Water Board Meeting – April 2023
Read along below:
Unknown Speaker 0:00
Recall the median nerve
Speaker 1 0:07
tester is not here yet. Scott Galloway here. Roger Lang your Renee Davis here can use it. Yeah. Wes Lowry. You’re voting here. Jason Elkins here. Bartlett here. Miles Churchill. Here. Christopher, your tires here. Councilmember Barton is here here.
Speaker 2 0:29
Thank you. Start with the last month’s minutes. Any questions or comments on the last minutes of our last meeting? Sir motion
Unknown Speaker 0:48
second, all in favor signify by saying aye.
Speaker 1 0:53
Mr. Chair, I didn’t vote because I wasn’t here last month. So for the records
Unknown Speaker 0:58
of your back. All right. Water status report.
Speaker 3 1:06
Here Okay. Flow on. This one was 8.3. CFS, the historical average was 83. CFS for the state. Column the same thing Creek as Hill reservoir with a priority date of June 2 add to the column the main stem of the South Platte River is pure Pruitt in that canal with a priority data. January 13 2006. Wealth price reservoir reserves elevation 6394, approximately 14,133 acre feet which is approximately 2064 acre feet from a unit reservoir with an elevation of 20.9 feet or 1266 3500 square feet and we’re releasing approximately doing CFS.
Speaker 2 2:23
Unknown Speaker 2:33
Speaker 2 2:43
Oh. All right. Let’s start with number North St. Ray pipeline alignment, alignment study.
Speaker 4 2:57
Yes, sir. So, real quickly. I know I’ve talked about this in the past. But we are now kind of finalizing this study here. And so I’ve asked to do very child all this the team that we put together to evaluate different alternatives and stuff in the pipeline to come in and to present and dad, nothing else some credibility and some reassurance that maybe we’re making some good choices here and stuff. And so the goal for today is to show you what it is that we’ve evaluated and the options that we’re we’re going to be presenting to senior leadership, knowing that these are 10s of millions of dollar projects. And so really what we’re looking for is, you know, maybe just some acceptance of what we’ve decided, and we can then move forward and when we present it to city leadership, we’re left to say, you know, waterboard is reviewed this and supports this analysis that said that I’ll hand it over to the car but she would do Barry and you guys what, whatever Whatever’s easiest for you.
Speaker 5 4:08
Let me run the run the clicker. Yeah, pro lunch, would you bring engineers we were asked by gates in about a year and a half ago to do an evaluation of the upper north pipeline system to look at different ways of getting long runs water from around price reservoir into the city. So this is kind of an overview of a lot of those different alternatives. team with us today have an onsen running the mouse Chad Weaver and then from Schnabel, we got Glen church. And then both marks are here liberal history North pipeline if you guys have been up there, so it’s basically Located just downstream of Ralph price reservoir, it takes water from the Longmont reservoir and delivers it into the treatment plants basically mainly Nelson planters. A couple of the items that are the sites that we’ll be talking about Lonard reservoir, you can see here, the pipeline basically runs along pretty difficult terrain. It was originally installed in early 1900s was a concrete pipeline. That pipeline was replaced with the steel pipeline in the 40s. It has been maintained really since the 1940s, all the way till now with, you know, various repairs over over time. There is a an area called the penstock, where the water gets pressurize as it goes downhill. And then through the hydro facility to generate power downstream of hydro facilities in North baton that’s near Apple Valley Road. That’s the difference actually between the upper north pipeline and the lowering of pipelines or North pipeline pretty much follows 36 out towards Nelson planner. So a couple other areas that we will be talking about is, you know, the North St brain follows 36 There’s the former lanes diversion, that lane city city plans to take water out of the same drain to supply the town. I don’t know if anyone’s been up there. But it’s pretty rugged terrain. You can see somebody standing right here, the pipeline actually runs right on that shelf road, you can see when you’re coming down from like justice Park. pretty narrow in some areas. This is about the narrow spot. It’s only buried about a foot deep in many spots. It’s exposed, it’s exposed to rock fall into freezing. It’s it’s kind of served long on very well for a long time, but it’s reached the end of its useful life. And we’ve looked at a number of different alternatives to deliver the city’s water and
Speaker 6 7:16
yeah. So purpose of this study, kind of as Carl alluded to, trying to come up with alternatives. Actually back in 2016, I think Dewberry looked at replacement of the pipeline and its existing alignment. And since it came out pretty infeasible to replace an existing alignment, we’re looking at just some other alternatives to get that same design flow of 28. CFS, to the lower your pipeline system to measure waste treatment plants. Some of the goals, or items that were made clear by the city was it was very beneficial for them, they saw at least the alternatives that could continue to generate electricity at the hydro electric plant. You know, for both, you know, generating energy but also hitting their sustainability goals in the future. This is also a critical source of raw water. As Carl kind of said, I believe it’s supplies the majority of raw water treatment and distribution for the city. And it’s reached its end of useful life. years, something years old now since they put steel in in 1940. And due to the access, difficulty and difficulty to Repair and Replace sections, we’re looking at coming up with some alternatives. So the goal of this study was to develop alternatives to deliver 28 CFS to the north pond or Lourdes pipeline system. Working with the city, we came up with four kind of major alternatives, the first being replacement of that existing upper north pipeline, utilizing the study back in 2016, where we were looking at replacing in the existing alignment for comparison’s sake, we also came up with four alternative alignments. Those alignments deliver water from Longmont reservoir where the existing pipeline starts to the top of the pen sock that Carl was mentioning. Therefore, keep the hydroelectric so the service. Second alternative we looked at was restoration and modification of the existing lines diversion structure, Carl pointed out just off Highway 36 along the North St. Grande Creek. We looked at two different capacities for that structure. One would be modifying or rehabilitating. And so the whole the existing design capacity that Lyons was using was roughly six CFS and that can be used in addition to some of the other alternatives or for system redundancy flexibility. We also looked at modifying it for 28 CFS so that you can use that as a sole source for
Unknown Speaker 9:57
Speaker 6 10:01
Their major alternative we looked at was installation of a new diversion in the in the North St. Grande Creek and installation of a pumping station and a pipeline that would deliver water from that pumping station and off the creek to the north pond or tying directly into the north, the Lower North pipeline system, there were three alternate locations that we looked at for that. And then a final kind of alternative here was kind of similar to the first but looking at slip lining the existing upper north pipeline reduce kind of get into but it would reduce the hydraulic capacity due to having a smaller diameter pipeline and would require additional supplemental delivery alternatives in order to meet. So start by talking about replacement of the existing upper north pipeline. This is a plan view figure here the blue dashed line here illustrates the existing alignment. In Canada rough corridor that Carl was showing pictures of this red line is our first alternative alignment. We were intending to utilize the existing Longmont dam road for ease of construction ease of future access operations, repair replacement activities due to the topography. Roughly around you know this stretch right here would need to be tunneled in order to maintain grade since it is a gravity system. And then eventually, as we’re heading away from Longmont reservoir, it’ll cut back up there’s actually a little goalie here that the pipeline would be installed at and returned back to its existing alignment. Downstream this is actually much more accessible than the majority of the existing alignment upstream from there is an access road you could get equipment to and materials to and then finally we would terminate at the top of the existing penstock hydro facilities located. Second alternative alignment we looked at for pipeline replacement, actually utilized roughly the first half of the existing alignment and then cut down just downstream I guess I should back up a dimension there are two existing tunnels on the existing pipeline, total number one shown right here tunnel number two, there is also an inverted siphon. So for this kind of alignment, we will be cutting down too long on dam road just downstream of total number one, installing along too long one dam road and then cutting back up in the same location as alternative number one. Alternative number three utilized even more of the existing alignment began cut down just upstream of tunnel number two installed along the road there
Unknown Speaker 13:06
for that go
Unknown Speaker 13:07
to the existing
Unknown Speaker 13:08
same location as alternative.
Speaker 6 13:13
And then the fourth alternative alignment we looked at very similar to alternative number one, installing along one one dam Road, starting roughly at the reservoir there. Again due to the topography of the road. Number four number one would require approximately 1500 foot long tunnel section. And then this alternative actually cuts back up to the existing alignment. further upstream. It’s a little bit shorter of pipe required, but it’s a bit of a steeper slope again terminated
Speaker 6 13:51
looking at slip lining the existing upper north pipeline due to the you know we have a so the existing pipeline is 30 inch diameter. We found that the maximum pipeline that we could feasibly put into the existing pipeline would be roughly a 26 inch diameter Dr. 17 HDPE. That will be fully structural. And that has a roughly 23 inch diameter inside diameter sorry, not your wish here on the screen
Unknown Speaker 14:32
he’s not here yet.
