Video Description:
Water Board Meeting – September 20, 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/Er7hXjT0NPYQgwNJheAlSJAOV5o
Unknown Speaker 0:01
Okay, well I guess I’ll go ahead and order. We’ll go to the local police. Sir
Unknown Speaker 0:09
Roger Williams. Allison Gluck here. Scott Hall with Roger line 10 Houston, Nelson Tipton,
Unknown Speaker 0:23
les Lowery,
Unknown Speaker 0:24
Kevin Bowden, Tracy Jaffe here, Heather McIntyre, and Councilmember Barton is not here yet.
Unknown Speaker 0:34
Our business will be the election of officers. So I’d like to open the floor for nominations for why the board chairperson
Unknown Speaker 0:45
moved. and seconded.
Unknown Speaker 0:51
Any other accommodations? Okay. I should ask Todd, are you interested? Okay. So, all in favor of taglines being reelected for whatever chairpersons signal by saying aye. Aye.
Unknown Speaker 1:19
So that passes. CHAIRPERSON Williams, I’ll turn it over to you for the election of vice chair. Sure.
Unknown Speaker 1:25
So item three, me is election of Vice Chair open for nominations and vice chair of the waterboard.
Unknown Speaker 1:34
Mr. Chair, I would nominate Allison, my role as Vice Chair
Unknown Speaker 1:39
is a nation of Ellison. Is there any other nominations? I would nominate. Roger, do you have thoughts on that? No,
Unknown Speaker 1:59
I, you know, the question I was gonna have. Does anybody not want to have that job?
Unknown Speaker 2:07
I’ve been here for at least for a while.
Unknown Speaker 2:24
Well, Alison, I assume that you’re nominating Roger. Because we’re both nominated. But just like the I guess, since you were nominated, or who have taken your name out of it, then or since you nominated Roger. I’m trying to figure
Unknown Speaker 2:40
that necessarily. This guy just beat me to it. I was planning to nominate Roger anyway. So I figured I would go ahead.
Unknown Speaker 2:48
Alright, I guess I’ll just we’ll just take a vote on it, then. I guess there’s two nominations. So we’ll start with Roger. All those in favor of nominating Roger is the Vice Chair say aye.
Unknown Speaker 3:02
Aye. Opposed?
Unknown Speaker 3:07
To say oppose. I’ll say hi. We’ll make it three. That makes it easier.
Unknown Speaker 3:15
So I don’t know. I don’t know the protocol. Since we have the two nominations. were opening up for Allison and
Unknown Speaker 3:27
Allison, I guess let me take that back. You want us to take a vote on that Allison, or how you want to approach them?
Unknown Speaker 3:35
I would suggest that we proceed with Roger.
Unknown Speaker 3:39
I’m sorry. Gonna butcher that’d be that’s fine. Thank you for both of you guys for now.
Unknown Speaker 3:49
Consider that. You’re young.
Unknown Speaker 3:57
With four officers now elected. I’ll keep on moving on. So item four is approval of the previous month, minutes. August 16 2021. Meeting Minutes. Anybody have any questions, comments on the meeting minutes? If not, I need a motion to approve. The motion emotion. Do we have a second? motion in a second? Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? That minutes are approved. item in I guess the next item we have is the water status report and elsewhere. Yeah. Yeah. It’s
Unknown Speaker 4:38
not a whole lot but it’s pretty dry out there. September. We did get some snow everybody commented. A little dusty out there said enough. Flow the same brain Creek at lions gates today is 23 CFS, the 124 year historic average is given for C That’s for this day. The call the same brain Creek is Overton ditch at a number of 5630 with a priority date of 531 1865. Call the main stem cell five rivers Riverside can now add the numbers 20,009 69 with a priority date of 531 19. Both so say brain base and storage at the beginning of September, the 77 3% beverage house price of reservoir outlet rock reserves at 6,399.2 feet, which is 16,020 acre feet, down approximately 180 acre feet from both. And we’re currently release at 30 CFS. Your reservoir is down approximately 1250 acre feet Drupal and we’re releasing 60 or more of that now for a while now without the six. That’s all I have any questions? I’m more than happy to answer puts in for Nelson watersheds report. All right. Thank you. Great, thanks.
Unknown Speaker 6:21
item six is public invited to be heard and special presentation. public hearing. Okay. And then special presentations can?
Unknown Speaker 6:33
Yeah, we’ll we’ll amend the talk. No, we haven’t usually. Do Yeah. Guys, ma’am. The agenda to move it back to the discussion to the cash into item 19. Do
Unknown Speaker 7:01
you need a vote on that? Or let’s just go. Okay, so we have a proposal to move item six, eight to be part of the discussion of item nine B, is there a motion to make that agenda change? The motion? Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? Hearing on All those in favor? say aye? Aye. Bye, folks. Okay, that agenda item has been moved to nine be item seven is agenda revisions and submission of documents. Anything else? Item eight development activity. Western doesn’t look like any dual activity considerations are right. So now we’re to nine a which is a cash in lieu review. Wes.
Unknown Speaker 7:54
So yes, I want to go over to our board. And I also want to emphasize that we’re only talking about in this section, the quarterly review that we’re talking about the actual review policy we talked about last month will be at this particular time. So with that cash in lieu review, as a lot of work on call ally city council through establishing cash flow at the current rate of $8,520 per acre foot. We’ve included in your packets. The details for the criteria for a water, database, water rights, the cost of new water supplies and CBT. Only changes in those three categories would be the CPE CBT allotment and transfer costs. When those there was a seven unit stretch acted in June at $59,000 a night I apologize. I just realized this is per unit. I should have changed these two per acre foot so we’d have to divide by point seven six. for July there was 20 units with an average transaction of 58,000 per unit. And then August 79 years of average debt $59,418 per unit. As the court we call we’ve been utilizing water specifically when you get brain project cost is the most accurate reflection of the water supporting projects for cash in lieu. And again everything’s at today. The invoice we have at 18 $1,528 per acre foot. So, step seven finds that the turkey for cash and the water he received is accurate representation of the costs listed above and therefore, food suggests no further revisions of insincerity at this time. Following our compensation in our next section, we’ll take that information that may lead to a different criteria matrix through December. But as of right now, we’re still operating the same way we always have cash, based upon what you get from the project is still
Unknown Speaker 10:43
there for discussion or questions for less?
