We're releasing approximately 70 CFS, of which approximately 42 CFS is going to excel energy for the liveries in the Jackson Reservoir, pursuant to our agreement on it. Union Reservoir was down from full, approximately 750 acre feet, we're releasing 7 CFS from that Reservoir. A lot of my history, so the CBT quoted a lot of the storage at this time, more specifically in the pleasant dollar Reservoir and Union Reservoir for future irrigation use, and we plan to still plan to carry over the maximum carryover amount available to us next year with our CBT. That's all I have. Any questions for us? I do have one less. So if you're making 42 CFS release for Excel, how does that, I mean typically you try to get as much out of the bottom into the system for being those obligations. So is it, that's the limiting factors on which F1 you have, is there, I mean really the thought is is to release as much out of the lower system that you can't treat, but if you're releasing out of a button rock that is treatable water, so it's just kind of curious how that plays out through the season. So we have an agreement that each year we trade Excel for CBT water, and then in turn we provide them with consumable water. The Excel was asking if they could, so normally they would take a small delivery on a per day basis, a couple CFS, or to make the most efficient deliveries they were asking for more of a slug. So in a two-week period receiving about 1,000 acre feet. So our sources to be able to satisfy that delivery request falls on either Union reservoir or a button rock. Had we taken it out of Union, we then would have had a 1,000 acre per hole in Union that we'd have to refill. And it's very difficult to fill Union because it's an off channel reservoir. Button rocks are being on channel, it's much easier for us to fill in the spring because we can put a lot of water in there in a short period of time. So the point is that, yes, we're delivering 42 CFS, we don't have nowhere near that coming out of the wastewater treatment plant in our appellate. And what is coming out of the wastewater treatment plant is fully consumed. In addition to the small amount that we have, which is about three CFS out of Union, on lawnmots we have, is going to other of these solidifications and requirements on lawnmots. So we've had a summary that to get this 1,000 acre feet and make more sense to come out of a button rock that it did out of Union so that it can be easily and quickly replaced next year's in the runoff. So there's 1,000 acre feet that's coming from the upper end of the system. Is the balance met by either effluent or non-creable sources through one month system up? I guess I'm trying to understand in terms of the overall water supply balancing. Obviously, this water out of the wastewater plant that can't be treated, and you're getting CBT nutrients and that benefit, whereas if you're supplying 1,000 acre foot out of a button rock that could have been treated, you're not getting that net benefit to the system. So I'm just trying to understand that. So I guess the bottom line is the trade beyond the 1,000 acre feet that you're releasing. Is that primarily a whole piece of mobile appellate or Union reservoir? Both of those two sources. So those are making up the remainder of our requested deliveries. And then what will likely happen, the start of the new water year in November 1st, Excel will come back down to something 2 or 3 CFS, and those releases will probably be made up out of the wastewater treatment plant, which will have a higher returnable credit factor, so we can use that, and then any adjustments that we need to make for the releases that are needed. And if we were in a drought circumstance, and would that probably be, you maybe would make the release out of Union in that situation because... It depends. I mean, we have to keep... There's several things that we're considering in our operations of utilizing all of our available sources again. We have 1,000 acre feet would probably take a minimum of a month of filling out the oligarchy. And so depending upon the capacity of the dish to carry that water in addition to the oligarchy shareholders, we have to kind of keep that into consideration. It's hard for an irrigation dish that we've built to run seasonally to have to run year-round. And so we're taking that into consideration. But probably the most, the foremost consideration in this instance, is the ability to put in a significant amount of water in a short period of time and divide that. So yeah, if we were into a drought, we'd have to weigh those. We really are utilizing both ends of our system, the lower end and the upper end. But we've built in this case, it made it much more sense to use the upper end, even with that slightly more transit loss of the experience. And during a drought, keep in mind, the Rio and Giesco limits the maximum amount taken class absent on provision for ACFs, which is usually deliverable out early. So it kind of squeezes that into the requirements so that they could be able to waste water. Exactly. So in a drought, we probably wouldn't agree to a short-term 1,000 acre flood rate that would keep a further depletion, you know, as opposed to, let's say, eight or ten CFS. Right. We'll image it. Okay. So what was the reason for the larger question? So, Excel each year, again, we do a trade. They give us a certain amount of CDT, an acre foot amount of CDT, and then we pledge to make available that same amount. So they can take deliveries of that at their own schedule, and it's part of our agreement. And the typical daily maximums of eight CFS, they would like to put water in Jackson Reservoir so that they can have it available for their use later on. But if they take it in slow and app and small amounts over a lot of their time, you just don't realize that water in the reservoir. It's a long ways down, and you lose it through the conveyance of the transit losses and so forth. So it's much more beneficial for them to get a slug so they can realize a greater percentage of that water. It's our obligation to deliver the water stops at the outfall of Union Reservoir. Also about Sandstone Ranch, they shoulder the burden of any losses from there down to where they take Jackson Reservoir. And so it's kind of just a, everybody tries to position to the best that they can forecast of getting water, wondering whether or not you're going to come into priority or not. There's a lot of things that are involved, but essentially it's to make more efficient use of the water that they're entitled to. And do they do that on an annual basis? So normally they haven't taken a big slug. Occasionally they have. Normally they would wait until November, sometimes January, and then they would say, okay, I want you to start releasing this, for example, 5CFS for the next three months. And then we would do that. So in a way what this might do, time will tell, is that by taking this slug, they may choose not to take any slug in the month of November and December perhaps. And so doing there, it may actually result in the long-lost benefit, because we wouldn't have those commitments to deliver the water during the wintertime. There has been occasion where they haven't taken their full amount. So they just request how much they want, and we make it available to them. So I believe that this might be one of those circumstances that may occur, and so doing would be the long-lost best interest. So it was part of the reason they wanted this slag, because there was no call earlier in the season, so they didn't need as much, and then they're left with this on the balance sheets, and then trying to run it to Jackson. I believe that's a part of it. I really didn't have a discussion as to why they wanted it, other than to say they wanted to try to make a relationship. And I guess in that regard, if they run it to Jackson, they have it available, and they reduce them up if they want to do on the trade this upcoming next year. They're very well made. Well, thanks for your understanding. Any other questions? All right. You're very welcome. All right. Thank you. We're on item five, which is public invited to be heard, and the special presentation. Yes. From St. Graham and left-hand water conservancy district. All right. You can look at me or I have a few slides here to give you guys an update on the stream management plan and the $7,800 initiative. I'm Scott Griblin. I'm with the district. I just started about six months ago. So if anything I say is historically inaccurate, please feel free to jump in. I've done my best to get all the details from Sean and all of that. So if you can go to the next slide, please. So some quick history. The district was created back in the 70s to develop some large reservoirs, particularly pop and top. And that was right towards the end of the era of big downs. And that was pretty fiercely opposed. And so it never got built. And the district had to kind of find something else to other ways to contribute to the basin. And they decided to develop an augmentation program. And that is still in existence today. And in the floods of 2013 is really when, at least from what I understand, the way that the basin interacted on water really took on a much more collaborative effort. Everyone had to work together during the flood recovery. And really strong partnerships were built during that time, strong collaborative partnerships. And from that came the stream management plan process. So in 2015, that started. And the district led the stream management plan. And from that plan developed a series of basin-wide goals that everybody agreed to, all of the stakeholders and collaborators agreed to. And it also identifies the need for additional funding to achieve some of those goals. And that's that birth to the 7-8 dollar initiative. And it passed. It passed in 2020. Thanks to everyone's support. And the sea was certainly a strong supporter of that. So we all get to celebrate that win. And now it's time to get to work. So if you can go to the next slide. With that, the question is how are we as the district going about implementing that work? And a quick reminder of the four goals, the four basin-wide goals that came out of the stream management plan up there. You see water quality, there's a flow goal, water management and a habitat goal. And those all were critical elements that were identified in that plan. And the district took those and made them more relatable to the voters in the way that we phrased them for the 7-8 dollar initiative. So if you can go to the next slide, please. There's some language that was in the 7-8 dollar initiative and it identifies some very similar goals. So water quality, healthy rivers and streams, safeguarding and conserving drinking water supplies for both communities as well as food production and also protecting forests. So identifying that we need to keep our watersets healthy in that regard.  