Speaker 5 14:47
If you guys are questions where we’re going through this, feel free to pick up the whole team here or questions from the water rights
Speaker 6 15:01
So some of the issues we found with slip lining where there’s minimal access points, and due to the corridor, the very narrow corridor, inability to use any larger equipment that would typically be used to facilitate the winding installation. So, with those unknowns that could make it more costly or not feasible to do that option. It would also require an additional supplemental delivery to meet the 20 ACFs delivery goals, whether that be utilizing lines of version structure or the new divergent conversation alternatives we
Unknown Speaker 15:37
Speaker 6 15:39
Additionally, during construction of slip lining activities, the upper north pipeline would have to be taken offline, which would mean
Unknown Speaker 15:54
it would be weeks
Speaker 5 15:57
is installing. Or you have to be phased over a number of years during your short time
Unknown Speaker 16:04
do you need Okay
Speaker 6 16:10
moving on. Sec kind of second alternative we looked at as I mentioned was installation of a new diversion and pumping station along the North St grand Creek along Highway 36. I’ll show those locations here in just a second on the map. And this would require a new pumping station as I mentioned in a new pipeline to tie into the lower north pipeline system or deliver to the north pond where the pipeline system begins. This would bypass the existing hydroelectric facility not only that it would actually require power generation or take power to to run that facility. So you’re losing out on generating power and you’re costing power in order to run that. Again this could be used as a supplemental delivery in addition to one of the other alternatives or for operational flexibility
Unknown Speaker 17:05
Speaker 6 17:10
These are the three sites that we located for a new diversion and pumping station site is located just across the street from the north pond. That’s where the hydroelectric facilities located in the lower north pipeline starts Site B is located just at the intersection of Highway 36 and Apple Valley Road where the gold mines water treatment facilities located no longer use utilizing that area and the third location we looked at down outside of Lyons along Highway 66 at the sustain rough Yes,
Speaker 7 17:51
so each one of these locations were apparent yes sir locations that the topography or for just
Unknown Speaker 17:59
no not for the 28 CFS.
Speaker 6 18:08
This is a schematic of what a pumping station at one of these locations could look like. Just for reference, we got a little bit not the smallest facility but you know this is kind of a tentative schematic reference and then this is what roughly a highlighted in red are it’s kind of infrastructure that we’re planning to install a diversion of the creek would lead into a pumping station building that would pump into a new pipeline. And that pipeline would convey flow in this circumstances it’s like the new pipeline on Apple Valley Road and eventually wind up tying into the lower north pipeline system or alternatively
Speaker 6 18:59
lines diversion structure real rehabilitation. Third alternative we were looking at. Again, this is a ‘s actually the structures previous previously owned by the town lines, it’s now owned by the city of Walmart structure itself as well as easements. The structure as well as the access road were pretty heavily damaged during the 2013 flood the access road is almost non existent. We went out there to do a site visit and it was pretty tricky to get there now. The structure also has still to this day has branches and foliage and trees and debris that’s collected on it hasn’t been used since then. But there is also an existing 14 inch ductile iron pipeline, which was previously used to convey the flow from the structure to the town lines water treatment facility. It’s kind of in an unknown condition after the flood. It’s exposed in a lot of areas where we didn’t see any any physical damage but Other conditions this alternative also would bypass the existing hydroelectric facility would not generate energy like the pumping pumping station alternative, but doesn’t give you any energy generation and it would require a new pipeline depending on the capacity, as I said, we looked at two kinds of capacities you could either tie into the end of this 14 inch ductile iron pipe at the old water treatment plant and install a new pipeline to your pond for lower capacity or for a full 20 CFS capacity or require new pipeline installed from the lines of evidence structure just to give you some visual pictures of what the structure looks like, I don’t know how many of you have seen it in person driving along Highway 36. As I mentioned, fallen trees sticks debris covering up all the gains are kind of damaged and broken. Luckily, the structure the concrete structure itself is still actually very well intact and could be reused which is good. So really, it would be just replacement of gates components like that. Here’s another picture this is that existing 14 inch ductile iron pipeline I was mentioning this is what conveys the flow. We’re used to convey flow from that structure to the lines water treatment facility again exposed not sure if that was installed that way or if it was due to the flooding. Exposed majority of these are the two capacities. I already mentioned this but we looked at six CFS which is existing capacity. We also looked at 28 we actually found that rester restoring structure for 28 CFS capacity could be done without you know removal and replacement of the structure we can use the structure itself and just replace gates to essentially increase the capacity of the existing structure and increase the channel size so not a ton has to be done to to modify it from its current 60 of us capacity.
Speaker 6 22:24
Again, this is a sitemap showing the existing structure kind of highlighted in red there as it sits off highway 36 grand Creek we would also propose to install a slip meter on the downstream end for flow but otherwise a lot that’s existing structure utilized did anything else you guys
Unknown Speaker 22:50
sure yeah, what’s the this fish passage
Unknown Speaker 22:54
at that location
Speaker 5 22:57
so I don’t believe there is no fish passage passage there there is a small drop that
Unknown Speaker 23:03
it does is a sloping bowler job there
Speaker 3 23:06
so water runs across that
Unknown Speaker 23:12
it might be faster than what the fish
Unknown Speaker 23:17
when it was put it
Unknown Speaker 23:18
was designed with fish passage criteria involved and probably the most
Speaker 7 23:24
junior member on that particular structure
Unknown Speaker 23:33
or an application and was not granted my name is
Speaker 4 23:46
Alison just real quick on this special we did put some funding in for next year or CIP so that if we do get some of that grant funding when I match dollars to do that, and if we did the option like this I mean it’d be a very small amount of additional funding needed to add like fish passage to it that’s something that Yeah, we could take a better look at if we were to move forward with this design.
Unknown Speaker 24:11
Great thank you sorry
Unknown Speaker 24:34
are you with us?
Unknown Speaker 24:38
I can hear you. Okay, great. Now I can see the screen to see her
Unknown Speaker 24:53
don’t have video from your side though.
Speaker 1 24:56
That’s okay. We got the screen projected. So that’s why you can’t see us right Now, you
Unknown Speaker 25:07
can make a full screen.
Unknown Speaker 25:12
Next one to the right.
Speaker 6 25:19
All right, and then just wanted to highlight what to do the new pipeline required. For this launch diversion structure. Again, the existing 14 inch diameter ductile iron pipeline terminates near Apple Valley Road at the old water lines water treatment facility. So regardless, a new pipeline would need to be installed to tie into the lower north pipeline system. size dependent on the capacity for the full 28 CFS, we would require new widgets 30 inch diameter pipeline all the way through the structure.
Speaker 5 25:51
So I guess if appointment you made before about pumping, we would have to take water from about that location upstream in order for us to not have to pump. Yeah, so from the lion’s diversion, we can get water to the north on and then everything downstream that runs as it always has been downstream of that would require. Okay,
Speaker 7 26:13
so were there any precautions extremely considered? We’re at?
Speaker 5 26:19
We considered that the pipeline alternative routes, and then I guess two different configurations for the turnout right 60s And doing.
Speaker 6 26:29
But we didn’t look at any other. Yeah, the rest of the sites, we looked up downstream. So we didn’t look at any other gravity that solution since the structure of existence. Yeah.
Speaker 6 26:51
Just wanted to highlight some costs. Specifically, this is for the replacement of the upper north pipeline. These are desktop level study costs. Just wanted to point that out. So really, these were just used mainly for comparison between alternatives.
Unknown Speaker 27:10
As opposed to the design customer.
Unknown Speaker 27:15
Yeah, this is the
Speaker 6 27:23
well, I don’t know if you saw the is there a possible to go through? Yeah. So the replacement in the existing alignment? We costed out to be roughly $57 million. As you can see, the alternative alignments we listed, some of them being you know, roughly $10 million cheaper. One of them that utilize a lot of the existing alignment was fairly similar to the existing alignment. Just wanted to show the differences in cost there. And then slip lining, roughly, you know, again, that that number could go up, or not even be feasible at all, depending on the constructability. But that’s
Speaker 5 28:00
me, I would point out there that slipped my boss really doesn’t deliver your full 28. CVS, it’s a reduced cost because it’s smaller.
Speaker 2 28:09
So at some point, you look at Turner’s as far as pros and cons. correctable I mean, are you good? With one thing?
Speaker 6 28:21
Oh, we’ll get there. Yeah. Yeah, so I’ll go over the cost. And then we’ll dive into the decision. This is looking at the new diversion and pumping station. Just again, just to put in your head kind of the rough numbers there for this alternatives and the $10 million rehabilitation of the existing lines diversion structure, restoring for six CFS capacity, be roughly six and a half. As you can see, restoring for 28 Doesn’t in the grand scheme of things is relatively similar in price. These prices do include a sorry, they include the required pipeline for those capacities as well as accessibility improvements. One thing to point out is if the structure is not intended to be used, and abandonment is necessary, there’s a price for that as well. Why is that? Why is the abandonment wiser for abandoning the structure? What Yeah,
Speaker 5 29:34
just having that in there. Just I think Jason did we, this determined that if we were to to not use that eventually the city would have to remove it.
