The meeting was called to order by Mike Deck at 4:03 PM. Those in attendance were the board members (Mike Deck, Bob Ristinen, Bob Farmer and Bob Champ), Mary Wagner (bookkeeper), Richard Lyons (Legal), Terry Kenyon (Engineering), and 6 members of the public. Bill Barclay (board member) was excused due to inclement weather impacting his travel arrangements.

Mike Deck introduced the key participants of the district to the members of the public and asked Dick Lyons to give the process for considering petitions for inclusion. Dick did summarize the decision making process for the petitions for inclusion. Essentially, each petition is discussed individually as to its merits and costs, voted on by the board, and, if inclusion is granted a board order is filed with the court which then determines the district boundary for assessment purposes.

Inclusion Hearing:

Bob Champ moved that we open the public hearing on the petitions for inclusion. Bob Farmer seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Six individual petitions were received for inclusion and a public notice was published on 18 March 2000 in the Daily Camera. No letters were received giving reasons why any of the petitions should not be granted.

Petition 1: John’s Property, Lot 3 Block 7, Paragon Estates 1^st addition

Discussion ensued elucidating that the property is within the district and that the only engineering cost associated with including this property would be the meter cost ($520). No trunk line extension would be necessary. Current assessed valuation is $17,120, which will probably increase after the completion of the house. Bob Farmer then made the motion to close the inclusion hearing. Bob Champ seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

A discussion by the board ensued. This would increase the district size, which may be of importance to Lafayette’s ability to provide water to another property in the district. The IGA has not yet been finalized and therefore, the actual number of homes in the district to be served has not been arrived at. Terry Kenyon thought that another 20 homes would probably not be a problem for Lafayette. If there were any problem with Lafayette being unable to service this property the district would immediately exclude the property so that it would not be taxed. Bob Farmer made the motion that we approve this petition for inclusion unconditionally with service contingent on Lafayette’s approval of this additional tap. Bob Champ seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Petition 2: Moeller Property, Lot 7 Block 2, Paragon Estates

The property was located on the map, which showed this to be a trunk extension. The line would have to be extended about 400 feet of water line. This would cost $20,000 for pipeline installation and another $2500 for an additional hydrant making the additional expense in the $20,000 to $25,000 range. Additional properties may be served by this extension. In fact the potential owners of lot 8 were present and voiced their interest in possible future inclusion in the district. Lafayette would want input on this line as it may affect their service (e.g. Length of deadend lines, etc.). A method of handling trunk line extensions is that the homeowner (and neighbors, if applicable) enters into a participation agreement with the district in which the cost of the line is collected by the district from the properties using the trunk line extension and the original homeowner paying for the cost is reimbursed accordingly for any subsequent hook-ups. It is surmised that taxes from this property would be $20,000 to $30,000 over the next 20 years, which would pay for this extension. The only problem is that this extension was not included in the budget. It was discussed how the district and the petitioner could enter into a participation agreement on how to finance this extension. Factors going into the participation agreement at this time are largely unknown.

Bob Ristinen made the motion that we approve this petition for inclusion unconditionally and that a mutually acceptable participation agreement be negotiated and also that service is contingent on Lafayette’s approval. Bob Farmer seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Petition 3: Becker Property, Lot 5 Block 7 Paragon Estates 1^st addition (940 Paragon)

This property is another infil which is similar to the first petition (John’s Property). Existing pipes will service this property. It was also discussed that the district will contribute to the tap fee with respect to the properties being included in this hearing and which purchase the tap when water is available and subsequent inclusions will not receive this contribution. Bob Ristinen made the motion that we approve this petition for inclusion unconditionally with service contingent on Lafayette’s approval of this additional tap. Bob Farmer seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Petition 4: Thompson Property, Tract 2898 12-1S-70 (1029 Paragon)

Discussion ensued on the location of this property. Again, the property will be serviced by a planned pipeline. This is also the pipeline that may be used to loop to the Lafayette pipeline on 68^th Street (depending on Lafayette’s analysis). Bob Farmer made the motion that we approve this petition for inclusion unconditionally with service contingent on Lafayette’s approval of this additional tap. Bob Ristinen seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Petition 5: Thompson Property, Tract 2897-B, 12-1S-70

This property is owned by Ziggy Management and is assessed at $1700. The property is adjacent the above petitioned property and is also serviced by an existing pipeline. Bob Ristinen made the motion that we approve this petition for inclusion unconditionally with service contingent on Lafayette’s approval of this additional tap. Bob Farmer seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Petition 6: Sawyer Property, Long Legal (7210 Empire Dr.)

This property was located on the map, which showed that a trunk line extension would be necessary to service this property, akin to the Moeller Property (petition 2 above). Cost would be comparable to the Moeller Property (approximately $25,000) unless a hook-up via Spring Ct. could be obtained by easement. Bob Ristinen made the motion that we approve this petition for inclusion unconditionally and that a mutually acceptable participation agreement be negotiated and also that service is contingent on Lafayette’s approval. Bob Farmer seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Bob Farmer made the motion that we close the inclusion hearing. Bob Champ seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

We then proceeded into the regular meeting.

Secretary’s Report:

The minutes of the 21 February 2000 meeting were reviewed. Minor typographical errors were corrected and Bob Farmer made the motion to approve the minutes as amended. Bob Ristinen seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously.

The minutes of the 6 March 2000 meeting were reviewed. Bob Ristinen made the motion to approve the minutes. Bob Farmer seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously.

Treasurer’s Report:

Mary Wagner questioned where to place the bond issue expense with respect to the budget. Mary will contact Connie Friedman at Left Hand Water who should be able to help in this matter. It would also be advantageous to set up the books in such a manner that auditing would be easy. Contacting an auditor would help in this regard. Mary also passed out a balance sheet for the district as of 20 March 2000. Mike submitted an invoice from SDA for our joining this organization. Bob Farmer will be in touch with Alan Matlosz as to the most judicious way to invest the bond money, which will need board approval.

Old Business:

Boundary: Mike will meet with Cindy Domenico to finalize the Water District Boundaries. Dick will then finalize these boundaries in the appropriate legal manner.

IGA: The draft has been received from Lafayette. The copies of the exhibits from the city code have been received. When Lafayette needs their money is still in question. Bill Barclay and Dick Lyons will meet with Lafayette to try and expedite the finalization of the IGA.

Notes for Future Meetings:

1. By-Laws
2. Auditor
3. IGA

New Business:

Mark John’s expressed the desire that we compose a letter to him regarding his inclusion in the district showing that he will be receiving water when it becomes available to the district. This may help him in his negotiations regarding interim water supply.

Adjourn:

A motion was made to adjourn by Bob Ristenin, seconded by Bob Farmer and the meeting was adjourned at 5:56 PM.

The above is submitted by the secretary…Bob Champ, March 21, 2000.