So this was very popular within the district and it was very encouraging to see the level of support that water received from everyone in the district. If you go to the next slide, please. So what we have done is taken kind of combined those S&P goals with what was stated in the 7-8 dollar initiative to develop and combine it a little bit with some of the district's own priorities to develop this five-point plan. This is really what we are using to guide our implementation of the 7-8 dollar initiative. It's an interconnected plan. So all of these points, as I'm sure you guys are all well aware, water connects all aspects of life, but this work really goes hand in hand. So water quality relates to maintaining healthy rivers and creeks and also relates to having good drinking water supplies and that connects the storage as well as food production. I'll highlight a couple specific projects. If you go to the next slide, please. You'll see that storage is still on there. So going back to the district's original creation to develop reservoirs, but rather than, you know, big on-channel reservoirs, we're looking at a slightly different approach. So looking at what we're liking to call creek improvement facilities, which is kind of a concept that recognizes that we want to develop storage for multi-purpose storage projects for a variety of benefits. So storage for the sake of storage and in dry years, there's also storage that can help enhance flows for recreation and the environment. Some of the types of storage buckets that we're looking at are existing structures. We having existing structures, expanding existing structures. We're also looking at potential new storage. And it's almost, I think it's 100% off-channel with this. And we are just in the start of kind of a high-level feasibility stage of identifying good spots to pursue and to look into further detail. Next slide, please. So another big project that we've been contributing both funding to and also participating in is wildfire mitigation and pretreatment. And I've highlighted maintaining healthy rivers and creeks, but this really touches a lot of aspects of those pipeline plans. Waterside health is critical to all aspects of both water quality and our ability to get drinking water and also, to some extent, drawing food and agriculture and all of that with having good clean water sources available to us. Some of what we have been doing and we've been working with the left-hand Waterside Center and also the Longmont and Boulder Valley Conservation District on both mitigation efforts for the cowwood fires, so doing some mulching and seeding, supporting some of that work, in addition to pretreatment. So developing education and outreach for the public and also strategizing to see how can we best maintain our forests to best protect our watersheds. There are a bunch of other things that we are looking at that we have. Some of you have been started this past year and other things we're looking and excited to jump into in 2022 and beyond. We're streamgaging and instrumentation is certainly something that came up during the stream management plan process and it's very much in the District's wheelhouse. We hope to be implementing some more streamgages. Soil health, working with local agriculture and supporting soil health tests to improve growers' knowledge of their soil health and how they can increase both their yields and increase their inputs. Flow targets, so looking at how can we best manage our flows in an integrated fashion and focus primarily on some key dry-out spots. And then also passage projects. The city has been working hand-in-hand on several of those and we've been trying to support kind of the overarching approach to when we look at, when we talk about passage projects, so this passage, sediment passage, all of that, how can we position ourselves to have that be a ditch company driven rather than externally driven and a project being brought to a ditch company and the ditch company is themselves really driving it. That's all I have but I'd be happy to take questions if you guys have anything else. Any questions for the presentation? I've got one. In terms of the forest health, one of the issues that comes up is public versus private land. It sounds like you're trying to partner with other entities but public lands in particular, you have thoughts because a lot of times that's the majority of the land yet. You may only be able to access a few programs on private just do you get into that a little bit? Yeah, so we've been working with the St. Brain or the St. Brain Forest Health Partnership and they're doing work on both public and private lands and my understanding is they do have federal and state partners on board in that effort. I thought it was gone. Yeah. I'm Bruce Scott. I'm Scott. Yes. Sorry. I'm Scott Oleg too. Yeah. It's a big deal to get new storage in Colorado. Let me look what we just went through with the Chimney Hall Reservoir and it was a big deal a few years ago to allow homeowners to have rain barrels. So when you say moderate-sized local storage what do you have to go through to get that approved? That's a great question. And that's part of our looking at opportunities that don't have a very onerous permanent process. If there's any way that we can kind of thread that needle to find opportunities that we can increase existing structures or we have existing structures or pull together with other entities and look at possibilities of where can storage be expanded. So there are different possibilities and some of them are sure things. Exactly. Yeah. And we're just at the start of that process. I mean, just to put a finer point on that. I mean, we're talking like gravel pits and such, right? I mean, that's one idea for example. Exactly. Exactly. Yeah. We had kind of done some Google Earth map exercises where we looked at the whole basin and say, you know, what are working with Mark McClain and Deir Nolphe on this and using, they've got a great depth of knowledge. And so saying from your guys perspective as well as some of our board members and other people in the community, talk to Ken a little bit about this. You know, where are opportunities in your guys minds for potential storage and then as we develop a very large list, a lot of things fall off of it quickly and we can start focusing on a few key spots. Any other questions? Could you talk a little bit more about this? Yeah. So the streamers were planned and identified some critical stream reaches and one of them was the Lions the long month where it dries up at several points during the year and there's also some endangered fish species. So looking at ways to support flows through there, both adding water to the creek and also looking at if we can re-operate things, if we can kind of find ways to bring water through that reach that benefits everybody or that we can collaboratively work to minimize the amount of dry at times. That's one example. More broadly looking at ways of either increasing flows in the river or again re-operating if possible to benefit things like, you know, kayak.  And how are you exploring those flow targets as far as thinking about those? Yes. Yes. So we are just on the start of that as well. But working with experts, so working with fish experts and also recreation to say in an ideal scenario what would these species benefit from? And kind of building on top of that and seeing, okay, taking that and looking at what's reasonable and possible and kind of merging those two. Is that, is the idea at least? Okay, we'll see where it ends up. And as far as measuring devices, are there any locations within the common area that you're examining and that additional management? The stream management plan identified several areas that could use additional instrumentation. We are also looking beyond that and see if there's other spots. So if you guys have spots and you guys know the system very well, there's places that would be helpful to have additional gauging. Please let's talk about it and find one. For years we wanted to re-operate. Old gauging station used to be just downstream of Copland Lake, in our same grade. On the bridge there? Yeah, on the bridge, the state. Just continue that. I understand what it did. I wish to have it. I still would like to see it there. So that's one of them. But no, there's a lot of them down here, where we need to re-operate. Where water is and isn't. And that all kind of fits together with the flow targets and identifying where storage is most needed and all of that. And also one of the things that, just because I'm familiar with it, involved in this, that the district is doing, is they're coming up with a playbook for how to do fish passage at rich diversion structures. We've had a couple of them put in that basically try to be polite, disaster. And because nobody knows how to do it right. And there was one that just went in here not too long ago. Just couldn't have done better. And so the district has agreed to come up with a playbook. Sean Sutton, I'm going to kind of help. I imagine you're about there too, Scott. And I'm sitting on it for the city. I'll be about there soon. I'm going to hold the camera. We're hoping to come up with a document there. Guide that and actually allow them to move forward and start. Kevin, you're talking, I should also mention we have been in conversation with the city about possible water conservation efforts. So municipal water conservation. We didn't, we didn't come up with anything for this year, but we've been, we are going to re-engage. I'm looking forward to continuing that conversation to see ways that we can partner with you guys. The Gagean, is that primarily oriented towards flow or also on water quality? Mostly flow. So the left-hand watershed center is doing a bunch of monitoring, more quality focused monitoring. So we're partnering the kind of implementation of the stream management plan is on a high level taking an adaptive management approach is really what the left-hand watershed center, the mechanism through which they are wanting to move forward and monitoring and getting more data is certainly key in the successful implementation of the plan. And so identifying that, you know, we, there's several things that we know and several things that we can start tackling now but we also need to keep learning and have that learning informed future just as making that move. There are other questions. What do you do next steps and the timeline for those steps? So we have 7-8 funding for 10 years. So this is 2021 was the first of the town. And so we are trying to get as much done as we can. So several of these projects we have kicked off and so the creek improvement facility we've gone through, we're wrapping up the kind of high level feasibility and are going to start narrowing that list and developing some preliminary designs. And as we slide projects, you know, start construction as soon as we can with those. The forest health, the wildfire mitigation and pre-treatment this afternoon as we speak. The flow targets, that process is kicking off this next year. So a lot of stuff, we started what we could this past year and we're kicking off a lot more this next year. So it's very active. That answers your question. So it is the thought you're studying but if you see opportunities, you're trying to fund and kind of get those moving and not waiting for the overall plan or you're trying to implement what can be done. Yes. Any other questions? Great. Thank you for the presentation. Yeah, thank you guys. Appreciate it.  