Speaker 4 29:44
That’s was yeah, one of our one of our options. And so just so it’s not just sitting there degrading over time with rip it out. The big thing is trying
Speaker 6 29:57
to get to access to access to just care He didn’t do anything with a wood stove here
Speaker 6 30:10
so outside of cost, some other qualitative factors that we were using to come up with a recommendation and analyze the alternatives a number of items here kind of quickly go over was water rights impacts. Water quality impacts, this is mainly pertaining to if you were to take water downstream and George center and Creek in there’s a study that came out that almost a year early there’s a shorter spill on highway 36 They could dump stuff into the water, you don’t want your drinking water. So, for further downstream, you kind of view that as more likely that something like that could happen energy usage that pertained both to the hydroelectric facility whether whether or not that was remained in place, as well as for the pump station alternative to using property ownership impacts natural disaster resiliency, whether it be rock falls through the pipeline, flooding, environmental sustainability, lifecycle, ease of operation system shutdown requirements during construction, all necessary permitting easement acquisitions, as well as the sustainability evaluation system scoring. So we met with some folks in the city of Longmont
Speaker 4 31:37
met with like LPC the Sustainability Team engineering, like basically any, any internal stakeholder of the North pipeline, we met with him and did that SCS evaluation, we’re supposed to do now on all major capital projects. And so we went through all that. We’re looking at, you know, the feasibility of doing this project from an environmental standpoint, taking the dollars out of it, and just looking at what’s the impact to the environment. And so everything that they’re doing now, we did again, just from an environmental standpoint, redid a Scoring Matrix and kind of came up with for options and stuff based on that. And then we took that, what the results from that and included it in in our decision matrix here. So it is the environmental aspect that is captured within this
Speaker 5 32:33
JSON to do does the permitting, do any of the alternatives or all the alternatives or some of them, okay, at 1041, within Boulder County as well,
Speaker 4 32:46
every single one, except for maybe the pump station, you know, but the ones where you’re gonna have to put a pipeline that doesn’t exist on Valley Road that’s over eight inches, it automatically
Unknown Speaker 32:55
Speaker 7 33:01
follow up question on turning and then also in general flow is a 404 during the process.
Speaker 5 33:08
If we didn’t crossings, the board we would have to work. But I’m trying to think trying to figure out which one of the pump stations would be actually have a cross cross dressing associated conversations.
Unknown Speaker 33:31
Yeah, there we crossed the anointing like, right.
Speaker 5 33:34
Yeah. So the pipeline alternatives would have a floor floor and the pump stations.
Speaker 7 33:42
So that was kind of the follow up on the internal flow. I understand the idea that the higher up you take it, the less likely you are to get on the flip side of that, that is a location that writers also have some treasure issues. So the more that you’re actually able to maintain flow in the actual natural channel that was that? Yes.
Speaker 6 34:10
Yeah. Yeah, for sure. So the both the pump station and the library structure since they are taken directly from that North St. Brand Creek, I think we rated them worse
Speaker 5 34:23
when so but it was like, say you’re meaning we can carry the the flow down the street Oh scores. That was in the FCS because that
Speaker 4 34:36
was conversations. It’s really hard to overcome, you know, bypassing the hydro plant and kind of just spend money, you know, to pumping power. So I mean, even having into flows really, when you look at the decision matrix, even in SES it really wasn’t enough to overcome was enough benefit just from the true flow. I think you’ll see that I think the pump stations were probably the last alternative.
Speaker 7 35:03
Okay, thank you. That’s really helpful. And I don’t remember the capacity of the penstock. Like it was
Speaker 6 35:10
given the actual design, I’ve always used 28. But
Speaker 5 35:16
three, I think but when the city is rented, it’s been 24, I think is
Speaker 4 35:21
the weekend that we can hit 22. We’ve we did a, we did a float test, we opened open the valve wide open at Nelson planters were able to hit a little for, like 22. So it’s, we don’t operate it 100% Like that,
Unknown Speaker 35:40
like, wide open.
Speaker 4 35:42
But we did do that just to make sure that we could hit that mark. You know, I mean, like, especially in the wintertime, you’d be slipping River at that point. And we don’t we don’t do that. So we leave enough going over on that dam so that there isn’t stream flows. And we do have it as a priority to in our CIP to restart the stream flow program, which I think we had mentioned that six months or so ago about the top possibility, again, that’s a word. That’s something that we’re looking to do starting next year.
Speaker 8 36:20
What are your demands to have demands that they require that
Unknown Speaker 36:25
Unknown Speaker 36:28
Yeah, in the summertime, absolutely. But
Speaker 4 36:29
we don’t the, with our CVT that we get from from Northern we, the plant operators use combination. So I think what we hit 3030 MGD is something like that. Maybe they’ll set right. Yeah, it’s summertime. So it takes a multiple sources. And so yeah, so the Northline we try to run that year round. I mean, it’s correct me if I’m wrong, we’ve never shut that down for anything other than maintenance, we’ve never had to, you know, we’ve never had to shut it down because water quality because of an incident, other than the flood that are in that North line, we run that year round, in Yeah, they throttle that and stuff, and then make a difference with CVT. And now that we get the south line is now up and running, we can actually take deliveries from the south, south St. Ring Creek. And so Ken and I were just talking about this earlier is like, Well, why don’t we just take all the water just float to the island ditch and just divert it there. And it sounds really easy. But for one, we don’t have the carrying capacity. So we’d have to renegotiate that for to, you know, the ditches in operation, you have to fill the ditch up and then or diversion off of the island ditches and that’s taken 20 and CFS, so and then the loss of water rights from having to go to water court take everything from on one dam and bringing it down. Even that mean, it’s like it’s right there, you can literally just take water straight to the plant without having to do all this and even then we can we can’t justify
Unknown Speaker 38:09
doing that. So
Unknown Speaker 38:12
we’re looking at 30 $40 million
Speaker 7 38:14
options. That makes sense. And just one final question. And I’m really glad to hear that the discussion. So in terms of maintenance and workflow efficiencies, wintertime is that the worst is there any currency is there is bypassed, especially in my cold temperatures be considered as a part of the intake designing card. Bypass
Unknown Speaker 38:40
Speaker 6 38:47
So taking these qualitative factors here we listed what’s the cost, we came up with a Scoring Matrix. Sec that really what we did was each of these rows here presents a alternative or sub alternative. So we’ve got the replacement of pipeline, and its existing alignment, alternative 1234 for the different alignments, we came up with lines, version structure, various capacities, diversion, pumping stations supplying and then we looked at both cost and those other components that we looked at. And really what we did was we came up with a score for each of these alternatives. And each of these factors between 155 Being more favorable and then being less favorable. And that way, we were able to directly compare these alternatives to one another, not just looking at the cost number. So kind of over on the right, the higher the total score, the more favorable that alternative came out. The highest the highest score was actually a tie between replacement of the existing pipeline and alternative one and number one It’s an alternative. And before those are the alignments that went a long, long, long damn road. And then as you can see, as Jason noted, and look here, yeah, the lowest scoring ones were easily the pump station options. All three of those right. So based on that, kind of just wanted to show you again, this is what those alternative alignments looked like.
Speaker 6 40:32
So our recommendations would be in the near term, to rehabilitate that existing lines diversion structure, and modify for 28 CFS, due to its relative low cost compared to other alternatives. However, since this does have some other qualitative issues that make it worse compared to the pipeline alternative, we feel having this in place would allow for full system redundancy in case something to the pipeline happens, also allows for operational flexibility. And then, in the long term, recommend replacing the existing pipeline with a new pipeline utilizing hydro alternative one, alternative number four, and that can be staged over years. Another good thing is if lines vertical structures in place, and you’re removing or replacing replacing sections of the existing pipeline, you still have your full design flow there. That was all I know, you’re journaling? Yes, sir.
Speaker 2 41:41
So the cost associated with the near term, all that number, again,
Speaker 6 41:48
six and a half million dollars, go back maybe like
Unknown Speaker 41:53
Unknown Speaker 41:58
Speaker 2 42:03
And then then near term, or as near term, before, you have to get into a long term situation, anybody. So you have a sense of that, you know, that
Speaker 5 42:15
upper north pipeline is nearing the end of its useful life, it continued continues to spring weeks now. And then it will, I guess, continue to cost the city money on repair until finally there are some, some failure at some point. In which case, it’s going to be emergency and the city will be out of water, Kermit, it’s hard to really say, you know, this is going to happen, then because there will be some large rain event and rocks coming down, washes it out. But you know, I think we ballpark that, that that line, probably, you know, 10 years, it’s probably guys, it’s continuing getting thinner and thinner and springing leaks on at least 10 or 15 years, and it’s just gonna be patching all the time in order to really get that existing replacement service.