Unknown Speaker 10:49
Maybe a silly question, what would cause it to go down while reviewing any?
Unknown Speaker 10:57
So so what happens is a lot of times, there’s there could be a couple things that could cause here, this particular one here, so on this particular one, there was one transaction in July, comprised of 20 units. In June, we had 123456 different transactions. So if you think of it as buying one car in July, versus seven cars, or one card down seven cars in June, one of those transaction agreements occurred many months prior. And so it’s really about a willing seller willing buyer. And so things such as somebody has CBD, and they needed to market it, so that it would be for sure to sell ideally, at a lower price. That can be part of it could have been the discussion with the seller, which is owner buyer could have been many months in the making, that can make a difference, it just takes a while to come to fruition. And also just the supply and demand, it could have been more supply at one point and the desire of oversupply
Unknown Speaker 12:17
with respect to the CVT that that that costs that we’re showing that’s artificially depleted because it’s per unit.
Unknown Speaker 12:26
So the weight, so the cost and the graphs that follow the 58, for example, $58,000 per year, that’s why much credits CVT at 0.76 acre feet per unit. So to keep it if you will, apples to apples, we apply that factor. And again, I apologize for not doing that. But the relative cost of CBT versus the relative cost of new water supply project from database federates cost is significantly higher. But when you just look at the CVT transaction cost, they were all fairly consistent with one another give or take a couple of percent cost questions.
Unknown Speaker 13:21
Oh, looking at the tables that are subsequent to this table, I think their actual data that was crunched, some of them say na, and some of them actually have a figure. And I was wondering what how we have numbers or something.
Unknown Speaker 13:37
So I don’t know that necessarily. Anyone is obligated to give their transaction information. So if I sold the car to you, I may or may not want to choose to tell you when the elders who sold it to these values reflect people that were willing to tell what the transaction costs were. So since there’s not a requirement of doing that, they don’t have to we have a third party that helps us put this information together. So they reach out to Northern to some of these buyers. And if they’re willing to share that information they do. So that’s
Unknown Speaker 14:11
that third party.
Unknown Speaker 14:14
know we use Eric accardi McCarty water evaluation to check.
Unknown Speaker 14:22
Probably shouldn’t say they probably should say, No.
Unknown Speaker 14:25
Yeah, well, probably a better way of saying it. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 14:33
Any other questions, comments? So staffs recommending that we leave essentially at the current media throwing project costs which have not changed. So if we’re good with that, then we don’t need a motion right now. But as is so because he might have a problem with just leaving, understanding that we’re going to have a discussion very shortly with regards to the major changes coming up in December, but for the time Being urban good. We’re living
Unknown Speaker 15:01
in a different testament. Alright.
Unknown Speaker 15:03
I think we’re good there. It was. All right on the nightbeat, which is the castle new policy review. And
Unknown Speaker 15:14
so one of our may recall last month we had in July, we took the June waterboard recommendation, the cash lieu city council asked waterboard staff and water board to review our policy and our methodology, how we make recommendations on the cash in lieu, we looked at some of the history last month of how we set to cash in lieu over the years. And one of the things we’re doing in the in the waterboard right up is we’re apologize for the look a little redundant, but we’re continuing to keep like the history from last month, we’re leaving it in the onboard communication, because this thing’s all done, we want to make sure the public can go to the whatever the latest document is to pull that up, we’ll get the history, they’ll get the legal Part, we’ll get a policy, and it will be much easier for the public to kind of follow what we do and how it’s set. So that’s why as time goes on this leading in bigger, so I’ll just skip over the history because we didn’t cover that last year. Excuse me last month. The thing we wanted to kind of focus on a little more this month, is the legal aspects of setting not only cash flow, but impact fees in general, so we can have that conversation. Also, we’ve got some members of our finance folks here who eventually this also becomes well how does this work financially? What do we do, there are other areas that we recover fees and costs, not just cash in lieu. So as we get a conversation, that he’s here to help, help, help us out, understand any broader financial aspects of this, also the year to listen, see where we’re going. So before I jump in into the legal issues, I just would remind the board. In the past, we’ve looked at some of the different areas that we do collect fees. And generally, for a part of the system that is already built and paid for and part of our water system, we collect the funding to kind of equalize, one development activity occurs equalize what nobody else in the community has paid for recharge a water tap fee. And that water tap fee. If you think about it, it essentially covers the infrastructure that’s built. Good example, specific to windy gap, that we have the conversation probably a year or so ago, when we first were setting up this policy, utilizing the windy Fermi project is the developer community will pay for both the parent when you get project and windy gap firming project, the parent project since it’s already built, all the bonds got paid off in 2017. Now kind of rolled into our overall system. And that’s the calculation of the water tap fee is based upon the value of the system that they’re applying into. So that sort of development covers that cost in the water tap. Now, in addition to that, we need to go out and secure additional water supply, which is what the windigo firming project does, it turns off the wind power project that is paid to the water to create from water. But that is a project that isn’t built yet isn’t paid yet. And so that that is is covered with cash and loop so that’s where that is paid. And then on. In addition, there’s cost for
Unknown Speaker 19:42
the overall some of the bonds and bekijken correctly, even even help a little bit here with the blog. We have a special windy gap surcharge that the development community pays for when they take out a towel so they didn’t really made up when he got surcharges wet. So it’s not just one small window that we’re looking at when we talk, we need to get up when the gap is much larger profit, I guess the point I’m trying to make, and it’s coconut those, those costs are quite a couple of numbers. So what we’re really talking about today is windy out. I mean, excuse me, this is the fact that cash in lieu, how we set a policy is cash mu is currently being used to help pay for we get the budget before we get that money is and so in essence, it’s a what’s called an impact fee. by either the developer community has an impact on our system, they impact is going to give water because they don’t have the full three acre feet, pay the impact fees, and they will actually be pulling water from other water users in our system. So that the attack fee is what really on your collect. And there’s different examples of impact fees throughout the city. But cash in lieu is just one. So at this point, all. So as we look at the policy of cash in lieu of the policy of setting that this particular impact key, it will be very beneficial both for Walmart and for the general public. understand exactly how an impact fee is legally what it is. And so with great appreciation, Eugene came today, to give us a quick rundown on what impact fees are, how we can and can look out and how we can and can’t sell what what’s what’s legal. So do you want us to go ahead and queue up your?