Thank you very much. Did we have... I don't know if that was under Republican but it would be heard. Yeah, no Republican but it would be heard. No other presentation. Alright, we're on to item six which is a gender revisions and submission of documents. Anything there? You know, I don't have any revisions. I do have one picture. I'm going to show you later in the meeting about a button-off and other than that. Okay, thank you. On to seven and only the seven B which is the Longmont Business Center. Yeah, so this is an information item only but the board's information. Longmont Business Center, we plant J plus A and AB is a 6.147 acre parcel located in the south corner of the street with the Grand Creek Drive. This particular plow is a push of the Longmont Business Center final plow that will be reviewed by the board back in March of 1999. All the historic water rights have been transferred and all of our investments have been satisfied and it was presented once. But I agree with that. To the authority of our policy board is to use it. So that's why I'm supporting it. Alright. And any questions or comments is just the informational item. So any questions, comments for Wes on this item? Okay, I don't see any. So thanks, Wes. Keep moving. So we're under 8A which is the 2022 legislative guiding water principles. Yes, thank you. Mr. Chair. We have the guiding water principles for legislative affairs this is an annual review of our guiding water principles legislative purposes. Once they're approved by Watermore which is just kind of a water part of legislation these are combined with other information in the city manager's office annually takes to city council. Generally around December is when they take that to city council and that basically what it does is guides staff when the authority of legislation comes in in January you know, you can't think 2,000 bills to have city council look out and so this gives us the guidance of what bills should we bring forward if we have comments how should they be looked at and so you know, we review these for a number of years so they're generally pretty good. There is one guiding water principle that I thought I would bring your attention. I think when we wrote it years ago made a lot of sense but you might consider slightly changing it but I really shouldn't have these as bullets I should have them numbered because I can't say bullet number nine and it's not numbered about two thirds of the way down the very first page we have one, it says all Colorado water users must share in solving part of water resource problems with the cost to meet the water needs of water users being paid solely by those benefiting from the project correct? It has made a lot of sense over the years thinking about that one particular right now though we may want to slightly tweak that as you may remember recently one of the general elections there was a bill initiative passed that set up sports betting and turns that in the funding I'll call it the taxes the question that the state keeps on the sports betting was directed towards developing and furthering the state of Colorado is the Colorado water plan and part of the Colorado water plan is developing water supplies for the future a lot of the funding will go to generally I think it will be used at the state level to generally move the Colorado water plan forward but I do believe as part of that there will probably be some there will be some grant opportunities for development of projects and other activities that are listed under the Colorado water plan so it probably makes sense to be to keep an eye on that and so I guess if I were to look at this I would just strike solely off that I think it is fine that it says that the water needs that to meet the water needs being paid by those benefiting but you might take the word solely off there is an opportunity it turns out I guess people in Colorado bent more on sports than they anticipated there is certainly more money coming in on sports betting I think it partially surrounding states people fly into the IAE or they drive into the state to get a cell tower that canes off a cell tower of the state of Colorado then they took their bet but literally some people fly into the IAE place a sport bat and then fly out because you get cheap flights into the IAE I guess from Texas a lot of them come from Texas so for whatever reason I don't know but there is a lot of sports betting going on so there is a little more money than was anticipated which is it is one of these but other than that I think it is consistent but hopefully you have a chance to take a look at it if you want to change any or leaving the state it is perfectly fine too so I guess two items we agree with Dan's kind of recommendation on that for moving solely and then I guess beyond that there is other comments or other items that we like that you either have changed or added to the list maybe you started with that from that both regarding the funding or the paying for the project Mr. Chair I would propose that we both start solely at 11 20 I would kind of agree that even if solely is missing still kind of infers that it is kind of solely still and so of course in the lawyer but I would suggest that that's a good plan I think that makes sense that would be part of the funding and source but there are other sources that could help I'm good with that any other thoughts Margie Margie will put together I'm just trying to figure out where the including is Dan's the report together so it would read all Colorado water users must share in solving Colorado's water resource problems with the cost to meet the water needs of water users including by those benefiting from the project or effort without just saying that it could probably be more anything else I've got one the only one I guess I see and I don't know what you just mentioned here I had a lot of discussions regarding forest fires mitigation or prevention measures I don't know if we want to make that a specific bullet that Longmont supports fire mitigation and prevention efforts for municipal water supplies because it's becoming more and more of a hot topic and I think there's going to probably be legislation specific to that I mean there has been I think there can be more of it so this one that's going through my mind is those reading the words do we have anything along those lines presently I was wondering not specifically I think you could infer that from a number of these but I think it's good to you know yeah the very last bullet does say forest fires but not during emergency but yeah some said something like Longmont supports legislation to improve forest stewardship efforts in the state for local forest and the water share yep there's that but did that statement die I didn't know what you were saying I didn't think it did just because it's kind of specific to just emergency situations I guess what I'm thinking of Roger is there's quite a bit of work that needs to be done prior to that and in terms of forest management and you know after the fact maybe the emergency is gone but then you're having communications so you're protecting water quality that way so I'm just thinking it's a little broader could maybe be a topic instead of it being included in an emergency situation it kind of stands on its own in terms of those activities but that was all I saw any other questions or comments everybody okay with adding that one alright thank you do you have what you need yeah that's good we're in Longmont Longmont supports forest stewardship efforts to protect the forest and substituted water share that's probably quite a bit let us support those kind of bills okay that's great I apologize not just the catastrophic forestry but the results and mudslides yeah more quality impacts that's that's a good point alright so if you move in we're on the do you need a motion for root loads right now if you could please alright so with those two changes that we talked about and when is this going to council is this pretty soon generally it goes in December sometimes we don't I would probably like to bring it back in they bring it back in November we have the actual language we could go on there I mean as long as that works timing we won't say that alright so moving on we're on item 9a is the cash policy review now let's go there's a board we're talking about cash policy city council direction back in July the last book last month we had some input from the city attorney's office since that time water resources staff has had conversations with the city attorney's office and other departments within the city of Longlaat we don't have anything specific to bring back to this month other than to let you know that we're working on some potential language and also multiple scenarios for sitting to be some of the things we're working on though that are coming as a byproduct of those meetings with the staff we initiated discussions with board of water concerning the opportunity to review the way you got funding projects from yield or ratio analysis and that's that's a pretty big deal that's something that's going to face the time but we started that work we're working with the business environmental services on various financial policies and their funding mechanisms so next month we're anticipating having representatives from them come and give you public works and active resources if you will 101 on things such as when you get a parent project when you get a firming project TAPT collections the cash and levity fund when you have special assessments I hope you keep in context how those things are conceived and how they're I think that will be helpful in your own all recommendation to sit down on this we're working to collect prior when you get parent project sales information we include that in the quarterly review so we're going to work on collecting that and then finally what they said earlier developing those scenarios to help set the peak of cash and levity so probably I'm estimating there'll be three or four different ways that the board might entertain setting that so that information coming in the member packet and hopefully if any will be able to make some decisions that could be applied towards quarterly review questions comments you know