Speaker 2 43:07
So I’m saying I mean, does it make sense to even consider the near term and just go with a long term solution? I mean, that’s just kind of temporary in
Speaker 6 43:20
the near term. Right. It’s temporary. It also I mean, like I said, it does provide an additional source for operational flexibility. So if you had the pipeline and this something rockfall in the pipeline, you have to shut it down and still have the ability to flow. We were
Speaker 5 43:35
also thinking if you to construct the North pipeline was going to be you know, probably it could take a couple of years depending and give to phase it so having another source that’s relatively high upstream can deliver water to be kind of a backup for when the Northland so they’re done. Obviously
Speaker 4 44:03
and we haven’t presented this to city leadership yet or city council’s their take on it might be the same as yours. A we like to like how your, what your mindset and everything, but let’s just bite the bullet and fix it now is,
Unknown Speaker 44:17
having said that, I hope,
Speaker 4 44:19
with lack of funding and stuff, especially with, you know, having a hard time even just getting Nelson planners planned expansion, you know, to a fully funded status and get that constructed. If I was making a guess, you know, it would be fixed Alliance diversion structure over the next five to 10 years. We can, we can afford to do that. And while you’re doing that, we’ll have to start thinking strategically, how are we going to actually fund another $30 million project?
Speaker 2 44:49
That just out of curiosity, now that you mentioned to the client that we’ve got plans up there to rehabilitate or expand that Is that kind of on hold right now? Or, or what is the situation, just a money problem that we don’t either
Speaker 4 45:06
you got an update on that press offer new at the table. But Operations Engineering is working on that plan for mostly Flanders seems like every time we go out and talk about something that goes with 2 million yes million.
Speaker 4 45:35
But the current plan that is being put into the current CIP for the next five year CIP process is basically to identify some resiliency projects to do after existing plant. So that’s about five to $7 million dollars worth of work in the next few years. Then Montgomery tank which is right epithet neurohormone, 66. He made lt needs to be refurbished. So that would be second phase that work. And then there is a site work that needs to be done regarding forebay, which will be the third phase plus a piping site. And then the actual expansion of the treatment plant itself will be out in the 56 year.
Unknown Speaker 46:31
project that started at
Speaker 3 46:33
30 to $40 million is $97 million in scope,
Speaker 4 46:41
to spreading it out, looking for different ways to fund it. Also keep redundancy. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that our demand has stayed relatively flat over time as we increase the population. So it’s not necessarily a need for additional capacity at this point in time, but more for redundancy, as weak as is older and older. mothballed for a little while about how to trade online. It makes people nervous just to have one source of water. So
Unknown Speaker 47:22
the more we know, suppliers redundant,
Speaker 2 47:25
the better off know he just kind of you know, prioritize all this, which comes first. And the other thing, I’m just kind of curious. The payment all this? Or these rate increases? Is that really how we pay for this stuff? Or what? What is the payment plan?
Speaker 4 47:52
Those are things that we’re looking at as well. Obviously rates play a big part of it. More state volume funds
Unknown Speaker 48:02
Speaker 4 48:04
there’s options for some grants that we’re pursuing. We’re trying to find everything that we can. Nelson Flanders was a bonding issue. Oh, yes. So bonds for that. But then when we went up for construction, what’s the step back to that phase approach? The bonding was intended to cover all the problem. It will now cover two years phase one redundancy plus logo and
Speaker 2 48:39
I don’t want to complicate it by getting off the subject. But I guess really my sense is that we’re renovating near term versus short term. And that’s kind of the two walls we’re trying to juggle. Tom, you got any comments at this point?
Speaker 9 49:01
No, I mean, I have the same same types of thoughts that you’re having about just the same type of budgeting type analysis that you do in your own personal life as well. Right, like that patch, patch it or provide new I suppose so. But anyway, yeah, I mean, I’m following along with the discussion here. But But I don’t have anything that’s
Speaker 7 49:29
operational flexibility and see it is less of a short term solution is more just versatility. accomplishes a couple of things. One, you can actually divert, say more downstream to the water. Right. We could also have industry follow up about that. There’s opportunities for funding there. Potentially. That also if you have like some sort of catastrophic events, or events are outside the pipeline that you could also solve I’d say more and then also during construction. So it seems to be that even though it’s, it’s less of a patch and longer term investment in the system.
Speaker 2 50:13
Okay, so are you saying you’d like to long term
Unknown Speaker 50:17
I like the plan is doing that too.
Speaker 6 50:27
Because I don’t get the vote on how we fund this other than as a taxpayer
Speaker 5 50:36
conceptually outside the house is correct. I think the most sensible long term plan is not only an eight year old pipeline. That’s, that’s pretty cool. But it’s also scary. We don’t factor in any years for most of our projects, working on for duration so good for us. But we don’t get I think we, I think that we should be looking at a short term and long term combination, because it buys us a better more resilient system for the next few years, doing just one.
Unknown Speaker 51:07
I don’t think so I think he passed on early on anybody’s imagined.
Speaker 8 51:14
Likewise, it’s nifty. We’ve got 80 year old pipelines. It’s nifty. It’s terrifying. Those things. And so you know, it is due for replacement redundancies, always neat. And I think exactly your point, but then it’s great. But can we afford it? You know, so there is it’s hard to, it’s hard to always make those decisions separate from costs, because that’s the reality. We have costs. But, you know, how do we actually fund it? And what does the money do? Those are also because it would be a bummer to have a nine year old. It’d be nifty and terrifying, but more terrifying.
Speaker 5 51:56
Why? And I This isn’t my expertise either. But you know, the population as participated in funding our water supply. higher cost, because that was necessary and critical. Supplies uses and can’t be delivered is the secondary component that is not as sexy experimental language. Without pipes and pumps. The extra water we get from when the gap isn’t very valuable.
Speaker 8 52:26
So although that will be delivered to CDT systems. Correct, not the current problem. Yeah, but I do think that I actually trust our public a lot. I think they do understand your point. Yeah, they’re fine funding water. And I think when you say so many people water there is of course, so I think people do understand water. Piping alternatives?
Speaker 2 52:52
Well, sounds like both plans are kind of playing out. From a timing standpoint. We say we don’t want to long range all by itself. We’ll start with the near term. What would the timing? I mean, would you start with a near term and leave the long term for a period of time? Is that what your thoughts are? Yeah.
Speaker 5 53:18
I mean, I would think you could probably move pretty quick. Near term work, I mean, having it designed to upgrade the lanes, diversions, year, year and a half, probably construct that another year. Long term, you know that the pipeline would require a little bit of effort just from a constructability standpoint, because you’re having to do that one year it’s four and a half. pretty intimidating terrain. We’ve worked all over in the mountains in Colorado, and to date this is the most challenging pipeline I’ve ever seen last three mountains very narrow. I can see this taking a couple years just to build near term right now. I should say the North pipeline in its existing place, I think the lanes diversion that one has a pipeline and have to be built as well. That one could get done pretty quick and for us the longest Oberndorf pipeline has you know constructability issues and permitting issues. The something constructibility
Speaker 2 54:49
Oh, so if we like the BMC and say start near term, long term would you say aside, term near term is done, we’ll see where we’re going to, I mean, we take that bite first, do the other on the show, and then decide when to start the other. That’s kind of how it all works out.
Speaker 5 55:15
Yeah. And so I guess what you said you’re clicked again. So one of the things you wouldn’t have to monitor, generally, unless there is some catastrophic event, like could having another flood a fire with a subsequent flood afterwards, that would likely be with itself, and then your pipeline, it survived that the 2013 Floods pretty well, the most steel pipes, their motor failure is going to be corrosion and pinhole leaks. So it’s it’s catching, it’s not going to like blow up because of too much pressure. Because it’s getting too old, it’s, it’s like gravity most of the ways until you get to those, that inverted siphon, which is just the pipe gets pressurized and comes back up. And that’s actually where a lot of the issues were, the city’s done quite a bit of working in those areas to harden those, but it’s still exposed most of the pipes above ground, people could shoot at it. kids could go out there and feet away on it, you know, rockfall rocks are coming down and landed on it. So things could happen to that pipeline. But, you know, it takes a while to get a pipeline of this, you know, permitted, fabricated and installed, so there is a window there that you will have to start thinking about maybe of five years between go, and we need something to deliver
Unknown Speaker 56:48
safety, the near term five year period,
Speaker 5 56:49
I think, yeah, the near term could easily get done in less than five years, and maybe you got 20 years before something needs to get done.
Unknown Speaker 57:01
So I’d like to err on the same page.