Unknown Speaker 21:53
Yes, that’d be great. And thank you very much for the invitation. I’ve been city attorney for four years, I don’t think I’ve actually ever attended a waterboarding. I see you guys come up every now and then for the winter, you have discussions, usually the chair representing the board. And as you know, city council gave direction to take a look at the methodology and for cash in lieu, the statutory impact fees, there’s actually a quite simple state statute that gives criteria and tells you how to impose these fees and what it can be used for. So that’s really what I’m here to give you the legal underpinnings statutory impact fees. So next slide. So the purpose is have a secretary impact fees is to fund local government expenditures for capital facilities need to serve you development. And you needed a statute to do this. And I would distinguish impact fees from sort of fees for service, your basic, you know, water rate, your the fee that you pay for playing development review, you know, they’re there, you’re getting a service and immediate service for what you’re paying for. The impact the statute, you know, that the legislature recognize that capital facilities are expensive, they take planning, you need to pile your money together, before you can pay for oftentimes, and so the city does have other impact fees, we have a transportation impact fee to serve new development to improve the transportation system for increasing populations. We’ve got a recreation building impact fee where you, you know, kind of pull up money and look at the new rec center or the new park at the serve the new population coming to the community. So you know, it’s a longer horizon for these capital facilities. Next slide. Capital facility, very simple definition, it really is useful life of five years or longer, you know, you’re looking at buildings and water storage projects, that that sort of thing. distinguished from O and M costs human capital versus own M. Next slide. So the statute sets forth the criteria by which you would oppose an impact fee legislatively adopted, so city council has to pass it by ordinance. In this situation, generally applicable to broad class of property, you can have a number of different types of properties. In other settings, you might have record residential versus commercial. Here, you know, you can slice it, I want to get to fine you know, you don’t want to single out particular sectors. That’s why what I read it as the Class A property. And then obviously the funds received the to go towards defray the costs of those capital facilities caused by the new development, I think are other impact fees, defray, they don’t pay the full cost. But you have that flexibility up to the full cost of the new capital facilities. Next slide. The statute gives you some guidance on how to set your impact fee. There’s a requirement for quantifying that capital facility and the cost of that capital facility caused by the proposed development This is all about the new development and the capital facilities he deserved. Yeah, the second one is, it’s not a profit making fee, here, we’re looking to defray those costs, but no greater than the amount of the costs. And an important restriction is you’re not fixing things that are deficient, you’re looking at new capital facilities or capital facilities that the new development is going to use. So I looked at a an expansion of our wastewater system, that could be an impact fee, it’s about, you know, increasing the capacity. But if we have deficiencies in our existing or impact, we should not be used to remedy those deficiencies.
Unknown Speaker 26:52
Next slide. And there’s just a couple other considerations that are sprinkled through the statute. No double dipping. Now, when it makes sense, you can segregate them, as you know, we heard can explain where the gap has a couple of different fees, but they’re going to different portions of the project. Report, one for one of Council’s priorities is impact fees can be waived for lower moderate income housing, explicit in statute. You know, I think it’s important to have this explicit waiver, because the statute says applicable to broad categories of property, you’re carving out this small sector of low or moderate income housing, could run afoul of the broad classes, but now it’s explicitly legislatively authorized. And then in terms of timing kind of makes sense. You collect it at the time of development permit, or thereafter, you can go all the way to certificate of occupancy, you know, that’s mostly residential. That’s further down the development timeline. But you’re not supposed to be collecting it before the development permit is issued. And that’s it, I think, next slide. Yeah, it’s a pretty simple set of tools. It’s in your package, about five pages long. It just provides you general guidelines of how to pose legally defensible. So happy to answer the question now, or once we get into this discussion on the policy, we
Unknown Speaker 28:34
just try to look at this, when deciding
Unknown Speaker 28:42
if simplistic definition was the most, the most reasonable to assess a fee to close water only costs municipality to provide you charge more I understand, you know, they can charge less, somebody’s got to pay for like, what have you? Is that a simple way? I mean, the more accurate reports we represent the true costs, is that, that where you go to Target or
Unknown Speaker 29:19
you know, I think there’s a lot of considerations. This one, you know, I think it follows mostly in the development phase its way and where you do try to maybe recover close to the full cost. I think there are other areas say recreation, where you may not you may be to frame the cost, but there’s no dollars going into that it’s going to be good and distributed around the city. And then and then you know, also well if there’s a political will to impose fees on development, and you know, just that affect the amount of development and how development friendly Walmart is, and you know, what, what are the goals for the community? And so I think you put those all together and come up with a reasonable range for impact fees and recovery of your costs. Any other questions?
Unknown Speaker 30:22
Yeah. And we can get into more of a broad discussion, I guess after that. Go ahead.
Unknown Speaker 30:31
So I’m just curious about like, I don’t know exactly how to frame this question. So I know that you can’t ask for a greater cost than what we expect or ask for for a greater fee from than what we think the cost will be in the moment, essentially, because of course, we can profit from from this endeavor. But what if there’s a scenario where we and we were reasonably reasonably anticipate greater difficulty in in securing something or securing kind of water, for example, in the future? Is it? Is it better to kind of Is there a mechanism in place for essentially like a rainy day fund? Like within city government? I know that within federal government, there isn’t really, or at least it’s not obvious to me how that works. But But is there is there a mechanism in place by which we collect slowly collect greater degree greater amounts of fees? Now, in order to defray very future costs? Not not five years from now, but like 10 1520 years from now and build up that fun today? Such that then those then that money is spent later? Does that make sense? Yeah,
Unknown Speaker 31:53
it does make sense? I think it’s a great question. You know, under this statute, it was adopted in 2001. There are no cases interpreting, so no challenges, the impact fees. I think your question would go to that language in the statute that talks about a reasonable qualification. And, you know, I’ve been here five years and following the wind gap, and there’s an uncertainty factor for the windy gap and how much water you need. And for me and, and build out all that. I think that you could potentially collect greater fees and your hard costs now based on uncertainty. And, you know, the only guidance we have is it has to be reasonable. And so, you know, I seen the justification for the uncertainty with climate change, distribution of water, you know, demands on the resource. And I think those are all reasonable, I think, you know, at some point, they’ll become unreasonable. And, you know, at least the lawyer and he says, We don’t want to be the test case. So testing what is reasonable, you know, I would, I call it a certainty factor and not a rainy day, just because, but certainty threat sounds more reasonable. Maybe days. Sounds like you’re kind of making a flush one on the side.