maybe you got some information as far as looking at different cash and levity costs from other entities that was one of our minutes we had a cash and levity average for northern communities somewhere around $41,000 I was trying to figure out specifically what communities like ours like Fort Collins 11 what are their cash and levity numbers and how did they arrive at something that's much different from ours I'm trying to sync these things together I need to understand why they got where they got and actually that's a really good point because I think one of the things that happens some of these questions really originate from not very professional why why are they doing this and so we just for facts we did go ahead and pull those numbers Fort Collins current cash and levity is $42,518 an acre but although they expect that to go up to $68,200 under every second so that's quite soon a lot of money is at $40,150 and really is at $36,500 most of those are primarily because of course they are using CBT as part of all of their comparison or their cash and levity some entities like little Thompson Water District don't really have a cash and levity they just say you got to go get CBT some of the small world districts so right now CBT is about $60,000 a year which is about $80,000 a year and really they don't they just they want it down from us that's what you got to look at so that's pretty high Fort Collins I find a little bit interesting because for years we were we have a real reasonable cash and levity other cities were around ours but Fort Collins was always way lower than us way lower they were $6,500 an acre flood up until the last just not too long ago and so they were always they were the one that was always underneath us and I don't know why they decided to change their policy try to find that out but they're going from $6,000 to $68,000 that's going to be a shock is that a zero? yeah it's the easiest way to do it you got it although I can't be out a little bit I don't generally worry too much about Fort Collins because they don't serve much of their city with water they serve about a number of citizens about half of it they serve the old part of Fort Collins in the middle all of the growth area on the south and all the growth area in the north and northeast are rural domestics so area-wise they only serve about one third of the city of Fort Collins which is okay but it's interesting I don't know about that situation that's really scary to me because you're dependent upon rural domestics for your community so did you pull the numbers on the rural domestics? I haven't pulled those yet I just had time to do these actually I thought that was an excellent question we got we actually have it was actually started by the city of Lublin a store a few years ago we have a pretty complete spreadsheet but it's way out of date now so we'll update it for November being open complete spreadsheet of a lot of them all the way from Boulder to Louisville Fort Collins and a number of the rural domestics there are a lot of policies not only what it is but how they set it because everybody is different that's one of the things I always caution people is don't just compare a number that doesn't be any good at all I may because the reason that we brought this before you guys is because we were being questioned by the public and also because as far as the council is concerned this is very closely tied to our growth policy so back in the 90's and ought a lot of money wanted to grow and approved a lot of annexations because we could and we didn't want the barriers up to do it well now we were about out of annexations there are not that many more plastic can be brought in and we have other sources of revenue now which was much less true back in those decades so there are people who want to discourage Longman's growth a lot and there are people who just want to be careful with Longman's growth and be sure that when we annex something that we are doing it for the right reason and not doing it just to be doing it and I think you may remember that we have said a couple of annexation requests back to the developer or property owner and said Nick Longman doesn't need this we would like to annex you but we want you to come up with a better plan that's more aligned with the city's vision and so if the answer that comes back is well alright we have more risk than we used to have and button rock may be riskier than it used to be but we're still going to paint the button rock they're going to say well does that take into account all the policy matters that we have before us so I think that in addition to the pricing that we're comparing to other cities we should at least look at the risk that button rock is not going to perform the way we expected it to I'm sorry that's chimney hollow chimney hollow is not going to perform the way we expected it to because nobody knows right now and there are all the existing versions even are at risk because of the lower reason to stress that we see so I don't think just a financial analysis is going to be sufficient and be prepared depending on who is reviewing this because it's not going to be before November 2nd obviously you know the way it's going to be looked at by the council could be quite different so yeah what do you mean by that Mark well because of the change of the member you're talking about because the policies could change you know so just like Boulder you know Boulder's Boulder wanted to be surrounded by open space but then they resisted changing their land use codes to allow for more urban density so now they don't have any place to grow and there is a debate going on in the city council and there will be a debate again next turn to as to well you know does not really want to push on the number of homes and meters and so on that we expect to have it built out or do we want to keep that the same as it has been in terms of your planning and I have honestly no way of predicting right now I mean the people running for the out-large seats in particular are not a known quality so I'm just saying be prepared in terms of having way all those possible factors well my point is you can say just all the numbers hard not to look at the numbers well I didn't say don't look at the numbers just but I'm saying different between our rates I have a hard time why I mean it's big so maybe I can take a little shot at that and Marcia so I watched the original council meeting and the public invited to be heard and the original call that prompted some of this discussion was coming from the place as I heard it that oh we have way low cash and litter rates and these other guys are way higher and they're inferring that because of that difference Longlawn is subsidizing development that we are we're subsidizing development at the cost of the water the water rates are going up to help kind of fund that was kind of the inference that was made in that comment you didn't hear it that way well I think it could be heard that way that I mean certainly we have kept our cash in the piece because we wanted to encourage development and that was the policy all along the next question is since annexation is not going to be as much of a driver do we you know is that the thing or are we just leaving money on the table but I think at least my view of it is we're looking at it, what's the cost of service what does it cost us to develop an anchor put for new development and right now the project and this will be a comment I've got because I listened to the rest of that conversation that something else was going through my mind but the cost is we've got when you get when you get firming costs that now have been the project's been led we've got hard costs we have a pretty good idea of what the cost of that reservoir is going to be so based on that in the firming ratio maybe an adjustment factor but we know what those costs are so what is the cost of new development in the context of the cost of adding one anchor for the supply and that's what we're trying to set it at if we and we can have these risk factors and I've been the one kind of talking about some of that and I agree that we need to do that if when you get firming has more risk than maybe the other supplies within the city of long lost portfolio I think we need to have that conversation in that context what I don't like is if we're saying when you get firming is 18,000 maybe we have a 20% factor until northerns can do more modeling and we feel better about whatever that percentage is what I don't like is okay somebody's at 30 or 40,000 an acre foot we're leaving money on the table, no we're not we're pricing it at what the cost of service is if we're saying hey we want to bump that up under what rationale because leaving money on the table is not the same as losing money in other words this revenue could be in the city in the city's funds for risk mitigation for disaster recovery for a lot of things that the water fund can pay for and if we are not we're a parody with other cities around then I don't that would be leaving money on the table if we stayed low for no reason then in fact we have ways to use the money that would benefit the city in some of those marching in my mind maybe beyond what I view is maybe the water boards rolling I view our role is the cost to add an acre foot a firm meal to the water system and that's what we've been recommending in terms of the cash and loo and I think we do need to consider in what's the additional risk or how do we maybe add that so that the acre foot that's been added with when you get firming is on par with the rest of the system I think that makes sense but if it's beyond that I don't know how do we as a water board have that conversation of I guess I have a hard time if we're saying somebody's at $70,000 an acre foot so let's bump it up it seems like we need to justify and rationalize what are the things that go into whatever that cash and loo number is to make sure that the development's paying its own way and it has risk factors or whatever but beyond that I'm just having a hard time put my finger on any of that and I don't think that it is necessarily the water boards job to you know pay the final number instead what you should be bringing forward is what's the what are the components of cost so the cost per acre foot the risk so what would happen if the worst case scenarios happen with any other reservoir and we had to go by CBT water what if we couldn't buy CBT water what are our options we have to build a treatment plant in a real hurry to be able to the pump back system to be able to use our other sources of less pristine water then the council doesn't have any way of knowledge of deciding what those costs are so you know that if you bring back the legal breaks of contingencies what if we haven't rushed to build the pump back system what if we had to buy this many acre feet of CBT for the next 10 years what