Speaker 4 57:05
Rather, maybe make a little more information. So the three main hazards that we see up there, up north line is a slope washout, which we already have failing, timber creating. And then Geohazard issues, big rocks, the size of cars, and houses on our pipeline, which do exist, which are out there. So the direction we’ve been given from our former Deputy City Manager drove out to make rules, let’s get another 10 to 20 years out of this start priority projects. So right now, we do have about two to $4 million, funded over the next five years for access improvements, to fix the slope wash out prevent any future washout, that’s currently happening, to replace the failed timber cribbing, stuff like that, so that we can get another 1020 years out of it. Some of the expose pipeline that’s just talking about, you know, this corroding feeling, let’s fix that. So we’ve got funding in place for working on that to try to we’ll make another make it, you know, sort of 90 years maybe 100 year pipeline, so that we have plenty of time to figure out what are we going to do for the long term? And how are we going to fund it. And if it is something that’s going to take, you know, five to 10 years to fund that we don’t, hopefully, our risk is minimized so that we can get, we can get that without a major failure. I think the short term one is something that we can absorb within our next rate study and get that done over the next, you know, five to seven years. While we figure out how we’re going to do the long term, are we going to do it? Are we going to sell more bonds, and we’re going to try to use the revolving fund, I don’t think we typically use the revolving fund because we get a better rate on our bond with a better bond rating. So we get a lower lower rate that way than through the State Revolving Fund. But maybe, maybe this is something that, you know, we look at, you know, maybe part of it is absorbed into the rate study, some sort of utility rates pay for a portion of it, will we sell some bonds for the other but that’s, that’s why we’ve got to get this in front of city leadership and get their support and get in front of Council and get guidance from all them to figure out how we want to do this.
Unknown Speaker 59:22
So you’re looking for a position from us.
Speaker 4 59:26
If you do support our recommendations, and we can take that to leadership and counsel and saying that waterboard should be this and supported that would be great.
Speaker 2 59:39
Anyone want to make a stab at our position? So important moment, emotionally, is on take away from Oh, I feel about it.
Speaker 8 59:55
Well, I have a question. I will carry these numbers in my head. A lot of utility rate impacts over the last four years. And I would not, in your position make a recommendation without reviewing what those are.
Speaker 8 1:00:17
So we’ve had a lot of utility rate, not not just water, but in terms of what the city ratepayers are paying, right? All pretty necessary. I, if you’re, if you’re looking at alternatives that spread farther or or pulling closer, opposed to risk, which is what I assume you’re doing. You also want to look at the current version of the repairs. Because there’s not a huge amount of slack,
Unknown Speaker 1:00:52
trying to think that’s where we are, though, in the near term, pushing long term down the road.
Unknown Speaker 1:01:00
I’m not saying which way you go, I’m
Speaker 2 1:01:01
just saying I mean, given that, I think that would be the most less burdening cost wise on the ratepayers by doing it. That gets the job done. We need to get
Unknown Speaker 1:01:14
the electric rates will go down seven years.
Speaker 4 1:01:22
But the study is also not suggesting how to fund this correctly. We’re simply just saying, These are the you know, these are some solutions. And these are what we kind of recommend here some dollar values. It’s we’re not, we’re not proposing any type of
Speaker 2 1:01:39
go we’re saying operation and what do you think? Right. presented to us? So again, I’m asking Go ahead, I would be
Unknown Speaker 1:01:52
happy to make a
Unknown Speaker 1:01:55
wish you would have
Speaker 7 1:01:58
funding aside and with the understanding that this is not taking into consideration how this would potentially be paid for. But that is always a consideration that should keep in mind, the analysis that has been presented by staff as a shot will make sense to me. I think that two considerations are the factors, those that are close to my heart and use ministry and flow and others that I’ve never contemplated. So I’d like to commend the staff for the great job. And I personally think the analysis makes sense that I would second that motion. You all.
Unknown Speaker 1:02:53
And funding is a separate issue.
Unknown Speaker 1:02:56
I think that’s the near term, long term damage.
Speaker 1 1:03:02
Now, that is different from what I understood, Allison to say, because I heard her say, concurrently to look at both of them together.
Speaker 2 1:03:11
But operationally, are you saying you actually do work on the long term while you’re doing work on an aircraft?
Speaker 7 1:03:20
I would defer to the professionals to undertake that. It sounds to me like the longer term is got a lot more goes into it. So even though you may want to happen in the short term, is actually functionally implement. So I think it’s a default. But I would support as you understand correctly, I would support the dual outcome that was proposed.
Speaker 1 1:03:53
So we’re doing something in the short term, but we’re also looking at the long term contract.
Speaker 2 1:03:58
I guess what I’m trying to gather as if we’re gonna say, Okay, we’re gonna work on this. The work initially is in the near term. And the long term comes
Unknown Speaker 1:04:12
I think there was a slide that you guys had those seven years. Both Roger they’re true.
Unknown Speaker 1:04:35
doesn’t have its time.
Speaker 2 1:04:41
Long, the short term numbers Yes. Determine how loud we last a long term. I would come back.
Speaker 5 1:04:52
But I don’t think they need to be linear Roger, and I don’t think they they probably can’t be linear. If you’re talking about near term project and they think Up to five years in employment, and you have a lifespan of 80 year old pipe that he attended 20 years, I think you have to start working in a long term somewhat concurrently, albeit not with a total cost all and here’s the entire amount, you know, in that engine, you have to be doing some planning, you have to do some potentially design work. So I think that does go concurrently unless there’s a cash flow issue once you get above a payment.
Unknown Speaker 1:05:26
So I don’t think it’s linear. I
Speaker 5 1:05:27
think there’s some overlap, but it’s certainly the focus is on a near term plan focuses on creating the near term, temporary solution. And as we start into that, we have to consider as a city how we get to the long term plan, because it has a wonderful planning period where it begins to be implemented, so it has to pull the lever and maybe that’s my misunderstanding. That’s why I heard
Unknown Speaker 1:05:55
Speaker 1 1:05:57
So it’s a recommendation to move forward with the near term and long term recommendations.
Speaker 7 1:06:06
without consideration funding, as I understood the near term and long term be subject to potentially different funding mechanisms that have different constraints that should not be overlooked. ratepayers, but also issuance and interest rates and stuff again.
Speaker 2 1:06:23
Okay, so before we go, any other comments? Renee, no, comment. Any other comments
Speaker 9 1:06:34
sorry, our time at the mic. You know, so I mean, I guess I just kind of worry a little bit about the way that that’s framed I suppose. I mean, I’m I’m willing to consider the motion as as I said, I guess I I just I just worry I mean it just like we are our cops with the Nelson platers expansion that I mean, the long term is so far out there. Right. And of course, we have to start planning for that today. But I don’t know that I’m not sure that planning is maybe near the way that it’s being framed. I’m not sure that that that how these things are working necessarily in parallel i guess i i can just kind of maybe I’m trying to kind of separate these into two separate pieces I guess a little bit more than then then you all are and so kind of giving a recommendation to kind of like okay, let’s let’s try to get going as as quickly as possible on the near term type project. And of course starting the regular planning that a city always does i I’d say just like this project is kind of associated with over the long term, but I’m not sure that those things are quite as connected in my mind I suppose as maybe they they were presented there but like I said, I’m I’m willing to vote on the proposal as asset itself.
Speaker 2 1:08:00
So there’s a honors All right. So a motion was made and seconded All in favor signify by saying aye aye can I make your names leave the details to know some some good information
Unknown Speaker 1:08:36
Unknown Speaker 1:08:45
stick around if you want to go up thank you
Unknown Speaker 1:09:04
okay, any agenda revisions?
Unknown Speaker 1:09:13
Whereas we’re on the development activity.
Speaker 4 1:09:16
So just one item packet for consideration. exaction that summary or sorry, sure. Bill station final plat. 23 played six acre parcel located north and south the shooting road. These muscles right above that triangle were thrown out because of the storm water rights including three shares of Taylor were transferred a time annexation. For 23.86 acres are simply the four requirements of requirement policy. And the total raw water deficit for sugar mill station final plat is 69 Five, six acre feet. And so therefore, Sugar Hill Station Powell Powell being appointed the city’s role water department policy, upon satisfaction of the 69.456 acre plot approval. So there, what’s being proposed here is approximately 330 multifamily units, one, two and three bedroom units. Five buildings, there’s a commercial piece attention over an area. So these would be I think, bigger looked as the three or four stores.
Unknown Speaker 1:10:39
Is there anything
Unknown Speaker 1:10:40
there is that that’s true, anything around it that
Speaker 4 1:10:52
I can describe what’s being built. What’s going on? They’re gonna put in essentially, four or five multifamily units. I like what you’d see you’re sitting there today and looking across the street.
Unknown Speaker 1:11:08
And it’s multifamily not mixed
Speaker 4 1:11:10
use. Its designation is multi use zoning, but they’re doing a multifamily created 30 multifamily units.
Unknown Speaker 1:11:20
Just kidding. Yeah. mercerie is
Speaker 4 1:11:24
the commercial unit. Yeah, there’s one lot that they’ve left out. I think they’ve left it as a commercial zone.