Unknown Speaker 33:23
Well, and if it rains in the future, then yeah, that’s probably so maybe that’s hopeful thinking, I guess. But, but no, I mean, I think climate change is maybe that the point, right, like, Is there a circumstance where we could charge a little bit more now, but just a little bit more to kind of build up some future? uncertainty find, right, relative to 30 years from now, when it was really, right, pretty dire when that was and you’re charging
Unknown Speaker 33:54
a lot more for something. And, you know, getting ready for this meeting and review of the cash in lieu talking to staff, you know, some of our uncertain factors that they’re talking about our expansion, the union reservoir or button rounds, or you know, those are reasonable and certain t factors to have a backup when they don’t want is critical to your community, and you don’t want to be shaving it too close. So interesting. Area conversation, and at least from a legal perspective, no, no case law guidance. Though some of
Unknown Speaker 34:40
you have a question. Yes, I’m saying and this is just trying to read this carefully. The statute that you provided, thank you very much for providing that and the overview. Specifically, I’m looking at in the statically provided section today. A couple of lines that are brand new perspective. Yeah. So the first one is the existing capital facilities. So it looks just kind of a quick read of that, like you’re trying to tie to what has been done in the past, or what is proposed for the future. And I’m wondering if there’s a way to reassess to kind of square with kind of a reality check. So for example, you think that divorce is going to cost X amount of money is that magic goes through a lot of litigation? Just that statement is a world class, x times two. Yeah. Is there a way to square that we’re just kind of do a true up? Or are you stuck with that existing habit facility as a project at the beginning? No,
Unknown Speaker 36:11
I think an impact fee can be vault can be reevaluated can be reset based on new information, the costs. And the height is reasonable impacts. And so, you know, to the lawyer, that means you have a reasonable that a pretty big discretion on what’s reasonable. And if you know, I know for other impact fees in the city, you have studies and justify your costs. And so, you know, if litigation if time and materials and construction costs apply, you should you know, those make your costs go up. I think you could adjust your estimated expenses, and adjust your impact fee accordingly, because of that new information calculation, circumstances that that arose.
Unknown Speaker 37:16
And that’s a similar question to be directly related to proposed development. Similar, and it sounds like your answer would be that that litigation costs wouldn’t be included directly related to
Unknown Speaker 37:28
Yeah, I mean, I think those are direct costs to the project.
Unknown Speaker 37:33
Final question is, would you interpret that center as a legal challenge that was dismissed, would not indicate some sort of deficiency and the plan? It would just be a legal challenge? Or if there was any success in legal challenge, that would give some sort of deficiency such that it would become excluded from that set lessons,
Unknown Speaker 37:59
too? I’ll give you a longer answer to that. It depends on the facts. You know, I was kind of thinking about some of those environmental westslope environmental impacts or mitigation measures that did get incorporated. But if they didn’t get incorporated, or part of litigation and denied, you know, if I would think unsuccessful litigation does not have any bearing on whether it was efficient or not, you lost in the process was upheld. So, you know, I think it’s hard to generalize on the efficiencies and what that finding is. And, yeah, at least for the windy gap, and what did you know, it wasn’t about? I don’t think the existing the proposed storage. And so I think that fits squarely in the capital facilities for new development. And so it would seem like those costs would be separated from the anything with the existing or new capital facilities.
Unknown Speaker 39:27
Any other questions for you
Unknown Speaker 39:31
have a window of information I guess? Sorry. I’m a little uncertain as to whether I am permitted to participate in this discussion. Since I’ll be voting on it. I have some questions that haven’t been asked that maybe.
Unknown Speaker 39:55
You know, this is a legislative matter and a quasi traditional manner. So you know, That’s pretty discretion.
Unknown Speaker 40:02
Okay. In that case, you know, we’ve been talking about future changes in expenses, you know, future changes in the cost of infrastructure, even the cost of the when you get process project itself. At the present time of the state of Sweden, how will we have actual uncertainty as to the water supply? Because there will be get diversion. It was going to be one of the first to go, if we start using the functionality of those two lakes, and the water will stay in Colorado. As I understand it, so is the answer. May we? And I don’t know whether this is a Eugene question or water question. But may we include costs, anticipated costs based on the contingency that we can use to get water which has an associated cost, but we’d have to, we’d have to use CBT water, which costs a lot more to meet your obligations. Okay.
Unknown Speaker 41:18
Yeah. No, I can step in a little bit. So I think there’s, I guess, in my mind, there’s quite a few unknowns. I mean, one of which is if there is a compact all how’s it going to be implemented? There’s new operational rules that are going to come into play in 2026. They’re already starting to negotiate those. And those may have a bearing marshawn. Ultimately, what pecking order and how, you know, are there shortages? And how are they doled out? So I think, in all that kind of plays back to this firming ratio, that we’ve used in the context of, you know, what’s the, what if we’re gonna try to price cash in lieu to add one acre foot affirm yield and have the developer pay cash in lieu rate equivalent to the marginal cost of adding one acre put it from yield? windy? Yep, there’s risk involved in that. Right. And I guess, in a couple points there, one is there’s risk on the entire system, not just when you get, but in my mind, we’re saying when you get maybe as a higher risk? And is it maybe back to Eugene’s point? Is it appropriate to add an additional kind of safety factor or whatever word, you want to use their uncertainty to try to accommodate or account for that. And only other piece, I guess, in my mind is, as we go into the future, I think some of these uncertainties, namely, the new operating criteria for the Colorado River is going to become a little bit more clear, such that then that uncertainty may become a little less in the future. But you know, it doesn’t warrant given those additional risks. But when you get one beyond what our current from yield ratio is, to beyond what we feel is the risk to the overall Longmont water system to allocate an additional kind of safety factor or uncertainty factor to that cash and lieu rate to try to count or accommodate that. And that in, I guess, in my mind is where we can try to address some of the issues, Marsha that you’re bringing up? And I don’t think it’s necessarily going to be binary yes or no, it’s going to be, we’re still going to maybe have wet years. And hey, we can meet the obligation to the lower basin states, and that allows certain diversions in certain years. So it’s not going to be it’s not an all or nothing. And without a lot of modeling and a lot of assumptions on stuff that’s going to be negotiated from now to 2026 2026. I don’t think we’re going to have a good answer for that. So, you know, you’re putting a caliber on a putty bowl is the I guess the analogy I like to use of, I think we need to what’s appropriate for that level of uncertainty? Maybe place that and then we can adjust it as we get more information. And maybe some of these unknowns become gnomes are a little bit more known, so to speak.