if we had to do all those things and then the council's job is to look what other cities have done and make some kind of risk assessment and see how many of those building blocks to stack up into our actual fee and loo so I got I guess two comments on that I guess the first is the other legal breaks you're talking about so it's the union or the pump back or we tried to update you guys to update those costs but the level of precision of when you get firming costs to we have button rock listed on there we have all these other projects that in my mind are way they're just kind of a swag and I think we're being tying to the swag by saying that there's so many pieces that would have to be put into that before something like that would be able to be built and I think we're just kind of guesstimating as to what those costs are so you know we're kind of comparing my mind apples to oranges you got a firm, you got a bid project we know what that cost is and then we're saying oh well let's bump it up to the union as we're pump back I just don't feel a lot of confidence from my perspective after being on the water board for as many years in terms of what those costs are for those other projects number one, number two what the other projects are these other cities so I worked in the city really as a water resource manager for a number of years their number is pegged to what they think it's going to cost to do their tarry ranch project and their other add an acre foot of water supply to their system okay they're at 36,000 they're half of what Longmont is why? because Longmont is down to where we're pretty manageable in terms of we only have to grow this much to build out and we think we can meet it based on the projections with when you get firming the question's going to be do we have a safety factor or something on there to that number but my point is is the basis that they're using is how much does it cost to add an acre foot of firm yield to their system in terms of dollars and that's what on view in the Longmont is trying to at least the water board in my view we're trying to make the same recommendation to council the city of Loveland another point I'll make is the city of Loveland they assume 100% CBT quoted in the last year for multi-year drought so you need to take that into account two is what are their assumptions that lie behind these cash and loo rents because little Thompson water district assumes a 50% firm yield number on CBT units you're all quite a factor of two between this guy and this guy so I think you need to make sure everybody's fingers caught up on the numbers without understanding the rationale behind them exactly and kind of welcome to my world Todd the people who finalize the policy are doing exactly what you're talking about we have firm members some places and we have slagged other places and we're just doing our best I'm just saying do your best Loveland has been in such a good place that I don't want to make this last for a long time but Loveland has been in such a good place with water for such a long time that it's been a matter of turning the crank and now I think things are changing most people think things are changing now that's the Eric Club has changed their policy from never make new stories because it it might make some species of bacterium though extinct or something if you change the riparian habit and now they're saying well we've got to add storage because there are so many risks out there and those are environmentalists we're still going to be dealing with the extremist environmentalists who wanted us to cover its consumption in half next year and you know that is a reasonable thing to ask but those are the pressures that we're going to be looking at so that's all I'm saying is is to be the most held look at all the different contingencies that we can so you know so why for Collins has such a big number I don't know you know it could be because all those what did you say girl girl domestic girl domestic they're pretty nice too and you know do they have do they have firm supplies or not and how does that compare to what goes on in the other movie gap participants base around us and I'm a lay person I haven't been on the water board for eight years but you know I'm just saying that that turning the crank just with the windy gap contingencies is probably not sufficient you know the land use how many more fees and loot can be charged Tom go ahead yeah I was just going to say that so this is these conversations have been a benefit from being the new person I think because I kind of like almost kind of with I don't know fresh eyes are definitely more kind of naive eyes or something I guess but and then also having gone on the raw water tour this past month which by the way was amazing for that and I think one thing that gets lost in the numbers is basically the kind of the fact that we're benefiting so much from like the historical kind of the history of our water systems right I mean that like so many people before us right like really planned for contingencies moving forward and kind of almost and kind of studio over the system in a way and kind of you know really prepared us for where we are today right and so if you just focus on those numbers and not the broader kind of the broader approach right to setting those numbers what gets lost is that we're in relatively decent shape and so as a result then our the amount to build out more more water is costs us less than it would somebody else who is basically always operating in crisis right I mean if you take it to the extreme and so the idea I mean the thought that I or perhaps what I think maybe needs to get out a little bit better is perhaps a little bit more of that history right if it's the public for example that's kind of pressing for just your own costs maybe there's just not quite as much understanding of the history of the contingency plan that really did go into all of this from a historical perspective I mean I tell that story all the time in terms of saying one month's not in the same drought even when we're in drought we're not in the same drought as those places down south Parker is in a drought and so we did tell that story all the time and so there is it's basically a political question do we be do we make it easy on the people annexed wanting to annex into the city because we can or do we make the people who are annexing into the city help us to stay in that place you know that's ultimately going to be what the decision is I think I believe I was going to say that maybe but I think one of the questions that was raised was how much land is actually annexable does that mean well that's my thought depends on what the city is growing up to the point where that changes a lot of the dynamic and we're in a whole different spot I agree with that so if we dig at the extreme 300 acre plot that's going to be annexed and we're having this discussion is it worth it for just dot one right now that's to the extreme so like basically how much are we talking about is it five of those is it ten of those is it like we're going to be doing this in the future so we have we should definitely have this conversation or is it we have plotted all that out on GIS I don't bring it that to show you she's a waterfall keep in mind there's two categories there's one land that annexed there's not much honestly a lot of land up to annex but there's a lot of land left to plant so the cash to move is really while it sort of is annexation you just give us a circle on it when you plant you have to it's already been annexed there's more land it's already been annexed it still has to plant versus land that is going to annex and then leave but it's easier to see that on a GIS application so we'll have that in November does that happen more hand in hand today like kind of annexation and plotting at the same time or is that still there's still this kind of if you look at the one we just did today that came through originally 1999 so ironically it's the same age as Chimney Hall when he got burned which was started in 1999 so yeah I can be 20 years late so when you look at the 12 o'clock it's something to make one point I think it's critical this point it's funny because what you just brought up was the next point I brought up which is how much has left to go here for these water providers the city of Greeley which when I was there we were looking at growth projections and in 2050 they were not meeting their full build out so my point is they got to not just look at we're looking at age as Chimney Hall will mean all our demand if not maybe you have to build a small pump back they're looking at we got to do this and this and this and this and the further out there you go the more costly those projects get and the more uncertain so my point is when we bring it back and we're doing the comparison that we're asking for on the cash loop that has to be part of the two these guys are looking they've got a big annex area a lot of potential water growth and they're going to have to do a lot of projects to get to their build out long month on the other hand one has a good system I think that was a great point when two we don't have a lot of growth left overall and the numbers that I think is talking about will bear that out in terms of meeting our build out water demand and as such we're able to kind of limit it to maybe Chimney Hall and maybe another cost effective project to get there that means we're a lot less costly in terms of a cost breaker put of adding a new even if we have safety factors and everything else we're still going to be way below these other guys so that's something that I think during this conversation needs to be part of it to make sure you have the right picture of what are these other numbers not just what other projects are they looking at but what is their planning horizon in terms of being able to have to bring new water supplies on board it's a big factor and that's important because in a decade our whole expectations could have changed we know that we're going to pick in the period of rapid leather change and we don't know whether it's going to be stable or not we just don't know we're getting floods in places where we never had floods and droughts in places we never had droughts I guess part of the mental model whether you would model it this much this far or not is the difference between the commitment we make when somebody annexed it would improve an annexation in a period of water what you're going to have to bring us is the price of the water pegged at the annexation time they don't have to have it so they flat whether it's a price fix or is the price what they pay is cladded it's when they flat so we might based on changing data we might raise that fee and the today's annexation might have a higher cost based on future data okay just to maybe put it in perspective a good way to look at I apologize for going