smith and Mr. Moore will incorporate the provisions decided on by the Board today as well as the rest of the pending revisions and return with the revised Bylaws for Board approval and adoption. Other Business Norm Evans announced that he had received a letter of resignation from Board member Bill Elliott. Mr. Elliott was reluctant to resign but time cantraints with his employment forced him to come to that conclusion. Mr. Elliott's valuable contribution to the Board will be missed. Soon the City Council will be selecting a replacement. Dr. Evans pointed out the following statements of function and strategy with regard to Board composition in the Water Board Policies: "The Water Board can best fulfill its function if it contains within its membership, the legal, technical, financial, and political expertise of the enmity." It goes on to identify the strategy of this statement. "If requested, the Water Board will work with the Council to identify the specific needs required from new members to enhance the expertise of the Board." Dr. Evans explained that in light of this vacancy, perhaps the Board could suggest to the Council some areas of expertise and a good mix of Water Board Minutet • February 21, 1986 Page 13 backgrounds, that would enhance the ability of the Board to perform its specialized function. Marylou Smith agreed that it is a good point to consider. Her suggestion was to consider someone with a good public relations background to help with the many issues the Water Board confronts relating to informing the public. Jim O'Brien said, in his opinion, the Board needs people who are able to grasp the highly technical and complicated subject matter related to the issues on which the Board is required to advise the Council. However, he agrees that public education is very important and it might be desirable to have a person with that kind of expertise. Henry Caulfeid asked if staff knows of any Board that advises the City Council on the kinds of members they desire on their Boards. The staff wasn't aware of any. Ms. Smith surmised that they probably do on an informal basis. Mr. Caulfield believes that the Board is not in a position, nor should they be, of recommending specific individuals. Ms. Smith stressed that reccame r1ing individuals IS definately not what they have in mind; only suggestions of what kinds of expertise the Board could use. Tom Moore suggested that a water oriented attorney might be an asset. Paul Eckman can't be expected to always handle that since he is one of four City Attorneys with many other responsibilities. Dr. Evans asked the Board if they would agree to his writing a short letter to the Council suggesting a public relations type person and a water lawyer as two areas of expertise that the Water Board could use. Jim O'Brien went even further to propose that we examine the current complexion of the Board to let the Council know what areas of expertise and careers already exist — not necessarily for this appointment, but for future appointments. There was a consensus of the Board that Dr. Evans write a letter to the Council relating the Board's desire to offer the above -mentioned suggestions with regard to Board appointments. Norm Evans announced a meeting of the South Platte Coalition which will be held in Fort Collins on Monday, February 24, in the CIC Roan at City Hall at 7:00 p.m. Water Hoard members are invited to attend. The Coalition will be meeting with many of the cities along the Front Range to learn what tactics and innovative ideas the cities are using in water management. City staff members will be giving a brief presentation at the meeting. Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m. 7na-e-ey i?e� Water Board Secretary