Unknown Speaker 44:09
So in the past as the Fermi ratio, was it, was it recalibrated year to year? Or was it just based on the first few years of experience? Or, you know, it was it was computed somehow. So the first thing we have to do is with the obvious changes in the weather that we’re seeing, you know, in the last few years, do we acknowledge that the firming ratio is probably different than it was? And second, do we acknowledge that an upcoming ruling could or an upcoming ga emergency such as meet up now could be outside from the ratio just say we’re putting all the water we plot And to me the palette right now. Because those seem like two separate situations to me.
Unknown Speaker 45:08
That was correct the current firming ratio was developed earlier on during the project, the windy gap for me project implementation. The one of the first thing during the environmental impact statement preparation by the federal government. One of the early on activities was to do bottled water combined CVT and windy gas systems to determine now model was done. Post 2002, which was our driest year. So it did have the benefit of including the driest year. And it used a lot of years a year ago. Now. So that is a that was a, you know, an excellent will be prepared. Like That being said, there’s there’s certainly no difficulty. Well, it’s certainly possible to relook at that perfect project number and see if it’s different, and also look at some policy around that to decide, you know, do we want to accept it on its face? Or do we want to apply something for the future? So, yeah, that’s certainly something that we can we can look at.
Unknown Speaker 46:39
Further discussion on that. Okay, so it sounds like we’re gonna have additional discussions. I don’t know what what your thoughts can on on next steps are we had kind of this discussion with this uncertainty or in the context of yield associated with any gap firming? What’s an appropriate level of safety factor or however you want to word that? The based on, you know, climate change the state of the Colorado River, upcoming operating criteria that’s being renegotiated all of those items? Like that’s, I guess, maybe the next step in this discussion?
Unknown Speaker 47:33
Yeah, actually, I was on when we wrote this up. And what we’re hoping to do today was kind of take it as a two step process. The first thing I was hoping we could do is look at our current orders, like which which we put in under policy philosophy. You know, our raw water requirement policy. Current code annoying refers a breaker foot fee for cash flow of water rights transfers, somebody said, from time to time I resolution city council based on one recommendation, breaker co pays or cash. All right, officially reviewed on the waterboard at least quarterly basis for the recommendation show. The current price, the new water supply projects, the current market value of CBT. The current market is not a circle at facing water rights. And so that is kind of the you know, that’s what we want. We looked at the not the quarterly report. That’s the information that’s included in that. So there’s two takes on really what we’re doing here. One is do we need to go back and adjust the Korean language? Is there something out there that somebody wants that we should be looking at beyond the portfolio? assembly of information we have? A second is then you look at the policy of how we said based upon what we looked at. So staffs recommendation is really the current language we have in the code I do believe is sufficient. We’ve got we’ve got bass and water rights. We’ve got water conservation, we’ve got projects, we’ve got CDT. We have a large window of items of the water board and council can look at this up to cash flow. And I believe that’s robust enough. So I think that helps us. Then we want to step back. Yeah, if that’s acceptable, when we can step back inside of that kind of stuff. portfolio and say, Well, what does each one of those things mean? And how do we, how do we set the fee? So I think there’s enough in what the current code language has to look at. I mean, right now, it could be as inexpensive as water conservation, which is 10,000 acre foot, which is almost half of our current cash flow. Or it could be as expensive as CBT, which is 80,000 an acre. But, you know, much more. So I believe there’s a wide enough window, in what we have the code, and then and then we can, if that’s the case, what were agrees with that, then we can go back in and look at, you know, the role or play on the current philosophy, and look at what some different things are? How to review that in context. So the first thing I would ask waterboard if one works, okay, would be to one, so if you want any change in the code language of that song ensemble of what we can look at? And then the second would be if, if there is an or if there is we’ll come back, what we need to know is what to come back with next month. And, you know, are we looking at code change to include additional things, you know, digital items look at? Or are we just looking at the policy? And then once we get to the policy, what are different ones additional information a board might want to make? And ultimately, we’ll come out with a recommendation and city council. This is how we think we should look at the policy. So I would throw that out, I guess, as my first step, suggested step would be to think of just that. We know the code. Is that code language sufficient for what we need to do manifest sufficient that we can talk about what we want to cover? What additional information do we want to start covering that with the policy?
Unknown Speaker 52:05
There are questions going on. I do have one. So the way it’s worded Now, under that policy philosophy, is current cost of new waterslide projects identified in the CS roller master plan. You’re right, we’ve got this huge, you know, you’ve got from conservation to CDT, I guess where we’re going, though, and I guess where my mind is going is, we’re talking about adding kind of an additional safety factor, so to speak to that. So do we need additional language? And I guess, Eugene, I don’t know if you can speak to this, uh, you know what, what I’m afraid of is this current cost of new water supply projects identified in the city of one month for all water master plan. So if the master plan, it says 2.42, you know, is the firming ratio. So that’s equivalent to this much yield per storage? And this is the cost of the storage? Do we have the capability under the current policy, as it’s written to say, Well, you know, as Tom was alluding to, there’s things coming down the road, namely, and Marsha was of, you know, climate change and its impact on Colorado River Basin, we got policy, you know, the new operating criteria for the Colorado River, can we can we fit within that current policy of Hey, we think there should be an additional safety factor added to make, you know, the when the gap on a marginal basis of adding one acre foot for a meal, it should be the cost plus 20%, or something does it fit? I guess that’s my question is Does it fit within that language? And if not, then, do we need to get language back to make sure it does fit within that or give us that ability?
Unknown Speaker 53:55
You know, this, this is gone beyond my level of expertise. I would say, you know, I’ve read at current costs in the water supply projects identify a city water master plan. So I don’t know in that language, there is the ability to insert the margin there. The other ones look, pretty set, current market value CBT and historical. So I think what I would suggest is take that comment recommendation, let the legal staff get together and work it out for next month. And, you know, I think there may be a level of detail that the attorneys need to get familiar with Sure. The under Can, you know well goes into the current language?
Unknown Speaker 55:06
So I guess so sometimes I like chocolate myself in the shoes of somebody that’s been cast, right? So I think myself, okay, well, where’s that extra 20%? Right. So if something has changed, and I noticed that I said, Well, okay, well, that wasn’t there before was that 20%? going? Right? So this maybe puts a finer point on the question that I was asking before, can that 20% go into like, literally, like a bank account or something to to to, to? Because we believe in the future, there will be additional costs a lot of paperwork, to go into infrastructure immediately such that like, maybe you all say, well, in order to deal with this, and we do need to expand your door, and so the cost goes directly into that infrastructure? Or can the 20 So first of all, that’s maybe my year, more of a minute or so is that can can can put it into an account that is for the future? You know,
Unknown Speaker 56:10
I think so. You know, 20%, I’m actually working on the cost of project. This is all public information, there’s a 20% contingency built into our construction contracts. You know, I know, it’s pretty standard for construction contracts, they have a 10% contingency, I think, kind of the concept we’re talking about in this uncertainty margin of error is that contingency? And I think it’s pretty standard practice, to have those built into contracts. I think that contingency is probably increasing with the diet, you know, supply chain and all that dynamics going on now. I generally think it’s reasonable under the impact these criteria, you know, reasonable quantification of the expenses. reasonable, put a contingency.
Unknown Speaker 57:11
That’s what
Unknown Speaker 57:14
people do, when they, when they plan these projects. I do think they would be restricted funds. You know, if the contingency didn’t come true, that those would be for especially, you know, cash in lieu area would have to be for water capital facilities, below the rec facility.
Unknown Speaker 57:39
Because the other way that I could see kind of getting around that issue, right. If that couldn’t happen, then perhaps into the future, you say, well, we have what right now we’re fixing this to the cost of miniapp, firming project water. However, we recognize into the future, that that maybe we might have to rely more on CBT water or something, given some of the uncertainties, right? And so you just gradually begin to kind of like, progressively do some fractional percentage of each or something, right? So you say, Well, you know, within, over the next 10 years, we’ll say, well, we got premium money over over the next 20 years, when we anticipate that we’ll do you know, we’re expecting to have to maybe purchase 10% or 20% of the additional proposed water something from CBT and see if we can kind of gradually increase in the cost.
Unknown Speaker 58:42
Here’s a quick comment has bothered me a little while this happens, again, shall include the current boss. And I will be more comfortable with Shell means we’re going to put that in there regardless, May is a much softer word, because we may choose not to use some of these suggested items. And I would assume that’s the prerogative of boiling it down to what you think makes the most sense in developing wealthy Marsha last time was talking about, you know, cost your water projects is up and down and all over the place. To me, if I was being charged a fee, I would like to see something on a more consistent basis rather than Well, here’s a new project so of course your costs are going to go you know, it just doesn’t make sense to me. It’s too variable. My sense. I would rather see something that develops some consistency in it. So we have glanced at Okay, except, but not camera comes on board all of a sudden, that bothers me. So I just I don’t think people understand a lot of variability in fees that may come down the road? Well, of course it has to hide because it doesn’t seem that way as part of something being reasonable, because it’s to verify. Any other comments. Let’s go ahead and awesome.
Unknown Speaker 1:00:38
I actually focus on the word right after Roger show, which we shall include. And when I read that, here’s a list of factors, but does not exclude any other considerations. So yes, while it requires consideration of those three elements, it doesn’t preclude consideration to others. With that said, I think that there’s something to be said for Tom’s point, which is like, making it clear to people what’s actually going into the consideration, you know, if there is some sort of margin of error for uncertainty, probably black and white, even though I would say arguably, a shell include without parameter. So I guess, I think if there’s if there’s a strong sense that there’s something concrete that we should consider, it should be added. But I don’t think if there isn’t, I don’t think it’s necessary to change the language, because it does give us that we’re
Unknown Speaker 1:01:39
talking like a lawyer like that.
Unknown Speaker 1:01:47
So as far as next steps, sounds like you guys will get together and maybe take feedback come back to us with with something based on the feedback you think will happen. I mean, the only last piece I’ll add is Thomas speaking is, you know, we’ve got we got firming. And then beyond that, what we’ve talked about, at least in the context, in my mind, and the master plan, we’ve got the union reservoir pump, right. So to the extent that when you get doesn’t yield, as we anticipated, it will, and we add a 20% factor, because you know, we’re having less yield, we’re adding costs to try to make them pay the kind of marginal cost adding nature, but that only gets us so far. And then they’re gonna have the long months gonna have to start implementing the union reservoir pump back project to try to make up the balance. So in the interim, the money maybe could even go to pay down the bonds, you don’t use all of it for that purpose. And then once that’s gone, you know, we’ve sold all over when the gap year we have done that the money that’s coming in on cash in lieu, I assume at that point to the extent on what hasn’t met its build out and still has water demands coming when it’s going to be planning and implementing the union reservoir pump act or whatever that project is at that point. And so it sounds like we’ll get some feedback. Next month, we can consider that in advance of hopefully November. Trying to fine tune it. So that the December meeting we’ve got to have the new policy in place, such that we can set the the cash in lieu if you know that whatever we feel is appropriate our recommendation should say for the council to set the cash flow and and Marsha can have fun with council
Unknown Speaker 1:03:31
will have many of you guys listen to the discussion by the public about this topic, but I would encourage it since you are going to give another buddy this. Because there were a lot of interesting points made Now usually don’t agree with the public who who has points to make about the water. But this time, I thought some of them have points, which Oh, I was afraid to within the app.