back how much is left a good way to look at it is how we'll call it a build out planning horizon planning horizon we're going to be about 32,000 acre feet the affirming project is currently planned to be the last little bit of that and our affirming of that is over 3,000 acre feet so to put it in perspective it's about 10% of our total planning horizon water demand is yet to be done it's except that the city's business leadership is pushing one way the city's environmental leadership is pushing the other way that build out could change by plus or minus 20% depending on which faction wins there are people who want to say let's just refuse those annexations let's not do it just leave it out there and then there are others of course who want to say let's annex it all now and let's look at our infill situation and go with a much higher level of urban density than exists anywhere in Longmont and like I said I'm swaggering here but it could be plus or minus 20% it could be more than that if we change things like high restrictions that's one of the things when we did our future water demand evaluations density is the big thing for us anymore we're pretty well surrounded we're not going out much anymore there's a little rise but what happens in that don't at all and it's density, density, density I agree 100% and you can look at our future water demand evaluation it has a certain set of assumptions in there which is how we came up with the number for the windy gap for me I agree with you that could change okay, thank you first of all, what is swag? swag? I was saying I was saying 100% I was saying I was saying engineer thank you guys so it's not out of the way I guess I'm hearing kind of two areas of discussion one seems like it's worth when we induce cleaning decisions and one seems really focused on kind of coming up with a very reasonable justifiable number based on comparisons based on risk based on long-term cleaning for us and I think that there are an exit there but I also think there needs to be a separation and I guess the way that I could do this is just 100% we've got pieces missing from that puzzle the types that are going to the air and what goes in there is a missing piece to me it would make more sense for me to have the puzzle piece that best fits in that spot not necessarily the puzzle piece that can meet some sort of passion and pressure so I guess while I think that that is very important I think the building and cleaning decision is something that's separate and aside and maybe taking the factors that are different from what we're considering now which maybe is a much more off-screwed issue with that said I think looking at the wider perspective places that are in developing places like I want a firestone to help an animal grow places that don't have the kind of awesome claiming foresight that we do have you know what's there what are they doing with water they obviously want to grow but they don't have a big reservoir how are they approaching that I'd also like to look at Aurora you know they have a huge growing population I guess but most of the runners don't want to slip how are they approaching that situation and kind of putting those various parts and extending our perspective from what makes this comparable to what we're doing for Collins and kind of looking at other municipalities that maybe have slightly different challenges that's seeing how it affects what they're doing I agree with that just as a remark on that I'm not saying you have to figure it all out I'm not saying that that all of the political things should really necessarily be on this board's shoulders I'm what I'm saying is realize that that's what you're feeding into that where you know the places is all connected you know there are going to be a lot of questions and I'll encourage you to have as many answers you can control the questions Marsha like they have your help also well I'll be here you know what are you doing do I got one comment I was just I think Allison you're I'm trying to draw your puzzle piece of analogy here but I'm not going to puzzle this actually but I was just thinking like I think you said something like that we can't figure out what should go on a particular part of land based on who can kind of provide the cash or something I think the reverse is also true that we don't necessarily we're the water board we're not necessarily concerned with what goes on the plots of land what we are supposed to determine is basically how much whoever that entity is should pay for the water that they will presumably be using and I think that at any given moment at any given moment we can make that assessment based on some kind of planning with respect to just the water right what does water cost us today essentially and what justification do we have to be able to kind of like do ourselves on that decision so you know I mean I don't want to put I don't want to be too much about this but like the discussions about what other cities are doing are helpful in my mind and we might think about building a contingency doctor we might think about like the ways in which other cities are doing that but the amount that they're paying for water isn't necessarily a huge concern in my view because it really becomes what we are paying for water right like given our circumstances given our scenario what is it about our situation that we can justify this entity to pay a certain amount for the water that they are that they are going to be responsible for right and I know that specific to their system specific to their door to our system but the question is is it are we being nice or are we charging all the traffic right and I think that's exactly where the evaluation has to go is like are we being realistic about the amount that we are charging if we are because our situation is just better than everyone else's well then that's a huge benefit for the people that live in this community and it encourages things like affordable housing and like I mean presumably if we planners do their thing right but if but if we're not doing it right because we're not building a contingency doctor well then we need to fix that but I think that that's where the discussion has to be is about how do we justify this price I don't know that we can justify it by saying well Fort Collins is doing this so therefore we should keep up with them I think the board doesn't have to justify the price right the council has to justify the price so but what you're doing is justifying the costs you know what's the minimum how low can it go safely so you know you've got things like when we bid the chimney a project it was going to cost us this it's already up to this and it's a little firmer now but there's all kinds of contingencies in that quote or in that bid so what's the worst case scenario you know we know the best case scenario which is with nothing else slips which never happens you know so that's one set of error bars rainfall and runoff and stuff those are other sets of error bars and I don't know who decides how how we incorporate that data into what we have because there are so many unknowns well actually that's where I was trying to go my hopefully last comment so we've got what you got firming and then we were looking in my mind via the water planning is Union Reservoir Pump Back and I think there's an easy Union Reservoir Pump Back and there's a hard Union Reservoir Pump Back that you're trying to actually take water back up for the treatment point what was going through my mind is do you start saying there's variability in terms of supply we're saying there's uncertainty in the gap may have more uncertainty than other parts it's fine we can get an estimate or at least put an estimate hopefully Northern can help firm that up and does that satisfy you know Ken's saying 32,000 3,000 acre foot when you get maybe if you're reduced by 20% it's 25 million so we need to build of the Union Reservoir Pump Back at what cost where I was going with this is do we spend a little time or make sure we sharpen our pencil so that our swag is maybe not as much a swag we got a little better idea is that $18,000 an acre foot or is that 25,000 or is that $30,000 per acre foot for that next level and then you could also play the demand side of if you're saying the high end is 20% increase in demand due to more infill and higher density where does that put us in relation to the when you have firm project plus you know Union Reservoir Pump Back and at what cost at where I'm trying to get to is then you have some semblance of and we're pricing when you got at $18,000 and we need to increase it because of the variability in the supply side compared to the rest of the long run system the Union Reservoir Pump Back cost why dollars per acre foot on a per yield basis in how do those two compare so that when we're setting it to Tom's point we feel confident from the water board's perspective that the cost breaker foot that we're recommending covers exactly, absolutely all that but I guess where I think we need to we need to build that those pieces in that case to the council so they understand kind of the rationale behind what we're suggesting as a cash and loot price I tend to agree with Tom that we start looking at what everybody else is doing you can look at what they're paying and why they're paying those amounts but it doesn't really deal with our circumstance in my mind it gives you kind of a benchmark but we're dealing with a long month situation its system, its growth you know, its planning horizon those are the situations we're trying to deal with in the context of the recommendation in my mind that this board is making for the cash and loot of the city council they're going to go beyond that knock yourself out but I think we've done our job at that point I agree with that be aware that they might you know and a lot of it is going to depend on whether we want to finish off our growth early you know, other cities have really resisted going to an urban density kind of a plan I don't want to do that but there are a lot of people in town who want it so you know, the things push both ways you know, its how much cash and loot you know, cash and loot and density operate independently of each other you know, we can increase our revenue from the from with a limited number of annexations as fees and loos and we can can kind of here's that word, take a swag at how long before we do the annexation and how long before the plating makes the money come in but but the there's a limit on how much how many acre feet we can get out of that it's not related in any way to how many acre feet we need because of our our urban design constraints so alright, you know, let me well, we set the stage good hopefully for the next discussion that's why I asked for the number but yeah, I mean there's just a comment on some of the comments, we're inside on Loveland and and and the whole state's