Speaker 9 1:11:38
can do us? Yeah. So I was just, I mean, the thing that just kind of popped off the page of me when I was reviewing this over the weekend was just the size right of the deficit? I mean, it’s, it’s, I mean, I don’t know exactly. But you could probably add up a lot of the things that we’ve considered over the last, let’s say, six or almost 12 months, and it probably doesn’t add up to the size of the deficit in this case. I don’t know. We don’t, I don’t know that I have a question or comment. Even. It’s just maybe the question is not that meaningful at all. Like, in other words, like, I don’t know, does it does all of this kind of scale correctly? So in other words, like, if the sizes are bigger, it just means that they’re paying more money, of course, but there’s no onerous kind of something more onerous for the unit. For the, for the city, in that case.
Speaker 4 1:12:36
Yeah, like, you know, it really shows how variable annexes are in specific to their own annexation. So the piece immediately to the east of this little small little piece, it’s not shown here, that has the full 300 foot breaker already satisfied. So to develop that side, there are no further all our deficits. But on that one, just theoretically, across the across the road, you have near full three acre foot per acre. And it’s all dependent upon the historical water rights that were permitted to live annexation. And this, that one just didn’t have hardly any just those three units, or shares. Deny on Taylor. So that’s, it’s this is not uncommon as to why so many areas that this is a part of the reason why so many areas that have been annexed and not yet been planted within longbox are that way is developers come in, and they don’t really understand that not each parcel was created equal in terms of what’s remaining in their raw water deficit. And so when you do the math, or, but it is what it is.
Speaker 2 1:13:43
You know, I think the thing is, my mind, gotta be consistent with what we do. I mean, nobody will understand if we don’t, and that looks like a big, big deal. But as long as we’re consistent in what we do, I
Speaker 9 1:14:00
Yeah, but 1,000% I agree with that. I mean, we of course, would be consistent across the board. And I was just kind of curious about whether whether there was any, anything special about, you know, as you scale up to larger kind of deficits, but of course, there’s, there’s no it doesn’t sound like and I kind of knew that going into this but but it just, it was worthy of questions or comments. Motion.
Speaker 5 1:14:34
I’ll make a motion Mr. Chair that would approve staffs recommendation that the sugar mill station final plat would be in compliance with City’s raw water requirement policy on satisfaction is 69.456 acre deficit. That final final plat
Unknown Speaker 1:14:56
movie segment let’s vote all in favor I’m
Speaker 4 1:15:11
so excited for all of us cash and blue. As you know, we boarded the new stash Alou quarter quarterly. The last one would have been in March, I believe you’ll be reviewing in June. As of right now invite everyone. Current cash in lieu fees will be $1,500 per acre foot was set back in March 2022. And there’s two parts really comprised of that the original Windgap diversion and pumping project, which is $30,000 of that, and then the city’s current investment and the way to get through a project, which is about 18,500. And so we were optimistic that we were going to have some additional information to be able to give to you for this review, we haven’t yet received it. Those are some stuff regarding the federal permit lawsuit settlement and the Colorado River connectivity channel costs. There’s a couple things that the northern staff is working on. There’s also when we do a big project like this, you build in a contingency to pay for unexpected changes. And those have been rolling in. And that’ll also probably we’ll be providing you some information in June about that sort of those contingency costs have been pretty large, we expected that but they might be beginning to be where they’re at greater than what we originally anticipated. So at this time, we really don’t have a recommendation to make a change. We have no data to really support a change. But we do believe that change when you get project cost estimates will most likely be approved at the June waterboard caching.
Speaker 2 1:17:07
I got a quick question. Paragraph that I’ll just read it staff not received updated consortium costs which in the how suddenly information is being released in the look the parent information at that time, as soon as low cost information becomes available, staff will forward the information to waterboard consideration any further adjustments to cash in lieu. So as far as the Timing on when chimney Holloway started being a player in our cash in lieu calculations, is that long down the road? Or is it near caroler? I’m trying to understand when we’re going to be impacted by Jimmy.
Speaker 10 1:17:49
So timing wise, we all know we know now federal lawsuit costs as each month’s additional costs project we’ll know fairly accurately why the June caption is saying what some of the current costs are in Word projects. And most accurate information is going to come in August, we’ll be about halfway through the project. We’re actually almost halfway to now, by August project will be that helpful. There’s gonna be a harder look at the numbers and better information on what any of the expected cost increases might be. So it really could either be June or September, either the June or the September, cash in the settings. You knows for cash flow, it’s not going to be a huge change. It’s not going to be like 18 to 48. It’s going to go from 4850 or 50. And we’ll want to look at some of those things. But you know right now we know what we know about the project is the current contingency from a construction standpoint has not been exceeded. on time and on budget, however we add in the federal lawsuit costs. We are now project projecting that the final project costs will exceed contingency original project costs just general construction costs For a million, the 10% contingency, so we’ve got $40 million available for contingency throughout the entire project. Right now we’re going to take about 30 or so add on for a loss of costume, just the increased construction costs with the contractor was 22. For last year there, were just a little over four in the low 50s. So we know there’s a little bit of money there, that’s going to have to come in. And that’s really why there’s sufficient funding cleared up until 20. Right now, till 2025. So any additional funding requests will come in? Probably like 24th or 20. But just numbers. But it’s just it’s not a huge amount. But it certainly will. I think we’ll want to look at it in June. September, we’ll probably want to look at
Speaker 10 1:21:29
anything there and again, then we’ll have to make a decision to set the cache and wait until we actually pay them a year now. All right, talk to us. Actually, then also, everyone is putting a few more years of their kneecap water on the market. Right now the last based upon the gap has been going from 30,000 to 40,000. Staff member Minish this year to probably more like next fall, we’ll actually do that sales. Know that? I personally expected based upon?
Speaker 2 1:22:27
Yeah. Okay. All right. Any other comments about cash and looping the board?
Speaker 2 1:22:44
We’re just going to leave the cache knew where it is. So we’ll just move on from there. We’re still on why.
Speaker 4 1:22:56
So the next item before you is the city’s 2023 2024, water supply water shortage implementation plan. So the past we’ve kind of commonly referred to as a water supply and drought management plan. But the drought seems to have this kind of negative connotation. But really what we’re talking about is what are we going to do when we don’t when you have periods that there’s a water shortage. So that’s why it’s, we felt better to rephrase that. But I’ll remind everyone, the purpose of the plan is just to manage the city’s water supplies and debt, anticipate, identify and respond to water shortage in the same rain Creek watershed. This plans evaluates the impacts on the raw water availability in the city one bought and recommends responses to the current water supply demand forecast. And it also fertilizes the city’s planning for future water shortages. So we’re currently in a sustainable conservation level, we, for the most part, have been there for quite some time. And we’ve been there largely because of conservation efforts. And the bottom line citizens are our water supply shortage or drought plan. It’s really based upon the raw water master plan. So we use a lot in 100 year time period, and the municipalities will use something shorter. I don’t know anybody that use greater than one and 100 year time period. And then we also have an over seven year duration. So he does all these elaborate over the three year periods, some of them even less than that. So we’re very conservative in our plan. We take a look at kind of worst case scenario, but there are others and over a longer period of time. So in doing that, we noted that last year, everything was pretty average. From out snowpack, average rainfall, runoff, we finished last irrigation season, which average storage LCCA present. Or current projections are that by middle of July, our select reservoirs will be 90% of all the selector is worthy, we’re talking about those that we could use for a municipal supply. So bedrock union birch, the call McIntosh corner basin doesn’t have those, we’re thinking they’re probably going to nearly feel. And that’s what’s really consistent with what’s been in years past. When we look at the actual data we’re getting last year, total water supply available was 24,490 acre feet. This year just have we’re expecting just slightly more 24,756 acre. Last year’s water treatment demand was 17,181 acre feet. And we’re predicting a demand of about 17,525 acre feet. snowpack today, I believe for the South Platte was right at 100%. In the Colorado River was 128%. Interestingly, the same green basin was 117%. So what we’re kind of finding is, those basins north of us are a little bit stronger, those that are south of us a little bit drier. And when you look at the South Platte, and you add all those together, that’s why we’re right now about 100%. But St. Grey basin itself is showing slightly better than average at 170%. That was as of today,
Speaker 2 1:26:43
where were we last year where we had 100%? Are we a little less than
Speaker 4 1:26:48
last year at this time? We were We were very close to I think we might have been at eight or so I
Unknown Speaker 1:26:54
think we were really close. This is all better than we were last
Speaker 4 1:26:57
isn’t better than we were last year. That’s correct. So the next thing we kind of look for in this plan is the description of indicators and tried to decide what are the some of the looking at some of the triggers to determine what the most response accurate response level would be. So we’re looking at things such as the Natural Resource Conservation Service monthly streamflow forecasts, the put that out starting in April, and then the last one in May. So we’ve got one more month comes out of the first of each month. It’s that document that really guides what our yields are going to be on our direct flow supplies, because some of our decrees reference what they’re, if it’s going to be a wet average or dry condition, then that then determines how much we’re going to be able to use in a given month or even day. But it just so happens you that range is like 60% to 140% is average. And so therefore, it’s almost always average. And it is this year, and that’s why. So that’s the first thing we look at is what the NRCS is streamflow forecasts, and they’re saying it’s average. And we put those numbers in accordingly. The next thing we’re looking at is the NRCS is monthly snowpack. We kind of just talked about that. We’re checking that each day, it’s everything for us, for the most part is right at average or slightly above average. The sacred list is the same array Creek basin reservoir storage levels. And currently bedrock is the kingdom I mentioned. It’s about 68%. Or I’m sorry, all of our reservoirs right now around 68%, but rocks at about 87%. And so it’s down about 2100 a shaker fee unions down 3500 acre feet. But that’s not surprising to us. But Rob is actually fuller than we would have normally expected going into it and Union’s down a little bit more. But that’s we’re feeling really good about that. The Trans mountain water supplies. Last week the northern Board issued an additional 30% supplemental quota to bring the total quota declaration to 70%. So when we look at our CVT quota, that was just last week, the upper ball one dish replacement water carryover CVT exchanges with the app supplies, the total the sum total of our transmitters and water supplies is estimated to be 17,585 acre feet. So a big chunk of what our water available comes from CVT supplies. So and maybe that’s very that’s 70% that’s what the quarter was last year. We look at the raw water availability For the City of Longmont, so as well as treating water demands, and the kind of looking at it in a multi year, so we’re looking at not just this year, we’re really trying to stay paying special focus for next year in the following year. So, in other words, we’re really not, don’t take this out of context we’re not worried about this year, we’re trying to make sure we have enough water for sure for the next three years. And that’s what this plan looks at. And so our treated water demands I mentioned earlier, we were expecting this year to be about 70,500. We’re anticipating about a two or two and a half percent increase in the next couple of years for water treatment demand. It’s surprising, though, again, you know, hats off to the citizens of Lombok, for water conservation efforts, our total demand has not increased a whole lot in 20 years, even though our population has increased. And so we think that’s an accurate representation of what the demands might go be the next couple of years. And so when you look at all those, when you look at it, comparing supply and demand, that’s really what all this boils down to, kind of kind of just jump, we can talk about some of these other descriptions go back to it, no problem. But I’m gonna go ahead and jump to the graph, because I think that’s, that’s there’s two graphs that were included in here is Exhibit A and B, and it’s on page 3132. And, and so what what we’re really wanting to show on that is that our supply to our demand for this year, and although it doesn’t show up exactly, is calculated to be about 141%. For next year, it’s calculated to be about 140%, the following year 137%. So if you just if nothing else, if you just remember those percentages, kind of the trigger level comes at about 135%. So if we were estimating our supply to be 112%, then that would say, hey, we we really need to look at something other than a sustainable conservation level. And so long as those numbers are great, 135% or greater, it then says we should be in a sustainable conservation level. And so they do that. So that kind of I think all makes sense, given our snowpack and our co2 supplies and our storage, and so forth, that the second indicators more a little more specific, and it’d be the following graph. And then we’d look at the water storage supply indicator. And really, what we’re looking at there for is more specifically around price reservoir, because that’s the source is feeding Nelson Flanders, for water. And so the criteria there is that we would be at something greater than 85% of its capacity on July 15. And the reason we use July 15, is that’s after the rough season. So right now, as we sit today, we’re already above, that’s that threshold. And we fully expect, but not to fill by July 15 of this year. So when you look at those two indicators, which are the primary indicators to determine what level we should be at both of them suggest remaining at a sustainable conservation level. And so that’s really the heart of the of the plan, we try to with the help of Hope especially we tried to come up with a little better table that might help the consumers that are our customers and citizens a long line of what what we’re looking for in terms of a sustainable conservation level, most of which speak to best management practices. And so as you may recall, in prior plans, we kind of had a lot of text in there about these things. And it was rather dry. It was it was kind of hard to read. And so we tried to make an attempt to kind of show what that is, you really probably becomes more important to get to what would be considered mild, moderate or severe drought, some of those things, but there’s nothing to indicate that we’re going to go below there. And if you just could jump into a couple more pages into it, there was there’s 23 there is, as one example of best management practices a sustainable conservation model of kind of some some watering We’ve been sitting in on meetings with other air other representatives up and down the front range trying to get a more common message out, is that’s that’s been, that’s been hard. Because again, not every other water provider uses the same criteria to determine what response they should be. But I think this is an example maybe of just one water, how one might water three days a week, and how you might implement that. So this is under sustainable conservation. So we’re trying to make it a little better. I think I’ll be the first to admit that you’ve still got a little bit more than we can work on on this. But I think the main message I wanted to get across is that we’re, the data suggests that we would remain in a state sustainable conservation. So with that, that’s all I really have an answer some questions.
Unknown Speaker 1:36:00
The demand is amazing, though. It really
Speaker 4 1:36:03
is. It’s hard to believe, but it really is.
Unknown Speaker 1:36:07
Some figures are correct. Yes.
Unknown Speaker 1:36:09
Speaker 8 1:36:11
Typical. You’re talking about the flight command. A lot of years. Yeah. Different waters. Is that right? It’s good news? Yes. Sure. Is the flight. Well, population going up, kind of steady state for,
Speaker 4 1:36:32
you know, when we looked at 2022, it was within like, 10 of acre feet when compared to the total mat in 2002. It’s just, it’s just, you know, maybe some of that’s everybody’s using low flush toilets, and they’re using better management practices on their lawn. But the reality of it is, it’s a little consistent. And
Speaker 8 1:36:55
widespread metering matters, too. Yeah, that’s a great point. And, you know, inclining block structure rates, they’re considered the best management practices or conservation as well. Because they charge people more money for you. So it sends a signal people will pick. Yeah. Yeah.
Unknown Speaker 1:37:17
Any other questions for Wes?
Speaker 9 1:37:23
I was just gonna mention that. It’s also pretty amazing, in light of the fact that there’s, you know, third of our water profile, of course, that we can’t reuse, right, that, that we can’t even really engage in that other kind of water management strategy, like water reuse, because of the CVD, you know, piece of our profile, I suppose. So that’s, that’s another kind of interesting aspect of this. I was just curious, actually, this is more of an academic exercise, perhaps. But yeah, that could exhibit a Is there a reason why? Let’s see what it was. I don’t know. There you go. Is there a reason why the, the demand, not kind of sticks so well, with the severe drought kind of trace?
Speaker 4 1:38:15
I think what that saying what that really is, is like what I was talking about those percentages, 135% being the kind of the, the threshold, and what we find is, so when you go into a water year, on a given day, you have a certain amount of water available to you. And on a given day, like let’s just say in June, you may have more water available to you than you actually need. Okay, so maybe, maybe it rain, and our decrees allow us a certain amount of water available to us to use on that day. But once that day is over, you have to use a certain amount of satisfied, but the L the remainder kind of proverbially goes down the river. And so what happens is that the, the amount that’s used and the amount that’s left over, tends to kind of fall pretty close to that 135 245% timeframe. And so, in other words, maybe at the beginning of the year, it’s there’s a whole lot more, it’s kind of a little wider, but when it gets down to the very end, when it’s all over, it’s pretty close. And so that’s kind of it’s kind of a reason why these kind of fall kind of close. That’s right, one of the primary reasons
Speaker 9 1:39:48
like they’re based at Sun some kind of similar metrics.
Unknown Speaker 1:39:53
Yeah, also, it’d be just
Unknown Speaker 1:39:54
like you can’t you can’t demand more than video Yeah,
Unknown Speaker 1:40:00
I think that that’s probably be true as well.
Speaker 2 1:40:07
Okay, any other questions for Wes? I guess you’re looking for our approval of stain on sustainability level. So I want to make a motion
Unknown Speaker 1:40:21
to approve sustainability throughout.
Unknown Speaker 1:40:26
It’s a cost efficient insurance plan.
Unknown Speaker 1:40:29
It’s a mouthful, I
Speaker 10 1:40:30
can ask for a recommendation to council and irreconcilable recommends
Unknown Speaker 1:40:33
it to Council for approval.
Unknown Speaker 1:40:40
Moving to second, on favor.
Speaker 10 1:40:42
Hi. Thanks, Roger. We’ll Alliance onestaff. Next, I just want to do a quick time check on this is, we have a couple of these things we could talk a or with next month. We just keep plugging through whatever the board’s favorites.
Unknown Speaker 1:41:06
What we’re burning it
Speaker 2 1:41:07
today. Be more specific as far as what you could come back to
Speaker 10 1:41:11
the NWO preserve update? What would you say miles? That’s probably we could have been?
Unknown Speaker 1:41:17
Yeah, I mean, yeah, 1015 minutes, probably. But
Speaker 10 1:41:26
we’ll also underline from board we need to talk about recruitment interviews. Yeah, I just don’t want to keep you too late. But it’s up to
Speaker 2 1:41:39
everybody’s feelings for me that a five o’clock deadline or? Okay, so I’m like, we’re gonna run short of time. So sorry.
