Water Board Meeting August 17, 2020


Okay, well looks like we’re just a little past three. So I’d like to call the August 17 2020. Water Board meeting to order. Can we please start with the roll call?

Todd Williams. Here.

Allison Gould.

Kathy Peterson here. Renee Davis, your Roger Lange. Here. city staff we have Ken Houston. Here.

Nelson Tipton here.

West Lowery. Here, Kevin Bowden. Here.

Heather McIntyre’s here David Bell.

Here. Ramsey Jaffe here, Jason Elkins


And then we have guests with us today, Larry, we know

You’re Becky Doyle here and Daniela vine

here and Jennifer Loper here

and then we have Councilmember Martin with us

up there she is joined.

Thank you.

Okay. Next on the agenda will be election of officers. So I’d like to ask the board for nominations for chairman of the upcoming waterboard year.


I’d like to nominate Todd Williams as Chair again, since he’s doing such a good job.

Are there any other nominees

All right, hearing none, I’ll close the nominations. And I’ll ask for a vote of the current Water Board members for Todd Williams to be the 20 2021, waterboard Chairman, if you could please

stay by saying aye and confirmation of that.

Need a second first.

Oh, sorry. Yeah, I guess I do. Thank you.

Do I have a second? All second? All right.

Thank you.

All right. With that, I’d like to take a take the vote. All in favor of Todd Williams being the 2020 2021. Chairman for the Longmont Water Board, signify saying aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Opposed, same sign. Hopefully we had any. What I’m going to do now is turn it over to Todd to have the election for the vice chair.

Wes, I guess a couple of notes. Before we do that one. I want to welcome Allison. Welcome to the your first water board meeting. I wish it was in person. But this is about all we can do and in the current state of things, so welcome to your first waterboard meeting.

Thank you very much. It’s a pleasure to be here. Honor.

Thanks. And then the The second thing I wanted to mention is, I talked to Renee Davis and I think she wanted to kind of make an announcement before we we nominate the vice chair. So go ahead, Renee, when you’re ready,

yes. So um, things have changed for me and I have moved to Lafayette I am technically still a legal resident of Longmont through the end of the month, but after that, I’m not so I need to resign from waterboard. So


What’s the date? Renee,

what’s the date? That I leave?

Yeah. August 31.

Okay. Sorry to see

you go.

Yeah, it’s a bummer. But it’s okay.

And I just wanted to reiterate, I Renee has been a great resource for the board. And thank you for all your your time and effort. So well, we’re definitely sad to see you go.

I’ve learned so much from you guys. It’s been great.

Thanks again. I guess with that, we need to make a nomination for the vice chair, which I think I believe I can was Can I make that nomination?

Yeah, as the chairman, you can.

Okay. I’d like to nominate Kathy Peterson to be the vice chair of the waterboard.


So we have a motion in a second. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.


Okay, motion carries. Thank you Kathy and he got big shoes to fill.

I know.

So with that, we’re on to approval of the in. Maybe before I get to number four there, I wanted to bring up one item. In talking to Wes in Canada, it sounds like the replacement for Rene’s position May, according to the City Clerk’s Office may be waiting until December for applications and I didn’t know you know, obviously Allison is very qualified didn’t know if there’s any other very qualified applicants and Marshall would there be a possibility given all we’ve got going on of maybe trying to use one of the prior applicants to fill Rene’s seat or is that a possibility or not? And we can talk about this later in the meeting if need be. I was just thinking about it at this point.

The answer is we did have some other qualified applicants um



most qualified other applicants have there was concerned about a conflict of interest because he represents

other water litigants inside Longmont

but I would have to, I’d have to look at the other applicants and see and and maybe have a discussion about the one applicant who was also a water attorney.

But I also don’t understand how the process works. So I don’t know whether there’s any possibility of appointing someone in advance, but I’m happy to take that and consult with the city clerk about it, if you could, my understanding is it wouldn’t be until December. Until it be posted. My concern is we’ve we’ve got a lot of important items to discuss. And if it’s, you know, five or six months before we could see that missing position on the water board, if there’s a way to do it earlier, I think the earlier the better so someone could get up to speed on the issues. So I’d appreciate if you could do that Martian and let us know. Yeah. What can I do in that regard? I’ll do that today. Awesome. Thank you very much. With that, we’re on to item number four, which is approval of the previous month’s minutes for July 20 of 2020. Did any of the board have any questions, comments on those minutes? If not, we need a motion to approve those minutes. From will we have a motion to have a second? Second. Okay, motion in a second. Any further, just hearing none, all those in favor say aye.

Opposed, okay.

carries. Next item number five is the water status report was esters. Are you given that today? Okay that

today the flow of the St. vrain. At Lyons at 8am this morning was 55.6 CFS, the hundred and 24 year average was 120.28 CFS, so about half the call in the same brain as long blood supply with an admin of 5600 or may 1 1865 as the priority date calling the main stem of the South Platte is lower late them with an admin of 1100 611 thousand 670. So that is a procreation date of October 24 1881. The button rock is spilling. And we are releasing 35 CFS union is at 26.6 feet. So it’s down about 2.4 feet or just a little under 1000 acre feet. And that’s all I have.

Thank you. Was there any questions? Comments for us on the water status report? Okay,

thank you for the report. Wes.

item six is public invited to be heard and special presentations. I guess to start with, do we have any special presentations today canner was

do have a special presentation Do you want to do the public invited to be heard first or do yes contagion?

No, we can do public invited to be heard. I know gay Thea wants to win. To address us, Was there anyone else or just gay Thea?

She’s the only one that I see on the call. So,

okay, well welcome you. I’m glad you could make it today. Just a couple of notes. First of all, if you can state your name and address for the record, and then secondly, I’ll try to time it here but we have a three minute kind of time limit. I think they let you know before the meeting, so whenever you’re ready, go ahead and you got the floor.

Okay, my name is Gabriel Weiss and I live at 1433 cannon Mountain Drive in long month, and I’m a retired analytical chemist. And I am just speaking today because I wanted to raise awareness of a July 2020 report to the Colorado Water Conservation Board entitled Colorado’s demand management feasibility investigation update. And this has to do with the Colorado River basin in it calls for temporary voluntary and compensated reduction in consumptive use Have that water. And the purpose of this is to increase storage in Lake Powell. And that all has to do with the Colorado compact of 1920. And what Dell Carpenter agreed to, with deep concern that if the Lake Powell disappears in so storage, then there are some huge consequences for the upper basin, including Colorado in terms of what has to be delivered downstream anyway. So the issue as I see it has to do with climate change, increasing aridity in this area, and what all that means for the viability of our windy gap, Junior water rights. And I’m not an expert. I’m just basically raising that concern today. I can send the link to the full report, which is like 200 pages long but does have an executive summary to Heather to distribute to the group. And there is a public comments that shouldn’t coming up recently. Public one. I don’t know how you guys qualify as public or they have some have some special conduit. Anyway, that’s the public one is August 26. Just coming right up. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Yeah, if you could send that to Heather and other if you could maybe send that link out to the rest of the board. I sure can do that. Great. Great. Well, thank you for your comment today gave you appreciate that. Was there anyone that was it, Heather, and then we’ll be on to the special presentations. That’s correct. Yes. Okay.

Who’s handling a special presentation?

Ken, are you going to introduce that?

Yeah. What we wanted to do is present some of the information on the upcoming bond election, which may occur this fall. If we City Council sets that as a bond issue. We have a number of large capital projects due in the water operating fund and construction funds. Primarily the biggest one is an enlargement of the Nelson Flanders water treatment plant. Probably secondarily is isn’t is a replacement for some of our treated water storage tanks.

We have

Becky and Barbour on the call today to give you a kind of a rundown on on the bond and some of the facts about the issue the question that will go before the public and so I believe Becky was gonna do the presentation.

I think you get Larry actually.

Okay, Larry. We get Larry that that’s even better. He’s Larry is, is in our engineering department and is the process Manager for the enlargement of the Nelson Flanders water treatment plant. And so yeah, you get the real good technical details from Larry. So I’ll go ahead and turn it over to Larry.

Okay, thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone. I am Larry widow. I work in public works natural resources. I am a engineering administrator. Our engineering group manages all the water and wastewater infrastructure for the city. So we do want to talk to you about the bond water bond election that is being proposed for this. This fall. Becky will probably jump in during some of this presentation, cuz she can fill you in on the details of the actual financing and the bonds better than I can. I think there is a short what we’ve done is we’ve prepared a power Point presentation and a video that we are going to be presenting to the public to educate them about this bond election. So I think Heather is going to run that and we’ll start out with the video. I think after that, we will do a short PowerPoint presentation. And since we don’t have a lot of large group here, it may be more efficient as we do the slides. If you do have questions, just holler or raise your hand and we can try to answer your questions as we go through the slides. So can we start that

wirebonds finding water

Heather, we don’t have volume on this.

You don’t have volume.

No, we’re not

hearing my beautiful voice.

There should be a button as you get ready to share it. Of course you probably know that you probably don’t know.

Hold on one second. Okay.

Ah share computer sound that probably helps.

Sorry, guys. Let’s try it out again.

The city council may submit a question to voters on the November ballot, asking for approval to issue $80 million in water bonds to finance the renewal of aging water infrastructure and maintain system reliability and quality.

These are critical citywide system improvements that benefit water customers today and into the future.

A clean, safe and reliable drinking water supply is always critical. It’s Of particular importance during times of emergency, such as the covid 19 pandemic.

loglines water is clean primarily because it comes from a very pristine source within Rocky Mountain National Park. That clean water is then stored in Ralph Pryce reservoir which is surrounded by the 3500 acre button rock preserved in the mountains west of Longmont to be ready for the community’s use throughout the year. After the water leaves are out the price reservoir and is delivered to our two treatment facilities. Nelson Flanders treatment plant which is the primary treatment plan for the city, as well as the way gas treatment plan which is really used in an emergency basis and for backup When necessary. The city’s way gas water treatment plant was placed in service in 1983. That plant now is reaching the end of its lifecycle and the capacity that it currently provides will have to be replaced. The city recently conducted some engineering studies to determine what’s the best way to replace that capacity. We had the choice of either replacing way Gaddis or expanding our Nelson Flanders water treatment plant. And the the best option, at least cost for us is to expand the Nelson Flanders water treatment plant which was placed in the service in about 2005. Fortunately, that plant was actually constructed with expansion in mind, so that makes it really an efficient option for us. In addition to expanding the Nelson Flanders water treatment plant, there are other planned upgrades in the portable water treatment system over the next couple of years. This includes potable water tanks that are aging now and have reached their lifecycle, and miles of pipe they will also need to be replaced. In 2019,

the City Council approved a five year rate schedule that contemplated selling bonds to spread out the cost to upgrade long months aging water

infrastructure over several years. That rate schedule supports issuing up to $80 million in water bonds. Without voter approval to issue the water bonds needed projects could be delayed and system reliability affected. Think of water bonds like taking out a mortgage on a house paying for improvements with water bonds helps acquire needed assets and infrastructure repairs. Now. Well, spreading out the cost those improvements over time to avoid rate spikes. This keeps rates more predictable for users. using water bonds to finance the infrastructure improvements also results in user rates that are initially lower than a cash for us to fund the improvements. This spreads out the cost of these upgrades more equitably across both current and future water customers. These are all considerations To keep in mind when voting here are some reasons why a voter might be in favor of this funding request.

And here are some reasons why a voter might be against this funding request.

Uh, yes vote would allow the city of Longmont to issue $80 million in water bonds to be used, along with existing fund balances and adopted rate increases toward renewing aging water infrastructure and maintaining system reliability and qualities. a no vote would mean bonds would not be issued, adopted rate increases would still take place. Those rate increases. Plus existing cash balances could be used toward renewal projects, but other funding sources would need to be found

the safety of reliability of long monster feed water is essential to our community.

We asked you to spend some time researching the issues ask questions if you have them and most importantly, the mountain bro



Learn more about the water bond issue at Longmont. colorado.gov slash water pipe and bonds. Election Day is Tuesday, November 3.

Go ahead and talk Larry. Well, I pull up the

Okay, so it was I think there may have been a question. Councilwoman Martin.

Thank you, Larry. Um, I just this is very nice job by the way. I like Get a lot I wanted to know where this is going to be aired how many different places how often

all that stuff.


you know, we’ve suffered in the past from not getting the message out enough. And I want to make sure that this message gets out enough.

Yeah, I know our communications people have been scheduling to present this to other groups in the in the city. I don’t have the exact number but they are planning on doing that throughout the month of August. So that’s something we can follow up on and let you know if you would like, like us to do that.

Becky, will it be on Channel eight and on YouTube so that people can share it school I think but anybody any Becky knows Mansour

Jennifer’s I think coming back into the meeting.

Yes. Yeah,

I can unmute. But if Jennifer isn’t able to unmute she’s got the latest on that and

she’d be best. Otherwise I can tell you what I know. Jennifer’s coming back online right now.

They’re sorry. My next like connection kick me out. I think it was my husband’s fault.

So Jennifer, there’s a question. Councilmember Martin was wondering how we’re getting this video message out to everyone where it’s posted so people can see it.

Absolutely. No, that’s a great question. Councilmember Martin. Um, so we are doing several Following several options and paths for getting this messaging out. We’re doing community presentations like this one. We’ve presented to a couple So far, we have a handful more scheduled coming up. Sorry, I guess I could turn my camera on. And then you guys can see me instead of just being a disembodied voice. And then we have a dedicated web page that has the video on it, along with some information about the water bonds valid issue. We also have started a series of social media posts, which will send people both to that web page and then sometimes give them a little snippet of the video as well. And then we’re also looking at doing possibly like something like a Facebook live, where we can invite members of the community to come and watch it and hear the presentation and then type in their questions. So

So part of my question that you didn’t get to hear because you were kicked off was is it going to be aired on Channel eight and 880 and is going to be on the YouTube channel for one month public?

Yes, it is on the YouTube channel. Yes, thank you for bringing that up. And yes, I do plan also to work with OPM to get it on the public access channels. Yes. Yes. All of those things. And any other suggestions you have, I’m happy to hear.

That’s just the suggestion. I always make.

Say it’s a good one. It’s a good one. use our resources. Thank you. Manager.

Rogers that question for me. I don’t know.

Oh, Tara. Yeah.

You know, the typical thing the public thinks about is when they’re both voting for a bond issue is the question always gets asked whether they understand it or not, will the rates go up? If I vote for it? And as I watch what Larry put on there, the rates will stay, the rate increases will be the rate increases, regardless if this bond issue approved or not approved. Is that correct?

I’m gonna let Becky explain. That one she. She’s our numbers, lady. Hello, I’m Betty Doyle. Yes, yes. So we so Council has adopted a five year rate schedule that includes, you know, the contemplates the issuing of these bonds. And so I would say, yeah, the rate, the rates are the rates, they’re already adopted. And those changes will take place. And I think that potentially without the passage of this issue, we may have to revisit it because something has to move, move, whether it’s, you know, either rescheduling projects or then, you know, raising additional funding through through rate increases at that point.

All I’m saying is, you know, I think we ought to be very clear about the fact that rates will not automatically go up because of the approval of the bond issue. That’s not my theme unless I’m reading it wrong, because if people understand the rates are the rates regardless if the bond issue goes through or not. I think that would be

A positive

outcome of approving the bonds. That’s the way I look at it unless somebody can tell me differently, but just make sure that you know when this information goes out, especially wherever you’re putting out people understand that situation.

Yes, I think that’s a key message. Thank you.

Any other questions at this point?

I don’t see any Larry, do you want to keep up? I’m sorry, Marsha. Did you have one?

Um, yeah, this is and I should know this because I already voted to put it on the ballot. But

does the language of the result of that will be on the ballot say without raising your water, broader water rights?

That’s something I should know too. And I will look that up while Larry goes through the PowerPoint. How’s that?

Thank you.

Okay, Larry, do you want to do your prenup?

I had just just so that

people don’t feel like we’re trying to pull something over on him. I think we need to make sure that we preface that with saying there are already scheduled rate increases or rates over the next five years. And that voting for this will not increase it. It’s not that you’ll never have a rate increase. You know, because we’re going to have rate increases. And maybe even I don’t know if you feel comfortable saying that, but if we, if this doesn’t pass, it’s been said that it’ll even out the effect on rates that the effect on rates would be more dramatic actually. So

yeah, that’s exactly right, Kathy. Um, yes. The the passage of the bonds is part of the overall rate structure package that Councilmember Martin and the other members of city council voted for. And so there are structured rate increases over the next five years that have been designed to help pay back the bonds and their interest. But as you said, if if the bonds aren’t approved, then you have to find other funding. Other funding has to be found. You don’t have to find it,

but I don’t want to belabor this but Marsha your language thing, the passage this will not raise your water rates. water rates are already scheduled.

You know, somehow that

that strikes me is

something people would would challenge if you understand what I’m saying. rates are going to increase. And that’s the way it is. And to say they won’t increase. I think that’s

I wasn’t I wasn’t suggesting language Roger, I was just wanting to make sure that it that it I was just curious as to whether we had said that the rate schedule is already fixed, which it does say in this video, and that your vote will not immediately the passage or failure of this bond issue will not immediately affect rates. So, um, yeah, it is it is difficult to explain, but people should understand that it’s not a direct impact on their pocketbook and that and, and yeah, that that having it fail is probably more likely to have an adverse impact on their body. Then then having it succeed.

Well, and with the speaking point to be something more like passage of this bond will help keep rate increases in the near term to a minimum. Um, you know, rather than no rate increases, because there are scheduled, but say, Hey, this is your trade off, it’s between a small rate increase and a big rate increase.

Exactly if something happens.

True. Yeah.

Any other comments? All right, Larry. Looks like we’re ready for the presentation.

All right, thanks. I think those are really, really good comments.

It is covered to some extent on the PowerPoint presentation. And in fact, the presentation mentions a lot of things that were in the video but I think gives the presentation probably does give an opportunity for those questions to be answered. As we go out to the, to the public different citizen groups, we can try to make that clear as we’re going through this presentation. So, again, I think we’re, we can go on to the next slide.


So, uh, let me try to

get my stuff in sync. So, and the valid issue for voter presentation or consideration. It is something again, that we will inform the citizens that it was unanimously passed by city council at the August 11. Meeting to place this ballot issue on or ballot issue on the water bond issue on the ballot for November. And we do mentioned we will mention that the bonds are part of a five year rate structure increase that was adopted by Council in 2019.

Next slide.

The reason for the

putting the bond on the ballot, it is required by city charter. Again, this bond will not create any new taxes is not subject to the Tabor amendment because there are no changes in taxes and also the water utility is a enterprise fund. So they are exempt from the Tabor. The water bond is needed to implement several large projects that we have identified through previous master planning we’ve done. There was a plan that was done in 2013. And then a update of that master plan in 2019. All the projects that we’ve identified that are high priority projects have been included in this bond election.

The next slide.

So why does the city want to issue these bonds?

Again, the bonds by issuing bonds, we can control the rate increases on on the citizens and keep them lower than what we have scheduled in what have already been adopted by the city in 2019. So if we can issue the bonds the rate increases that have been adopted, already adopted. will not be impacted.

And next slide

will the bonds are really our our effort to try to maintain the the efficiency and reliability of all of our water supply infrastructure

in to maintain the quality of water that we provide to the citizens.

The largest input and most significant project that is included in there is the Nelson Flanders water treatment plant expansion. Again, it was constructed in started operation in January 2006. It is the primary treatment plant for the city. It is upgraded year round when we designed, planned and designed this plant, we actually had planned for expansion of this plant plant to 60 million gallons per day. And that was also included in our Boulder County permit. Because we’re outside the city in unincorporated Boulder County we had to go through a activities of state interests permit or what is referred to as a 1041 permit. At that time we actually included in that permit that we would be able to expand the capacity of that plant up to 80. Although we have anticipated that we will only need to get it up to 60 in the future. That expansion is actually a little bit misleading because we’re not actually expanding total capacity of our system. We have two treatment plants. The wait gas water treatment plant is a plant that was built in 1983. It is really A standby treatment plant. But it has experienced a lot of issues primarily structural issues it is in older plants. I’ll talk about that a little bit more. But we are actually just replacing the capacity of that weak yadus plant by expanding treatment at Nelson Flanders. There are other projects that we’ve identified through our master planning. The next highest priority project is our 7 million gallon price Park storage tank, located just north of sunset golf course. The other we have identified other projects that are high priority but at this time we haven’t determined umpire to have those projects. We have transmission lines, we’ve got storage tanks that need to be addressed over the next five to 10 year period. Probably then, One of the bigger project is also another storage tank. Montgomery take it is a 6 million gallon tank. It was built in 1967. We also have transmission lines that we will need to adjust in the near future. One of them being the North st grain pipeline that brings water down from Ralph pipes reservoir. So, those projects will be in addition to the price park in Nelson Flanders will be looked at closer over the next year or two and we will make the decision on which ones will be the highest priority to implement in the near future. But definitely Nelson Flanders will be something we need to address in the next year or two, if we can. Next slide. So talking a little bit more about the treatment plants The current estimate for expanding Nelson Flanders is around $40 million. We do have cash on hand, but we don’t have enough to complete that project. So proximately 40 million from the bond election is what we will need in addition to what we already have in our water fund. To implement that project, it will be implemented as a design build project, very much similar to the way we constructed the original plant. It is a different type of delivery method that we use compared to what is traditionally done as a where you design a project, then you bid it out, and then contractors will submit bids on it. We’ve found that a design build delivery is probably the most effective way to to implement very large projects. It also has the ability for us to control some costs during the project life. So it is because of the bonds and the limitation we have. It’s probably the most effective way to go.

I think there’s a question.

And yes,

I’m wonder what’s exactly meant by design build delivery, I may be the only one who doesn’t know. You’re.

So start out with a traditional, what we refer to as a de the the project. And that’s basically what I had mentioned it, we usually retain a engineer who goes and designs a project, then we advertise it for bidding, and then contractors will look at the design and then estimate what it will cost to build it. And then they submit their bids. A lot of people think that’s the most cheapest way to do a project. But once you get into very large projects, especially projects that are more complex, it’s, you don’t really get the benefit of having a contractor work with the engineer. So that’s what a design build delivery method is. Rather than having one contract with the engineer in one contract with a contractor, we have one single contract that is composed of a team of engineers and contractors working together. So a contractor can actually suggest to an engineer some ways or some changes to a design that would be more cost effective. You get a lot better communication between engineer and builder. And you actually have a collaborative effort between the engineer, the builder and the owner. So you get a lot of you derive a lot of benefits, you actually get cost estimates as you’re going through the design to so at early phases, if you see that the cost of the project is getting beyond what you believe you can spend, you can adjust the design to control your costs. That’s very different than in a design bid build delivery method in which you get a bid submitted by a contractor. There’s really no opportunity at that point to really save any costs, because the design has been completed already. So is very difficult. In fact, you end up with change orders, generally Really, on the order of 5% is foot an average cost of change orders is on a traditional design bid build project. On the Nelson Flanders project, we actually stayed within a $60 million budget for the water plant in our pipelines, we actually saved $3 million. That was reinvested in other improvements on the project. So we feel that that’s really the the one of the better methods to use for construction.

Thank you.

Another question.

Yeah, Larry, This is Todd.

One question on the $40 million estimate. Have you done like a 30% design of the expansion or, you know, I think usually you do a certain level of design before you bring the contractor on I’m just curious how far along you are in the design and how kind of sure you are of that. Right. And that that 40 million would kind of cover the expansion that you’re talking about.

We we normally when we’re doing planning master planning work, it’s a much more conceptual level estimate. That was what was done in the 2013 master plan. We did an update in 2019. First of all to update the prot, the project costs that were identified in the 2013 study. And also, we get a much more detailed cost estimate for the water plant. I would say it’s generally in the 30% range. There’s several things that have happened over the last five to 10 years. There, we were starting to see a lot of escalating constant construction with the amount of activity that was going on. In since the virus has changed a lot of things, there is going to be a little uncertainty as to what that impact is going to be on construction. That’s another reason for us going with a design build delivery method is that because there are some things that are a little bit uncertain, we can identify with those costs, how those impact design as we’re at the 30% design at the 60% die design in at the final design. So those things will know as we develop the project.

And, Todd, I’d also like to add real quickly that this particular plant expansion when the original plan was built, the flat chambers and the said chambers, how to get a pipe gallery basically wasn’t a separate the The other half of the plant. So in essence, the plant was almost designed as part of the first plant construction. We’re just mirroring on the other half. And so typically you would be looking at a new design, whereas in this particular instance, we really are just, we already have a plant there. We’re just mirroring. So that that makes a little bit of difference in this.



Can you hear me Can? Yes. It’s kind of an unrelated curiosity question. Since we treat lions water for them, how are they involved in any cost changes that we’re experiencing now. Expanding the plant, if at all.

Happy little bit Becky add to this answer. But in essence for the town of lions, for all the taps, essentially they pay on a tab by tab basis. They bought into the original plant that is out there right now, for their base water capacity for 80 90% of the apps they have. Then as each plant, new tap is issued by the town lions, once a year, we aggregate that and charge them for the cost of essentially the same as a tap we would do in Longmont, you pay per tap that’s added. And as time goes on, as they add new development or new taps, they’re actually quite a ways down. They’re getting fairly built out so they don’t have a whole lot left to go. But as they go, they’ll basically pay for new tabs. And so that gets them into the system that helps build that portion of the plant that they use for capacity. And then every year when they when we treat the water form and goes to them, we do a calculation of every bit of the system. And that even includes things like button rock and, you know, a raw water source to get the water to the plant as well as treatment of the water at the plant and sending the water to them. So they pay 100% of the cost of treating their water on a day, on a month by month basis as as that water is treated for them. So yeah, they fully paid for their portion.

All right, thanks. I’ll turn it back over to Larry. Sorry, Larry.

Oh, no problem.

I don’t know if Becky had any more to say but I think that really

covered it. Okay.

All right. So

this slide is really

to emphasize That, you know, a yes vote versus a no vote what the impact would be on a yes vote, we would have the $80 million bond election, the rate increases that have already been adopted would not change. And we would be using our existing balance, fund balance on a no vote. There’s no bonds, the adopted, adopted rates would be would have to be increased from what they already have been approved and adopted by the Council. And we would still be using our existing fund balance. So it does impact a no vote does impact the current adopted rates and they would have to rate be much higher than they are currently.

The next slide

So again, our arguments

for the funding request really avoids the rate spikes. And it keeps our rates predictable, distributes the cost between the current and future users in it makes the needed improvements. Now, short term repairs would only postpone the need for the improvements in the future. So trying to delay the bond really doesn’t save us anything. And in fact, we would be spending money to make short term improvements that would later be have to be scrapped and replaced again so we would be spending more money in that scenario. Next slide.

The arguments are Against, again, the costs, it’s going to cost, it would cost more over time with bond interest. The city should not have to go into debt, that would be an argument against the bond. And this is not the right time to spend money. So that could be an argument based on everyone’s concerned of where the where we are in the economy right now, in short term repairs could extend the life of the system, although we would need to make repairs or make these improvements at some point.

The next slide is really

some reference references for getting more information. And that’s, I believe, pretty much the end of the presentation. So I’d be happy to answer any other questions that you may have.



Hi, thank you so much. I really appreciate you taking the time to do presentation and we all set out and I thought the video was very well done. Quick question. One thing that I heard in the video and I apologize, I’m not gonna be able to get this quite right. But one of the messages that I heard was that because of the emergency, this was a particularly important time to address the situation. Um, whereas I heard in your presentation, Larry, the argument being that because of the COVID-19 epidemic, life is unpredictable and now is not the right time. So I kind of heard cross messages, one going in one direction, the other going in the other and I was kind of hoping someone could speak to that.

Jennifer Yeah,

yeah. Yeah. Thank you, Alison. appreciate that question. So you’re right that you heard both of those points. And actually the way that we’re trying to put those across one of the requirements of presentations like this that we do is that we do need to include arguments for and arguments against. So throughout the video, a lot of the point that we try to make is that our having a quality, safe, secure, reliable water system, clean water stuff is always important. And it’s even more important. Now it becomes even more of a necessity during something like this. So it’s not that the need for it’s not that the need for the upgrades has happened because of COVID. It’s not anything like that. It’s just that you know, it’s always important and we become more aware of it and become more conscious of it. During this time, and so saying that now’s not the right time to spend the money, those are that’s part of the arguments against. So that’s what someone who was against this bond issue might say.

Does that answer your question?

Yeah, I think so. And I completely I think that those are both excellent points, I guess. Um, and I apologize, I don’t remember them off the top of my head. And I thought it was really useful to have the arguments for and then the arguments against I just don’t recall seeing both of those on both sides in the video.

Right. Okay. Yeah, um, you know, what they were, I don’t know that there is an art. I don’t know that there is an argument that says it’s more important than ever, that we make these upgrades because of COVID. But there is an argument saying that it’s important to keep our water system clean, safe, reliable, during this time, you know, always important but also during this time, we become more aware of it. And then there is an argument, you know, that an argument against would be that people I would say

we shouldn’t spend any money right now.

So yeah, so you won’t see them as parallel argument. Not like because of COVID, we should because of COVID we shouldn’t do you won’t see them that parallel.

The force and against don’t really work out quite that balanced on everything’s.

And if you want to see those, again, those arguments, the video and those arguments are on that water bond. webpage Loma collider.gov, slash water bonds, water hyphen bonds, sorry.

Okay, thank you. I want to thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

The one I guess that hit me in the presentation that I think needs to be highlighted in my mind is you’re really talking about replacing aging infrastructure. Versus the way I was kind of wording it is, you know, if you don’t bond it, you may not have the money to do the replacement. So they You’re doing repairs to infrastructure that’s past its useful life. And then that also plays into meeting regulations. And later I know you have that in there. But I mean, if you kind of boil it down to that, it’s, you know, you’re gonna spend, you know, kind of good money after bad trying to put band aids on things that are, you know, really past their useful life when you’re going to have to replace them anyway, now’s the time to do the replacement. So it just seemed like that, you know, in a nutshell, is kind of what was the take home for me, in terms of the reason for the bond issue? Anyway, any other questions or comments for staff on this? Great. Well, thank you guys. I appreciate that. Thank you, Larry. And thank you, Becky. Jennifer, thank you for all your work on this. It really looks good.

Great. Thank you so much for having us. If you guys think of more things, you know how to find us. Thank you.

Thanks. Thanks. Okay, we’re on item seven agenda revisions and submission of documents. Are West Do we have any revisions or submission of documents?

No, I don’t have any submissions. I do have one small revision on the items from staff on the windy gap firming project. We had hoped to be able to bring that actual final allotment contract, but it wasn’t quite ready yet. So we was just going to do a verbal update. And unfortunately the agenda didn’t reflect that if you had left the wording on there that asking board the board for a recommendation that council actually won’t be asking for a recommendation from to Council on when you got farming project allotment contract. We’ll just give you a verbal update and then we’ll come back later with that allotment contract.

Okay, thanks, Ken.

Next item is development activity which doesn’t look like we have any this month is that right was

That’s correct. Okay.

Okay. On now on to nine a which is General Business. And the first item or the only item under that is the Climate Action Task Force recommendation comments for counsel. Maybe I can give a little background for Allison’s benefit. And I know Renee wasn’t able to make last meeting. We talked about that and made some recommendations, I think is the board and the thought at the end of the meeting was we would try to come up with some language after the board meeting that could then come back to to the board. I even thought there was some good counsel prior to this meeting, but the language is included in the packet. So I don’t know if staff if you want to walk through that in more detail, Francey if you’re going to do that, but just a little kind of context of what what’s been done there. So yep, thanks. Heather’s bringing up the language. So fancier does someone want to kind of walk through that the language and Then we can, at that point, get a vote from the board on whether it’s adequate or if we want to make any changes prior to going into Council.

I would be happy to walk through it. And Todd, thank you again for providing your feedback and comments. We decided we tried to build this section out based on the kind of the feedback that was given at the last water board meeting. So the first paragraph on why the water members president voted down on the recommendation, and that was primarily because waterboard believed that there was an analysis, analysis needed of environmental, economic and social impacts before kind of stay in such extreme conservation measure. And then kind of highlighted a number of concerns. The second paragraph, that way board members felt that it was important to acknowledge kind of the past work that Longmont has done. So we’ve highlighted a little bit of a history of that when the first water conservation plan was had passed. And I believe, I think it was Roger who might have told the story about level one, how we stayed in a level one drought response, and why other cities wants to level two and three drought response during the 2002 drought. So highlighting how water past water supply planning for long what has gone well. And then the last two paragraphs, just current requests that in a an evaluation of a more ambitious water evaluation of the more ambitious water conservation drought response school, in the process of doing that, and essentially proposes that staff complete analysis within 12 to 18 months of city council direction instead of accepting what the climate taskforce have proposed

kind of

give staff some time to do a more thorough analysis

and this will be going to city council next Tuesday.

I have

I really is that

I’m I actually don’t know if the city council packet for next Tuesday has gone out yet or not Heather. I think it goes later tomorrow or Wednesday so we we can get this information when they fire make sure before we voted that we there was time for some adjustments. Yes. And this this will go with all the Climate Action Task Force recommendations and all the advisory board feedback. And so it won’t just be talking about the water conservation recommendation at the next

city council meeting.

Thanks for ante in Ellesmere for your benefit, the the original recommendation was that we would try to get 35 to 40% reduction in demands as part of this, but there really wasn’t any kind of detail or background proposed. So that as you can see kind of plays out in our recommendation of, you know, if you do want to go to that level, we need to kind of prove it up and guess with that, Marsha, do you have something you wanted to speak to there?

Yeah, I just wanted to add that the

Climate Action Task Force evaluation committee didn’t approve of this either the the recommendation was submitted with no analysis

in support of it other than,

you know, well, with no analysis

in support of it at all really.

I guess Marsha, one of the questions will be, you know, when it goes to the council, You know, does the council want to have higher levels of conservation? If so, you know, then the staff can do additional analysis. So that I guess is what we’re asking for, maybe the council to come back with is, yeah, you’d like to explore higher levels. And then staff can do that work. I mean, so it seems to me that’s kind of one of the inputs that needs to come back is this goes to Council is, do you want to go beyond the 10% savings that is in it’s kind of codified or included in the current planning? If so, staff can do that. And then we can build actual higher level conservation, knowing what the impacts are to the different kind of aspects, economic, environmental, all those items, and then it can be the appropriate level can be determined. Anyway, so it seems to me that still needs to be kind of maybe brought back or approved by Council.

Yeah, first of all, Todd, I can’t speak for the rest of the council so they could very well you know, react to this thumbs down by by asking you guys to do more work. I did not recommend that having you know, having been on the water board and knowing first of all the good experience that Longmont has had with ongoing conservation. And second, knowing that


recommended that are substantiated by other recommendations will have a tendency

to be conservative over water

and and help the current process Maybe continue to exceed expectations. I don’t think that this that it’s needed at this time. But it’s always possible that despite that recommendation, and despite the board’s recommendation, that the council could vote to do more analysis. So I can’t promise you anything. Other than that, if the council votes that way, then I can work to make sure that the recommendations are specific.

Okay, thank you. I guess with that being said, I don’t we could walk through or if anybody has any comments or questions on the materials that were provided. Ellison, do you have something? Yeah, I

did. A point of clarification, when I was looking through the board packet, I didn’t know what the four thumbs down meant. So I have a note to self to ask what that meant.

In my in France, you can jump in here but we basically had to like the The recommendation of the board’s who had to review a portion of the task force recommendations had to either approve it, come back with comments or deny it. And I think we felt like we, you know, the proper thing to do was deny it with and kind of qualify that, of why we were denying it. And you know, then go back. And if they want to give more detail, we can react to that differently. But that was the reason I think we were more or less, we had to make a read, basically a thumbs up thumbs down, or I guess they had a sideways vote. And we decided to do the thumbs down on the current recommendation for the reasons listed, and then say, hey, if you do want to have a higher level of conservation, great, we’re more open to it. We just need to do a ditional analysis and figure out what’s feasible and what the impacts are.

Yet that that was a very good explanation, Todd. And I just want also want to clarify when it goes to city council, it’s going to say four do not approve so that it’s very clear to city council. That’s just how we made the voting process easier for the board.

there any other questions, comments? And then I guess if there’s any specific recommendations on the language that was in the packet.

Greg, Kathy,

so are we saying we want to finesse this statement, which I thought was good to say that if city council wants more analysis than staffel do more analysis, or it almost seems as if we’re saying that that is going to happen? The maybe I’m not reading it correctly, but it my interpretation was that

that we were recommending

more study and analysis. The waterboard was recommending that

did I think, the way I read it and what I remember is, you know, we more or less, say have more ambition, ambitious water conservation and drought responsible if necessary. So if the council believes that’s necessary, that will require the, you know, the unnecessary analysis of those, you know, to reach that level, what measures are required, and then what the impacts are. So that’s kind of was mentioned earlier, in my mind, I think we need to kind of go back to the council and we’re willing to do it, but they needed to find Do we need to go to a higher level or not? is I think kind of how, but but I understand the confusion. So I don’t know. Marcia, did you have a thought on on how well

yeah, I would say the taskforce.

The committee,

the water conservation committee of the task force did not present any supporting evidence wide this

this level of conservation was necessary.

You know, essentially they said, the windy gap, the chimney hollow reservoir will never be built in climate changes happening, which, you know, one is pure speculation and the other one was taken into account by the analysis done by the staff and board already. So they didn’t present any data based evidence for what recommendation that they were making. I believe that the council discussion already understands that. And, you know, unlike some other areas where conservation measures can be replot can be applied in a pretty pretty serious and successful water conservation is going on.


you know, just like a lot of the other recommendations of the Climate Action Task Force are already in the city’s sustainability plan. You know, there were recommendations that were presented that are not in the sustainability plan. And some of them are fairly aspirational, but they are supported by data analysis from the outside. So this one kind of stands alone as being hard to defend.

I doubt very much that we’ll see the council.

Now, that’s what I said before. I doubt that we’ll see the council asked for additional analysis at this time, but if they do, you know, what, what I can do is have the facts at hand and and ask them to be specific In their recommendations, and that’s the best I can promise.

Okay, are there any other questions or comments?

Looks like he has something to say.

Yeah. Yeah, I don’t know if it’s helpful.

To the last paragraph it says Water Board proposes that staff complete this analysis within 12 to 18 months of city council direction. Would it be helpful to address your cafe your comment by saying, If city council thinks a more ambitious water conservation goal? Should it be achieved? What Ben waterbar proposes that stuff completed analysis, so it’s very clear.

Yeah, that’s perfect.

That’s I just feel like we need to qualify it a little bit.

Out agree with that, as well. Rene, I know you know, this is your kind of bailiwick. Do you have anything you want to add? on this topic?

No, I, I read through the statement and it seemed to cover things very nicely. I actually like the the CounterPoint statement that’s available now. Um, I, I get and this is kind of reiterating stuff that I, I sent along an email to Todd, for last month’s meeting, to the effect of Wow, 35%. That’s magic number. Because that number isn’t terribly realistic to me. And I think that’s one of the things that it’s important to have a SMART goal. There’s an acronym there, and I don’t know all the parts, but one of the middle parts is attainable. And so an attainable conservation goal is worthwhile. Now, if the city wants to take more action through the climate Task Force, that’s great. Um, but I think that that’s a case where the existing conservation plan should be the guideline. You know, and so if they’re like, Okay, this is the conservation goal, and we want to go a bit higher than that. Okay, but it does need to be attainable. This one is not. And I think when you have a goal, okay, well, conservation is also been working. That’s the other thing too. It’s not like, you know, conservation has been making these steady decreases in use over the years. And that’s great. And then if you have this huge unattainable goal, suddenly, he’s great steady decreases or a failure, then that was where I was kind of like, no, let’s not set up conservation for any sort of thing where somebody can point and say, oh, they’re not doing it.


they’re just doing it realistically. I did like the thing in the statement where you guys talked about, or we talked about affordability, too, because if you start really reducing water use, you’re going to have to increase your fixed charge, which is going to hit low income customers in a way that they’re not going to be able to adjust and roll with that. I also think, from my work with the Climate Action Group, Colin’s when I was on the city staff there as a conservationist, looking at climate action stuff for the city, water increase was actually one of the possible, I don’t wanna say goals, but one of the possible side effects of other goals. So you know, you can also think about heat island effect. One of the ways to adapt to climate change is to plant more trees. Now, I’m not always in favor of planting trees in cities. But when you do that, you actually have the potential of taking your water use up. And I think that speaks to the point where water use is so integral to so many things. And so I think we need to also keep that in mind for the task force is that you know, if you want to make these big goals, there might be trade offs. Because the other thing the trade off is if you’re going to really reduce water use, you could actually increase heat island effect by killing trees. That’s not good. So there’s a lot to it, but I Definitely support the statement as is.

Marsha, did you want to?

Well, yeah, I just I just wanted to say some of the other recommendations do in fact get to what Renee was talking about. They don’t say plant fewer trees, they say, do soil conditioning for improved carbon sequesteration, which has a side effect of making plants grow with less water. And, you know, there there are some conservatory recommendations that don’t put us in at an apocalyptic level of consumption, which this would. Okay,

so, we need a, I guess, recommendation to Council of the statement. I like Kathy’s recommendation, Francine. I think you captured it very well with that additional sentence at the beginning of the last paragraph. So I guess I would throw that out of if everybody’s okay with that. If we want to get a motion to approve the statement with that one addition. Does that make sense? Are there any questions, comments? Looks like that’s okay. If it is we need a motion to approve the climate action report comments with that one, I guess with with frequencies language included,

I can briefly share my screen if that’s helpful as well. Go ahead.

Buy does that am I sharing the right screen? Sure.

So it’s just this right at the end here.

Any thoughts, questions, comments on that? And I cannot see everybody so if anybody has a thought they need to speak Go.

I think that looks good. I’d be comfortable with making a motion

to send the song to council with their particular language. Second,

motion a second. Is there further discussion?

Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.

Hi. Opposed.

Okay, that carries

the next item we’re on to item 10. A which is the button rock preserve management plan update. is Danielle gonna give that presentation?

Yep. Okay, Daniel. Hi. Um, I don’t have the ability to share the document Heather because I’m joining you on my phone. Otherwise my screens too glitchy. So this is the document that should have been in your packet. So your board members should have had a little chance to review it. But if not, I’m gonna just go through it with you. Now, it’s pretty brief. And just kind of remind you of where we are at. So we embarked on the button rock management plan process in February 2019. And it’s two year process. So we hope to finish up the document in December of this year. And the purpose is to gather baseline data of what we have out on the preserve in terms of natural resources and then just get a sense of visitor use and then to make recommendations

as to

visitor use natural resource protection and all the various things that are going to go into the plan. So in terms of public process, we have had to public meetings, the first in June 2019, and the second in November 2019. And we’re looking at having a third public meeting in October of this year. And that’ll be virtual where it will probably be something like us recording ourselves and the public getting a chance to make comments, ask questions and facilitating it in that way. The other piece is we are working with three advisory boards. So you water board as well as sustainability board and the parks and recreation advisory board. So we’ve been coming to you the advisory boards periodically throughout this time when we meet when we are at critical junctions in the project and to just keep you in the loop. So we’ve had three public surveys throughout the process and we just completed our third public survey. We don’t have all the comments compiled. So I’m not going to go into the comments. But I am going to just give you a sense of what questions were asked, and what the public is seeing out there. So first of all, and as just a reminder, our last public survey, we had 1000 people participate. And this is this is when we had surveys posted up at the trailhead, and we had things online and then the pandemic hit for this survey, but we still had over 800 831 people responded online to this public survey. So I feel like we still got a really good public response to this survey that we had open for summer. So I’m just going to go through the questions and then we can talk about them. So we wanted to know where people were from 74% who participated when From Longmont and so none of these questions were required not everybody answered every question. So, of the respondents 160 people skip this question. So to alleviate parking pressure at the preserve, would you ride a shuttle 72% said no and 28% said yes. And then we are saying to the public that our goals for button rock preserve, as it is a preserve is to protect our drinking water supply. Number one, protect surrounding ecosystems including healthy forests, so that watershed, the local watershed, and then thirdly, to provide limited sustainable recreational opportunities to the public. So then the question was phrased research indicates that when humans are accompanied by dogs both on and off trail their area of influence, including noise scent, trash, increases, impacting wildlife behavior and movement. How would you feel if an DOD policy was instituted. 64%, who answered strongly disagreed, and only two people skip this question. So everybody wanted to participate in this one. So 64% disagreed with the no dog policy. 25% strongly agreed with it, and 11% of respondents were neutral. Then the next question beginning in 2021, staff recommends eliminating the button rock fishing permanent fee. Once in effect, anglers will only need to carry a state license instead of both the button rock permanent estate license. Do you agree with this recommendation? And, again, only two people skip this question 48% strongly disagree with getting rid of the special button rock fishing permits 30 are neutral and 22% strongly agree. Five visitation is overwhelming the preserve staff recommends dispersing use and limiting overall visitor numbers by charging fee a fee on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Between the Memorial Day and Labor Day. Do you agree with this strategy? 55% answered, Yes, 28 maybe and 17% No. And then, if you agree with dispersing or limiting visitor numbers, what would be the best way to accomplish this. And so then you can see the chart that was presented on the on the survey with the green and the orange.

And so we were just trying to get a sense of people would prefer to pay for time that they visit, or they’d rather buy an annual pass, or they’re a senior and they want to buy an annual pass, or they don’t support the fee. So 35% wanted to pay per time, 26 annually, another 27 annually, that would be in the senior category and then 12 don’t support doing this and didn’t pick any of the other. And then in terms of comments, you can see here the most number of The highest number of comments came in about dogs than hiking than the fee that we’re, we would propose them parking trails, fishing cars and bikes. So one thing that I want to say is I presented this, these findings to parks and rec board last week. And they had some questions about the fishing permit fee. So question number four. And I think what’s not clear from this question is some of the details behind this so that the fee that the reason that staff is recommending eliminating the fee is because we are working with Colorado Parks and Wildlife, one of our partners on this project, they’re on our technical advisory committee, and they are saying if we can go ahead and get rid of this Additional permitting process, they’ll have the ability, and they will stock more. You know, and that would be a benefit to the angling public at button rock. And also what’s not known in this question is that the fees from this additional permit, don’t go back into button rock. And the other reason staff would be recommending this is just because it is a lot of administrative work for the Ranger arrangers that that work up there, especially for dollars that don’t go back into the preserve. So, so those are some of the things that went into that and that wasn’t necessarily clear from a short question on a postcard to the public. So I’m happy to take any questions.

Okay, thank you, Danielle. Are there any questions, comments on the presentation or the survey?

Go ahead.

How much of Wait, do the surveys give to staff or to counsel or whomever about? You know, for instance, the dog ban or potential dog behind or the fees and so forth. I mean, I think it’s great. It’s interesting to see these

but if

staff thinks that there’s a a dog ban would help him you know, water safety, etc. Would you know, I guess maybe Marcia can answer this. What? How, how do you think

we could proceed?

Well, I can I can give you an answer, but I can wait. I can let let Marcia speak first. Um,

yeah, I was actually gonna offer to let you speak first and Danielle, okay. But since I’m speaking

I was going to say, taffy that

I do not believe that this survey is binding on the waterboard or the council at all. We do public engagement, to find out what the public is thinking. But during the summer of COVID, we have found that, that the public has not been reasonable or prudent in their use of our natural amenities, or any of our outdoor amenities at all. And I believe that to be the duty of the board and the council to protect our critical resources, whether the public likes it or not. So, um, you know, again, I don’t speak for the council when they vote, but I would vote for a dog band no matter what, if you guys recommend it.

So to answer from the The project perspective of the button rock management plan if, if, Heather, could you share the survey one more time? So we could look at question three please. I just want to say that the whole time we’ve been doing this project and we will continue to reinforce this messaging of this this framework that we’re trying to come at this planning process from where and when we when you’re at a public meeting, you’ll see the graphic and I maybe should have put it in this but I didn’t. It’s an upside down triangle where the biggest pieces up there on top protect drinking water. Number one, not just the goal of button rock reserve, that is why Longmont has button rock Preserve. And then number two medium on the upside down triangle would be protecting surrounding ecosystems, the local watershed, the forests, the riparian areas, etc. And then third, the smallest piece of the triangle And the third goal down below the other two is the recreational the visitor use piece. So we are looking at that within that third section of the triangle which comes below the other two. Right. And so when the public is responding to these surveys and things, it’s important that the public gets to voice their opinion. But it’s also important and it’s our job to make it clear that this is a Preserve. And number one and two are the goals, the main goals of the preserve, and also additional benefit. We offer limited recreational opportunities at the preserve. So hopefully that that context helps a little bit. It’s something that I want to drive home to the public and continue to work on.

Daniel, one question I have so you know, Marshall mentioned with COVID a lot more people maybe out and about in the natural areas. What has happened We had presentations previously with regards to dogs and some of the issues there. I mean, has it been a lot worse this year given, you know, the number of visitors and the people out there just Can you give us a, an update. So, you know, we kind of have a context of what the current situation is.

I can give you some anecdotal information in just speaking with miles. Churchill, the Ranger up there.

People have been doing a good job.

Staying in line with the interim dog regulation that is one dog per person on the leash with a pickup bag in general people have been behaving and following that rule. Some of the exceptions to that we have have had wildlife cameras up. And so we have what some observations that we have seen in the couple of months that we’ve had the camera up and collecting data and the counts we’ve done. There. There have been some people just letting their dogs off leash, especially up in the meadow on the sleepy lion trail, and some repeat offenders doing that activity. And it’s something that before we put this rule in place that the public was allowed to do. And, you know, a lot of people don’t like the rule. So they just, they’re continuing to do it. But but it’s not a lot of people. It’s, it’s a handful of people that are doing that and a handful of repeat offenders. And then in terms of what we’ve seen since the pandemic in general, throughout the summer months, especially when things were starting to open up again, so maybe late May and throughout June, we were having a lot of pressure on our parking lot. So we were having the parking lot fill up early in the morning, especially on weekends and even on weekdays, but especially on weekends. So we did divert some additional staff up to button rock to try and deal with that. You know, and the residents were concerned the residents that live alone Longmont damn rode about the extra traffic and the dust that was being kicked up. We worked with the town of lions to get signage, kind of lions has an amber highway sign where they do messaging and they allowed us to share the sign with them for several weekends so that we could tell people when they arrived in Lyons, hey, the parking lots full, you know, turn around here before making the big long drive into there just to find that out. We were doing enforcement along the road. So I would say the main the main thing we were seeing is pressure on the parking lot and people wanting to come come up there but it did die back down in July and we stopped putting extra staff up there in July.

Go ahead Roger.

You’re muted. Roger.

Comment on the fishing license thing. Given our concern about the numbers that are coming up there, I can’t quite understand why we would do something that would increase the number of people coming there, versus just leaving things alone and continuing to issue, you know, fishing license specific to that area. That’s just, that’s just my comment. I think all that will do is, is added the number of people coming up there. So I just wanted to make that comment.

I do think that is a concern that is shared by some of the people that answered that question on the public survey, thinking that if you eliminate that, then you’re not controlling the numbers and it’s gonna allow more people up there. the thinking behind the elimination with some of the things I already mentioned the administration, time it takes for the Rangers when they could be doing other things, the money not going into the project. Working with cpW to

keep the creek stocked the reservoirs. But

also in previous years now this year because of the possibly because of the pandemic has been an exception, we hadn’t been selling out anywhere close at all to the permit limit. So it seems like an unnecessary thing where we would have 500 permits available and we weren’t getting close to those numbers. So that’s

just more perspective for you.

Thank you.


Thank you. Thank you very much for the survey. That was really interesting. And I just want to follow up on Rogers question about the fishing permits. Specifically, is there any issue concerning water temperature as far as fishing like later in the day, such that it would cause some stress to the Fish. So there is a concern regarding overfishing potentially one consideration

could be limiting the efficient to the earlier hours when it’s cooler.

That’s an interesting thought. I don’t think the phishing program is top of mind in terms of overuse, but it’s definitely something to consider. And maybe David David Bell who’s here might have an additional comment on that but one thing I will say is that you know, after the flood, the the health of the fishery at button rock was devastated. Right. And so we weren’t having the microinverter we weren’t having the health we didn’t have you know, the habitat was destroyed to them. We weren’t having the insects so then you know, the fish populations weren’t healthy, and that is starting to come back. work was done. In Creek and in my Period areas to improve things. And so we are starting to see some benefits from that. An official study where I give you exact data on that is not part of this. It’s outside the scope of what we did in this plan. But that’s just some information for you. And I don’t know, David, if you have anything to add there?

I don’t think I do, Danielle. I think on that one. Again, I think going back, almost like you said, Allison to Rogers question was,

was that permit

damping the numbers of anglers up there, and that’s what we were hoping was doing. But we were seeing those permits just sitting there. So we weren’t seeing those numbers even reached with the permit. So having those those permits, there is a way to kind of decrease the numbers as we saw that as an extra administrative piece. It wasn’t really achieving that goal because those permits are just sitting downtown not being used. So we weren’t seeing those big numbers we historically used to so that was one of the reasons that we tried balancing the benefits. That along with the administrative costs as well. The other piece Danielle just wanted to jump out he did Nice job answering Councilmember Martin’s question but the piece out throw in there. The public game to be heard is important, but also as a part of council, I think to know, if there’s going to be a discrepancy between what the public’s looking for the direction staffs recommending and what they’re going to be voting for, what kind of work we a staff have to do, what kind of staffing might we have to put in place to help get that message out? What kind of work? Do I have to do education and outreach? Because if right alignment is probably a pretty easy change, if there’s going to be some resistance, I think it’s important for council to recognize that as they make their vote and then they can direct staff to provide additional resources to help make that change. But to Kathy’s point, I don’t think staff was looking at it as a a direct vote and however the public you know, felt we should management that was not we were looking at we were looking at to give council information. So as they voted, they know they would understand where their their consent You understood?

Exactly. And is it Yeah, in terms of coming from the point in time so that we have this this data in the future? We needed as well.

Go ahead, Marsha.

Yeah. Is

that after this is report is presented?

Is the council going to be asked to give direction on a management or rule change at button rock? Or is this just for the information of the council at this point? Are you contemplating change in how the how button rock is managed? And the other question I have is, is this board the waterboard, going to make a recommendation on any rule on making a rule change such as having a no dog rule or limiting the number of dogs or putting banning people who are caught with their dogs off leash or from the park. I mean, all of those seem like reasonable responses.

Yes, we are coming to Council and we will come to the board before we come to council to ask for decisions on various points we do. We do want to, we do want to recommend consolidating the button rock municipal code and getting it in one place in the code. And so we’re going to go through the various points some of the things you mentioned dogs, etc, and make our staff recommendations and then look for counsel to make decisions on these various points. So yes, this is more than an informational document the purpose of bringing a draft document to boards and Then Council is to get feedback and recommendations and then incorporate that into the final plan.

Thank you and you know, what, what’s the timeframe on? It sounds like give another virtual kind of meeting or public information and then So will it be gonna be next spring or something that you What’s the timeframe on coming back for recommendations? The timeframe

is pretty quickly. We this project has suffered since the pandemic in terms of getting the staff time and attention that it really needs but the goal was always to finish this project in December of this year. So that would mean coming back to boards and coming with a draft to council boards would be September and the council would be October, but I will I will say that you know, there have there has been some time Last due to the pandemic on this project.

Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments?

Okay, thank you, Daniel. I appreciate your the update. That’s good information. Thank you. Thanks. Right. Moving on, we’re at 10 B, which is a, as Ken mentioned earlier now is just kind of a windy gap, forming project update, Ken.

Thank you, Todd. Just wanted to give the board a quick update on the windy gap firming project. We actually had hoped to have our final allama contract today but there are just a couple of small changes to the contract that needed to occur. Part of that is for some of the pool financing lomasa cash financing participants so that it doesn’t impact us directly. But for the pool financing Participants they’re still struggling a little bit with the length of the bond issuance some of my 20 year and someone 30 year and each side has some really good reasons why, why they want what they want. So I think that final detail has to be worked out. But as soon as that happens, then we think we’re literally within a week or so, of having the final allotment contract ready, ready for final review.

As such,

absent anything else, we’ll probably come back to the September Water Board meeting and ask for review and recommendation at that point. It’s entirely possible that it may come a little sooner than that, and I may even ask the chair if it’s fun if it would work to have a special waterboard meeting because we can’t Take the time to do the September meeting. It’s It’s the day before the second regular council meeting in September. So that would postpone us till October for the council action, but I think we’re probably there with the with the scheduling anyway. But if that changes, we’ll certainly let water board know, between now and the September meeting. So right now, it’s most likely that we’ll be coming back to the September meeting for a final recommendation on that. As far as the project itself, probably the most significant item to report is that yesterday, the division five water judge signed the state change case or the decree for the windy gap project, as and that’s probably second only to get in the federal cases. They’re resolved, which obviously, we required to be done. But the State Water court case, as you may recall, involved, really three primary areas involved a lot of there’s a ton of stuff in there. But the three primary areas are one that the project as contemplated is acceptable and within the confines of the original decrees. There are a number of decrees for the windigo parent project. The second is that storage of the water on the eastern slope in the chimney hollow reservoir site is acceptable underneath the decree, and that’s extremely important. And then the third thing was a line for the conductivity channel around the windy gap reservoir on the west slope in the Colorado River can be built it can be built without requiring mitigation, and that it’ll basically leave the Colorado River still flows through the windy gap reservoir. And this conductivity channel is just a diversion around the reservoir and doesn’t constitute a relocation of the, of the Colorado River or, and therefore requiring a change appointed diversion and all kinds of things with the windy gap diversion reservoir and project on the west slope. So really, that that decree is just it’s a great, huge step forward in the project. And I have to I have to really credit the legal team at Northern water in the municipal sub district for moving out that forward. When you understand how much how tender and gentle those negotiations had to be. over decades with the West slope, and to be able to move this project forward was substantially very little opposition in the State Water court. That’s fantastic. So that’s one more thing checked off on our case, really kind of highlighting and putting the spotlight on the federal case. And as really the last thing we need to move forward, the contractor is is moving forward quite well on all the pre work that needs to happen. And last I heard they actually had their cofferdam

have to build a dam

in front of the dam to keep flood from hitting the dam when you build it, and that coffer dam to protect the main dam was big enough it required state engineer’s office review as well. So that that is now I don’t know if it’s been approved, but it’s successfully done. And so that that’s good and basically all the things that the contractor needs to do to kick off the project once we pull up the polygon and you know, the Federal cases done and we’re able to move forward is happening. So that’s very good as well. So at this point, we’re really just recently, we’re ready to order the one main valve that it’s like a two year lead time on the valve that that was originally approved to move forward last August but finally got the bid from the from the firm the builders in Germany. It’s probably the last of the big things that will kind of allow to move forward. At some point we have to think about how much we’re spending on the pre work before the actual court, federal court case gets done, as well as probably next big struggle or conversation with all the participants in the project. We need to look at that very hard. But really, I think we’re doing quite well. Since we have lowered our participation to 7500. We have 500 acre feet that other participants can pick up. I have had conversations with to the project participants who are looking strongly at picking up that capacity. We’re at the point of where we’re looking at


contract to get that work done. And so I think we’ll be bringing that with the final allotment contract. We’ll be bringing that those two IPAs back at the next meeting with waterboard to review that as well. I’m pretty optimistic that that part will go go through and will be successful. So I think it all seems to be falling into place and seems the spirit the speed, the pace seems to be picking up a little bit right now. So that’s really all I have right now. I’d be happy to answer any questions on the project if there are any.

Thanks, Ken. Any questions for Ken?

I do not see any. Okay. Thank you, Ken. Thank you.

All right. So we’re now on to item 11 items from the board. So we have the major project listings and items tentatively scheduled for the future. board meetings. canner West is there anything we need to talk about on in regards to that?

I have nothing. Thank you.

And I have nothing.

Okay. Item 12 is informational items and waterboard correspondence. It has the prescription take back event on October 24. When the staff want to speak to them,

yeah, so we got an email about that. I’d be

happy to do that. Todd. Can

Yeah, we just that’s an we get an email. on that date every year. waterboard boys asked that we put that date out, I think actually a little bit to help us advertise a little bit. One of the, one of the real critical issues at any wastewater treatment plant anywhere, or pharmaceuticals that end up in the treatment process. Probably one of the hardest things are to take out, you know, in a water treatment process. And so we really like to get it out to our citizens. And we ask anybody that will, you know, send the word out, never flush your your pharmaceuticals down the toilet. If you know once you’re done with them and you know, either take them back most pharmacies now take them back Most of them have takeback bands, you can put them in that you don’t even have to be buying from them. But also the city sponsors once a year, one to make sure that we can take keep as much of that out of the treatment process as possible. So just let all your friends and everybody know that there’s a proper way to dispose of pharmaceuticals. Thank you.

Thank you, Ken. And Heather, did you have something as well?

Yeah, just one additional note on that because of the pandemic this year. They are doing that as a drop off rather than as people taking it to the hospital. It will be at Longmont united hospital again, but they’re just doing it as a drive thru drop off.

Okay. Thank you. All right. Next item is items tentatively scheduled for future board meetings. cash in lieu review. So we’ll revisit that in September. Is that right?


Yeah, well, we’re planning to bring that back in the next quarter September.

Okay. Great. With that that’s the agenda for today. Does anybody else have anything they’d like to say Murcia?

Um, yes, I heard back from Don Quintana and that there is no reason other than the mayor saying no, that we can’t put an additional appointment on the on the next council agenda. So I’m going to request that that will be done.

Thank you very much for looking into that Marsha. I guess with that I first of all like to say thank you and best wishes to Renee in your future endeavors. I wish you were staying in Longmont, but I get the way it works with the work and family so best wishes to you. And then secondly, I want to thank or welcome Allison to the waterboard. Hopefully, you found it interesting. We’ve got a lot of items going right now. So hopefully you can stay abreast and we’ll get up to speed as you kind of go along here. So thank you for applying and welcome to the board.


And with that I’m gonna unless anybody else has anything else, I’m going to go ahead and adjourn the meeting. Great. Thank you

and bye, everyone.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai