Mask Wearing Recommended while at Longmont Public Media. More information here.

Note: Effective October 1, 2021, proof of vaccination is required to enter Longmont Public Media.

Water Board Meeting August 16, 2021

Video Description:
Water Board Meeting August 16, 2021

Note: The following is the output of transcribing from a video recording. Although the transcription, which was done with software, is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or [software] transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the meeting, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.

Read along below, or follow along here: https://otter.ai/u/RRrpYmdLBkLL9Pi0uGOu0R-V_oQ

Unknown Speaker 0:00
We’ll go ahead and call it a meeting or whether you want to do the roll call Mr. Williams here. Allison rule here. Scott Warwick. You’re gradually Tom duster. Can’t use it is out today. Nelson Tipton here. Why slavery here, Kevin Bowden here. francy Jaffe here, Jason Elkins McIntyre’s here, Councilmember Martin, I don’t so before we get further into the agenda, Tom actually sent an email and and i think was a great idea. And I appreciate it. He brought this up as maybe allowing the new board members, Tom Allison Scott to maybe just a few minutes to give kind of your background I think that may help existing board members of older tenured board members to understand that what your background is as we get into compensation so Tommy served with us

Unknown Speaker 1:05
so, yeah, Tom duster, newest board member, and that was the last time and appreciated that so yeah, I’m just a little background myself. I’m a clinical practice assistant professor. Mostly I’m teaching teaching track down see member. So I’m in the geography Environmental Sciences Department. My background, I tends to be more on the water quality side. So my undergraduate degrees, third degree was in like stream ecology essentially. And got my graduate degrees are both in more of the geochemical realm. So more contaminant, transport and water treatment. Those were both through engineering departments, but I’m more on the science side. So let’s see. I teach cu Denver, as I mentioned, in courses like aquatic ecology, aquatic chemistry, soil science, as well as the introductory courses in environmental science and geology. And then I, most my research background is on water treatment, particularly with remediation of contaminants in situ. So that, and wireless water treatment applications or characterization materials for water treatment applications. Really, I should have mentioned that I one of the courses that I’ve taught most recently was on water and Nexus along with rep range. Actually, that was the course where I developed where I finally felt comfortable enough to say maybe I know enough to be on the water board. So that was, that was a course where I decided this might be a good idea. So I’m still gonna do that a lot of stuff around here, of course, but as I think many of us are, it’s never ending, I suppose. But I was really just just lastly, I was really touched last time by this kind of concept of a water kind of mentor, right? Like, I got brought up several times by the people that were parking the whiteboard. If I were an assignment, water mentor, it would be my dad. He was technical engineer for the reclamation for 30 years, mostly building dams down on the Central Arizona Project. So but we, we did a lot of work, or kind of, you know, up from around here, so lots of time up in the mountains and stuff around here. So lots of time, you know, just kind of more you know, just casually I guess exploring the water systems and stuff. So, anyway, thank you for the opportunity to explain this because I I just hopefully something there is a way in which I can help insurance. Welcome and thank you.

Unknown Speaker 4:26
So I guess I was going to go down offline for the quote unquote, new board members to a little overview of their experience in history. So Ellison like to share.

Unknown Speaker 4:36
Yeah, well, Hi everybody. I see y’all in person because of a month ago. So I’m also around here but 95th and Isabel, there still are. So services. When we undergrad study biology came back to Colorado, Colorado. And that’s a lot for the year. I went ahead and got my own right after that focus on natural resource law practice for about nine years and target practice actually worked with Scott some. And about a year ago, I transitioned over to the hotter water trust, which is a nonprofit that basically works on water transactions for environmental purposes and current and work statewide. But don’t focus a lot this year, at least of any other reason.

Unknown Speaker 5:27
Really interesting to Florida.

Unknown Speaker 5:30
And other than this, I love playing soccer with my kids. And they’re great. And thank you. So

Unknown Speaker 5:43
yeah, Hi, thanks, touch on. Thanks for the opportunity. I am the only one I think, I don’t know Rogers background substantially. That is not the local or has grown up in Colorado and an interloper, but I’ve been here for 25 years now. Came to Boulder County in 97 for law school as a second career as a medical sales for a decade before I came and went to law school here. So I’ve been in Boulder County. Since then, I’ve been in Longmont since 2000, about a house in Old Town then. for quite a while and then I’ve been working in lion status for close to 20 years. I started practice in Boulder, a different firm and migrated up to working for blocks in my house, which is pretty cool. And since I’ve been Alliance gas, I’ve been in a water practice. I represent mostly people on entities in Division One, which is assault by basin. So almost all my experiences here locally, Alison’s talking about where she grew up. You know, the first headgate in northern Colorado is right down the road from you right? on 95th and orderly farms were more vulgar. The votes were very conflicting. I was right and we represented our voter for decades. still do. And so I’ve been doing ditch company work and Conservancy district stuff and water district stuff and municipal work for a pretty long time, mostly water rights and a lot of water quality. So all my questions go to Tom. I’ve had the pleasure of working with lots of people to reminisce professional capacity as well as the norm over the years, including David who used to be my wife’s boss, if we’re guiding a group there. So we’ve got a lot of ties to Boulder County as well as the city of Longmont. I served on the Planning Commission, Boulder County for a decade. So almost all of my land use issues are local, almost all my water usage is a regional but I’ve been here for a while and I appreciate the opportunity to be with you all. And now if I have a mentor word from a lot of people, obviously, Jeff Khan is still kicking in our office after practicing for 40 years and NIH is here. Anyone sabbatical tomorrow. So that’s why I was a little bit late. Todd is not looking at his car. He’s not around the mess thought that. very

Unknown Speaker 8:07
disappointing. Scott and Alison might know a little bit about man. Oh, sure. Yeah. I was not born in Colorado, to college, their school lines and then came out to Denver and my career is with the Bell System. I’m a mechanical engineer. And I’ve been on City Council for eight years and has worked for a couple years. That was really my emphasis to get involved. You know, you watch water rates and trying to represent what’s mine is my water expert, and a lot of drink water. And I’m not an expert. I’m pleased that we’ve got this kind of expertise here at the table. So but if you know a little bit about Yeah, I can do super second party, South Dakota. Just like saying, Are you from Colorado? I said long. Rc Boulder. Oh, yeah. north south of Sioux Falls with Yankton.

Unknown Speaker 9:19
In South Dakota, both eastern and western parts. And in fact, my dad failed out of school nights before before actually going on to a pretty successful time to other another college after runaway Vietnam. But yeah, after going away to Vietnam. So you know, growing up a little more, I guess. Yeah, but, but he kept me connected. Yeah.

Unknown Speaker 9:50
I guess if I’ll give you my two minute we’re gonna be board members and my background. So I’m a water resource engineer. I was the Colorado School line. And then actually went to Colorado State and got ambassador from water resource planning management. I worked a little while in consulting engineering and worked for the city of Greeley for about eight years old noise or water resource manager went on to the city of Aurora for a relatively short stint as their Deputy Director of water resources there their Deputy Director, I should say, and then I left it up into a consulting work as well as helping in some family business. And since then, I am just so everybody knows because it kind of plays me at the stain on some items if there’s a boat as I am on the northern Colorado water Conservancy district, municipal sub District Board of Directors as well. So I’m like third, or fourth generation from this area. You heard my grandfather and my dad have followed in the footsteps. Just a quick overview. So, Marsha, we’re just trying to get everybody kind of acclimated since we’ve had a lot of turnover on the board. So

Unknown Speaker 11:02
yeah. Well, I should probably introduce myself because we are going to have a discussion today that originated with the public and the City Council pretty much simultaneously. So I’m Marcia Martin. I’m a word to city council member and the water board liaison, also the windy get participants liaison. I am a an engineer by trade. I’m a software engineer by trade. And I know a lot about renewable energy, not so much water. Because the windy Firmin project was a major issue. In the campaign when I was elected, I studied Colorado water law as hard as I could that summer. And, you know, worried about things like the compact and rights to exhaustion versus rights to use single use rights. So I came in here knowing the basics, as well as the basic points of conservationism. But this board has been Mike and his staff have been my Waterman mentors, because those are big abstracts that are important to know when you’re discussing policy in the city council. But they also don’t tell you nearly enough about the application of those laws. So I have really appreciated the expertise of this board all along. And I’m looking forward to an interesting discussion.

Unknown Speaker 12:42
Because we’ve the COVID situation, we haven’t been able to staff hasn’t been able to reach out like we normally would to the new waterboard members, one of the things that we typically do is go over some of the verdict, Cornerstone documents and such. So before you leave, I have a flash drive that includes a lot of those documents, as well as a majority of the system’s guides to different things, there’s six or eight, there’s a couple that weren’t in there, then I’m just going to give you hard copies. For the two of you, you probably have a pretty good understanding of the Colorado’s interstate compact and some other things we are in the point I’d like to make and send that to you guys. And then if you would like to meet or schedule a time to meet with can and arrive. At some point in the future, we’d be happy to do that. And we just have weren’t able to really do that very effectively. Pre COVID. So growls Oh, I would love to tour. We’re going to talk. Okay, we’re going to talk about that gratefully

Unknown Speaker 13:52
without we’ll get back end agenda here. So item three is the approval of the previous month’s minutes, July 18 2021 minutes. One note there is I mentioned to Heather, and that I think was related to the early Thomas. Final side of that discussion. It was the agreements I had actually had done to reduce get rid of Todd and we’re number duster, and then that same thing was in there later. Anyway, that was one comment that makes a fine pitch. Was there any other questions comments on the meeting minutes? If not, we need a motion to approve the July 19 2021. payments to approve as modified. We have a motion to have a second. LC Ellison second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed Alright, so I’m for the water status report. And it’s the lucky that you know

Unknown Speaker 15:08
the flow of the st. Green Creek at Lyons th today is 63 CFS and the 124 years stork average. This data is 119 CFS, called the same Greg Creek as the nyuad ditch and the number 5631 is a priority date of June 1 1865. Calling the main stem of the South Platte River is for Oregon canal. And then number is 11979 with a priority date of October 18 1882. So st grey basin storage the beginning of August at present Rob price Russ board have been preserved is full and we’re releasing approximate with CFS union reservoirs down approximately 700 acre feet for full and release in 15. CFS. So the call is starting to get more senior. So when that happens, we start making political civil releases. From all that whole. That’s kind of how we use our lower lower water rights that we saw or change decrease. Any questions?

Unknown Speaker 16:23
Any questions when? I say Great, thank you. Thank you. All right. Next item. We have any public invited here. All right. Moving on. So item six is agenda revisions and submission of documents. there anything there?

Unknown Speaker 16:45
All right. I just want to know, typically in August, we do elect officers. However, we didn’t get that on the agenda for this month. So we’re gonna move it up to the September meeting.

Unknown Speaker 16:57
Everybody Okay, with the development activity was done. on Item a, which is the Irwin Thomas horse playground, was coming in, I will start with

Unknown Speaker 17:16
apologize, continuing from last month’s theme, because our firm represents the developer, I’m gonna recuse myself from that conversation. I don’t know if you want me

Unknown Speaker 17:27
to I did last time I don’t. I’m okay with you. If if you’re abstaining, just listening, it’s a public meeting. You’d be able to watch that, but there’s an objection. Okay.

Unknown Speaker 17:38
Anyway. Okay, so I have what what’s been included in the board packet is a kind of an update to the water supply agreement on this property. So in July, the board members reviewed and recommended Council approved to water supply agreements to zero tolerance property. The temporary agreement is still in the form recommended by waterboard. But the longer term reclamation agreement had a minor change. This change was not in the water, lease language, but rather than language pertaining to the responsibility of the parties. So the what’s before you is highlighting that change for you to discuss whether you believe substantive matter changed. Your recommendation to city council, again, what a ring up to the board that originally decided was going to go in front of City Council. Next week, has been postponed until September 14. So at least at this time, the have to bear in mind, this is one element of everything that’s going on with Eric Thomas. There’s it’s related to Costco there’s items related to affordable housing. It’s possible it may continue to be postponed, but as it relates to the water supply agreements, the only change was that which we included in the packet staff didn’t fully believe that it was still substantially in the form of pre buy the board was looking to see if the board concurred with that. If there’s questions I may be able to answer but the ideas that we would bring this also back to the waterboard next month to to look at the only thing taught we talked about I believe I may have this role. I believe the next waterboard meeting is September 20. And then that will be after the September 14, meeting, the City Council. So the board’s not required to take action, you’ve already taken action on this. It was just that there was a small change in the defect, the agreement, because the nature of everything that’s going on with your little disagreement, we wanted to bring this piece in front of the board. To have a discussion. All right. All right up to the boarding.

Unknown Speaker 20:33
Okay, just this looks like some minor changes. I don’t know how significant they are, such as, rather than consultants contain, you’re going to have them are used to all that. I don’t see anything consequential.

Unknown Speaker 20:51
We don’t believe they are. That’s why we believe that it’s still there. agreement issue recommended back in July that they were still at substantively that form. But because there was a different change the change without to bring it back. We don’t believe that this supplier lease agreement in any way. But we just wanted to be 100% transparent as we know it.

Unknown Speaker 21:16
Questions are coming from just a robot and how the procedure called the procedure

Unknown Speaker 21:25
may be looking a little bit dated. But there’s multiple parties that are involved. I don’t believe these are long live related changes. These are changes that were between AI and Golden’s correct. So.

Unknown Speaker 21:47
One comment, I’ve got his I guess what, I’d be curious. I don’t I’m not gonna speak directly to these changes the overall agreement, we have a kind of a temporary history in the mining agreement, and then we have a longer term lease. The longer term lease is 20 years. And I think Longmont has the ability to not redo an extension of that. My question is, if if the intent is is that’s part of the permanent reclamation, when they have to go through and get augmentation plan to ultimately offset that everything losses from the gravel mining if they’re not lining the pit? And I don’t know if that’s the plan or not. But But if it is, I guess my concern is we got a 20 year agreement yet they’re going to be going to waterboard now assume that they waterboard Me want a permanent augmentation source? And then what is that? We have the ability to say no, at that point, I just I guess I’m curious what the thought process was and putting that together. And I don’t know if we need to include been somebody has been more involved in the negotiations on how everything fits together. My concern would be if if this sells to a Hoa or built homes around it 20 years is up and we say we’re not going to extend anything. What are they going to do? If their citizens a lot more? How does that play out? I guess I’m just curious on what what the whole plan is on the longer term agreement. So

Unknown Speaker 23:18
yeah, and so fortunately, I’m not gonna be able to speak to what would happen in every should that whenever the agreement that the long term agreements, the 20 year term agreement, is what it is, and I can I can understand the concern, what happens, should water court ask for something or should they? Should they need something different? But as I understand it all along Bob is going to be able to do at this point was to grant this 20 year agreement. So the background of what the discussions? Yeah, I wasn’t, I wasn’t a party to the party. So to get a flavor for that, I don’t know that that would change the agreement, it may help in your understanding. So how did we get to this point? Well, I

Unknown Speaker 24:17
think there may be two points there. One, it would help in my understanding, too. And I think where we came at the last meeting was if there’s development plans for the project for the gravel pit project, the water board would have the chance to kind of review and approve those. There’s kind of another bite of Apple so to speak. But I would like to know kind of what the long term plan what my concern would be once again, it gets transferred to an HOA, there’s a 20 year agreement, and if that transfer to the HOA happens in the interim, and then if there’s some sort of expiration, do they claim hardship, what do they do and if it’s within the city long line, that that just seems like a glaring hole that I would like to Understand kind of how the pieces fit together. And if we can do that next month to have somebody give us some insight. Does that make sense?

Unknown Speaker 25:08
Yeah. And I would say, unfortunately, you know, people are really more involved with that sell side of the road with the long term redeveloping in my mind and can a lot more on the north side with building open space. And our concerns about augmentation that we’d have to take care of is the space program is where I sat down and talked about more that sellside probably would be a Dale can, you know, the Reggie’s kind of AIP. So I would say, probably push out next week, next month, and having us do a little homework be good way to manage that.

Unknown Speaker 25:38
And I’m fine with that. I just think it’d be important for us to kind of understand how the

Unknown Speaker 25:42
pieces fit together. And maybe what we can do. My dad mentioned, the tentative plans to go to city council and September 20, which was after the war, makes me understand it would be worth it. So that would be not less than two weeks in between the second reading. So we can have a conversation at the staff level. Whether or not it would be available. Whether it would bear to have me meeting before it goes to city kills or there’ll be sufficient to have one at the initial waterboard meeting, if you’re uncomfortable with where this is where the agreement is at this point that it would probably be, I would think it would move to have a meeting before it was planned to go to city council otherwise, I think we could probably have offered to have maybe somebody for the city attorney’s office, to the extent that they will be able to speak there probably be able to speak beyond the half themselves. I don’t know the deal to speak for the goldens or for Costco, right? Yeah, we should we should look into that. Well, I

Unknown Speaker 26:54
think maybe it is one we’re asking the Golden’s and doctors, what property do they have? Maybe they’ve got one right to kind of tie into that long term and alleviate a lot of my concern. But the way it’s written, there’s a big load that’s kind of left out.

Unknown Speaker 27:10
And yeah, I think they do have some water rights that they’re going to propose to be used. But that will be their decision. And I don’t know that I’m free to say what those are.

Unknown Speaker 27:21
And that’s how we’ll have your time as I’m sure we get close negotiations ready. Take it with you whatsoever parties to so if you get a chance to talk to our accountancy, we’re we’re we’re comfortable talking about your industry is good. I’m saying those portions of it. I think Mark had a handle, yeah, we’re

Unknown Speaker 27:39
basically going the same flow. Let’s make sure the city attorney’s office weighs in, because a thing that nobody has mentioned yet is that there could be implied obligations by the city that we just are not taking out of the agreement of are in fact there. So you know, we’re saying what happens if it may be understood by the CIO, but not by us.

Unknown Speaker 28:03
But I’d be great to bring that back next month, I guess in terms of the timing. Marsha, you okay, if it comes after the first board meeting, but prior to that, personally, I am okay. I think that’s fine. Okay. All right. We’re back. Just go ahead.

Unknown Speaker 28:19
Awesome. I concur. I think if you really want to understand the long term plans with that, especially There seems to be a dress degree. And that can be handled in one of two ways more than just cessation of the arbitration plan itself, which seems problematic. And then there would be delayed efficiency talking about that back further for another water rights. But that would have to be really nailed down. So I’d like to understand more about whether or not those are terms and conditions that are being discussed and how they might be included as a part of decretals donation.

Unknown Speaker 28:59
Great questions, and they forget all things that I think are talked about, but I say it again with the mercury so that we can share in cancer, those negotiations, I feel much better. We’re just going to make sure we check with that first.

Unknown Speaker 29:15
I was just wondering, and I know that they’re wondering if we could offer up to see if the representative for the holdings would be interested in presenting because that would be one that I speak on behalf of someone else make the

Unknown Speaker 29:34
agreements written. I think they have that obligation outside of what’s in the name of Walmart. So I think that’s perfect to have them come speak and I will reach out to them and see if they would be but I think you guys understand that. I do so that could be related to them and they can explain that this is how we’re going to address that. I think that would be wonderful. And I think everything everything’s okay, great. So With regards to this view, what do you need from us? For really

Unknown Speaker 30:03
we don’t need necessarily anything. I think what the way we what we did was right was whether you if you believe in still exist in substantially the fourth Primo waterboard your July meeting?

Unknown Speaker 30:18
That’s that’s. Does anybody have any problems with that? It seems like the changes are minor. So we don’t really need anything. All right. That sounds good. So welcome back Scott Hall with me.

Unknown Speaker 30:34
So we’re on to item nine, A, which is a casual discussion. And candidate write up the rest of you and give an overview what’s included. So

Unknown Speaker 30:49
with this for the sake of 42. So bear with me, this is a little bit redundant. But just to be sure that you’re all clear. On July 27, City Council did approve waterworks recommendation to increase the fee for cash in lieu to $80,528. They did at that meeting, ask waterboard to review the policy basis for long plus current methodology or setting cash in lieu recommendation. And so what we wanted to do today was just to provide the board a little bit of background, and talk a little bit about the definition of legal basis and policy philosophy. We’re not looking for any real recommendation, we’re going to come back in September, to have the more thorough discussion with waterboarding about what this policy is, give you guys a chance to discuss that. So if you will, let me just go through the background that God is here today. So is there anyone calls one market came home rule city back in 1963. And as such, we created our own charter for everything.

Unknown Speaker 32:12
Shortly thereafter, in 1964, the city created what was referred to as a raw water policy. And that policy was that

Unknown Speaker 32:26
type of annexation, you would transfer all historical water rights to the property. And if those water rights were insufficient to provide these three acre feet of water per acre of land, the remaining deficit would be made a time in planning. Still still the exact same way we look at it today. In 1988, there was a question similar to this brought in front of waterboarding. And at that time study was done. And it’ll be evaluated how waterboard looked at cash in lieu. And in that report, it was determined that the marginal incremental cost pricing method would provide a sound practical means to determine cash in lieu of water rights fee. So basically, they looked at many different ways of looking at it, they boiled it down to really three different ways. The one that they determined was the most appropriate was the marginal incremental cost method. And so and as it is, that’s really what you’re using. Today, you’re looking we’re using that same marginal incremental cost method. But it also went on to say that, when I looked at that, that representative, the current cost of direct flow of water rights, the marginal incremental cost pricing method was based upon the economic principle that the annex property should be responsible for the cost of the latest or next incremental for this increment of raw water capacity, which they cause to be purchased. So that’s, that’s I copied that verbatim right out of the report. And you kind of as a reading after 1988. Hopefully, you can see that this could probably be pertinent to the decision that you all made to look at winning at Fermi that we’re looking at Arsenal incremental cost pricing related to the next raw water capacity project. That’s what we’re actively part of. So we’re accordingly cash in lieu of water rights fees should be designed to derive the incremental cost of raw water as may be turn determined. My recent experience and plan future acquisition. So basically, they’re looking at saying, What’s our water needs going to be? And how are we going to satisfy those. And if it’s through the whatever the project is, that seems to be the best way to look at it. So in 1997, the bra water policy was adopted by reference. So we finally, we’ve been having a policy, it’s always been a policy that we wanted to sort of formalize it. And we adopted it in the in the Longmont municipal code by reference, then in 2004, it was codified in the in the municipal code. So, again, trying to give obviously, the policy just some more teeth, as once it’s in the code it is, it is law, not just not just the policy, even though we refer to it as the robot requirement policy. In 2015, was, some of you may recall, waterboard took a recommendation to increase the cat, the fee for cash in lieu of water is received. And at that time,

Unknown Speaker 36:21
city council asked waterboard to look at it in, consider looking at establishing that fee is different have different ways the time, there was more emphasis given to the selling price of CBT. The idea bear in mind, the idea is that when you bring in cash in lieu of water rights received the ideas that law and law can take that cash, and if you will convert that into water, we could go and buy water rights, and put those into the plant or we can buy water adds water rights, add municipal use and take them into the water treatment plant. So CBT, but by the by its very nature allows us to take those water rights immediately in the water treatment plant. And so it made a lot of sense to reference CBT. But in in the mid to, like around 2015 ish, the price of CBT skyrocketed. And so there’s always other things in the big picture that city council has to manage and look at. And the fee for caution blue was one of those things, and understanding the importance of development and long marks. They asked waterboard at the time to go back and look at how it was looking at specifically setting the fee for cash in lieu. So we had a number of discussions staff with waterboard and reviewing back in what was the core of the way that we were looking at setting that fee, it was determined that because of the status of Winnie get Fermi, that being the most likely project that we would be a part of that that should probably have greater weight into setting that fee. And so from that time forward, we’ve been looking at the cost of a per acre foot basis to be a part of the winning effort of the project. And so so I rate the if you went into the city code, the definition is cash flow of water rights means cash that has to be paid to the city in lieu of dedicated time to store water rights to the city. And cash flow is not acceptable for dedication in lieu of historical right. So the way it practically works is a few minutes a piece of ground if you have no historical water, it’s okay, you’ve satisfied the policy because you don’t have anything to bring in. However, planning for the development of the property, you still have to satisfy the full three acre feet per acre. So if you look at it, each annex property is unique. One may have three acre foot breaker remaining, some may have enough historical water to satisfy all those cases, when they further subdivided or developed, they have no further deficits. So it really depends on on a case by case basis. The legal basis for cash in lieu. And I’m not going to speak for the attorneys you you guys are the experts and everything but the Colorado Revised Statutes and speaks to an impact fee. And the city’s fee for cash in lieu of water rights receive is that type of impact fees. So this is where we kind of have the authority to ask for cash in lieu of water rights received through the Colorado revised statute. So that’s kind of the where we, where we’ve gotten today. We have the I’ve included in the last paragraph or the policy philosophy. And that’s where I think city council was asking the board to kind of give some additional information of our policy, different options to look at it. In a way it felt like kind of what they were asking, What are more mistook look at similar to what was done in 1988. You know, look at it for one way or another way or another way, and then give the pros and cons to those different ways. And so we didn’t have enough time to put that information together for this meeting. But we did want to let waterboard know that. So in a request of city council, I wanted to make note, and it’s on page 44. That the basis for water board’s recommendation, right now it says shall, and actually, what we said was find it here.

Unknown Speaker 41:23
verbatim, but it says in the raw water policy section of Walmart municipal code, and the basis for water board’s recommendation, shall include the current cost of new water supply projects identified in the city of loved ones raw water master plan. So your your recommendations of all have been based upon new water supply projects identified in the city of Walmart’s raw water master plan, one of which is a winning every project. So you’ve been following the policy. So I wanted to make that explicitly clear. And then lastly, the value the valuation rests on the fact that cash in lieu fees in the current future will be used to pay for windy gap forming project by paying off recently issued bonds for this project. So so we have definitely been using the cash in lieu of water rights received to pay for when the gaffer. So I don’t think there’s any question there. I think I think what will be discussed next month, is should waterboard be looking at other ways to set that fee. What I think if you read between the lines, and I’m gonna paraphrase, and I’m not gonna use anyone’s name, but I think the basic question is, is the fee for cash in lieu of water rights received high enough? Is it is this the right fee? Is this the right amount? Should it be based on some other something else is it should be based upon an expectation what the cost will be in the future? Should it be only whatever it is? Now, there’s a lot of different ways you could look at at this issue. And so what we’re going to do as a staff is going to try to put together looking at several different ways. But I suggest maybe about three, because I don’t want to, I still have other things to do this, this is a concerted effort that city council’s asked us to undertake. Try to help give waterboard some pros and cons to looking at it that way. And then you all can have a conversation whether or not you should look at other ways, whether there’s additional pros and cons. And then hopefully, when it’s all done, land on the method, the policy method that we want to use to setting the fever cash flow, it may very well be exactly the way it is. It may be something different. But I think that’s what city council’s looking for waterboard is to kind of have that conversation. And they’ll make a recommendation to

Unknown Speaker 44:14
I thought that maybe some context about what the public and the city council members were thinking about. And that does include some things that have were not discussed at council to about the way the economy of Walmart has changed since 1988. So first of all, the public just thought, hey, all these other cities around here giving these eluted are based on the cost of CBT. Water. Why should we? And that is a valid question. I made sure that the public and or at least the engaged public, and the council understood that what the staff and the waterboard were doing was properly applying the exam. state policy, which I don’t think anybody really realized, you know, but, but that’s what you were doing. And I sat through the deliberations on this word. So, you know, I think that you did that correctly, or probably almost correctly, what I think may not be, have been taken into consideration in, in that deliberation was that while we’ve passed a lot of milestones on the wind the app for a project, or I should say, the chimney hollow reservoir project, that it’s going to go forward there, the dam is going to be built, and water is going to enter that reservoir, although it may not be the same proportion of when the gap diversion water as we thought because the reservoir is going to be used as I probably you guys all know that it’s going to be used as a staging area for CPT, water and all kinds of other stuff. So you know, it’ll be for the recreation projects and stuff, there will be water in there, we may not know how much water is of it is water that we have rights to offering that supply, it’s going to be because of things that are happening, like, you know, like Pell getting to be on the verge of not being able to generate electricity, and that’s electricity that we use. And electricity that keeps us in line with ferric actually, because it’s part of our firm’s supply. So it’s important. That’s the thing to consider, because possibly the riskiness of the, of the firm’s supply and chimney hollow, should be rolled into the price. And it’s not right now. Right now. It’s, it’s, you know, you assume that, yeah, it’s gonna come, it’s just a matter of where it’s going to come when it’s gonna come. And you also have an assumption that, you know, there’s a, there’s an average supply that comes from the diversion, that, you know, mostly it’s going to, it’s going to happen a certain way, and it will become slightly more predictable once tuning hollow is operational, but the risk is higher now than it used to be. So that’s one thing. The other thing is that long months economy has changed. Not only can we demonstrate that surrounding municipalities are getting a much higher fee in lieu than we asked for. But the other thing that is true, is that the fraction of our economy, and I’m not even going to make any suggestions about what this means in terms of the price adjudication at all, but a fraction of Long Island’s economy that is going to come from annexations not just the fees and lieu but, you know, other economic influences of annexation and real estate development is shrinking. Okay,

Unknown Speaker 48:20
there are fewer annexations left to be made in the in the Longmont planning area. And also, our economy has been rather skillfully developed. I don’t take credit for much of that because I came on the scene too late. But it’s been pretty skillfully developed to depend more on another kind of industry than real estate development, which was certainly not true in 1988. But now we have. We have high tech, we have biotech, we have advanced manufacturing. And we have the craft brewing and distilleries, which are the really the easiest to understand in terms of what they add to our economy because they take really cheap raw materials and they make them into a really expensive export that is out of the Longmont planning area. And you know, when you go by Dale’s Pale Ale in New York City, a lot of money comes back to Longmont and it stays right here. And that enriches the city because they pay good wages. It enriches the city because they pay local taxes that you know, it’s it’s fundamentally a different kind of industry than real estate development, which is kind of the other way around. You know, you buy extensive expensive materials from outside our city because we don’t you know, do much way of building materials here. And you’ve saved that money into the ground. And well, it sustains the economy and that our, you know, our workers and so on live in it, it doesn’t keep pulling money into the city. You know, except by property taxes, you know, but it’s not at all as a big contributor to the overall wealth of the city, as those export kind of businesses that I was talking about, and that seems pretty far afield from water, but it does cause a change in the proportions to be considered. And, again, you know, I haven’t done the math, kinda not my job blessedly about, you know, how those different elements should be weighed. But that was what the city council was thinking about, or should have been thinking about. That’s what the public was thinking about. Now, you got to put some salt on what the public says, because we have some people that are, you know, water watchdogs that are just, you know, convinced that we’re in the pocket of real estate development and develop doing underhanded deals and that don’t pay attention to that, because I know you’re not. But I do think that it’s important to understand that the environment has changed. And yeah, maybe it is time to do a 1988 kind of, of exploration around it. You know, I think I think a lot of the public Council and the public were thinking, you know, more like, well, Frederick gets CBT prices, why should we, but you all know that the the calculation is more subtle than that. And so, you know, there it is, that’s, that’s just the background I wanted to give

Unknown Speaker 51:55
you open it up by your comments. started doing awesome. Okay, so much. To repeat back to, the idea is to find a way to say, You’re going the extra water you can’t come up with so in other words,

Unknown Speaker 52:20
they don’t want to make you started fiddling. So get to the point of planning for further subdividing your property, you’re not required to pay cash in lieu, you have the option of paying cash in lieu if you choose not to bring other acceptable on historical water rights. So let’s say you annexed a piece of property. And you had a certain amount of direct flow water rights that were capable of satisfying all the direct flow components. So you have three acre foot per acre, two, which is direct flow, what is storage, so let’s presume you had a annex piece of property that was able to satisfy all the direct flow, but they did not have any storage water on their property that’s not uncommon on a property that has senior water rights. So in that case, you have one acre foot per acre of storage deficit remaining. When the applicant comes to long bought and asked and needs to realize satisfaction, that remaining one acre foot per acre, they can choose either to go out and purchase acceptable non historical water rights and transfer those, or they can pay cash in lieu or a combination of both. So it’s certainly possible. Currently, the way the roller policy is set up is for a property to fully satisfy their deficits without paying cash in lieu, what’s not available to them is to develop or further subdivide the property without satisfying at least three acre feet per acre. So I think that’s a might be a distinction is there might be other. So what I may say is one of the things that was suggested in 1988, was to look at, and I’m going to use my own words, let’s see what every other community was doing up and down the Front Range. And it’s very difficult, because it’s not really apples to apples, it’s really not even apples to oranges, because there are some communities that will only accept CBT or maybe there is a community out there. You just simply pay cash in lieu, the long Bartlett has been and continues to allow you the option of finding those non historical water rights or paying cash. So I want to make that point.

Unknown Speaker 54:43
No, I often still going but the dovetail on that was can you give the board an idea of how many developers how many applicants come to Longmont and are able to identify, acquire and transfer non historic water rights that would satisfy Because I’m assuming it’s a small percentage, but I

Unknown Speaker 55:02
don’t know. So it’s it’s always case by case is typically easier for a developer to acquire storage water rights than it is direct for water rights. There’s a, there’s a lot of people go down rabbit holes I went down. So, but what we what I believe is been happening in the recent past is that it’s been easier for developers to consider using cash in lieu, because it’s a tangible dollar amount that can be created for them to go to a lending institution to get that financing. If you were to try to explain to a bank that you wanted, you know, 14 shares of Walmart supply there’d be no, they wouldn’t understand what we were talking about. But if you said, I need, you know, $189,000 to pay my raw water deficits, okay, now I kind of understand that the puts, when it goes to dollars and cents, it’s like the common common language that everyone understands. And so most recently, most people have been bringing cash in lieu. There has been some developments, though, that have understood that. Typically, you could, the developer can save money, by doing non historical water rights, that’s why they do it, it takes a lot more work. But if you put in that work, it’s possible to save to save to save money. And so it really, it really depends. I don’t have a, we could probably provide a rough you know, next month, if you wanted a rough statistic of comparing non historical water to cash in lieu, the way we’d show that is based upon the amount of credit that they received for each. We’ve done that the password,

Unknown Speaker 57:13
it’s been asked waterworks asked how much cash or booze we’ve gotten versus how much non storable water is, in previous to the last couple years, there was a period of time that we were getting a lot of akatosh

Unknown Speaker 57:26
doesn’t recover the waters, you know, we have, we only had like 5% of our ship, and we’re

Unknown Speaker 57:32
almost close to 60%. So and those with numbers we’re talking about. So

Unknown Speaker 57:37
I it’s there’s more cash and live, it’s been used to satisfy deficits that there is not historic, but it’s, but it’s, you know, there still are people that have been developing their own water rights portfolio, for which time they can bring that to log on. So but it takes the other thing that developers understand, or hopefully understand is, when you transfer a non historic water, right, you bring in a third party, so you’ve got the person that’s buying the water, the developer, the person that the entity, Lombok is receiving the water, but there’s also a ditch company involved. And there is a period of time in that transfer that’s out of both the city’s perspective and the developers control. And it has potential, it can create a situation where so long, will not. Walmart does not recognize deficits being satisfied. As far as transferred, not as short until we have this stock certificate in our hand. So if john makes a request to transfer a water stock to the ditch company, he’s done all he’s good, he’s made the stock transfer request, he’s paid the payment to get that transfer, he can’t do anything else. But yeah, Longmont can’t do anything either, because we haven’t received it. So you always have these dish companies that have to do their business, they have to make sure they’re free and clear leads. And it takes time. And I think a lot of times, we all understand the adage, time is money. And I think that also is waiting for some of the equation for developers most recently, they’re like, I want to wait to the last minute to satisfy it. And then I want to move dirt the next day or the next minute. And so I think that’s that’s another reason why the cost of doing choosing to to pay cash in lieu is probably outweighed the the cost savings to do non historical water restaurants.

Unknown Speaker 59:49
really helpful as it gets kind of into other questions as I’ve got questions, okay. Okay. transaction costs. So they see the comment, it’s not a debt share, it’s a decree for three historical use water,

Unknown Speaker 1:00:11
do they have to change it first.

Unknown Speaker 1:00:13
So we have a very specific list of water rights that we will accept, and they’re identified in the policy. And if you want to propose anything that’s not on that list, there’s a page worth of stuff you have to provide, then we evaluate it. So bring it to water, and then bring it to one board to evaluate. So So generally speaking, it’s not a watershed that we have already taken through water for not that specific water, right, necessarily, but that company or whatever, we have a relatively firm understanding of what’s going to happen with it. It’s been listed out there. So really, for most people, they don’t have the knowledge to really go that far down, they’re just gonna say, here’s the five ditches that we will accept, I’m gonna go to a water broker and see if they can help me get any of those. And then even if they do identify one of those, there’s still conditions that they have to satisfy, like, you can dry up land. There, there’s no course it’s going to be free. And clearly, as a company, there’s a whole myriad of things that they have to satisfy steps that they have to walk through in order to get those historic water rights passed. And so once they understand that, if they were feeling a little squirmish, usually, that’s often times enough that people like yeah, so where’s the AC analysis? Where’s the what makes you analysis restore consumptive use associated with? So? Yeah, okay. So that water versus so we basically eat the credits that’s given on a per share or per unit basis is based upon the average irrigation, heavy conversion? So we’ve, we’ve looked at from

Unknown Speaker 1:02:01
that. If I understand, right, when mama changed, all these ones that are on our accepted list, they actually have allowed future dedication of potential change under the same conditions or in the previous decree. Yeah, that’s right. So the point is, is it’s really well established. I mean, were you maybe going which My mind goes to immediately to is, Hey, you got to do a new change case? What what are you going to get when you do the sausage making, what is the sauces on my nose that because the way they did their court case, they set it up as they could get dedication of future shares. And they already knew what that he knew they knew what the yield within their system was. So I feel real confident in terms of the yield that they’re given on a break foot basis for the supplies that can be dedicated to that exactly the ones that are on that list. Already. majority,

Unknown Speaker 1:02:56
I’m listening to the list of the credits that you would receive, depending on whether it’s going to direct flow or storage. So it’s based on both previous court cases already taken. Right.

Unknown Speaker 1:03:08
So if all of that kind of just logical conclusion, wouldn’t? Wouldn’t it make sense that we hash based on valuation of shares and number of shares? In that they would be any given that they are apparently interchangeable, as far as long ones considerations? Would it make sense to have evaluation done on those

Unknown Speaker 1:03:32
that valuation of the shares being proposed to be transferred to water? That is, like the priority? Yeah, I don’t know. I’m trying to think how I’m just trying to be think. I’m not sure exactly how we know what it would be for those shares without first taking you through it, it feels like we’re sitting there like, I’m like an apple, or a horse in front of the cart. You know, so what we’re basing it on is prior change cases with the assumption that we would receive that same similar that there’s at least similar Yeah, yield from those water rights, but to what we would get on those. I mean, obviously, that can take years to get through water court. And we do have some, there are some water rights that have already included shares that have not yet been transferred. They’re already part of our change case. So when they do those, we understand it’s the ones that have not this specific because we’ve done a niche wide amount, you know, analysis, and we share specific analysis on our change cases. So there’s a built in assumption that the credit would be the same as prior shares have been transferred. But that yeah, that’s that’s how those are based right now.

Unknown Speaker 1:04:51
It seems like Walmart would be taking on uncertainty of the future change. So to that extent, it seems like it would indicate that the pressure you higher because you’re saying, Yeah,

Unknown Speaker 1:05:03
I think one of the comments though is there really isn’t much more out there than Macintosh is quite the one that’s been coming in. There’s not other supplies out there. I think other thing is I understood it’s a policy within a few, when you see the long list of policies, one of the policies I’ve had is not trying to go out and buy water and dry up agriculture outside the city limits. So if you follow that to an end, you know, it’s kind of like well pay off everything within the city is going to come in, it’s going to come in through annexation and be dedicated for direct flow and storage, meet those requirements. What’s left, I mean, if one doesn’t want to go by or accept and change yours outside of its own kind of area, then then that really isn’t there isn’t much additional water that could be derived from these other native water sources. mcintoshes, the one exception is less than it’s up to 60% in long one’s hand, so there’s only 40% left that could potentially come in as kind of a surrogate to cash in lieu. So just keep that in mind is I don’t think there’s there’s not much hasn’t been in, there really wouldn’t be much in a way of other native supplies that could come in the bond market higher, you could base cash on there just isn’t that much out there. It’s either coming in one lot already, or this little bit that’s out there, like Macintosh is coming in as a as a, you know, there’s another option to cash in there. I think the other thing was, you know, obviously, what Obama was involved in is the Jimmy hall or when he affirming project, so that was the project that was going to be used to meet, hopefully on lunch, build out demand or meet the gap. So that was kind of one where it’s like, okay, that’s the project that we know is coming, that’s going to meet the future water needs for the city, what’s the price per acre foot, and that’s how that that determination kind of came about. So that’s a little

Unknown Speaker 1:06:58
history of it, that’s really good. That raises two points. One is the policy of it. So to the extent that there is potentially an underlying wish not to dry out our cultural landscape, and the to also to be able to actually fund the supply that we contracted for, it seems like there might be, to some extent, policy decision that would lead us to move more heavily towards action, funding or supplies that way, as opposed to accepting external water. So I wonder, I guess this is it seems to me, I’m just excited about this, it seems like this is a larger discussion session.

Unknown Speaker 1:07:47
I do want to point out that Todd did really summarize the fact that we did a lot of analysis on water rights, and it remained within our planning area. And it is, it’s minimal. This is why

Unknown Speaker 1:07:57
raising the question is kind of strawman argument, even have that in there at some point, because there isn’t really any potential for widespread use of this, right.

Unknown Speaker 1:08:07
So you think like, if you were to go right now, and look at the list that’s listed the dreadful water rights that are acceptable, you know, you’d find six or something, and you’d be hard pressed to find any of the three of them. I mean, it’s not to say it’s impossible in there on there for a reason. But, again, the ones that we’ve seen that have came through most recently have been those that were already included in the prior one of our change cases. So in other words, once you receive them, they are just like CBT Emmylou in the water treatment plant. We know what that some of us it is. And so, you know, even though there and there’s just to kind of further clarify the long lock planning area, we understand what the water rights are within that planning area. If there’s a proposal to transfer non historic water rights that originated inside the planning area, they’re immediately disqualified, we will not take them so that therefore the only thing that’s really available as we outside of the warm up planning area, and and the amount it really when you get out east of I 25 that’s not available based upon some stuff that was discussed with City Council years ago. So it’s a very small amount of available water it’s it’s yet I guess where my head goes and we could probably spend a lot of time figuring out a really hard number for something that maybe gets used twice. If you follow me it’s it’s that’s why I think we’ve used this we’ve so far felt pretty comfortable with the values that were established and put in place in the policy for the for the yield. Because even if they were off of it other than makeup, completely make up a number for water right was getting give 15 acre feet shear, and somebody transferred a full shear. And we took it to water court 20 years later, we got 13. But yeah, we didn’t get to acre feet, I get that. But keeping it relative to a supply of over 30,000 acre feet, you know, just trying to keep the economy of scale to I think is, it will be, might be important to understand how much not only how hard numbers, but if you if, if you know, how much land is left, you know, the historical water rights that are pertinent of that land. So, if you then have kind of a pretty good idea, a rough number of how much it’s even available for non historic, and maybe that too, can help give an understanding of what’s the order of magnitude we’re really talking about because Longmont is we’re approaching, I forgot the word. That word. It’s not built out of us. Well, she’s building but whatever we’re, we’re getting rolling forward to the bunches we can so from our footprint.

Unknown Speaker 1:11:04
So I mean, what is the future prospects? Then? I see with like, one of the confines essentially of what we’re talking about here. So it seems like we’re approaching some future build out. Again, sorry, I miss you something but but footprint or something? Like how much water do we need? in the future? Right? And this when you get out? For example, are we expecting that to supply all of it? So how much discussion has to be had? Or how much has already been kind of taken care of by future? Planning scenarios, etc? Like, do we need more water? Are we going to be on the market for more water or three more reserved, or we

Unknown Speaker 1:11:55
have some really good questions that really goes into overall everything that we and waterboard together have been looking at our in our, the, the water supply, there are total water supply needs that will fill up both treated and untreated. There’s you you’ve opened up the thing that includes a lot and it’s been talked about a lot in terms of you know, treating the water master plan, or all water master plan, we’ve got all these things, which you guys are gonna think they’re all kind of river, they all have to be looked at, collectively, to really have a full appreciation, nothing really can stand by itself. It’s all part of the whole organism that we are online. But again, the raw water policy, if this is added is an area based policy. It Okay, the happy always has been, it’s always been less than three acre feet per acre, it didn’t differentiate by us. And I know that’s always been a question. And that’s something that’s many people have asked, you know, is, is, is should, why should I have to bring three acre foot breaker if I’m putting in storage units. So I’m telling you how to put in storage, you’re choosing to put in storage units, you know what, but they’re also understand too, that in the policy, there’s a there is a place in there that says if your use is going to be greater than three per foot per acre, which by the way, we don’t have any uses that are greater than three per foot per acre right now, but if your use is greater than three per foot per acre, then you may have you may be required to transfer greater so it’s so the policy is always brought enough water to the table to cover the water demands that would be put on the system for the development that’s being a part of it. And that’s kind of just kind of continue to follow the footsteps

Unknown Speaker 1:13:57
through Zoo land use of the land. Yeah. You guys, I got I got a few I can go. Okay,

Unknown Speaker 1:14:09
well, which whichever I just wanted to throw out a short question or entertaining discussion as Tom wanted to talk one or two. But probably on that stick is a graph that shows that cholera that long months water consumption has been not following the growth of the population but following the trajectory which is inverse to the growth of the population and not myself just took advantages of from the sustainability office for refer to offers I had in common check out my sprinkler system. Let’s see how we could reduce the flow. And then I signed up to have my sod removed gratis so that I could zero escape more cheaply without breaking my back And so, you know, those are those are things that we’re doing and that maybe, you know, waterboard and sustainability audit collaborate. I don’t know how much you collaborate now. But that sets expectations and it seems like there should be common knowledge about how what is available to us, because we could drag ourselves out to the extent that Arizona cities have, you know, by paying people to zero escape or paying people to put rocks in and see Roofscape. So, just want to have that in in everybody’s mind as you start figuring out the cost of the probability of being in routine one of

Unknown Speaker 1:15:49
one of the, I guess, as I was looking at this methodology we have on cash in lieu, you know, this next next increment, when you got pregnant was a project that was going to be that next increment. So, as we heard last week, at the Jimmy hollow, groundbreaking those 21 years of permitting, and Marsha alluded to it, you know, there was modeling that was done as part of a windy gap forming project to try to come up with storage yield ratios. And that 18,528 Gregor foot is a firm yield number based on a storage to yield ratio of when you get Jimmy hollow storage, based on how much when you get units long Longmont has and then the hydrology and how much we can put into storage, you kind of alluded to that margin. That that I guess the point and what you were kind of alluding to, which I agree with is I think things have potentially changed, you know, I mean, obviously, I can change. And maybe what what the the modeling that was done quite a while ago, I don’t know what that storage deal ratio is exactly right. That That doesn’t mean it and some people may take that is Oh, there’s no value in my mind actually makes the storage more valuable, even though the, the, you know, storage yield ratio may be higher, and the cost per acre foot, maybe five, or I guess, I guess where my mind goes is those long, long try to kind of dig into that a little bit more and say, you know, is there, you know, do we do a safety factor, so to speak in the interim, and then try to do some additional analysis to where we can. And I know, there’s been a lot of analysis on the Colorado River in terms of what that may mean, in terms of future operations and yields. But isn’t one where you put a, you know, kind of a quote unquote, safety factor at 20 30%, on that value in the meantime, while you’re trying to discern or get to the bottom of what that storage field ratio really is today, compared to what it was in the context of the modeling that was done, what, maybe 15 years ago? That makes sense to me? Because I think once again, we’re still trying to tie into what’s that next increment of yield being brought to the system? Number one, number two, I think we’re being kind of honest with ourselves in terms of hey, yeah, things have potentially changed. You know, in terms of the temperatures in the city of Fort Collins did a pretty elaborate analysis of the CVT project yields, because they were looking at it in the context of their drought protection. So they did a valuation of the Colorado River Basin, and CVT yields. Maybe something could be utilized in the context of that. But and I know that will take time and some analysis, but I guess that’s where my mind goes have, I get the kind of maybe one to raise that? I think I like staying with our methodology, but maybe being a little bit more cognizant of, well, maybe that sort of field needs to be adjusted. And we adjust that slightly, because we’ve seen the price go up on when you get firming, just due to the cost of a project, which now I think is pretty well set in stone based on the construction starting, albeit, you know, whatever the inflation ends up being but those other items of the yield the project in relation to what’s happening on the Colorado River, that that’s where I think there could be some adjustments. And I would be okay with that. So I want to throw that out. Because I think that would maybe give staff a little bit more direction as to what, you know, sort of analysis and just to maybe say what’s out there, and what can you do, and bring back to us to try to maybe supplement what we’re currently doing in terms of the policy. So that’s the first item that the second is, I guess what I was curious about Marsha was you were mentioning kind of maybe this change in the city along with the high tech biotech and distilleries breweries in the context of the cash in lieu rate. I’m trying to what’s the connection, there’s that connection that it’s a higher value of water. But in terms of people what they pay on cash in lieu, how does that tie together with it? I didn’t quite it’s almost

Unknown Speaker 1:19:55
there’s there’s a couple things but I get a part of it is return on on investment. So you guys probably know, I don’t, maybe should, if there are, you know, six to 10 opportunities for annexations period, in the Longmont planning area, and you know, a whole generation has to die before we’re gonna re you know, reopen our, our open space to development. So we don’t need to think about that, I don’t think. But we’re two generations, because it’s the Gen Xers that are really hot on it. So anyway, if it’s really six to 10, annexations, depending on the size of the price, then a crude approximation should be good enough for this, you know, you don’t want to spend a year evaluating it. And that’s, that is part of it. But the other thing is just an again, it comes down to the number of annexations. The are how much water you use is going to really it’s based on residential development. And our population isn’t going to be tied so much to annexation in terms of residential development, because we’re going to have to to high density infill and water use equation then changes, right, less lawn, more showers, you know, that kind of thing. So I guess that’s what I was trying to say, last month, will be probably richer, because the kind of industry we have, brings money in and leaves it here much more. But its water use pattern is different. And I’m kind of missing my own point here. There is another one, maybe you’ll have to jump back here and for Sorry, it’s called.

Unknown Speaker 1:22:10
Just a couple of quick questions. I get that our cash price is lower than that the way it is right now.

Unknown Speaker 1:22:22
Again, their minds kind of comparing apples to oranges. But that’s the that’s probably true. I would think you if you asked developers what they were having their cost to develop in other communities compared to Longmont, they would say yes, we’re, we’re less expensive currently than other communities in that respect with respect to water with water.

Unknown Speaker 1:22:45
I think the standard just I’ll give you a ballpark, I think the standard for all water in northern Colorado is right 50 to $85,000 per acre. And we’re at 18 520. So we’re a factor of about a third of the lower end. So I guess

Unknown Speaker 1:23:01
what I’m leaning towards is to rehash and re study and try and make sure we are comfortable how we develop it is a thought dive in the back of people’s mind and where our passion was to all Yes. mean, I haven’t I don’t want to come out of this thing if everybody else’s 4050 I mean, what’s wrong with our cash? I mean, that’s the thought that kind of

Unknown Speaker 1:23:30
is why they came back to the council’s asking about the philosophy. How did we come up? Yeah, we derive our cash value, we came out, we come up with the cash loop, following our current philosophy. And it’s by doing that it actually creates a situation where we’re less than other communities.

Unknown Speaker 1:23:49
Just I’m sorry to join us your thoughts. So the other thing was that in in 1988, London’s economy, you know, we were in poor city, right. And Long Island’s economy really hung on encouraging that development. So when what can caching would be a barrier? And that was that was part of the thinking whether you know, no matter how you justify it, that had to be part of the thinking. And the reason I brought up that last month’s wealth doesn’t depend on that model anymore. Nearly so much. I mean, some it does, but infill development doesn’t bring water rights in because they’re already here. So we’re only looking at a small number of annexations. So the thing to look at is more how much money with the cash in lieu fee. How important would those small number of annexations be? Because in compared to the other revenue coming in to the water fund, and into the city in general sewer, you know, you need to figure out the proportionality the And that was my

Unknown Speaker 1:25:02
redesign to survive. I mean, yeah, but the last thing, and maybe you mentioned all cash in lieu of monies, are they going to pay down on the gap is that

Unknown Speaker 1:25:14
what we’re doing together eligible to believe the lion’s share of what we’ve received so far has been is has been? Or is Liu torian? Is that our plan that yes, you actually want to go? Yes. Yeah. I never knew where the money went. So it’s been building for a purpose for that purpose. And then I think we just believe the city just got a pretty big check. Not too long ago. There’s a part of the water conservation budget is a small percentage goes to that. Water Conservation. Okay. All right. What are we gonna talk

Unknown Speaker 1:26:00
to that same point, then, just debating that. I wasn’t here for the June discussion. I think it was in June, you guys fixed the cash amount. That amount is basically fixed to that pain down. So I don’t want to rehash things that everybody else now sells for, like two 716 billion on like, those discussions in like June, I believe it was where that 18,500 or whatever, either, right.

Unknown Speaker 1:26:30
So basically, it was derived that what, at that, at that time, what it was going to cost lawn lot on a per acre foot basis, to be to be a part of the windy gap for a project. So it’s been increasing as time went on, specifically for looking out for a

Unknown Speaker 1:26:51
customer, because, okay, yeah, great. And so because, because there’s cost overruns on the on what you get. Right. But presumably, right, once, once I began building it, of course, I would continue to be tossed over 100. But but like the bonds are issued, for example. And so we’re, we have a certain fixed amount that we’re paying on bonds every every quarter, or however you do it. And so we also not just a lower amount, but we have kind of a steadier or kind of a, if some other communities, cash and do is fixed to CBT. Right with. And that’s when we know what has happened with that in the last four or five years now, then, like, there’s also a certain amount of reliability with respect to our price relative to others or relative for our caching relative to other communities as well. Like, we have just a steadier amount, I suppose, or is that your?

Unknown Speaker 1:27:56
And since we’re starting the extraction, I think we actually we had the ceremonial break back on the sixth, but we have the official breakings like maybe next week, but regardless, now that we have a project, this building, actually moving dirt, I think those costs have become more certain, with the last 20 years we just didn’t know is we didn’t know what all the legal and everything. And obviously, if you make a good point, it’s probably going to change. But in that cost was a component safety factor, if you will, there was a component in those total costs for expecting contingencies. Yes. And so that’s, that’s been included as well. So yeah, we don’t have we don’t know, for certain what it’s all said and done, what it’s going to be. But I think we’re we’re confident in what it’s going to be that we knew what we thought it was going to be maybe five years ago,

Unknown Speaker 1:28:51
to kind of a surprise, as far as how to tighten when the gap is very different methodology. I think that Todd, who points really well, taking the story is trying to reassess the story, shoot your ratio. And as part of that analysis, one thing that would be really interesting to me is exactly what the losses look like. That’s a fair distance. They’re assessed here for mild but there’s a difference as well as evaporation especially as our climate gets hotter and drier. So those are two factors that might come into play. I think the final one is a little bit more commercial is or just cool to project is what did those transaction costs over the last few years look like and how that actually affects price of water. And then the final I would like to propose for consideration is as far as water use on certain pieces of property and use is going to make a difference as far as how much

Unknown Speaker 1:29:55
the river averages potentially the production

Unknown Speaker 1:29:58
diversion. So if you have I have like a huge new I will be called with those. I heard some vertical cooling stuff there, the tech tech business, they consume a lot of water basically, versus something like culture, or return for culture, and it’s not apples to oranges. So you can have in mind to have that ultimate use is going to be as far as what actually

Unknown Speaker 1:30:26
is going to be

Unknown Speaker 1:30:28
necessary to make it sustainable, will be something in consideration

Unknown Speaker 1:30:32
stars,

Unknown Speaker 1:30:33
what that price is,

Unknown Speaker 1:30:35
I think I think land use I mean, we’ve have it within our llama planning area, we have defined zoning for our remaining land that is yet to be annex. So, you know, there’s been some, I think we with that there’s probably a range of water use, you could apply towards the standard for commercial industrial versus the standard, you’d apply towards Vic’s use versus high density, residential, whatever. And so now, I think, I wouldn’t say we easily have it available, we have it more readily available to be able to use technology, technological resources to help us to properly understand what our water use is going to be. And we have been taking that into account that was part of the our lab, water supply, water demand evaluation and stuff. So it’s not like we haven’t been looking and we actually have been looking at to get us to where we believe, to have that knowledge as to what do we believe our ultimate water demand is going to be? that’s what that’s what we’re trying to accomplish, where we’re different than a lot of cities, we’re trying to figure out, how much do we need for Here to Eternity versus other communities, maybe they don’t have that defined planning area we are defined, we know, you know, but there’s always a, I think the best way to it’s been said a couple times, and I kind of like it just that safety factor that uncertainty of we don’t know what the environments going to look like, we don’t know if it’s going to, if two generations later, they’re going to change the zoning, and make, you know, make it more advanced or whatever. And so maybe from a from an analytical perspective, sometimes those safety factors are easier ways to adjust the amounts for certain things, maybe for cash in lieu, where you that factory, it can be significant, but it’s a single number that you like, if you set a 20% safety factor, that’s, that’s an easy number, you know, take your number, whatever it was times point two, or 100 220% you any habit that in my life, it’s since I’m working in a lot of the weeds of it, it’s hard not to, it’s hard sometimes to pull back out. And so with Martian City Council, they’re always trying to look at the higher level. And they have a lot of other things to look at. But I think as we have this conversation, it’s there’s lots of little things we can look at. And each one will probably have some kind of like a balloon, they probably have some kind of impact. But maybe, as we’re just having our conversation, everybody’s minds just kind of thinking about if we’re not making a decision here today. Maybe the concept of a of a safety factors. And maybe there’s a better word than safety factor, that maybe that is a way to respect, counsel, you know, everybody’s concerned that you know, what we have out there for cash and lose sufficient if you can follow me. So I don’t want to say that that’s what you should do. But I’m trying to keep it simple. Because if every single quarter, we have to go through an exhaustive analysis. It’s going to be tough. It’s already sort of tough. And so I’m sort of, you know, as we talked about it, if we can come up with the matrix, I mean, obviously, all the council asked is for us to talk about the philosophy. They weren’t asking us necessarily to change it. They wanted to understand why are you doing it the way that you’re doing it? But I think it’s certainly possible. We can read through that, you know, as to why did they even ask that question? And so that’s

Unknown Speaker 1:34:24
one question I’ve got. So you guys did the GIS analysis as part of this talk was going to your question about wind demand. So there’s a GIS analysis where they look at land use, they looked at water supplies on property. Did you guys come up with and meet the system marches point? There’s only a few annexations left, there’s already some that have been annexed may not have adequate raw water. Currently, I guess what I’m wondering is trying to get Do you guys have the capability of looking at him saying Have you overlaid the water rights to say how much is out there that could be coming in in the context of fashion and I guess I’m trying to frame it. I like where you’re going or should because it’s like, Okay, then we at least have some idea in Council those. How much are we talking about here? So if you guys have that piece of wood we did several times over the years, we’ve done that water rights

Unknown Speaker 1:35:16
as the term that’s not built out anymore, I, yeah, I don’t know what the new term is either.

Unknown Speaker 1:35:21
So But anyway, so we went ahead and took a look at the water rights. What was an x? I took a generic, yes. So I will apply those to that acreage. That was just a rough shot, because there you go, and annexation starts, you know, you don’t really right away the whole? Yes, we took the big picture and came onto the overall, if you did cash into that, we did a deficit, say like, came up with I don’t know, top, my head number was 100 acre feet, we times that by the current cash value?

Unknown Speaker 1:35:58
Well, I think knowing what we think maybe that acre foot, you know, deficit that would be yummy that may help also Allison, to your point of the Macintosh shares, or the day of supplies, how much could be met with that? So then we get some context, what are we really talking about here, in terms of the number acre feet, and that was broken up in all areas through the I’m sure within the planning area, and we came up by areas, and then I just combined it all together? All those areas? I think that’d be helpful to just have that as a point of discussion on next month, when we’re really talking about this.