Unknown Speaker 1:42:00
Speaker 10 1:42:03
And the real kind of talk one thing I’m going to talk about this, the cost coming back, so I do want to talk real quickly, in your packet included raw waters, George, actually quite a few this year. One of them I wanted to point out was, there’s there’s two tour dates for the Jimmy Hall reservoir project. And that’s Longmont only. The whole tour we reserved for all that. So more can go on. We will invite
Unknown Speaker 1:42:48
there’s the same tour. It’ll be
Speaker 10 1:42:52
sure other than a little more construction. So there’s a whole bunch tours, they’re slightly sell any of those tours, you want to go on. Tour.
Speaker 2 1:43:11
All right. So as far as the annual waterboard report, you don’t want to handle it.
Unknown Speaker 1:43:23
We have included in your packet.
Unknown Speaker 1:43:25
Most years, we require our information,
Speaker 10 1:43:28
information that actually this is the requirement to go. You can also report that on board as giving City Council goes every year. So really what we do is we prepare for you. And then if there’s any additions or corrections to the report. Let us know if not we’ll plan on submitting the report to council.
Unknown Speaker 1:43:57
pretty comprehensive. Yeah.
Speaker 9 1:44:04
Yeah, I was also gonna say that, that I’ve only seen two of these so far, because I started in July of 21. So you must have had report read before sorry, but I always like this time of year because it helps to kind of reflect a little bit on what we’ve been up to for the last year and I thought it was really comprehensive and I thought I just you know, so appreciate the effort that goes into it. And so yeah, thanks for that.
Speaker 8 1:44:31
It was it was somebody who wasn’t last year to skim through and be like Uh Huh.
Unknown Speaker 1:44:41
I guess we’re saying the reports. We look forward job okay, boarding commission, recruitment, interviews. We just checked with them maybe you know, I call To see how many people are interested in
Speaker 2 1:45:04
position for a position evidently with because losing Alison year we’ll probably have two positions open because my expires? Yes, three
Unknown Speaker 1:45:15
applicants, three applicants.
Speaker 2 1:45:17
Okay. So I would assume let me just ask this for starters, as far as interviewing the applicants I guess we all know that we all got involved in a thing by our desire. You want to do the same thing? Anybody won’t be part of that process.
Speaker 9 1:45:48
Yeah, yeah. Sorry about that. Yeah, yeah, I would like to
Speaker 2 1:45:52
plan on doing that. No, my thought is, why don’t can we set up the emirate interviews prior to our next board meeting? And we can just flow into it now this is really interesting, because I’m interviewing Yeah, which does anybody want to interview me that
Unknown Speaker 1:46:18
we interviewing for two positions
Speaker 6 1:46:23
that was all at the same time fill a vacancy and then
Speaker 2 1:46:30
so right so you’re supposed to be this are you going to be part of the process or your situations?
Unknown Speaker 1:46:39
I’m gonna be starting the
Speaker 2 1:46:48
process anyway, will you put that together we look forward to interviewing Roger
Unknown Speaker 1:47:10
Hey, Roger Orbison are doing
Unknown Speaker 1:47:12
well should read every video recently,
Unknown Speaker 1:47:20
but as as as we did it, we had a batch of questions.
Unknown Speaker 1:47:29
And then super helpful.
Speaker 2 1:47:30
I don’t know how you want to do it without me not being there but I thought it worked pretty good. We just kind of pick down the order and each of us ask a question or on the morning that way How did you feel that interview was Renee?
Speaker 8 1:47:42
It was actually kind of nice because it gave a chance like there have been times where previously I was on waterboarding somebody who would show up and be like cool for you. So I could see from your perspective that he was so good and because we had some back and forth it was also a chance to mediate
Speaker 2 1:48:04
Marquis you guys decide in June Yeah. So we’ll be done with moving our stuff on to you
Speaker 8 1:48:13
really are supposed to recommend me suppose something happens in the next three days and unit nine applicants still refer the best two or three if you’ve got two C’s, you know, you may want to leave some leeway for the council to make a decision or you don’t even have to remember in Dallas in terms of their ability to accept the position that just referred to the
Speaker 2 1:48:40
well the process that we use for the first time went on they did that work out pretty good, pretty good.
Speaker 8 1:48:46
Yes, it did some of that some of the boards didn’t do that and still did still refer to everybody anyway so the council didn’t like get the free ride but that’s still planned.
Unknown Speaker 1:49:02
I think it’s a good point.
Speaker 8 1:49:03
So let me see if I heard you correctly. So you’d be happy if we managed to scream yes, there’s less for you. That’s the whole idea is that you guys are better judges have a good waterboard the counselors and the counselors interviews are in every one every applicant was getting interviewed by they were so short that was almost an insult. And I’m guessing a chunk of your time as well.
Speaker 2 1:49:32
Right so we’ve got three atoms let’s say that stays the same. Yeah. Do you want from this board to rate them or just move two of them onto your
Speaker 8 1:49:44
I feeling to the one okay. If there’s you know, there’s some reason to remove all three on them may have dealt with and dealt with more than once they’re
Unknown Speaker 1:49:55
removed to honors two openings. Yes.
Unknown Speaker 1:49:59
Speaker 2 1:50:02
Any questions on this topic at all? should work out pretty good?
Speaker 5 1:50:08
Well, I guess I have one Marsha is, since there’s two positions and they have different terms. One is the completion of Allison’s you don’t need us to tell you which slot should be for candidate that simple
Unknown Speaker 1:50:20
Speaker 5 1:50:23
have wondered because one’s gonna be a biconditional is gonna be
Unknown Speaker 1:50:34
Speaker 2 1:50:41
Okay, well, the last thing is major projects listings any all of that or any comments or additions to what’s being proposed going down the road? Anybody everybody’s happy with it? I guess no comments, the answer is yes. You know, I have one thing, Kevin, maybe it’s just me that has an issue with I’d like to better understand how we use union reservoir as a supply for I mean, if somebody could just take a little time at one meeting and just explain that a little better. I don’t know if I’m the only one to have that problem. But I don’t, I don’t quite understand how we do that.
Speaker 10 1:51:32
You know, that’s a really good subject. Because every now and then it’s great to be able to, because political will see this to get that information out. Because that’s probably one of the questions I get more than a lot of the questions that water supply. People need to know that the reservoir east the town. So yeah, that’s great.
Speaker 8 1:51:57
A lot of dog walkers are bringing it out. Well, my dog can put it in the reservoir.
Speaker 8 1:52:08
You haven’t signed off on button rock go dark policy heavy? Well, yeah, it’s on second reading on the 24th. So but but I think we are all adamant that we don’t want to drink the water so
Speaker 2 1:52:22
that you didn’t sound like you got much
Speaker 8 1:52:26
pushback? Well, you know what, we did get a lot of pushback up on the night of the presentation. And then, and then a bunch of people realized, oh, wait a minute, you’re taking something away from me. And so since then, you know, the light of the first reading, and I’ve got quite a few letters. And so there yeah, there may be a bunch of people speaking against it. Well prove that there’s contaminants in the water.
Speaker 2 1:53:03
Okay. I think that’s, that’s about all the items we have. Sorry, for some of you people, I hope you got anything. No, no,
Unknown Speaker 1:53:16
I know it’s a miracle. Make up for next month, our quick one, because we had the opportunity to tell you that we’re interested in chores. But there’ll be two potentially new members, perhaps not.
Unknown Speaker 1:53:36
Perhaps returning members
Speaker 5 1:53:37
anyway. But do we save spots on tours for people that might be YouTube or because I think that’s the most useful way to get to know the system. The tour that we took we came on was fabulous. So I don’t know if
Speaker 1 1:53:48
there’s a place where you can go in there. For our raw waters. Certainly. Definitely. Yeah. Okay, cool. Yeah,
Speaker 5 1:53:56
exactly. The timing actually works out pretty good on that. If they’re available on June 9, to get that done in May, so actually won’t be because
Unknown Speaker 1:54:06
June, is it? So
Unknown Speaker 1:54:11
I just think that was really helpful for
Unknown Speaker 1:54:17
oh, no, what would you recommend you to counsel? Up to you guys, but
Unknown Speaker 1:54:23
I just figured that was an opportunity. I didn’t want
Unknown Speaker 1:54:25
to do anything else before we adjourn?
Speaker 9 1:54:34
I know I just I just wanted to say thanks for accommodating me. We have exit exams this week for our graduate students. And we had a bumper crop of students that are graduating and so that was just there were a lot of them and and I was able to preserve the time around this meeting except for I didn’t I wasn’t able to preserve enough Time to drive up until the meeting. So I appreciate you accommodating me remotely. So thank you. I don’t make a habit of this but it just happened this time. So
Unknown Speaker 1:55:09
for you next month. Absolutely. Anybody else? A juror or journey
Transcribed by https://otter.ai