Unknown Speaker 1:04:10
I was wondering if maybe we can identify that and have it be distributed as a way to get to that information in a big way. Before second regular meeting is 14. We’ll get that
Unknown Speaker 1:04:38
get it imported to the board
Unknown Speaker 1:04:39
I just a link to the video audio option. Yeah. Great. Thanks.
Unknown Speaker 1:04:54
Did you have anything else?
Unknown Speaker 1:04:56
I didn’t know anything else. No. I appreciate your insight and Give us more direction of where to
Unknown Speaker 1:05:03
go stick with one cat, because I don’t have an employee but identified in Section 1405 oh 16 the current market value of non historical native bass and water rights. I don’t suspect that includes the market value of windy gap units. And I don’t see where the winning units would be considered. But I suspect that as the project matures, there may be a purchase and sale of where the gap is. You don’t have too many or don’t have enough. And that’s a market based additional supply source that says that the city might have a an interesting,
Unknown Speaker 1:05:37
that’s a really good point, because GRP did sell some of their habits. And we have not in the past included that in the list of waterways, but that we probably should now
Unknown Speaker 1:05:48
target to the point where there’s a actual plan there’s building going on, and those will be more fungible and that historically, there’s less risk to selling.
Unknown Speaker 1:05:56
Yeah, good point. We’ll, we’ll call that now.
Unknown Speaker 1:06:00
Because so far our assessment of the value, or our assessment of the capital mu, based on the based on when you got permission that’s been been based on the
Unknown Speaker 1:06:12
construction, new construction affirming project, rather than the
Unknown Speaker 1:06:17
native base. Similar rates are listed here. McIntosh and Ogilvy did a translation for it, right. Alright, so we’re on the item 10, eight, which is the windows for any project that they
Unknown Speaker 1:06:32
can. Cool. Just a quick update. As you all know, the we got the construction started August 6, groundbreaking and construction started shortly thereafter. Currently, they’re primarily working on the coffer dam, the saddle Dale and access roads around the area. We do have some pictures. Not a couple pictures. So this was taken today. So it’s very current. This shows the you’re on the abutment on the east side of the reservoir, just west, the Carter Lake, looking down into the valley. And you can see the start of the key trench, there’s a lot of material been moved here, they’re moving between 10 and 15,000 cubic yards a day. So they’re moving a little bit of dirt. And you can see you can see the start of for the embankment will go on up here. If you can see it from the tackle from the next picture. As you can see some of the access roads and some of the words and the scale of what that is the next picture. take a quick look at this is looking, there’s the very edge of our we were looking at. This is looking further west. You can see the quarries over here and they’re just starting to struggle a little bit more topsoil off of the quarry. The saddle down is clear back here. Generally, the reservoir is pretty much you can see the tree line is about what I want to wind, the reservoir will eventually be if you see here in the background. This is the wapa power line that was relocated. It’s now often completely functional. And the old. The old power line was completely taken down and actually had to stay because unfortunately, some Raptors made some mess. And we had to wait to let the young fledge in August. That’s done now. And so that part of the project is all done new power lines up and energize. And then the work going on to the west. So good, good news. They are working. Also, Broomfield sold its bonds, they were the last entity that was selling bonds. So Brookfield has now sold their bonds. And all of their money has been transferred to Northern to the municipal sub district when you go for every project, so 100% of the funds are having all the bonds, including the pool financing for participants has all been sold. All the funds are up in northern for the construction of the project. So that’s good news as well. And also, at the start started construction triggered a number of the mitigation payments and mitigation efforts through the printing process. So that about Eight to 10 million in copying mitigation costs, a lot of that money’s been pushed over some of it went to the state division of wildlife and other other sub who went to Frazier. Well, the Frazier water sanitation district for construction of a wastewater treatment plant nitrogen removal project on their wastewater treatment plant, which is some of the mitigation for to prevent the introduction of additional nutrients into the three Lake system. So a lot of that mitigation has gone on. And that’s all I got, Mr. Chairman worry where we’re taking the project off, and it’s going
Unknown Speaker 1:10:55
to be questions. Thank you again. Next night. I’m Tim B is a St. Green horoscope partnership project.
Unknown Speaker 1:11:05
Yeah, just real briefly on this. As my board may recall, city council had entered into a kind of a joint agreement with Boulder County and Longmont, Boulder and and a lot of the fire districts and some of the watershed protection groups to do what to do joy, large scale forest mitigation work locally, it morphed into what’s called the same rain forest health partnership project that’s being led the public information part as being led by the Uptown watershed Center, which we’ll hear a little bit about that in five o’clock, when, when they give their presentation, one of the projects that we’re working on, but more specifically, the US Forest Service is really getting a good start. Unfortunately, because the US Forest Service is one of the partners in this overall effort, which since they own most lands, that was to hear developments. They are required to do an environmental review of their project as they would with any federal action. They are doing quite well. I mean, they’re, they’re well into that. And they’re they’re probably halfway through their efforts, we won’t see or hear much of that, because that thoroughbred kind of tends to go off in the corner and do their work, and then they come back in areas. But it just got to take getting that done before that or you can go. But that that aside, the left hand watershed centers then has had a number of public tours the toward the kellwood fire area, the tour the left hand, Creek, some work done down there, we toured the bedrock Preserve. And we showed some of the Forest Stewardship efforts we’ve been doing a bedrock Preserve. And it’s been very well received by everybody that doesn’t attend this tour. And they’ve also been working with left hand watershed center to distribute public outreach. That’s, that’s where the watershed center really helps. And the federal government is for the city of Boulder County, it’s hard for government to come out say Hi, we’re from government, we’re here to help. But if that watershed center, and they found they have experiences in the pooter, it comes out great juice out of that itself. So they’re they’re working hard on getting that public information out. And I think you’ll hear a little bit more about that. So just wanted to let you know, are we on that? Unfortunately, still waiting on the federal US Federal environmental process. Once that happens? It’s still about Victor, you’re looking mid next summer to have that all there are no worries. And then we can start looking at projects. And once that happens, that’s when some real work, large scale work, multi jurisdictional work. So as we get into that is get more information. Will it update the
Unknown Speaker 1:14:46
goals of that project seem to overlap with it with this new planet Conservation Corps thing that the governor announced this week? I’m just curious what There’s any overlap with with some of the state level proposals.
Unknown Speaker 1:15:05
There’s not there’s in terms of overlap of work and will be overlap of work. I can see those state efforts are going to help fund and they’re going to help maybe provide. If they do Conservation Corps, you could bring that Korean to help do some of the forest. Forest Stewardship. Really, honestly, some of it is controlled, you know, is burn. We’re introverts. You want the professionals alpha, though, it’s Yeah, but also it’s going in before you bird you got to go in and clean and clear and grubbing cotton. Some of that’s just backbreaking hard work. And certainly Conservation Corps can be used to help bring some of that material out for you started, you know, prescriber. So it doesn’t get away from this. Oh, yeah, I think they could certainly work together.
Unknown Speaker 1:15:59
Any other questions? Okay, thank you can call them item 11? A is a remote attendance policy. And or was Yeah,
Unknown Speaker 1:16:11
I’ll go ahead just kind of queued up. So there’s really two aspects of remote attendance policy we’ll we’ll be talking about today. The first one, the first is real simple. The city manager has asked all of the boards and commissions to kind of give him feedback on what your preferences are for board meetings and remote attendance and that whole subject from a long term perspective. And then there’s the short term perspective of with the more recent increase in some of the variants and whatnot, we want to really ask to two questions. One is his award in the next couple months from a COVID perspective, comfortable continuing it out, or in person meetings? And so that’s a short term answer. And then the longer term is the board’s current policy doesn’t allow remote attendance, rather than carrying a prescribed emergency, which is what we see better declare an emergency to Council, you know, a web remote all before commission. So that’s currently what that is. And then Luckily, Eugene’s here, so I’m gonna prevail on Eugene to just kind of maybe stillborn in a little bit on kind of the legal perspectives of having adult meetings. And depending on what whatever you’d like to do, you know, where we might be able to go there. Yeah. So
Unknown Speaker 1:17:57
I look at these from an Open Meetings perspective. boards and commissions are covered under the Open Meetings law. And the Open Meetings law, generally says, you know, government business should be conducted in public. There is a right of citizens to observe. Oftentimes, we provide public, inviting, be heard, or public comment periods. Those are not required for boards and commissions, they are required by the charter for city council meetings. But I think it’s good sort of transparency and community engagement to provide that opportunity. So at least from my perspective, there aren’t a lot of legal restrictions if you guys want to remote or not. And I think it really is up to different boards and commissions on their own preferences. We’ve been working with planning and zoning commission, they did go back remote. You know, that is a good test case, because they do quasi judicial judicial proceedings with land use applications with property rights. So there’s a higher level of scrutiny and the process that you know, as an advisory board, you got generally aren’t going to get in trouble by not strictly complying with the open meetings, but I really think there’s a lot of discretion for the board to express its preferences and conduct the meetings and the way they want to as long as there’s the ability of the public to observe
Unknown Speaker 1:19:37
that’s all I have
Unknown Speaker 1:19:38
just so it sounds like you want I guess we can just do a hands up kind of vote during COVID. And we want as the board feel in terms of in person, hybrid or virtual. So and then I guess the second question is long term, in person hybrid or virtual And I guess that would be adson. City declared. So the first one is during the COVID, the near term situation, I guess, a show of hands for who would prefer just purely an in person meeting? And no hybrid or virtual? In that situation? Is anybody built for that? The hybrid model. So that would be in person, and then you’d also have the capability of doing virtual one. So then lastly, would be just all virtual.
Unknown Speaker 1:20:40
Does anybody have preferences?
Unknown Speaker 1:20:44
And then no strong preference.
Unknown Speaker 1:20:50
And then long term, same thing, I guess long term we’re talking about absent from emergency order in person hybrid and virtual. So long term in person. And hybrid. And then virtual, purely virtual. So if you guys get the feedback you need, yeah,
Unknown Speaker 1:21:14
yeah, we did. And one, one, if I can be bold, what one kind of caveat, we would like to check out the other kind of long term because all I need to do is come back with some proposed language for bylaws. You know, there is a little bit of difficulty with trying to make these your own self, we’re aware of the fact that whoever won or lost if you make it, theirs, there’s a little bit there’s a lot more difficult if we call that the public, by public access, fully accessible through hybrid is identified and enabled actually pick it up on my record. So maybe like to suggest that the board member who, you know, if it’s like, a board member is going to be, you know, is about to either not comfortable coming to me and that they are out of town or, you know, the board member can you do a hybrid means a board member, right.
Unknown Speaker 1:22:32
So public, if there’s public invited here, it’s gonna be it’s gonna be here, there.
Unknown Speaker 1:22:37
That’s okay. I
Unknown Speaker 1:22:38
think there’s circumstances where you could be incapacitated and not physically be able to be there but still be able to participate. Yes, it should be an exclusion for board members. If that’s the situation,
Unknown Speaker 1:22:47
okay. Well, why language together? Bring back next time for you to chew around that and we’ll see marbles.
Unknown Speaker 1:22:58
So I’m good. So we’re on to item 11. b review, major project listings. I understand the schedule for the board meeting that’s in the packet, anything you want to highlight there? Item 12 is informational items and waterboard correspondence. And there’s items in the packet. there’s any questions comments on those? I do not see any. Item 13 a. So once again, the cash only review will do again in December and we’ll have a discussion on the policies in advance of that next month in November. And then any items for future whatever agendas you bring on Kim
Unknown Speaker 1:23:46
Yeah, I don’t have any option if they want some dried up.
Unknown Speaker 1:23:52
Anybody have anything they would like them they do not see any. So with that, I’m going to adjourn the meeting. Thank you. Thank you Eugene for your day. We appreciate your input.
Unknown Speaker 1:24:04
Thank you for the invite. Happy to move around again.