community is going strong yeah and every one of them has a story and that's the point is if you throw the number out of people going on the number without getting to the underlying reasons and you gotta, if you're gonna go down and you're gonna throw those numbers on, I think I mean, Allison, I think you were kind of suggesting this then you need to go to each one of those and then you gotta dig into why and what's the basis and how are they getting there and how much growth are they gonna have because that all plays into it and we're on coming from as long as its own unique situation so we're trying to you know, make recommendations to council based on a long, not specific situation not what's happening elsewhere but, you know, I think that will be some of the conversation and hopefully setting that recommendation based on specific information and as long as we do that, I think we've kind of hopefully done our job and line line and if the council wants to take other things into account that's their prerogative but at least we've done what we're supposed to do are you suggesting that the levels from surrounding cities aren't part of the data that is brought back at all because I guarantee you that question's gonna be asked no, I have no problem, we have a pretty extensive spreadsheet that has all that just needs to be updated and in my mind that's data I've no problem in bringing data and then the only pieces you need you need to dig into it enough where it gives the flavor of why they're doing what we're doing sure, yeah, I would suggest that I mean, these to me are factors not necessarily an exclusive list and it seems to me when we consultate into consideration long on specific situation we'll also keep it to discrete numbers what is not the board's job is to take all the data and roll it up into a policy okay? but what, because it, because there is a point at which it is tied to everything else all the other policies um, terrifyingly um, but yeah okay, I think that we like found all the rocks on the plan to deal with this is valuable we'll find a whole bunch more next month alright so we'll keep moving on then yeah so we're under 9B, which is a WinnieGap firming project update? yeah, just real briefly luckily construction is still going on with the WinnieGap firming project I have a couple of pictures here to show you and go ahead see there's a yesterday's picture you're looking, you're up on the east above it, the right above it looking down in the valley you can, each one of these pictures you can see starting to form coming up here um then continuing to work on that and then the next picture shows the cofferdam um so the main dam is right here and this is the cofferdam which you have to build a dam to protect the dam when you're building it that's two things, one is if you get a big rainstorm it won't wash out the dam your building and have a dam safety the second is just normal precipitation and runoff gets intercepted by the cofferdam gets spiked around the construction site keeps your construction site safe and dry so they actually have to build a cofferdam before they start going up with the main dam so you can actually start to see the cofferdam going in and then finally you can see they've cleared the quarry area and they've had I believe two glass on the quarry area they've actually gotten the quarry down I used to know the number it's like 45 feet or something to get to the competent rock they don't use build a dam but that first rock they remove will be used for road base and other things at the construction site but you can see they've pretty well cleared that quarry area so the quarry area is cleared as you know that's where they are the other issues the Colorado River productivity channel around the mini gap conversion structure is 60% design is done and they hope to have the 90% done by the end of October early November and from that they'll do the final project estimate which should be done by the end of October so that part of the project is going forward they've got additional funding for it and are still looking for another $3 to $4 to $5 million for it there's hopeful the remainder that will be coming in I think now that construction is going to evolve it's actually made more people comfortable that we'll get the connectivity channel then and a little more enthusiasm towards getting that done as well so both those projects are going quite well and then the last picture that I wanted to show you is from Budrock we had a horse fire there this last weekend luckily it was very small about the size and primarily because our watershed ranger happened to be this has occurred in the Colson Gulch area so it's actually on the U.S. Forest Service property right on the west boundary of the Budrock Preserve area and he happened to see the smoke he happened to be back there right at the parking time so the smoke got over to this it was a campfire and you've got to tell me how somebody was building up to build a campfire right there I mean obviously somebody really ignorant but they were luckily it was there to sort of dig a little containment line around it and then the assistant ranger brought in some firefighting equipment and some water platter and they started working on it and called both big old meadows fire and lions fire and they were not live fire they got in the front overland on foot got there first because both fire departments showed up and helped finally extinguish it it was, I credit our Russian rangers think of a lot for the hard part was it happened exactly one year to the day of the campfire so you know and we'd actually do have a number of those every year things like that all luckily you know one of them had watershed rangers there seven days a week had that pulled up and reached the high island and dug up we were right there at the west side of that appreciate that they got that out and gave them kudos for doing that so thank you that's all I had for a minute any questions or comments from the camera good friends good friends okay we're on to item 9c water resources engineering projects update, Jason? yes, thank you I wanted to give a quick update on two active projects so the South St. Rain pipeline rehab project as you know we've got that cleaned out camera and we're now starting to mobilize as of last Friday and we're going to start actually installing those temporary access points and we're going to start lining the pipeline that'll be from the diversion structure in the creek all the way to the manhole right east of the fire distance building and so that's basically the first half of the South St. Rain pipeline and then I've also just issued a change order so that they could begin cleaning and cameraing the second half the part of the South St. Rain pipeline that's located within Highway 66 it's a lot to work with CDoC to determine some traffic controls and maybe a few but we're hoping based on some initial evaluations after the 2013 floods that that part may have not been as damaged as the first half so the first half came clogged up the debris and sediment and we're kind of hoping that the last half isn't as bad but we'll find out and we'll adjust accordingly then the South St. Rain pipeline South St. Rain pipeline pump station project where that pump station is still being manufactured that has a delivery date of February 18 and we're currently working with our consultant to go up and did and get a contract on board so within the next two weeks or so we should be advertising for construction portion of that project that project is probably expected to go into June of next year which hopefully by then CDoC will be done with their Highway 7 project and we can actually turn the South St. Rain pipeline back on and get the pump station online having said that we'd like to also give you a quick update on the Nelson Planners Water Treatment Plant expansion project Larry Wayno who's the engineering administrator for that project is here to give you an update on that Good afternoon everyone but yeah here we go we need to start from there so I wanted to give you a brief update and show you exactly where the project that and there are some other related projects that are going on next to that which I wanted to briefly mention so we can go to the first slide if you look at there's two yellow dots kind of in the center of that screen one up to left is Nelson Planners you can see that is labeled there below to the right of it is the Wade-Gaddis plant I'm not sure if you all know where the Wade-Gaddis plant is it was built in 1984 it is an older plant it has it really is kind of an emergency standby plant at this point because it is pretty much near its useful life end of its useful life the design of that plant is an older design and it's much harder to meet the treatment requirements to run it so we usually keep it only for emergencies we do not run it we haven't actually run it for a few years we rely on the Nelson Planners water treatment plant and Nelson Planners if you look at it it's north of highway 66 and just out of north 53rd street which is the road to our rabbit mountain space it does show some of the raw water pipeline that we deliver water to both treatment plants actually the next slide so some of the project background the Wade-Gaddis plant is rated at 15 mgd when we do the expansion we will be replacing that 15 mgd so that we have a total of around 60 mgd capacity the existing plant Nelson Planners right now is 40 mgd so the expansion will happen in two phases we actually once we built the original plant we did get permitted through Boulder County through a 1041 process we were able to get approved for the maximum capacity of 80 mgd this first phase will bring us from 40 to 60 mgd so that's currently under design the next slide so we are currently at 30% of design right now we're using a project delivery method called design build a typical project usually we hire an engineer to design the project once it's designed we go up and get it out and then a contract will build it design build is different it is a preferred method that we use on very large and complex projects what we do is we have one single contract so the designer or the engineer and the contractor are working together to develop the design and then building it together it has a lot of advantages it has a lot of flexibility as far as as we're going through design into construction so right now we're at 30% we should be finishing up design around the second or third quarter of next year and then we will start building the project we anticipate we'll run to the estimated cost right now is around 50 million dollars around 37 and a half is through the Watergon election the next slide that shows kind of where we are at in design the building up to the left is the existing plant I don't know if you can read the labels there yeah, thanks and then on to the right is the expansion we still have to go through bold accounting to have them review it and to make sure that they find that acceptable there are some conditions in our 10 to 41 permit that we have to meet so they'll be looking at this proposed design to determine whether we can meet those conditions under our permit we just confirm it that's off to the upper right you'll see a small four bay we currently have one four bay which is around 108 feet or 30 million gallons we will be building the second in smaller four bay up to the right there and that primarily if we get water, raw water that has high turbidity for it's cloudier water we can run it through the four bay and that would serve as a settling basin to clarify some of the water before we run it to the plant the next slide this is a related project one of the reasons why we're doing the expansion in the building separate from the existing plant is for redundancy and security reasons once we decommission the weed gauze plant we'll only have one plant that supplies the city we wanted to have some redundancy so that if something happened to the existing plant we have the expanded plant that can continue to run so we basically have two plants at one site so one of the things that we're doing is right now we have one primary feed to the plant and an electric feed we plan on constructing the second electrical primary electrical feed to the plant so we have redundancy there so that will be going on at the same time we're building the expansion and then the next and final a related project is Montgomery Tank which is just south of the Nelson Plant you'll see that small white circle kind of at the lower left side of the picture there that's right at the intersection of Highway 66 and North 53rd Street that tank needs to be rebuilt and we're actually looking at some sites that are to the right of that there's a property that we just purchased to the right of the Montgomery Tank site and we are going to be working with the Boulder County to see if it might be acceptable for us to move our storage tank closer to the plant of the Montgomery property that's to the right of there and that I believe is yes, this is kind of a it's hard to see but you can kind of see where the existing storage tank is in that photo and the right now the estimated cost for that storage tank is around $15 million or $1 million we are doing conceptual planning this year, next year we'll start doing some design and permitting in 2023 2024 trying to rebuild that storage tank I think that is it we'll ask you a couple questions the existing plant was originally designed for 30 mgb then we were able to get it re-rated to 40 so right now it could treat 40 million gallons per day and the new plant was the expansion will be another 20 million gallons per day so total will have 60 with hope the existing expansion I was just kind of curious when you get both the plant and the new one up and running are you going to try and use both at similar capacities or curious how you get around those things yeah, we will probably try to it's definitely better to try to run the expanded portion of the plant to some level you don't want it just sitting there right now so you would run they'll probably balance it out some depending on the time of the year too because the summer peak demands are going to be probably July, August we'll definitely be running a boat at that time in the winter time our demands will probably be around 8 or 10 maybe 12 million gallons per day and that could be provided by either the existing or the expansion so it kind of depends on both the manpower required and how efficiently the operations people will, you know, whether it's better to just run one side or to run both at the same time yeah any questions? yes sir this is where the raw water came in really handy we were fortunate enough to run it to now it's very helpful so all the water crime is collected in that pump building the giant green pipes is there a residency for that? that will be a lot of construction a lot of construction okay so right now that planning structure receives water from both the Carter Lake connecting pipeline so it's coming from Carter Lake it also receives water from the St. Brain Supply now and that's during the summer time it also gets water from the North St. Brain Pipeline that goes up to the Long Rock Dam so we have three separate sources that we can draw on to treat water in addition to that we need to we can deliver water through the Highland Ditch and pump water from the Highland Ditch to the plan so there's actually four pipelines that we deliver raw water to and that was one of the reasons we're citing it where we did cite it because we had access to several different sources so that you know depending on what was happening and especially now I think we're pretty cold because of all the wildfire fires that are happening we have the ability to switch sources if one source is being impacted so it gives us a lot more flexibility so I think that if something happens with the bonding structure the Highland Ditch will be able to get water to the if say that again if something happens with the bonding structure would the Highland Ditch be the only other by which to get water into it? we have a bypass from the bonding structure where we can bypass water although it has to go into the bonding structure but yeah we can get it there we generally we can get it to the treatment plants both of them we also have if it is really an emergency we have the 4 bay which stores around 30 million gallons if something were really severely to go wrong we would start drawing up the 4 bay but that gives us only a limited supply assuming that we could address whatever the problem was but for the most part we are flowing by gravity into the plant there is not a lot that can go wrong unless there was some sort of nefarious act some type of terrorism that is the other thing with this site is we are trying to consolidate things so that we can secure all of our facilities in that area and that is one of the reasons also we are trying to move the storage tank away from the highway the highway is the storage tank is really easily accessible because it directly takes to the major highway so if we can move that further away we believe that would be a more secure location the second 4 bay you mentioned it would be kind of a bit of settling process there was that purposeful was that because of you mentioned wildfire for example was that because you see problems in the future with wildfire is that just well it is an extra benefit it is really because of what we have seen with wildfires one of the things that happened with Fort Collins when they got a wildfire with Kashi Booter watershed is they got a lot of sediment because of the bare ground there is a lot of ash that came down the ash is very difficult to treat even with a settling pond so there will probably need to be other chemicals that need to be added but long term wise after a wildfire there still are other impacts that occur because of the change in the ground just the whole change in that area so there are other things that smaller basin if we need to we could probably add chemicals to that to help but true one last question you are saying you are going up to 60 MGDM what is long months current peak for the year what have you seen over the last few years in regard to something we have talked about per capita usage going down what are you seeing in terms of peak demands in relation to the past? we referred to that as the max day maximum day demand and it is probably around 30 the low 30s surprisingly the highest maximum day or one of the highest maximum days that we had was in around 1998 I believe was a really high day and I believe that was 34 million gallons per day the peak those max days have stayed around that level for a while and it is surprising because we see the same thing at our wastewater plant even with the growth that occurs the flows that are going to the wastewater plant have been fairly low for the last five for more years so it hasn't gone up yet but it will start to go up because there is only a certain amount of conservation or whatever is occurring but it does occur throughout most of the metro area most of the other cities are seeing the same thing but at the current rate maybe we are trying to plan or maybe to build on you got the potential to go to AE with the county so it looks like you are covered in the context of that plant to be able to satisfy we think that it will satisfy our needs through the planning horizon the one thing about long term projections they are long term projections and they keep on changing over time one of the concerns or one of the issues that could change how that changes in the future is how development is occurring because we are seeing a lot more dense developments occurring so at some point that will start to impact what happens in the area Great, any other questions or comments? Great, thank you for the great Thanks Jason, I appreciate it Alright, let's keep on moving here we are on item 10 items from the board the first item is 10A the remote attendance policy can we really don't have much to report on that we are still working with we haven't had a chance to sit down with legal to craft the language so we intend on having that for your November Okay, can anybody get that? Any comments there? Otherwise we'll just revisit we'll take it up again in November Item 10B is the review of major project listings that's in your packet and items 10 at least scheduled for future board meetings Any comments on what's coming up? I don't see any 11 is informational items and water board correspondence or cash in the packet Any questions, comments? I don't see any items 10 at least scheduled for future board meetings the cash in lieu and obviously the next time we set it in December but we'll be talking about it in November in a lot more detail and item 12B is discuss future water board agenda anybody wants to bring up for future agendas? I know one thing I was going to ask a question with Excel What's the termination date of the existing contract? Is that out a couple of years then? That's like 50 more years It was a 75-year contract they entered into in 2003 so it's like 2070 We're in for some reason I thought we had a couple three years Well there is an opt-out provision There's a 15-year opt-out we have think shows opt-out or we chose opt-out it's 15 years from when we find a party but we you're correct we do hope to go back to public service and basically extend or make permanent that exchange agreement that's exactly your memory we are in the process we have the language written I'm just trying to be in review and once it's approved I'll send that out That's it Okay Anything else? Anything with that? We're on the item 13 I'm going to go ahead and read the lead Thank you all for your time Thank you all You're welcome We're going to give you a