ALP 5

ALPOMBR Association
November 5, 2012 Board Meeting Minutes
(11/20/12 — Draft_v2)
Cathy Metz reported the City anticipates the facilities would operate at a 90% cost recovery; fees
collected would allow staffing at the facility. Any time the facility would be open to the public the
facility would have staff on site who would conduct inspections, greet the public and handle
maintenance items; the fees are necessary to recover the cost of operations. Manual Heart asked what
the City's position would be if the Tribes asked to use the recreation facility exempt from fees. Cathy
Metz discussed the City scholarship fund for reduced fees; the City would consider this request but
exemption from fees is not something the City would normally do. Manual further discussed the lake is
a Ute Treaty water Settlement and that Tribal members should be exempt from fees as they are
owners of the lake.
Manual Heart asked if the City Annexation would impact the inlet, out of Ridges Basin, that comes out
of the western side. Greg Hoch said the City does not have plans to build around Lake Nighthorse or of
getting in the way of the La Plata West pipeline.
Manual Heart also asked about a cross - deputation for law enforcement between county, city and
maybe even Tribe. City Manager Ron LeBlanc addressed the limited options for intergovernmental
agreements between city and county. The Sheriff is independent of the County Commission. This type
of arrangement would transfer all the risk to the City and keeps control with the Sheriff. That kind of
arrangement would not be in the best interest of the City, or citizens of Durango.
Randy Kirkpatrick pointed out his concern that the Association does not currently pay a franchise fee on
the electricity used at the Dam and the Association would be subject to a franchise fee if re- established
in the upcoming election and annexation occurs.
Randy Kirkpatrick also clarified that the Association is not the ultimate decider regarding the
annexation issue; it is the seven individual contractors. The Association is responsible only for the
operation and maintenance of the project. The San Juan Water Commission fully intends to exercise
their rights and authorities as they understand them.
Randy Kirkpatrick discussed contamination of the water and questioned who would be liable and
responsible for contamination as a result of recreation and further stated the Association would
require contractual language with the City similar to that used in the contract with the Federal
Government and that the City assume the same liability.
Randy Kirkpatrick discussed the Comprehensive Plan for recreation and stated the plan was only
reviewed and commented on, it was not developed or approved by the Association or the individual
contractors; the Plan may not necessarily be agreed to and may be challenged on that basis. Extensive
development for camping and trails are a concern and the SJWC does not want any development at the
dam or downstream of the dam whatsoever. Randy asked what is the benefit to the Association and
how will public outcry be addressed if the reservoir is dry; what assurances will the City make for this
reservoir to operate as it is intended - a drinking water supply. Recreation needs to be done in a way
where the major and primary purpose of the reservoir, which is drinking water supply, is not at harm.
Celene Hawkins asked if, in regards to land use approval resting with the BOR, everything will be
rubber - stamped by the City or can we craft an Annexation Agreement that includes only the
jurisdictions the City actually wants and not include the whole body of City law. Mark Chiarito
explained that when an entity applies to the BOR, the application is reviewed and moves forward in the
development of the license and the terms and conditions; it is at that point where a building permit
might be stipulated. Mark also pointed out that recreation is subordinate to the water user's contracts
for water development. David Smith conveyed a narrow Annexation Agreement can certainly be
Page 3