PUB00147

• Year: 2007
• Title: Western States Water Council - Bozeman, MT., August 8-10, 2007
• CWCB Section: Administration
• Description: Western States Water Council - Bozeman, MT., August 8-10, 2007
• Publications - Doc Type: Water Policy

Western States Water Council
Executive Committee Minutes

Sioux Falls, South Dakota
May 3, 2007

.

Pat: "That's what I'm wondering because these all have the incremental effect, but two of them have the
increments occurring two years apart as opposed to immediately. So, it's the scenario that has the 9.1 %
increase in FY08-09. We have a budget session this summer, so I'll take these figures and make sure that
by 2010 we are covered."

Duane: "I would suggest that we go ahead and vote for the increase. If the budget issue does not allow
you to do it because of your state's process, then we could delay it a year and use the reserves to make up
the difference. We want to make sure that we are moving toward that direction of being there [at the
$30,000 level]."

Roland: "Every time this comes up, the discussion hinges on projecting out those two years. But, with
that caveat, okay."

Dale Frink: "Does your motion include anything on when we hire?"

Phil: "I didn't include anything."

Weir: "Craig, your idea as described at the Management Subcommittee meeting, is that you would bring
in two prospective employees and allow them to work on a part-time basis for a while until you can
determine which would be best. Potentially you would then hire an individual - it might be three months
from now or six months from now, but you would begin the process, knowing that you would be hiring
somebody full-time."

.

Craig: "Correct. Weare convinced that we need a few months to make sure that it is a fit for them, and
it's a fit for us."

Pat: "So, we have a 10%jump indues now, and Phil's proposal is that the other 9.1% increase would
happen next year as opposed to two years out."

Rod: "And Roland is concerned about that second year."

Pat: "The corrected Scenario A that was just handed out even indicates the dues would jump 9.1 % in
FY2009-2010. This is the corrected Scenario A, not the original A."

Duane: "Is everyone clear on the motion?"

Hal Simpson: "If Nevada can't pay the incremental increase in FY2008-2009, then we're not going to do
it?"

Weir: "We would forgive Nevada for that year."

Hal: "But then they come back the following year with $32,500."

Roland: "If there is a problem for any state, they go back to the previously approved dues, and it [the
increase in dues] would become effective FY2009-2010."

.

4