Unknown Speaker 1:36:31
Yeah, I should probably say, which I showed him at the beginning. Thanks to Wess history, I have a better way of quantifying this, the council explicitly asked for a policy review, as opposed to a value review. So we’re talking, this was done in 1988. Now we need to do it again, we’re not saying we’ll have to do it into in, you know, every quarter From now on, we’re saying maybe in 10 years, but we know more about the climate, we’ll have to do it again. Right? Only we won’t have any cash in lieu of what’s that philosophy is what the big picture is.

Unknown Speaker 1:37:12
I guess, you know, part of today was trying to get some feedback for you guys. So hopefully next month, maybe bring some information back to the waterboard that we can have, you know, further discussion with some of the pieces amount of acre feet that was going to be subject to cache and Luke coming up. I don’t know if you can, you know, my idea of a safety factor. What do we think there may be variability, I know that’s a big pile variability,

Unknown Speaker 1:37:40
I’ve usually done, I usually try to pull back to either information or documents that we’ve talked about in the past. So don’t be surprised if what we do is we pull in some of those questions that you’ve asked, I think we might have brought to council or to waterboard, but it was a lot of work before you guys were on board. So I think we’re going to be able to post at least, and I even put in my note, you know, it may be a little bit crude, and we can’t, when we bring it back when we expect it to be within the dollar within the acre foot. But I think relative to what, you know, what’s left and how much is left to be to be done. So you can kind of keep that in context for

Unknown Speaker 1:38:21
the effort that I was talking about was done as part of our latest water demand evaluation. And that’s what we will pull up and all that value that I believe is outlined in there and explained what the story was sound like we’re going

Unknown Speaker 1:38:39
yeah, I just want to add one thing less than I think you’re spot on about the apples to oranges when they’re comparing what Walmart’s portfolio and needs are relative to other surrounding communities. I work with a lot of other white provides an iPod does as well. There’s no reason to evaluate what other people are doing and say, Gosh, I’ll be doing a better than we are because it’s for different application entirely. The one exception maybe you already brought it up is for pollens. It is a mature water community with senior water rights, a lot of really changes. They have a built out whatever that word is capacity that you’re looking at to looking at those deltas. Someone approachable, like situated municipality was tied to useful to understand their philosophy, not the way they’re doing it, but how they’re trying to figure out how to bridge that doubt. Yeah, that would be relevant, versus any other by ourselves or Frederick. So people are really in the development mode, trying to pay the impact fees to provide the infrastructure which we don’t need to do. Our infrastructure is relatively stable, we’re not going to be putting in millions of miles of one of your pipe like north wall. That’s right. So that’s my my thought is there’s probably one or two communities that are like minded, and similarly situated, they have been around for a long time that are close to their development. Maximum at least in terms of rent, not necessarily go through, right. There’s a couple of them and there’s not many before houses private when it comes to My mother’s more civil a little bit bigger than me are for sure. But they’re strong. Civil. Yeah,

Unknown Speaker 1:40:05
there is another thing I think to take into account just and this is just to create context for the City Council to judge by is, is how well and prudently surprised supplied online is because you know, they’re so on one end of the spectrum, there’s long run. On the other end of the spectrum, there is Parker that has greenways all over the place that they’re using. They’re they’re watering by drying down their water table. That’s their only water source. And, you know, people who don’t understand that distinction. All right.

Unknown Speaker 1:40:41
Well, I think it was a great discussion. And I know, the new board members, there’s a lot of background on what it was before my time on here. So I think it’s good. Maybe they can get everybody up to speed as well as hopefully getting some discussion and maybe move this forward. And thank you for that out of those.

Unknown Speaker 1:41:01
Three, what do you think about about sharing lessons history with the council? Is there any reason not to do that at this point? I don’t think so. I think we’re in the write up either. Yeah. Great idea. Let’s do that. Alright,

Unknown Speaker 1:41:20
so clearly, it’s coming up. So that was fine. A we’re on the nightbeat, which is when you get burning project update, Ken was gonna be that was, you

Unknown Speaker 1:41:30
know, the I’ve already mentioned that if there’s anything else I’ve probably answered, speak to more than I have this. Kid abortion, I go to the circle groundbreaking back on August 6, very well received that, again, I believe next week, they will actually really be starting to do work, and it’s going to be impressive. It’s going to be an amazing amount of earth that they’re going to do. For the next four years, they can’t even it’s hard to put it in perspective. But really, that was about the old and other than that the issue is bonds, or I think he may have a condition that last one I can’t remember, but don’t really have anything real significant beyond those, those few things.

Unknown Speaker 1:42:20
Were in the back of a packet there is material related to the bond issue. Just based on that when we get to that. All right, is there any questions you may add? On the next item is nine C, which is a water resources engineering projects.

Unknown Speaker 1:42:40
Just have one of the quick update on three, three big projects that are going on. So the celsion brain pipeline rehabilitation project. So associate grant pipelines been out of commission for that part of the decade. And so we’re actually really close to turning it back on

Unknown Speaker 1:43:00
really closes in like six to eight months. But still, over a period of decades. We’re going to try to do a float test next week. It’s Celsius bring pipelines non priority. So but we’re going to try to at least turn it on. And see if we can get some water to float to the high pitch and

Unknown Speaker 1:43:22
potentially flush out any remaining debris that’s in there. We’ll do that for you know, three or four hours. And once we confirm once it’s working, we’ll shut it down. And then the next step will be to line the bite. So we’re going to do an NSF approved minor. It’s not required, but

Unknown Speaker 1:43:39
it you know,

Unknown Speaker 1:43:40
regulations are going in that direction. So to spend a little bit more money to know that we’ll meet future regulations made sense. And so right now CNL, they will be doing zero water solutions, we’ll be doing the money. And the letter is on the order. And we anticipate starting that in October. So once the liners and another thing that will actually keep us from turning the water on at that point will be the pump station because right as we get that liner put in probably started construction on the pump station. So the pump station will be taking water from the south St. Green pipeline and pumping it into the North. And in the town of Lyons, the north and the south pipeline parallel each other for a good portion. And so the town of Lyons gave us a permanent easement to put in a pump station there and so right where the north and the south are about 45 feet apart, putting in a pump station there. And so the main benefit of that is is when the stuffing ring pipeline is in priority, which is usually in the wintertime, as opposed to dumping water into an empty Highland ditch and then having to put in stop blocks to build up enough diversion to get it into Nelson Flanders. Pump right into the mercy of green. So I’m hopeful that I think that come April of next year. COMM station will be online for the first time where they will actually Do you know whether if we’ll actually be taking water deliveries at that time C, Dodds got the highway seven project that’s going on. And they’re expecting weeks of high turbidity. during weeks, the last eight weeks, like, one week here, the next month, this week will be up all hyped up because it’ll be doing work in the channel. We won’t be taking water during that time. So next year, it’ll be on, it’ll be off will be on. So but it will be back into service next year. The North St. Rain pipeline alignment in ultra 40 diversion study that we’re doing right now with Dewberry engineers. So as many of you know, the upper North line, from one month dam down to the north pond, you know, we’re looking at trying to somehow preserve that extend the life of that. It’s very old and very hard to reach locations. And it’s a lot of geohazards, rocks and trees and stuff. Water areas where it’s been washed out and the pipes just hanging out. So we’re looking at, possibly realigning the pipe, we’re looking at alternate couple alternate points of diversion, and maybe another pump station dump of North pond, the Lyons old intake structure that’s in the north same brain just off of Highway 36. Having said that, there’s going to be probably almost a dozen different options we’re going to look at, and I suspect that what Stephens presenting to the board will be a hybrid of let’s take option two, a and let’s take option six. And let’s look at option 11. And see if we can combine that with some sort of hybrid. The reason being is while the upper northline is really hard to get to, it’s I mean, it’s out of the way of people hazards survived the flood dilemma, you look at taking a diversion anywhere else in route to get somewhere

Unknown Speaker 1:47:11
else. I mean, you opened it up to vulnerabilities and stuff in Cabo, we saw a few months back with that spill on highway 36. You know, and then the North line through Apple Valley Road in the tunnel lines, you

Unknown Speaker 1:47:28
know it, it crossed the creek prior to the flood in three different locations. And then after the flood, it was crossing in five different locations.

Unknown Speaker 1:47:36
So having a pipeline running adjacent to a creek isn’t all that great. So that’s why the upper North line, which is on the side of the cliff, is actually very valuable to have. And so um, you had mentioned wanting to do a water tour, when we get closer to presenting the board our study of would love to take you guys on the hike for the upper north, it’s about about three and a half hour hike, it’s fairly easy, will drive to the top and we’ll walk down to basically to the pin stock, which is the top of the hydro plant. And so that’s the other thing that the hydro plants, you know, there’s a sustainability aspect to this if we start diverting water from a pump station, or the Lyons intake, that bypasses the hydro plan, which we don’t want to do, and why that might be a backup, when there are three residences in the north, but that’s not going to be the permanent solution. And so um, yes, maybe on a normal for maybe November, December, you guys don’t mind doing it, depending on weather and stuff. That’s usually a 60 or 70 degree day weather in December, maybe we could go for a hike, maybe we have to wait for spring. But I think getting out there and seeing it in person really adds to the discussion and helps you to kind of wrap your head around. Do we want to spend $10 million going this way? Or do we really want to spend $30 million removing and replacing pipeline and making it accessible?

Unknown Speaker 1:49:06
Maybe you look at the amount of hundreds of millions of dollars of water that’s coming down that pipe. I mean, it’s it’s easy to justify it on paper but funding it that’s that’s that’s probably become challenging.

Unknown Speaker 1:49:22
So those are the three things there many questions on those or any other projects you’d like to discuss. Those are the three big ones right now. Thank you for the update

Unknown Speaker 1:49:33
as to no flood and everything else and all over liability plainer than the other two, which we found out. Yes. All right. Next item. grantee looks like you’re up with the water conservation, I think.

Unknown Speaker 1:49:49
Yes. So it’s going towards the end of summer. So most of our resource central programs and Marshall mentioned earlier are wrapping up. It’s always Seems like a great one the spring it starts later. So we had much greater participation, but it started one July. For our we do this flow the flow, which is the irrigation assessment, I did want to note, resource central offers the trophy because Longmont doesn’t participate in providing any incentives for our residents right now. So they can participate, but we’re not providing incentives for that program. So that program, we have almost reached the maximum of our budget for the slow flow, specifically the irrigation assessments. And then we also through efficiency works for the past since being last year have been offering irrigation rebates through them. So I also saw an uptick in July as well. And those are interconnected because we require irrigation assessment for people to get that your patient rebates. First thing is you should make sure your systems running correctly before you start replacing things. And so we usually see kind of a delay from those we haven’t been doing as well on the commercial side. We have been doing that primarily through efficiency works. We just offer indoor rebates with them, but I actually have a conversation tomorrow. Efficiency work serves for Collins Loveland, live on Estes Park. Estes Park doesn’t participate in the water program. So I have a conversation with the other two cities to know about irrigation for commercial. So we’re hoping to, we’re still trying, I think it’s still What does the impacts of the pandemic on the commercial entities, they’re striving to see increases in our energy efficiency programs, but just not as much at the water. I just think our waters not expensive enough for that to be one of the top projects or businesses. A big effort I’ve been working on this summer is I’ve been working with three h ways to do case studies, all three of them have transitioned through Kentucky blue grass to beautiful gardens, and the waterwise garden. So we’re trying to and working this is through our neighborhood leadership series in our neighborhood growth leadership Association. And we’re trying to make it easier for other h ways to do the same thing. And we’ve got case studies and showing how other h ways in Walmart have done that can help with their big projects. So I those three case studies will be probably by the end of this week live on our website. First the case study of the transition the city of one one did last year, going from Kentucky Bluegrass to regret Scotland. And then that’s Wednesday, I have a presentation with those Hoa is to another another Hoa is through the neighborhood leadership series. So we’re hoping that helps inspire more and kind of again, with just reduces the barriers to making those transitions for our established landscapes. Amanda provide an update earlier this year I mentioned we were looking at the St. rainworth in London water Conservancy district grant. For a number of reasons we decided to not pursue that this year. Primarily, we, we just realized there’s a lot of things up in the air in terms of for one thing. They can as mentioned this, but we have requested additional half ft for water conservation. And everyone’s aware, my job is half water conservation, half sustainability. So be bringing us from a half empty for conservation to full T for water conservation. So I also don’t think this one’s a mascot. Question for Um, so I’m so does not know when that we’re still waiting on confirmation from that going to City Council also having to bring that person on. We also are planning are a much bigger update to our water efficiency master plan. So those members of board who are part of the last year members, we brought the Climate Action Task Force recommendation, in a big recommendation that the board gave that city staff ended up presenting the city council was the recommendation from the Climate Action Task Force was too ambitious. We should not do that. We should go businesses if you will. But in our next water efficiency master plan update, we should do a reevaluation of our water efficiency goal.

Unknown Speaker 1:54:42
So to do that, we are going to start that process next year. So we’re going to start our proposal that will propose the city council’s take next year and propose different water efficiency, goals and current including our current monitors 10% of our future work are supplied by build out which whatever that term is called now, and then then have city council decide on what our view, keep our current will have a new goal, and then from that that will spend 2023, then update the master plan. So it’s going to be a much more expensive process because you valuate the factors of climate change and into that goal.

Unknown Speaker 1:55:30
I just like to comment, fancy that. I think the reason that this board rejected that ca TF. Recommendation as well as the sustainability board member who else, you know, made a recommendation. It wasn’t that it was too ambitious, although it was that it was that it was unsubstantiated. It was just, you know, pulled right out of the air. Yes. And in fact, during these discussions, I’ve been thinking about, well, how would you substantiate a recommendation for making our conservation goals more aggressive? Without? There’s there’s two mistakes, right? One is that we don’t have a place to store the water. And much of the water that runs through Lombok can’t legally be stored. So we are changing our consumption patterns in anticipation of having less water. We’re not using a lot less water now, because we can save it up for a dry year because we can’t. So those things need to be understood. The other thing is that I think I have suggested that earlier, which is you guys are working together, because you build a lot of good data that will allow the substantiation of our recommendation that maybe sustainability doesn’t have.

Unknown Speaker 1:56:58
Yeah, and I also want to highlight kind of building off that is that at the end of this year, the sustainability plan and then vision long on multimodal and comprehensive plan will begin to update and we are working with them to see how can we because we’re having the same time a little bit of water efficiency master plan update, how can we integrate them. We’ve also, since last year, when we attempted to bring water smart workshop as staff members, which really focused on integrating land use and water efficiency planning staff from water resources, Parks planning, storing water. And I guess myself, which both water resources and sustainability, have a meeting monthly to identify opportunities to better integrate that land use of water efficiency Nexus. So there are a lot of conversations in the update to the water efficiency master plan. We’re definitely both be involved in this, as well as our sustainability advisory board.

Unknown Speaker 1:58:03
That’s great. Anything you do on the front end, instead of trying to retrofit up equities, fund wall square. I’ve got two questions. One is you were mentioning like a residential audit, you have a budget and you run now. Do you guys still track like how many requests or I guess I’m just thinking, if you run out, you know, in August, let’s say, you know, you have some ability to say, Well, if we would have had more funding, we could have done this many more audits. It seems like that’d be important to know, to know kind of how much more money to allocate how much more effective it could be. So I don’t know, do you do something like that? We have

Unknown Speaker 1:58:40
in the past. So since I’ve been in the position, the past two, I think first year was a ton of water. I don’t think people started warming arms until August of last year is COVID. I think people were just distracted. So this will probably be the first year we’ll run out. But that’s one another reason why is one of the first year we’ll run out is because in previous year, we have increased our slo with low budget to make sure we’re meeting that demand because you can notice that the police speak more to that is that we have done that evaluation and decide.

Unknown Speaker 1:59:14
So you look at it and say okay, what do you think the demand would be look forward to that maybe early result a

Unknown Speaker 1:59:19
large demand? Well, you probably said three, we saw for several years, a large demand for residential, and very little with Hoa, and then it reversed had a large amount of Hoa the last several months or years, sorry. And then our residential was dropping off. But we didn’t increase the budget. You’re correct.

Unknown Speaker 1:59:38
The only other thing you may be aware of this, the Northern District has grant funding for the explosive nature wave road projects if there was new funding, just so that they know they don’t have the money in their budget that maybe they can apply for grant when they have part of the design and implement it using the Northern District fundings.

Unknown Speaker 1:59:59
Wherever Case Studies use the northern route. And we’ve been continued. So we have opportunities to push for more than as well as we have a neighborhood program, as well as a new, sustainable ag solutions. And I’ve been trying to work with our, our neighborhood resources staff, if in the future also can we have? Because these projects are expensive? Can we direct some of our water conservation budget to path specific for winter? Because it’s great to Northern water. There’s a lot of opportunities. But there’s also a lot of, well, there’s a lot of grant opportunities. But there’s also a lot of

Unknown Speaker 2:00:40
project back, which isn’t great. But it’s a big bang for your buck. That’s great. Thanks for the update. Any other questions? Awesome. Well, thank you.

Unknown Speaker 2:00:52
So this is bugging me, Bill now. It’s been replaced with planning horizon. That’s driving me crazy. Duly noted. Forget next meeting.

Unknown Speaker 2:01:08
I will never forget. One last things if you want to follow me here.

Unknown Speaker 2:01:19
Water Resources staff is going to offer a water tour he were asking about that. We didn’t do last year. And we’re limiting it this year to staff and water board. Now. So staff is already for water boards already been on it. I think we have about three staff members right now that we’re going to go up to Yeah, so we’re trying to try to keep it probably one vehicle. And and also cannot be helped with that. If you’re interested in participating in that you can just let me know. And then she’ll coordinate for that. It’ll be September 10. So it’s Friday, September 10 is the date that’s already been selected. And it typically goes from about eight to two or three o’clock. You can withdraw the permit and based on the calendar, sorry about that. Okay, no worries. Okay. So

Unknown Speaker 2:02:28
so what we may end up wanting to consider is trying to find an alternative or something or maybe get that out sooner, it’s it’s typically that it’s historically been that second Friday in September, is when we’ve been doing it for the last 10 or 12 years. So but there’s no reason why we couldn’t do something, I get a different name for

Unknown Speaker 2:02:53
to measure URI Delta, especially the new board numbers and see if like dates. Yeah, we’ll talk to candidates. Yeah. You’ve been trying to collect What was that for 10 years? And we’ve talked about the possible Yep. Alright, so today is ladies from the board view of major project listings. And I have these tentatively scheduled for future board meetings, I think, next month, when they’re the caches, Lou, which side or obviously follow up on the discussion.

Unknown Speaker 2:03:37
Any other questions on upcoming items? Sounds like and then in September, you may say we’re in love hands.

Unknown Speaker 2:03:49
Yeah, we’ve able to see green left hand is that the day David, is that when we are going to do that one meeting with the watershed within the watershed report? Oh, yes,

Unknown Speaker 2:04:02
I believe so. It’s gonna be we’re gonna be combined meeting with sustainability. The Parks and Rec floor, and this group was a presentation that was given to staff we thought it was great, a great update for this group and others to hear it without making it you have to be a bit so this is going to be three separate meetings for the presenting the presenters. So we just want to make something as

Unknown Speaker 2:04:24
to what staff is thinking as we would do the water board and then that would be after the water rights and that was great. Okay, that sounds great. Okay, awesome.

Unknown Speaker 2:04:36
Any other questions on wonderful so I’m 11 is informational items and waterboard correspondence, I think is was alluded to the main item in there is the media current project or to me hollow bonds were issued. It looks like the interest rates were very good. What The net

Unknown Speaker 2:05:02
Well, that was written down. Remember? I don’t remember the exact number, but I remember. It was very impressive. Yeah.

Unknown Speaker 2:05:17
Like the net interest cost. That’s it was 1.84%. So

Unknown Speaker 2:05:21
Scott, right. Would you ever be under two? So that sounds right. That’s great. there’s any questions, comments on materials that were in the packet of correspondence?

Unknown Speaker 2:05:35
Item 12. Items scheduled for future board meeting. We just talked about cash in lieu, future board agendas. We’ll talk about the chair and vice chair next month. And then we’ll have that join me. Say very awesome. Anything else you may ask for that word? seeing if that’ll be the case. I’m gonna go ahead and Jeremy. Thanks, everybody.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai