We'll go ahead and call the meeting order. Heather, do you want to do that roll call? Sure. Scott Williams? Here. Alison Gould? Here. Scott Woolwick? Here. Roger Lang? Here. Tom Buster? Here. Kent Houston is out today. Nelson Tipton? Here. Wes Lowery? Here. Kevin Bowden? Here. Brancy Jaffee? Here. Jason Elkins? Here. And one of the interiors? Here. And I don't see any of that. Great. Thank you. Before we get further into the agenda, Tom actually sent an email and I think it was a great idea. I appreciate you brought this up as maybe allowing the new board members, Tom, Alison, Scott, to maybe just a few minutes to give kind of your background. I think that may help the existing board members go further tenure. Board members to understand now what your background is as a student in a conversation. So I think that's a great idea. So Tom, maybe sort of a new board member? Yeah. So yeah, Tom Buster is a new board member. I met with him last time and we appreciate that. So yeah, I'm just a little background on myself. I'm a critical track assistant professor. I'm mostly on a teaching track to have a C member. So I'm in the geography and environmental sciences department. My background tends to be more on the water quality side. So my undergraduate degrees for a degree was in like student ecology essentially. But my graduate degrees are both in more of the chemical realm. So more containment, taking transport and water treatment. Those were both through engineering departments, but I am not in the environmental science side. So let's see. I teach a C member of the mentioned courses like aquatic ecology, aquatic chemistry, soil science, as well as the introductory courses in environmental science and geology. And then I, most of my research background is on water treatment, particularly with the use of remediation of contaminants in the system. And so that, and water treatment application for kind of characterization of the theory of water treatment application. I was really, and then I should mention that I, one of the courses that I published recently was on water energy and access along the front range. That was the course where I developed where I finally felt comfortable enough to say maybe I know enough if I'm a water board. So that was the course where I decided this might be a good idea. So I'm still putting on a lot of stuff around here of course, but I think many of us are. I was really, just lastly, I was really touched last time by this kind of concept of a water kind of mentor, right? Like I've brought up several times by the people that were departing the water board. If I were to assign a water mentor, it would be my dad. He was the technical engineer for Bureau of Affirmation for 30 years, mostly building dams down on the central area of the nonprofit. But we did a lot of work, we're kind of, I'm from around here, so lots of time up in the mountains and stuff around here, so lots of time, just kind of more, you know, just casually, I guess exploring the water system and stuff around all that. Anyway, thank you for the opportunity to explain this because I just, hopefully something there is a way in which I can help. Welcome and thank you. So I guess I was going to go down the line for the, quote unquote, new board members to a little overview of their experience in history, so Allison would you like to share? Yeah, well, hi everybody. It's me, y'all, in person, it was a little month ago, but it's kind of helped me a bit. So I'm also, I'm going to add to your group at 95th of Isabelle, where my parents still are. So this is just, what a way to undergrad city biology, came back to call it out of this, call it out of, and that's the last school at the beginning and then I went ahead about my own right after that for just so much research stuff. Practiced for about nine years in graduate practice, actually worked with Scott some, and about a year ago I transitioned into the Hall of Water Trust, which is a nonprofit that basically works on water transactions for environmental purposes in the fall and state-wide, but I focus a lot, this year at least, on the other reason. Really interesting time to pull it up on. And other than this, I look for soccer blankets and they're great, and what's it bring? Thank you. Scott. Hi, thanks, Todd. Thanks for the opportunity. I am the only one, I think, I don't know, under this background substantially that is not the local or has grown up in Colorado. I'm an interloper, but I've been here for 25 years now. I think of Boulder County in 97 for law school. As a second career, I was in medical sales for a decade before I came and went to law school here. So I've been in Boulder County since then. I've been in Longmont since 2000, about a house in Old Town Bend. I've been here for quite a while, and I've been working at Lyons Gattis for close to 20 years. I started practicing in Boulder for a different firm and migrated up to working four blocks from my house, which is pretty cool. And since I've been in Lyons Gattis, I've been in water practice. I represent mostly people and entities in Division I, which is the South Plot Basin. So almost all my experience is here locally. Allison's talking about where she grew up. You know, the first head gate in northern Colorado was right down the road from here, right? On 95th and Boulder Valley Farms, where you go to Boulder, because it's 159 water, right? He represented Boulder for decades, and still do. So I've been doing ditch company work and conservancy district stuff and water district stuff and municipal work for a pretty long time. Mostly water rights and a lot of water quality, so all my questions go to Tom. I've had the pleasure of working with lots of people in the room in a professional capacity as well as getting to know them over the years, including David, who used to be my wife's boss at Boulder County. She's working in the ag group there. So we've got a lot of ties to Boulder County as well as the city of Longmont. I served on the planning commission at Boulder County for a decade. So almost all of my land use issues are local, almost all my water use issues are regional, but I've been here for a while and I appreciate the opportunity to be with you all. And I don't know if I have a mentor, I've learned from a lot of people, obviously. Jeff Todd is still picking in our office after practicing for 40 years and he's getting ready for a sabbatical tomorrow, so that's why it was a little bit late, Todd. All of his down low because apparently I drive his car when he's not around and that's daunting. Great. Great, thank you, Scott. Sure. So, Mr. Point, Scott, I wish you might know a little bit about me. I don't know if it's not true. Maybe I'll just... Yeah. Quick background. I was not born in Colorado. I was born in South Dakota. Went to college there at School of Mines and then came out to Denver and my career is with the bell system. I'm a mechanical engineer and I've been on City Council for about eight years in America for a couple of years and that was really my emphasis. You get involved, you know, you watch water rates and you try and represent what some of these people might desire. I'm a water expert and a lot of drink water in my life. I am not an expert. I'm pleased that we've got this kind of expertise here at the table. So, but I wish you know a little bit about me. Yeah. I can go with you for a second. What part of South Dakota? Uh, it's just like saying, are you from Colorado? And I say a long line and you say, no, I say, oh yeah, I know where South of Sioux Falls was yanked in for. I know where. Anybody know where yanked in? Yeah, I know where. I'm yanked. I'm not that. We have a long history in South Dakota, both for the Eastern and Western parts. In fact, my dad failed out of the school of mines before actually going on to a pretty successful time at another college after going away to Vietnam. But yeah, after going away to Vietnam and, but, so you know, we don't have the little boy, but he, uh, put him there. Yeah, that's a lot. I'll give you my two minute worth since the big board members in my background. So, I'm a water resource engineer. I went to the Colorado School of Mines and then actually went to Colorado State and got an ambassador in water research planning and management. Um, I worked a little while with consulting engineering. I worked in a city agree league for about eight years, all the time I worked in a city agree league for about eight years, all the time with water resource managers. Went on to the city of Aurora for a relatively short span since there are deputy directures We're going to call it a lot of concerns in the district and the municipal-sub-district board directors as well, so, like, third or fourth generation from this area, you heard my grandfather and my dad kind of following up the water, but that's a little interesting. Just a quick overview, so, Marcia, we were just trying to get everybody kind of activated since we got a lot of turnover on the board, so. Yeah. Well, since I should probably introduce myself, because we are going to have a discussion today that originated with the public and the city council pretty much simultaneously. So, I'm Marcia Martin. I'm the board two city council member and the board liaison. Also, we get participants liaison. I am an engineer by trade, a software engineer by trade, and know a lot about renewable energy, but not so much the water, because the Windy Gap Furman project was a major issue in the campaign when I was elected. I studied Colorado Water Law as hard as I could that summer, and, you know, word about things like the compact and rights to exhaustion versus rights to single-use rights. So, I came in here knowing the basics as well as the basic points of conservationism, but this board has been my, and this staff have been my water mentors because those are big abstracts that are important to know when you're discussing policy in the city council, but they also don't tell you nearly enough about the application of those laws. So, I have really appreciated the expertise on this board all along, and I'm looking forward to an interesting discussion this afternoon. That's great. And because of the COVID situation, staff hasn't been able to reach out like we normally would to the new water board members. One of the things that we continue to do is go over some of the pertinent court of stone documents and such. So, before you leave, I have a flash drive that includes a lot of those documents as well as a majority of the citizens' guides to different things. There's a six or eight. There's a couple that weren't in there that I'm just going to give you hard copies. For the two of you, you probably have a pretty good understanding of the Colorado State Compact and some other things. We are the point I'd like to make and send that to you guys. And then if you would like to meet or schedule a time to meet with Ken and or I, at some point in the future, we'd be happy to do that. And we just weren't able to really do that very effectively create COVID. Yeah, Allison. Oh, I would love a tour. Okay, we're going to talk about that here later with me. Great point. With that, we'll get back into here. So, item three is the approval of the previous month's minutes, July 19, 2021 minutes. One note there is I mentioned to Heather in that I think it was related to the Erwin Thomas final five about discussion. It was the agreements that had actually pod duster. We can just get rid of pod and work number duster and then that same thing was in the later. Anyway, that was the one comment that makes. Yeah, page five and page 15. Okay. Was there any other questions, comments on the meeting minutes? No, we need a motion to approve the July 19, 2021 meeting minutes. You're trying to approve as modified. Okay. We have a motion to in a second. All right, Allison second. Any further discussion? Bring on all those in favor say aye. Aye. Okay. Aye. All right. The floor is the water status report. The flow of the same brain creek at YMCA today is 63 CFS. And the 124 year historic average. This data is 119 CFS. Calling the same grand creek is an Iowa ditch admin number 5631. A priority date of June burst 1865. Calling the main stem of the South Platte River is 440 canal admin number is 119 79. With a priority date of October 18 1882. So same grand basin storage at the beginning of August. It's at 82%. We're all price reservoir. At but not observed. It's full and we're releasing approximately four CFS union reservoirs down approximately 700 acre feet from full. And we're releasing 15 CFS. So the call is starting to get more senior. So when that happens, we start making full. That's kind of how we use our lower water rights. Are changed. Any questions? Any questions for Nelson? Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next item. All right. All right. So item six is agenda provisions and submission of documents. All right. Typically in August we do elect officers. However, we didn't get that on the agenda for this month. So we're going to move it out to the September meeting. Everybody okay with that? Okay. On item 8a, which is the urban climate storage supply agreement. Before you start this, I apologize continuing from last month's team because our firm represents the developer. I'm going to refuse myself from the conversation. I don't know if you want me to leave the room. I'll talk to you later. If you're abstaining this listing, it's a public meeting and you'll be able to watch that. Okay. Okay. So what's been included in the board package is a kind of update to the water supply agreement. So in July, the board members reviewed and recommended council approve two water supply agreements for the urban climate property. The temporary agreement is still the board recommended by the water board. The longer term recommendation agreement had a minor change. This change was not in the water release language, but rather the language pertaining to the responsibility of the parties. So what's before you is highlighting that change for you to discuss whether or not you believe that was substantive or not or changed your recommendation to city council. I did want to bring you up to the board that originally the site was going to go in front of city council. Next week has been postponed until September 14th. So, at least at this time, have to bear in mind this is one element of everything that's going on with the urban Thomas. There's items related to Costco. There's items related to affordable housing. It's possible it may continue to be postponed. But as it relates to the water supply agreements, the only change was that which we included in the package. Staff didn't believe that it was still substantially in the form of group by the board, but we're just looking to see if the board can concur with that. If there's questions, I may be able to answer them. But the idea is that we would bring this also back to Water Board next month to look at. The only thing Todd, we talked about, I believe, I may have this wrong, I believe the next Water Board meeting is September 20th. And then that will be after the September 14th meeting that I'm going to city council. So, the board's not required to take action. You've already taken action on this. It was just that there was a small change in the effect of the agreement. Because the nature of everything that's going on with the urban Thomas agreement, we wanted to bring this piece in front of the board to have a discussion on it. Alright, I'll open up to the board. Okay, this looks like some minor changes. I don't know how significant they are, such as rather than consultants detained, you're going to have our own advantages. I mean, are these all bad? I don't see any consequences. We don't believe they are. That's why we believe that it's still the agreement, as you recommended back in July, that it's still in substantively that form.  We don't believe that this affects the water lease agreement in any way, but we just wanted to be 100% transparent as we know it to be today. Any other questions or comments on that? I may be looking a little bit with David, but there's multiple parties that are involved. I don't believe these are long-lots related changes. These are changes that were between AI and Goldman's front. One comment I've got is, I guess what I'd be curious, I'm not going to speak directly to these changes, but the overall agreement. We have a temporary, I guess, during the mining agreement, and then we have a longer-term lease. The longer-term lease is 20 years, and I think Longman has the ability to not agree to an extension of that. My question is, if the intent is, is that part of the permanent reclamation? Wouldn't they have to go through and get an augmentation plan to ultimately offset the vavered losses from the gravel lining if they're not lining the pit? And I don't know if that's the plan or not, but if it is, I guess my concern is we've got a 20-year agreement, yet they're going to be going to Waterport, and I'll assume that Waterport may want a permanent augmentation source. And then what is that? We have the ability to say no at that point. I guess I'm curious what the thought process was in putting that together. And I don't know if we need to, there's been some of you who have been more involved in the negotiations on how everything fits together. My concern would be if this sells to an HOAA or build homes around it, 20 years is up, and we say we're not going to extend anything. What are they going to do? If they're citizens of Longmont, how does that play out? I guess I'm just curious what the whole plan is on the longer term agreement. Yeah, and so, actually, I'm not going to be able to speak to what would happen in every, you know, should that occur. The agreement, the long term agreement, the 20-year term agreement is what it is. And I can understand the concern what happens, should Waterport ask for something more, should they need something different. But as I understand it, all the Longmont was going to be able to do at this point was to grant this 20-year agreement. So the background, all the discussions, yeah, I was a party to those. Yeah, I was a party to those. So to get a flavor for that, I don't know that that would change the agreement. It may help in your understanding as to how did we get to this point? Well, I think there may be two points there. One, it would help in my understanding too. And I think where we came at the last meeting was if there's development plans for the project, for the gravel pit project, the Waterport would have the chance to kind of review and approve those. So there's kind of another bite of the apple, so to speak. But I would like to know kind of what the long term plan, my concern would be once again to get transferred to an HOA for the 20-year agreement. And if that transfer to the HOA happens in the interim and then if there's some sort of expiration, do they claim hardship? What do they do if it's within the city of Longmont? That just seems like a glaring hole that I would like to understand kind of how the pieces fit together. So I don't know if we can do that next month to have somebody give us some insight. Does that make sense? Yeah, and I would say, unfortunately, you know, people are really more involved with that south side of the road. I know that the long term development in my mind and Kent a lot more on the north side with the open space and our concerns about augmentation and we have to take care of the open space program and where I sat down and talked about more that south side probably would be a day old Kent, you know, the Reggie's kind of AI piece. So I would say probably push out next week, next month and having us do a homework week to manage that. And I'm fine with that. I think it would be important for us to kind of understand how the pieces fit together. And maybe what we can do, I did mention that the tentative plan is to go to the City Council in September 20th which was after the order next week. I understand it would be my ordinance and it would be not less than two weeks in between the second meeting. So we can have a conversation at the staff level, whether or not it would, whether it would bear to have a meeting before it goes to City Council or whether it would be sufficient to have one at the next Water Board meeting. If you're uncomfortable with where the agreement is at this point, then you would probably be, I would think it would be good to have a meeting before explaining to the City Council otherwise I think we can probably have, you know, be offered to have maybe somebody from the City Attorney's Office to the extent that they would be able to speak. They would probably be able to speak on behalf of themselves. I don't know if they would be able to speak from the Golden's or from Costco. Right. But, you know, we can look into that. I think maybe it is when we're asking the Golden's and Butler's of property. Maybe they've got water rights they plan to tie into that long-term and that would alleviate a lot of my concern. But the way it's written, there's all that, I think a lot of that's going to left out there. Yeah, I think they do have some water rights that they're going to propose to be used, but that will be their decision. And I don't know if we're going to say what those are. And that's how we'll have a good time. I'm not sure if I get to go to the negotiations. We were engaged with, you know, lots of other parties too. So if you use a chance to talk to our Council to see what we're comfortable talking about. I'm sure they'll know that. I think it's good to understand those portions of it. But I think Councilman Martin had a hand up. Yeah, well, I was basically going the same place. Let's make sure the City Attorney's Office weighs in because a thing that nobody's mentioned yet is that there could be implied obligations by the City that we just are not taking out of the agreement that are in fact there. So, you know, we're saying what happens if it may be understood by the CAO but not by us. Okay, well, I'd be great. I think you can bring that back next month. I guess in terms of the timing, Marcia, are you okay if it comes after the first board meeting but prior to the... Personally, I am. I think that's fine. I'll just go ahead. I think we really want to understand the long-term plans with that. Especially if it seems to me that we need to address that to the water budget group. And then there's the annual number on two days. One being just cessation of the application plan itself, which is going to be problematic. And then we usually see that we've got that back further. Or we're going to have another long-term plan. And that would have to be really nailed down. So, I'd like to understand more about whether or not those returns and conditions that we discussed and how they might be included as a part of the agreement and explanation. Great. Great questions. Again, all things that I think are... been talked about by the Senate again, about how far I'm sure we can share and can't share with those negotiations. That would be much better if we can make sure we check on that first. Okay. I'm just wondering... I know that there are a lot of things that we can offer up to see if the representatives from the board would be interested in coming and presenting. That would be wonderful. I had to speak on behalf of someone else to make me feel a lot better. Well, in the way the agreement's written, I think they have that obligation about what's in the team of one month. So, I think that's perfect to have them come and speak to. We might be able to reach out to them and see if they would be... But I think you guys understand the issue. I do. So, if that can be related to them and they can explain that, this is how we're going to address that. I think that would be wonderful. Good. I think everything here is going to stay the same. Awesome. Okay. Great. So, with regards to this, what do you need from us? Really, we don't need necessarily anything. Okay. I think the way we...  If you believe it still exists in substantial importance, we've got a lot of more that you do on a meeting. And that's the... Does anybody have any problems with that? It seems like the changes are my... Okay. So, okay. We don't really need anything. All right. That sounds good. So, welcome back. Scott Holwood to the meeting. We're on to item 9A, which is a casual and methodology discussion. And Ken, right up the west, are you going to give an overview of what's included in the plan? Yeah, I will. Okay.  So bear with me, and this is a little bit redundant, but I'm just going to be sure when they're all clear. So, on the 27th, City Council did a review of Water Board's recommendation to increase the fee for caching lube to $18,528. They did, at that meeting, ask Water Board to review the policy basis for long-term methodology for setting caching lube recommendation. And so, what we wanted to do today was just to provide the Board with a little bit of background. Let's talk a little bit about the definition of legal basis and policy and philosophy. We're not looking for any real recommendation. We're going to come back in September to have the Water Board, a thorough discussion with Water Board about what this policy is and give you guys a chance to discuss that. So, if you will, let me just go through the background that got us here today. So, as everyone calls it, Longbaugh became a whole little city back in 1963. And as such, we created our own charter and everything. Shortly thereafter, in 1964, the city created what was referred to as a raw water policy. That policy was that, at the time of annexation, you would transfer all historical water rights from permanent property. And if those water rights were insufficient to provide at least three acre feet of water per acre of land, the remaining deficit would be made at a time of planning or for development. That's still the exact same way we look at it today. In 1988, there was a question similar to this brought in front of Water Board. And at that time, a study was done and it evaluated how Water Board looked at cash and loo. And in that report, it was determined that the marginal and incremental cost pricing method would provide sound practical means to determine cash and loo water rights fee. So basically, they looked at many different ways of looking at them. They boiled it down to really three different ways. The one that they determined was the most appropriate was the marginal and incremental cost method. And so, as it is, that's really what you're using today. You're using that same marginal and incremental cost method. But it also went on to say that when I looked at that, representative of the current cost of flow of water rights, the marginal incremental cost pricing method was based upon economic principle that the annexed property should be responsible for the cost of the latest or next increment for raw water capacity, which they caused to be purchased. So that's, I copied that verbatim right out of the report. And you kind of, as I'm reading that from 1988, only you can see that this could probably be pertinent to the decision that you all have made to look at when to get firming, that we're looking at the marginal incremental cost pricing related to the next raw water capacity project. That's what we're actively part of. So, accordingly, cash and loo water rights fees should be designed to derive the incremental cost of raw water as may be determined by recent experience of planned future acquisition. So basically, they're looking at saying, what's our water needs going to be and how are we going to satisfy those? And if it's through the, whatever the project is, that seems to be the best way to look at it. So in 1997, the raw water policy was adopted by reference. So we finally, we've been having a policy, it's always been a policy, but we wanted to sort of formalize it and we adopted it in the Long Island Municipal Code by reference. Then in 2004, it was codified in the Municipal Code. So, again, trying to give, honestly, the policy just some more teeth. Because once it's in the code, it is, you know, it is not just the policy, but we refer to it as the raw water requirement policy. In 2015, as some of you may have recalled, Water Board took a recommendation to increase the feed for cash and the water it's received. And at that time, City Council asked Water Board to look at it in a, consider looking at establishing that fee in a different way. At the time, there was more emphasis given to the selling price of CBT. The idea, bear in mind, the idea is that when you bring cash and the water it's received, the idea is that Long Island can take that cash and if you will, convert that into water. We could go and buy water rights and put those into the plan. We could buy water rights, add municipal use and take it into the water treatment plan. So CBT, by its very nature, allows us to take those water rights immediately into the water treatment plan. And so it made a lot of sense to reference CBT, but in the mid to around 2015-ish, the price of CBT skyrocketed. And so there's always other things in the big picture that City Council has to manage and look at. And the fee for cash and lieu was one of those things. And understanding the importance of development in Longmont, they asked Water Board at the time to go back and look at how it was looking at specifically setting the fee for cash and lieu. So we had a number of discussions, staff with Water Board, and reviewing back, and what was the core of the way that we were looking at setting that fee. It was determined that because of the status of when to get firming, that being the most likely project that we would be a part of, that that should probably have greater weight into setting that fee. And so from that time forward, we've been looking at the cost on a per acre-foot basis to be a part of the Winning Gap Building project. And so, so anyway, that if you went into the city code, the definition is that cash and lieu of water rights means cash that is to be paid to the city and lieu of dedicated time to store up water rights to the city, and cash and lieu is not acceptable for dedication and lieu of historical water rights. So the way it practically works is if you annex a piece of ground, if you have no historical water, it's okay, you satisfy the policy because you don't have anything to bring in. However, and planning for the development of the property, you still have to satisfy the whole three acre-feet breaker. So if you looked at it, each annex property as you need, one may have three acre-foot breaker remaining, some may have enough historical water to satisfy all. In those cases, when they further subdivide or develop, they have no further deficits. So it really depends on a case-by-case basis. A legal basis for cash and lieu, and I'm not going to speak for the attorneys, you guys are the experts and everything, but in the Colorado revised statutes, it speaks to an impact fee, and the same speed for cash and lieu of water rights received is that type of impact fee. So this is where we kind of have the authority to ask for cash and lieu of water rights received through the Colorado revised statute. So that's kind of the... where we've gotten today. We have the... I've put in the last paragraph the policy philosophy, and that's where I think City Council was asking kind of the board to kind of give some additional information on our policy, different options to look at it. In a way, it felt like kind of what they were asking Watermore was to look at similar to what was done in 1988, look at it from one way or another way or another way, and then give the pros and cons to those different ways. And so we didn't have enough time to put that information together for this meeting, but we did want to let Watermore know that's been a request of City Council. I wanted to make note, and it's on page 44, that the basis for Watermore's recommendation right now it says... and actually what we said was, I'll just find it here, I didn't want to have to read it on beta, but it says in the Raw Water Policy section of the Law and Mind Conditional Code, that the basis for Watermore's recommendation shall include the current cost of new water supply projects identified in the City of Watermore's Raw Water Master Plan. So your recommendations have been based upon new water supply projects identified in the City of Watermore's Raw Water Master Plan, one of which is the Windy Gap Firming Project. So you've been following the policy, so I wanted to make that explicitly clear. And then lastly, the evaluation rest on the fact that cash and loo fees in the current future will be used to pay for Windy Gap Firming Project by paying off recently issued bonds for this project. So we have definitely been using the cash and loo water rights received to pay for Windy Gap Firming. So I don't think there's any question there. I think what will be discussed next month is should Watermore be looking at other ways to set that fee? I think if you read between the lines and I'm going to paraphrase and I'm not going to use anyone's name, but I think the basic question is is the fee for cash and loo water rights received high enough? Is this the right fee? Is this the right amount? Should it be based on some other something else? Is it should be based upon the expectation of what the cost will be in the future? Should it be only where it is now? There's a lot of different ways you could look at this issue. And so what we're going to do as a staff is going to try to put together looking at several different ways. I'm going to suggest maybe about three because I don't want to still have other things to do. This is a good sort of effort that City Council has asked us to undertake. Trying to help give Watermore some pros and cons to looking at it that way. And then you all can have a conversation whether or not we should look at other ways, whether there's additional pros and cons, and then hopefully, when it's all done, land on the method, the policy method that we want to use to setting the fee for cash and loo. It may very well be exactly the way it is. It may be something different, but I think that's what City Council is looking for in Watermore is to kind of have that conversation and then make a recommendation to it. Yeah, I thought that maybe some context about what the public and the City Council members were thinking about, and that does include some things that were not discussed at Council too about the way the economy of Longmont has changed since 1988. So first of all, the public just thought, hey, all these other cities around here are getting fees and loo that are based on the cost of CBT water, why shouldn't we? And that is a valid question. I made sure that the public and, or at least the engaged public, and the Council understood that what the staff and the Water Board were doing was properly applying the existing policy, which I don't think anybody really realized. But that's what you were doing when I sat through the deliberations on this board. So I think that you did that correctly or probably almost correctly, what I think may not have been taken into consideration in that deliberation was that while we've passed a lot of milestones on the Windy Gap Firming Project, I should say the Chimney Hollow Reservoir Project, that it's going to go forward, the dam is going to be built, and water is going to enter that reservoir, although it may not be the same proportion of Windy Gap diversion water as we thought, because the reservoir is going to be used as I probably, you guys all know that, it's going to be used as a staging area for CVT water and all kinds of other stuff. So for the recreation projects and stuff, there will be water in there. We may not know how much water is of it, is water that we have rights to for offering that supply it's going to be. Because of things that are happening like Lake Powell getting to be on the verge of not being able to generate electricity and that's electricity that we use, and electricity that keeps us in line with her, actually, because it's part of our firm supply. So it's important. That's a thing to consider because possibly the riskiness of the firm supply in Chimney Hollow should be rolled into the price and it's not right now. Right now you assume that it's going to come, it's just a matter of where it's going to come, when it's going to come. And you also have an assumption that there's an average supply that comes from the diversion that mostly it's going to happen a certain way and it will become slightly more predictable once Chimney Hollow is operational. But the risk is higher now than it used to be. So that's one thing. The other thing is that long months economy has changed. Not only can we demonstrate that surrounding municipalities are getting a much higher fee and loo than we asked for, but the other thing that is true is that the fraction of our economy, and I'm not even going to make any suggestions about what this means in terms of the price adjudication at all, but the fraction of long months economy that is going to come from annexations, not just the fees and loo, but other economic influences of annexation and real estate development is shrinking. There are fewer annexations left to be made in the long month planning area. And also our economy has been rather skillfully developed. I don't take credit for much of that because I came on the sea too late. But it's been pretty skillfully developed to depend more on another kind of industry than real estate development, which was certainly not true in 1988. But now we have high tech, we have biotech, we have advanced manufacturing, and we have the craft brewing and distilleries, which are really the easiest to understand in terms of what they add to our economy because they take really cheap raw materials and they make them into a really expensive export that is out of the long month planning area. And when you go by Dale's Pay-O-L in New York City, a lot of money comes back to long month and it stays right here. And that enriches the city because they pay good wages and it enriches the city because they pay local taxes. It's fundamentally a different kind of industry than real estate development, which is kind of the other way around. You buy extensive materials from outside our city because we don't do much in the way of building materials here. And you sink that money into the ground and while it sustains the economy and what our workers and so on live in it, it doesn't keep pulling money into the city except by property taxes. But it's not at all as big a contributor to the overall wealth as those export kind of businesses that I was talking about. And that seems pretty far afield from water, but it does cause a change in the proportions to be considered. And again, you know, I haven't done the math, kind of not my job, blessedly, about how those different elements should be weighed, but that was what the city council was thinking about or should have been thinking about. That was what the public was thinking about. Now, you got to put some salt on what the public says because we have some people that are water watch dogs that are just convinced that we're in the pocket of real estate developments and doing underhanded deals and don't pay any attention to that because I know you're not. But I do think that it's important to understand that the environment has changed. And yeah, maybe it is time to do a 1988 kind of exploration around it. You know, I think a lot of the council and the public were thinking more like, well, Frederick gets CBT prices, why shouldn't we? But you all know that the calculation is more subtle than that.  That's just the background I wanted to give. Thank you. I'll open it up. I've got a few comments, but if anybody else wants to start, go ahead, Alison. Okay, Wes, thank you so much. That would really help us understand how to do this. To repeat that, the idea is to find a way to say, you're in the X and a Y, if you can't come up with X and a Y, you're going to pay for the price. I don't want to make it. That's it. You've started a good way. So, when you get to the point of planning or further subdividing your property, you're not required to pay cash a little. You have the option of paying cash a little if you choose not to bring other acceptable monistorical water rights. So, let's say you annexed a piece of property and you had a certain amount of direct flow water rights that were capable of satisfying all the direct flow components. So, you have three acre foot per acre, two of which is direct flow, one is storage. So, let's presume you had an annexed piece of property that was able to satisfy all the direct flow, but they did not have any storage water on their property. That's not a common property that has senior water rights. So, in that case, you have one acre foot per acre of storage deficit remaining. When the applicant comes to Longmont and needs to realize satisfaction of that remaining one acre foot per acre, they can choose either to go out and purchase acceptable non-istorical water rights and transfer those, or they can pay cash a little for a combination of both. So, it's certainly possible and currently the way that the raw water policy is set up is for a property to fully satisfy their dividends without paying cash a little. What's not available to them is to develop or further subdividing the property without satisfying at least three acre feet per acre. So, I think that might be a distinction because there might be other... So, what I may say is, one of the things that was suggested in 1988 was to look at, and I'm going to use my own words, let's see what every other community was doing up and down the front range. And it's very difficult because it's not really apples to apples. It's really not even apples to oranges because there are some communities that will only accept CBT or maybe there is a community out there that you just simply pay cash a little. The lawnmine that has been and continues to allow you the option of finding those non-istorical water rights or paying cash a little. So, I'm going to make that point. No one else is still going, but to uphill on that list, can you give the floor an idea of how many developers, how many applicants come to Longmont and are able to identify, acquire, and transfer non-historic water rights that are what satisfy that? Because I'm assuming it's a small percentage, but I don't know. So, it's always case by case. It's typically easier for a developer to acquire storage water rights than it is direct for water rights. There's a lot of, we could go down a rabbit hole if I went down that road. So, but what I believe has been happening in the recent past is that it's been easier for developers to consider using cash and loo because it's a tangible dollar amount that can be created for them to go to a lending institution to give that financing. If you were to try to explain to a bank that you wanted 14 shares of Longmont supply, they wouldn't understand what we were talking about. But if you said, I need $189,000 to pay my raw water deficits, okay, now I kind of understand it. It goes to dollars and cents. It's like the common language that everyone understands. And so, most recently, most people have been bringing cash and loo. There has been some developments, though they have understood that typically a developer can save money by doing non-historical water rights. That's why they do it. It takes a lot more work, but if you put in that work, it's possible to save money. And so, it really depends. We could probably provide a rough next month if you want a rough statistic of comparing non-historical water to cash and loo. The way we show that is based upon the amount of credit that they receive for each. We've done that in the past where it's been asked, Water Works asked, how much cash and loo we've gotten versus how much non-historical water rights. In previous to the last couple of years, there was a period of time that we were getting a lot of weight back and touch, whether we're coming to waters. We only had like 5% of ownership and we're almost closing 60%. And those were the numbers that you were talking about. So, there's more cash and loo that's being used to satisfy deficits than there is non-historic. But there still are people that have been developing their own water rights portfolio for which time they can bring that along by. The other thing that developers understand or hopefully understand is when you transfer a non-historic water right, you bring in a third party. So, you've got the person that's buying the water, the developer, the person that the entity Lawn Moth is receiving the water, but there's also a ditch company involved. And there's a period of time in that transfer that's out of both the city's perspective and the developer's control and it has potential that can create a situation where Lawn Moth does not recognize deficits being satisfied as far as transfer non-historic. Until we have this stock certificate in our hand. So, if John makes a request to transfer a water stock to the ditch company, he's done all he's could. He's made the stock transfer request. He's paid the payment to get that transferred. He can't do anything else. But, yeah, Lawn Moth can't do anything either because we haven't received it. So, you always have these ditch companies that have to do their business. They have to make sure they're free and clear and clean as they can. And it takes time. And I think a lot of times we all understand the adage time is money. And I think that also is waiting to some of the equation for developers most recently. They're like, I want to wait till the last minute to satisfy it and then I want to move dirt the next day or the next minute. And so, I think that's another reason why the cost of choosing to pay cash and lose probably outweighed the cost savings to do non-historical water rights transition. That's really marvelous. That gets kind of into a lot of the questions I was asking. So, I've got a lot of the questions. Okay. Okay. Transaction costs. So, they say they come in. It's not a good share. It's a decree for leaving the fee for the store to lose water savings. Do they have to change it first? So, we have a very specific list of water rights that we will accept and they're identified in the policy. And if you want to propose anything that's not on that list, there's a page worth of stuff that you have to provide, then we evaluate it. And bring it to water. And then bring it to water for it to evaluate. So, generally speaking, if it's not a water right that we have already taken through water and not that specific water right necessarily, but that company or whatever, we have a relatively firm understanding of what's going to happen with it, it's been listed out there. So, really, for most people, if they have the knowledge to really go that far down, they're just going to see it. Here's the five dishes that we will accept. I'm going to go to a water broker and see if they can help me get any of those. And then, even if they do identify one of those, there's still conditions that they have to satisfy. Like, you can't dry up land. There's, of course, it's got to be free to clear things that come in. There's a whole myriad of things that they have to satisfy, steps that they have to walk through in order to get those non-historic water rights passed. And so, once they understand that, if they were feeling a little squirmish, usually that's often times enough that people are like, yeah, I didn't know what to cash in. So, where are the HD analysis in there? Where's the what? The HD analysis. They're starting something to be used associated with. So, yeah, okay. So, where is the water? How do you know? Where's the system? Basically, even the credit that's given on a per-share or per-unit basis is based upon the average irrigation in Indian conversion. So, we've looked at from, it was like, you guys want to try? Am I missing?  If I understand right, when Longmont changed all these ones that are on their accepted list, they actually have allowed future dedication and potential change under the same conditions that were in the previous decree. Yeah, that's right. So, the point is, it's really well established. I mean, where you may be going, which my mind goes to in the yearly two, is hey, you've got to do a new change case. What are you going to get when you do the sausage-making? What is the sausage-making? Longmont knows that. Because the way they did their court case, they set it up as they could get dedication of future shares, and they already knew what that HCU, they knew what the yield within their system was. So, they feel real confident in terms of the yield that they're given on a per-unit basis for the supplies that can't be dedicated. Well, the ones that are on that list. Yeah, that's exactly the ones that are on that list of what the majority of them can only pay on this watch. And they list the credit that you would receive, depending on whether it's going to direct or restore it. Right. So, it's... Based on those previous orders that we've already taken. Right. So, to follow that kind of historical conclusion, wouldn't it make sense to be cashed in when you put some valuation of those shares and the yield number of shares? In that they would be... Any given that they are apparently energy-eval, as far as long-run considerations, wouldn't make sense to have a valuation done on those? And let that be said. So, valuation of the shares being proposed to be transferred? The water that is available for those shares. Like the priority policy... Yeah, I don't know. I'm trying to think... I'm just trying to be... I'm not sure exactly how it would be for those shares. I'm not first taking it through...  So, what we're basing it on is prior change cases, with the assumption that we would receive that same... Similar. That there's at least similar yield from those water rights. But to what we would get on those, I mean, obviously that could take two years to get through water. We do have some... There are some water... rights that have already included shares that have not yet been transferred. They're already part of our change case. So, when they change, we're going to receive those. So, those we understand, it's the ones that have not been specific. Because we've done it, not ditch-wide in analysis. We've done share-specific analysis on our change cases. So, there's a built-in assumption that the credit would be the same as prior shares that have been transferred. But that, yeah, that's how those are based in right now. But with that uncertainty, it's like, long not when we take water, uncertainty, other people change. So, to that extent, it seems like then it would indicate that the price should be higher because of the uncertainty. I understand what you're saying. Yeah. I think one of the comments, though, is there really isn't much water out there. Macintosh is probably the one that's been coming in. There's not other supplies out there. I think the other thing is I understood it, and it's a policy within a few when you see the long list of long not policies. One of the policies I've had is not trying to go out and buy water and dry up agriculture outside the city limits. So, if you follow that to an end, you know, it's kind of like, well, pay off, everything within the city is going to come in. It's going to come in through annexation and be dedicated for direct flow and storage, meet those requirements. I mean, if Longmont doesn't want to go buy or accept and change shares outside of its own kind of area, then that really isn't, there isn't much additional water that could be derived from these other native water sources. Macintosh is the one exception. Westside, it's up to 60% in Longmont's hand, so there's only 40% left that could potentially come in as kind of a surrogate to cash and loot. So, just keep that in mind is I don't think there's not much as of then, and there really wouldn't be much in the way of other native supplies that could come in that Longmont could buy or you could base cash and loot on there. This isn't that much out there. It's either coming into Longmont already or this little bit that's out there like Macintosh is coming in as a, you know, as another option to cash and loot. I think the other thing was, you know, obviously, what Longmont was involved in is the Chimney Hall or Wind Yeap firming project. So that was the project that was going to be used to meet hopefully Longmont's build-out demand or meet the gap. So that was kind of the one where it's like, okay, that's the project that we know is coming. There's going to meet the future water needs for the city. What's the price per acre foot? And that's how that, that determination came about. So that's a little on the history of it. Yeah, that's really well-known because that raises your points. One is the policy of it. So it could be the sense that there is any potential of an underlying wish not to dry out part of the article, the article from the incident. And the two also to be able to actually fund is a 5 million contract. It seems like there might be to some extent a policy visit that would lead us to need more health reports cash and loot funding or supplies that way as opposed to accepting additional water. So I wonder, I guess this is, it seems, maybe I'm just excited about this. It seems like this is a larger discussion. I do want to point out that Todd did really summarize the fact that we've done a lot of analysis on what water rights have remained within our planning area. And it is, it dismantles. Which is why I raise the question. It's kind of a strong argument to even have that in there at some point because there isn't really potential for widespread use of water. That's right. So you think of like, if you were to go right now and look at the list that's listed of direct flow of water rights that are separately, you'd find six or something. And you'd be hard pressed to find any in three of them. I mean, it's not to say it's impossible and they're on there for a reason, but again, the ones that we've seen that have came through most recently have been those that were already included in the prior long-lock change cases. So in other words, once you receive them, they are just like CBT available on the water treatment plan. We know what that is and how long it is. And so, you know, even though they're, and there's, and just to kind of further clarify the long-lock planning area, we understand what the water rights are within that planning area. If there's a proposal to transfer non-historic water rights that originated inside the planning area, they're immediately disqualified. We will not take them. So therefore, the only thing that's really available has to be outside the long-lock planning area. And the amount, and really when you get out east of I-25, that's not available based upon some stuff that was discussed with City Council years ago. So it's a very small amount of available water rights. That's just, I guess where my head goes is we could probably spend a lot of time figuring out a really hard number for something that maybe gets used twice if you follow me. That's why I think we've used this. We so far felt pretty comfortable with the values that were established and put in place in the policy for the yield. Because even if they were off, I'm going to make up, I'm going to completely make up a number if a water right was going to give 15 acre-feet per share. And so we transferred a full share. And we took it through Watercourt 20 years later, and we got 13. Yeah, we didn't get two acre-feet. I get that. But keeping it relative to a supply of over 30,000 acre-feet, you know, just trying to keep the economy of scale too, I think it will be, might be important too, to understand how much, I don't know we have a hard number, but if you know how much land is left, you know the historical water rights that are pertinent of that land is left. You then have kind of a pretty good idea, a rough number of how much it's even available for non-historic. And maybe that too can help, you know, give an understanding of what's the order of magnitude we're really talking about. Because long gone is we're approaching, I forget the word, it's not built out of us, but whatever we're getting, we're growing more to as much as we can. So, our foot print also. So, I mean, what is the future prospect then? What are the confines essentially of what we're talking about here? So, it seems like if we're approaching some future build-out, again, sorry, I misused something, but foot print or something, like how much water do we need in the future, right? And when you got, for example, are we expecting that to supply all of it? So, how much discussion has to be had or how much has already been kind of taken care of by your future planning scenarios, et cetera? Like, do we need more water? Are we going beyond, you know, in the market for more water or do we need more reservoirs or are we good for the future? I mean, you guys have some really good questions that really goes into overall everything that we and Water Board together have been looking at are, you know, the water supply and our total water supply needs and both build-out, both treated and untreated. And there's, you've opened up a thing that includes a lot and it's been talked about a lot in terms of, you know, treated water master plan or raw water master plan. We've got all these things that you guys... They're all kind of we all have to be looked at collectively and really have a full appreciation. Nothing really can stand by itself. It's all part of the whole organism that we are at Longmont. But again, the raw water policy, you know, if this is added, is an area based policy. It always has been. It's always been. Not less than three acre feet per acre. It didn't differentiate by use and I know that's always been a question and that's something that many people have asked. You know, why should I have to bring three acre foot per acre if I'm putting in storage units? I'm not telling you you have to put in storage units. You're choosing to put in storage units. You know why? But they're also understand too that in the policy there is a place in there that says if your use is going to be greater than three acre foot per acre. Which, by the way, we don't have any uses that are greater than three acre foot per acre right now. But if your use is greater than three acre foot per acre, then you may have, you may be required to transfer greater. So the policy has always brought enough water to the table to cover the water demands that would be put on the system for the development that's being part of it. And that's kind of just kind of continuing to follow the footsteps. So after I was there with land use of the land of the L.A. Yeah. You guys I got a few. I can go if you want me to. Okay. Well, whichever, I just want to throw out a short question and entertain the discussion unless Tom wanted to. Todd wanted to. But probably on that stick is a graph that shows that Longmont's water consumption has been not following the growth of the population, but following the trajectory that is inverse to the growth of the population. And I myself just took advantages from the sustainability office for two offers. I had to come and check out my sprinkler system and see how we could reduce the flow. And then I signed up to have my sod removed gratis so that I could zero-escape more cheaply without breaking my back. And so you know, those are those are things that we're doing and that maybe you know, water board and sustainability ought to collaborate. I don't know how much you collaborate now. But that sets expectations and it seems like there should be common knowledge about how flood is available to us. We could dry ourselves out to the extent that Arizona cities have. You know, by paying people to zero-escape or paying people to put rocks in and zero-escape. So just want to have that in everybody's mind as you start figuring out the cost and the probability of being able to obtain water. Oh one of the, I guess as I was looking at this the methodology we have on fashion lieu, you know, this next increment, when you got permanent it was the project that was going to be done next increment. So as we heard last week at the junior hollow groundbreaking that was 21 years of permanent Marsha alluded to it. You know, there was modeling that was done as part of the when you get permanent project and tried to come up with sewage to yield ratios. And that 18,528 greater good is a firm yield number based on a sewage to yield ratio of when you get Jimmy Hollow storage based on how much when you get units Longmont has and then the hydrology and how much we can put in to sort of put it to that margin. That, that I guess the point and what you were kind of looting to which I agree with is I think things have potentially changed you know, I mean obviously climate change and maybe what what the modeling that was done quite a while ago. I don't know what that storage to yield ratio is exactly right. That doesn't mean and I know some people may take that is oh there's no value in my mind actually because the storage is more valuable even though the you know, storage to yield ratio may be higher and the cost breaker foot may be higher. I guess where my mind goes is those Longmont credit kind of dig into that a little bit more and say you know, is there you know, do we do a safety factor so to speak in the interim and then try to do some additional analysis where we can and I know there's been a lot of analysis on the Colorado River in terms of what that may mean in terms of future operations and yields but is a one where you put a you know, kind of a quote unquote safety factor of 20-30% on that value in the meantime while you're trying to discern or get to the bottom of what that storage to yield ratio really is today compared to what it was in the context of the modeling that was done what maybe 15 years ago. That makes sense to me because I think once again we're still trying to tie it to what's that next increment of yield being brought to the system number one number two, I think we're being kind of honest with ourselves in terms of hey yeah, things have potentially changed you know in terms of the temperatures. The City of Fort Collins did a pretty elaborate analysis of the CBT project yields because they were looking at it in the context of their drought protection so they did an evaluation of the Colorado River based on the CBT yields maybe something could be utilized in the context of that but and I know that would take time and some analysis but I guess that's where my mind goes of I get the maybe one to raise that I think I like staying with our methodology but maybe being a little bit more cognizant of well maybe that storage yield needs to be adjusted and we adjust that slightly because we've seen the price go up on when you get firming just due to the cost of the project which now is pretty well set in stone based on the construction starting albeit whatever the inflation ends up being but those other items of the yield of the project in relation to what's happening on the Colorado River that's where I think there could be some adjustments and I would be okay with that so I wanted to throw that out because I think that would maybe give a gap a little more direction as to what sort of analysis and just to maybe say what's out there and what can you do and bring back to us to try to maybe supplement what we're currently doing in terms of the policy but that's the first item that the second is I guess what I was curious was you were mentioning maybe this change in the city along with the high tech biotech, distillery, breweries in the context of the cash and loo rate I'm trying to what's the connection there is the connection that it's a higher value of water but in terms of people what they pay on cash and loo how does that tie together with it I didn't quite understand that it's almost there's a couple there's a couple things but you know part of it is return on investment so you guys probably know I don't maybe should if there are you know six to ten opportunities for annexations period in the Longmont planning area and you know a whole generation has to die before we're going to you know reopen our our open space to develop it so we don't need to think about that I don't think but or two generations because it's the gen X's that we're really hot on I think so anyway if it's really six to ten annexations depending on the size of the fights then a crude approximation should be good enough for this you know you don't want to spend a year evaluating it and that's that is part of it but the other thing is just again it comes down to the number of annexations the are how much water you use is going to really it's based on residential development and our population isn't going to be tied so much to annexation in terms of residential development because we're going to have to move to high density infill and the water use equation then changes right less lawn more showers you know that kind of thing so I guess that's what I was trying to say Longmont will be probably richer because the kind of industry we have brings money in and leaves it here much more but it's water use pattern is different and I'm kind of missing my own point here there is another one maybe I'll have to jump back in sorry it's complicated just a couple of quick questions can you get that our cash is lower than any other community that the way it is right now again bear in mind it's kind of comparing out what's the worst that's probably true if you ask developers what they were having their cost to develop in other communities compared to Longmont we would say yes we're less expensive currently than other communities in that respect with respect to water I think the standard I'll give you a bull part I think the standard for all water in Longmont is like $50 to $85,000 per acre and we're at 18 $520 so we're a factor about a third of the lower end so I guess what I'm reading towards is to rehash and re-study and try to make sure we are comfortable with how we develop it people's minds that were cash and loot was too low I mean I haven't I don't want you to come out of this thing if everybody else is 4050 I mean what's wrong with our cash I mean that's the thought that kind of I think that's why they came back to the councils asking about the philosophy how do we derive our cash and the value we came out we come up with the cash and loot following our current philosophy and it's by doing that it naturally creates a situation where we're less than other communities I'm sorry I did so the other thing was in 1988 Longmont's economy you know we were a poor city and Longmont's economy really hung on encouraging that development so we didn't want cash and loot would be a barrier and that was part of the thinking whether you know no matter how you justify it that having part of the thinking and the reason I brought up that Longmont's wealth doesn't depend on that model anymore nearly so much I mean some it does but infill development doesn't bring water rights in because they're already here so we're only looking at a small number of annexations so the thing to look at is well how much money would the cash and loot fee how important would those small number of annexations be because in compared to the other revenue coming in to the water fund and into the city in general so you need to figure out the proportionality there and that was my order not trying to redesign to survive I mean but the last thing and maybe you mentioned all cash and loot monies are they going to pay down on the gap is that what we're going to do they're eligible to and I believe the lion's share of what we've received so far has been or is allocated to I mean is that our plan that cash and loot money go through the gap I never do more than money it's been building for that purpose and I think we just believe the city just got a pretty big check not too long ago so there is a part of the water conservation budget a small percentage you want some loot go to that use the water conservation okay what are we going to tell them so to that same point then this that 18,000 I wasn't here for the June discussion I think it was in June when you guys fixed the cash and loot amount that amount is basically fixed to just paying down so I don't want to rehash things that everybody else knows so in like two sentences you go in on like those discussions in like June I believe it was where that 18,500 or whatever you derived that so basically it was derived at what at that time what it was going to cost lawn moth on a per acre foot basis to be a part of the Woody Yeap firming project so it's been increasing as time went on specifically for Woody Yeap firming because because there's cost overruns on Woody Yeap but presumably once that if you're going to be building it of course all the cost overruns but like the bonds are issued for example and so we have a fixed amount that we're paying on bond every quarter or however you do it and so we also not just a lower amount but we have kind of a steady or kind of a if some other communities cash in lieu is fixed to CBT right and that's we know what has happened with that in the last four or five years or so then like there's also a certain amount of reliability with respect to our price relative to others for our cash in lieu relative to other communities as well like we have just a steady year amount or a steady year and since we're starting construction we had the ceremonial break back on the 6th but we have the official breakings like maybe next week but regardless now that we have a project that's building and actually moving dirt I think those costs become more certain the last 20 years we just didn't know because we didn't know what all the legal and everything and obviously if you make a good point it's probably going to change but in that cost was a safety factor there was a component in those total costs were expected contingencies just and so that's been included as well so yeah we don't have we don't know for certain when it's all said done what it's going to be but I think we're confident in what it's going to be that we knew what we thought it was going to be maybe five years ago also thank you to kind of the left of the question I think there's other reasons probably tied to in the gap as far as different methodologies I think the two points we're going to take as far as trying to reassess the story should be a great share and it was part of an analysis one being that you were interested in the exact approach we had a lot of things looked like there's a fair distance as well as exaggeration such as our climate is hotter and drier so those are two factors that might come into play I think the final one I know it's a little bit more formal is or just cool to project is what did those three infection lasts over the last 20 years look like and how did that actually affect the price of the water and then the final one of the most hard consideration is as far as water use on certain pieces of property and use is going to make a difference as far as how much it's going to be better and how much it's potentially going to be a better version so if you have like a huge I don't know what to call it I heard some article about cooling stuff they have a high-tech business and the water basically versus something like agriculture and it's not that much larger so having an eye to what that holds and use is going to be as far as what actually is going to be necessary to make this sustainable will be something in finance and in consideration as far as what that price is and I think land use is not plenty here and we have to find zoning for our remaining land as you have to be annexed so you know there's been some I think we with that there's probably a range of water use you can apply towards the standard for commercial industrial versus the standard you would apply towards next use versus high density residential or whatever and so now I think I wouldn't say we easily have it we have it more readily available to be able to use technological resources to probably understand what our water use is going to be and we have been taking that into account that was part of the water demand evaluation and stuff so it's not like we haven't been looking at it we actually have been looking at to get us to where we believe to have that knowledge as to what do we believe our ultimate water demand is going to be and that's what we're trying to accomplish we're different than a lot of cities we're trying to figure out how much do we need for here to eternity versus other communities maybe they don't have that defined planning area we are defined we know you know but there's always a I think the best way that's been said a couple times and I kind of like it just that safety factor that uncertainty of we don't know what the environment's going to look like we don't know if it's going to two generations later they're going to change the zoning and make you know make it more dense or whatever and so maybe from a analytical perspective sometimes those safety factors are easier ways to adjust the amounts for certain things maybe for cash and little where you that factor it can be significant but it's a single number that you if you set a 20% safety factor that's an easy number you know take your number whatever it is times .2 or 120% if you have it that in my mind it's since I'm working in a lot of the weeds of it it's hard not to it's hard sometimes to pull back out and so with Martians and Council they're always trying to look at the higher level and they have a lot of other things to look at but I think as we have this conversation it's there's lots of little things we can look at and each one of them probably has some kind of balloon they probably have some kind of impact but maybe as we're just having our conversation everybody's mind's just kind of thinking about it because we're not making a decision here today maybe the concept of a safety factor maybe there's a better word than safety factor maybe that is a way to respect you know everybody's concerned that what we have out there for cash and lose sufficient if you kind of fall on me so I don't want to say that that's what you should do but I'm trying to keep it simple because every single quarter we have to go through an exhaustive analysis it's going to be tough it's already sort of tough and so I'm sort of you know as we talk about it we can come up with a matrix obviously all the council asked us to talk about the velocity they weren't asking us necessarily to change it they wanted to understand why are you doing it the way that you're doing it but I think it's certainly possible we can read through that why did they even ask that question and so that's one question I've got so you guys did the GIS analysis as part of your question so there was a GIS analysis where they looked at land use they looked at water supplies on the property did you guys come up with and be the system marches point of there's only a few annexations left there's already some that have been annexed they may not have adequate raw water currently I guess what I'm wondering is trying to get do you guys have the capability of looking at it and maybe overlaid the water rights to say how much is out there that could be coming in in the context of fashion and I guess I'm trying to frame it I like where you're going Marsha because it's like okay then we at least have some idea in the council does how much are we talking about here so if you guys have that piece of what we did the several times to the years we've done that water rights evaluation was the term that's not built on anymore I think I don't know what the new term is either so we went ahead and took a look at the water rights what was annexed and then I took a generic deficit so I would apply those to that acreage that was just a rough shot whenever you go to annexation it starts you know you go for the runway which is the whole piece yes we took a big picture and came onto the overall we did the deficit say like you came up with I don't know how I had to say the number it was a hundred acre feet we taxed it by the current cash influence and the value of these well I think knowing what we think maybe that acre foot you know deficit it could potentially help also Allison to your point of the McIntosh shares or the native supplies how much could be met with that so then we get some context in terms of the number acre feet that was broken up in all areas I'm sure within the planning area and we came up with quite areas and then I just combined it all together I think that would be helpful to just have that as a point of discussion on the next month when we're really talking about this yeah I should probably say which I showed you at the beginning thanks to Ness's history I have a better way of quantifying this the council explicitly asked for a policy review as opposed to a value review so we're talking this was done in 1988 now we need to do it again we're not saying we'll have to do it in every quarter from now on we're saying maybe in 10 years we'll know more about the climate we'll have to do it again only we won't have any cash in lieu anymore what's that philosophy of well I guess part of today was trying to get some feedback from you guys so hopefully next month maybe bring some information back to the water board that we can have further discussion with some of the pieces acre feet that was maybe subject to cash in lieu coming up I don't know if you can my idea of the safety factor what do we think there may be variability I know that's a big quantifier variability I've usually done I usually try to go back to either information or documents that we've talked about in the past so don't be surprised at what we do as we pull some of these questions that you've asked for I think we might have brought to the water board but it was water board before you guys were on board so I think we're going to be able to at least and I even put in my note it may be a little bit true when we bring it back it's expected to be within the dollar or within the acre foot but I think we can put it relative to what's left and how much is left to be done so you can kind of keep that in context so the effort that I was talking about was done as part of our latest water demand evaluation and that's what we've we'll pull up and I'll bring that value down I believe I've outlined it in there and explained that's it does that sound like we're going, Scott? Yeah I just want to add one thing Weston I think you're spot on about the apples to oranges when comparing what Longmont's portfolio and needs are relative to other surrounding communities I work with a lot of other water providers and like Todd does as well there's no reason to evaluate what other people are doing and say gosh are we doing it better than we are because it's for a different application entirely but one exception maybe you already brought it up is for Collins water community with senior water rights a lot of early changes they have a build out whatever that word is capacity that they're looking at to and looking at those deltas so an approach of a like situated municipality was probably useful to understand their philosophy not the way they're doing it but how they're trying to figure out how to bridge that down that would be relevant versus any other fire stones or fabrics so people are really in the development mode trying to create the impact these to provide the infrastructure which we don't need to do our infrastructure is relatively stable we're not going to be putting in millions of miles of one of your pipe like North Weldits right so that's my my thought is there's probably one or two communities that are like minded and similarly situated that have been around for a long time that are close to their development maximum at least in terms of friend not necessarily density close friend right there's a couple of them and there's not many when it comes to my mind it's most similar and a little bit bigger than we are for sure but there's another thing I think to take into account just and this is just to create context for the city council to judge by is how well and prudently supplied long line is because you know there's so on one end of the spectrum there's long line on the other end of the spectrum there is Parker that has green ways all over the place that they're using that they're watering by drawing down their water table that's their only water source people need to understand that distinction well I think it was a great discussion and I know hopefully for the new board members there's a lot of background and actually a lot that was before my time on here so I think it's good maybe to get everybody up to speed as well as hopefully getting some discussion maybe with the city council so thank you for that talk to the staff what do we think about about sharing less's history with the council is there any reason not to do that at this point I don't think so I think what you're doing right up yeah I think it's a great idea let's do that alright so and a few of these coming up so that was 9a we're on the 9b which is when you project update I already mentioned that if there's anything else to answer more than I can abortion I did go into the back on very well we see that again I believe next week they'll actually really be starting to work and it's going to be impressive it's going to be an amazing amount of birth that they're going to do for the next four years it's hard to put it in perspective really that was about the old and other than that issue with bonds or maybe don't really have anything real significant beyond that in the back of the packet there is real related to bond issues so we can just base on that when we get to that alright is there any questions that we have on the next item is 9c which is the water resources in your project update one of the quick update on the three big projects that are going on South St. Brain Pipeline Rehabilitation project now commissioned for a third part of the decade and so we're actually really close to turning it back on really close in like six to eight months but still over a period of decade we're going to try to do a flow test next week it's the South St. Brain Pipeline is non-priority so we're going to try to at least turn it on and see if we can get some water to flow to the high of the ditch and potentially flush out any remaining debris that's in there we'll do that for three or four hours and once the confirmance is working we'll shut it down and then the next step will be to line the pipe so we're going to do an NSF approved liner it's not required but we felt that regulations are going in that direction so just spend a little bit more money to know that we'll meet future regulations we've made sense and so right now CNL they will be doing CNL water solutions and the liner is on the water and we anticipate starting that in October so once the liner is in the only thing that will actually keep us from turning the water on at that point will be the pump station because right as we get that liner put in we'll probably be starting construction on the pump station so the pump station will be taking water from the South St. Brain Pipeline and pumping it into the North and the town of Lyons the North and the South Pipeline parallel of each other for a good portion and so the town of Lyons gave us a permanent easement to put in a pump station there and so right where the North and the South are about 45 feet apart we put in a pump station there so the main benefit that is is when the South St. Brain Pipeline is in priority which is usually in the wintertime as opposed to dumping water into an empty highland ditch and then having to put in stop logs to pull up enough diversion to get it into Nelson Flanders we can pump it right into the North St. Brain Pipeline so I'm hopeful that I think that come April next year the pump station will be online for the first time I wonder if we'll actually be you're sorry about that I wonder if we'll actually be taking more deliveries at that time CDOT's got the Highway 7 project that's going on and they're expecting weeks of high turbidity in the last eight weeks like one week here and then next month this week we'll be high turbidity because they'll be doing work in the channel we won't be taking water during that time so next year it'll be on there we are but it will be back into service next year the North St. Brain Pipeline Pipeline Alignment and Alternative Ports of Diversion study that we're doing right now with Dewberry engineers so as many of you know the upper north line from Longmont Dam down to the north pond we're looking at trying to somehow preserve that extend the life of that it's very old, it's in very hard to reach locations and it's a lot of geohazards and trees and stuff areas where it's been washed out and the pipe's just hanging you know so we're looking at possibly realigning the pipe we're looking at a couple alternate points of diversion maybe another pump station down by the north pond the lion's old intake structure that's in the North St. Brain just off of Highway 36 having said that there's going to be probably almost a dozen different options we're going to look at and I suspect that what staff ends up presenting to the board will be a hybrid of let's take option 2A and let's take option 6 and let's look at option 11 and see if we can't combine that with some sort of hybrid reason being is while the upper north line is really hard to get to I mean it's a way of people hazards survive the flood the moment you look at taking a diversion anywhere else and running it somewhere else I mean you opened it up to vulnerability and kind of what we saw a few months back with that spill on Highway 36 and then the north line through Apple Valley Road and the town of Lyons in three different locations and then after the flood it was crossing in five different locations so having a pipeline running adjacent to a creek isn't all that great so that's why the upper north line which is on the side of the cliff is actually very valuable to have and so you had mentioned wanting to do a water tour when we get closer to presenting to the board our study would love to take you guys on the hike to the upper north it's about a three and a half hour hike it's fairly easy we'll drive to the top and we'll walk down to basically to the pin stock which is the top of the hydro plant and so that's the other thing, the hydro plant you know there's a sustainability aspect to this if we start diverting water from a pump station or the Lyons intake that bypasses the hydro plant which we don't want to do hence why that might be a backup when there is an incident for the upper north, but that's not going to be the permanent solution and so yes, maybe I don't know maybe in November or December you guys don't mind doing that depending on weather and stuff there's usually a 60 or 70 degree day weather in December maybe we can go for a hike maybe we have to wait for spring but I think getting up there and seeing it in person really adds to the discussion and helps you to kind of wrap your head around do we want to spend $10 million going this way or do we really want to spend $30 million removing and replacing pipeline making it accessible and stuff like that maybe look at the amount of hundreds of millions of dollars of water that's coming down that $5 million it's easy to justify it on paper but funding it that's that's verbal, probably become a challenge so those are the three things there, any questions on those or any other projects you'd like to discuss those are the three big ones right now thank you for the update thanks for the flood and everything else and all the reliability fine everything together so we come down yes, good update alright next item, Nancy looks like you're up for the water conservation update yes, so it's going towards the end of summer so most of our resource central programs from Marshall and Benchin earlier are wrapping up it's always seems that if it rains along the spring it starts later so we have much greater participation but it's starting on July for our we do this flow-to-flow which is the irrigation assessment I did want to note resource central offers the church removal, why not it doesn't participate in providing any incentives for our residents right now, so they could participate but we're not providing incentives for that program so that program we have almost reached the maximum of our budget for the flow specifically the irrigation assessments and then we also through efficiency works for the past and beginning of last year have been offering irrigation rebates through them so I also saw an uptake in July as well and those are interconnected because we require a irrigation assessment for people to get the irrigation rebates and first thing is you should make sure your system is running correctly before you start replacing things so we usually see kind of a delay from those we haven't been doing as well on the commercial side we have been doing that primarily through efficiency works we just offer indoor rebates with them but I actually have a conversation tomorrow efficiency work serves for Collins-Loughlin work on SS Park SS Park doesn't participate in the water program so I have a conversation with the other two cities about irrigation and commercial so we're hoping to we're still I think it's still a lot just the impacts of the pandemic on the commercial entities we're trying to see increases in our energy efficiency program but just not as much with the water I just think our water is not expensive enough for that to be one of the top projects of our businesses a big effort I've been working on this summer is I've been working with three HOAs to do case studies all three of them have transitioned through Kentucky Bluegrass to beautiful gardens and the water-wise gardens so we're working this is through our neighborhood leadership series neighborhood group leadership association and we're trying to make it easier for other HOAs to do the same thing and we thought case studies and showing how other HOAs in Longmont have done that can help with their big projects so those three case studies will be probably by the end of this week live on our website across the case study of the Transition City of Longmont last year going from conducted Bluegrass to a regressed one and then next Wednesday I have a presentation with those HOAs to another HOAs through the neighborhood leadership series so we're hoping that helps inspire more and again we're just reducing the barriers to making those transitions for our re-established landscapes I wanted to provide an update earlier this year I mentioned we were looking at the St. Mary and London Water Conservancy District Grant for a number of reasons we decided to not pursue that this year primarily we just realized there's a lot of things up in the air in terms of for one thing Penny Kenneth mentioned this but we have requested additional half FTE for water conservation I don't know if everyone's aware my job is half water conservation half sustainability so it would be bringing us from a half FTE for water conservation to a full FTE for water conservation so I also don't think I'm going to top this one with a mask on it's hard so just not knowing we're still waiting on confirmation from that going to City Council also having to bring that person on we also are planning a much bigger update to our water efficiency master plan so those members of Board who were part of the Board last year members we brought the Climate Action Task Force recommendation and a big recommendation that the Board gave that City staff ended up presenting to City Council was the recommendation from the Climate Action Task Force was too ambitious not to though we should go business as usual but in our next water efficiency master plan update we should do a re-evaluation of our water efficiency goal so to do that we are going to start that process next year so we're going to start our current proposal that we'll propose to City Council let's take next year and propose different water efficiency goals in current current one which is 10% of our future water supply by build out whatever that 10% is called now then have City Council decide on what are we keep our current goal have a new goal and then from that we'll spend 2023 then update our water efficiency master plan so it's going to be a much more expensive process because we have to evaluate the factors of climate change into that goal I'd just like to comment that I think the reason that this board rejected that CATF recommendation as well as the sustainability board and I remember who else made a recommendation it wasn't that it was too ambitious although it was but it was unsubstantiated it was just being out of the air and in fact during these discussions I've been thinking about well how would you substantiate a recommendation for making our conservation goals more aggressive without there's two mistakes right one is that we don't have a place to store the water and much of the water that runs through Longmont can't legally be stored so we are changing our consumption patterns in anticipation of having less water we're not using a lot less water now because we can save it up for a dry year because we can't so those things need to be understood the other thing is that I think I have suggested that earlier which is you guys want to work together because you've got a lot of good data to allow the substantiation of our recommendation that maybe sustainability doesn't have and I also want to highlight kind of building on that is that at the end of this year the sustainability plan and the vision of Longmont and comprehensive plan will begin an update and we are working with them to see how come because we're having the same time I think how can we integrate them we've also since last year when we attended the growing water smart workshop as staff members which really focused on integrating land use and water efficiency planning staff have water resources parts storm water myself which both water resources and sustainability have been needed monthly to identify opportunities to better integrate that land use and water efficiency nexus so there are a lot of conversations and the update to the water efficiency master plan would definitely both be involved in this as well as our sustainability advice report I think that's great anything you can do on the front end instead of trying to record fit up factors time will span I've got two questions one is you were mentioning like a residential audit do you have a budget when you run now do you get still track like how many requests or I think it's I'm just thinking if you run out in August you have some ability to say well we would have had more funding we could have done this we need more audits it seems like that would be important to know to know how much more money allocated and which more effective it could be so I don't know if you do something like that we have in the past so since I've been in the position the past two I think first year was a ton of water I don't think people started running out until August and then last year was COVID I think people were just distracted so this will probably be the first year we'll run out but another reason why it's one of the first year we'll run out is because in previous year we have increased our slow budget to make sure we are meeting the demands and Nelson can probably speak more to that we have done that evaluation and decide to increase so you do look at it and say okay what do you think of the mandate going forward we saw a large demand we saw we saw the large demand in very little of H&A and then it reversed we had a large demand H&A for the last several months for years sorry and then our residential was dropping out but we did increase the budget to meet that need the only other thing you may be aware of is the Northern District has grant funding for the exclusive H&A fund for projects if there's a new funding just so that they know they don't have the money in their budget that means they can apply for a grant when they have part of the design and they implement it using the Northern District funding one of our case studies we've been running and we've been continuing so we have opportunities we push for Northern as well as we have a need for an employment program as well as a new sustainable and made-to-use solutions and I've been trying to work with our neighborhood resources staff if in the future also can we have because these projects are not expected can we direct some of our water conservation budget to have specific for which because it's great that Northern Water opportunities but there's also a lot of well there's a lot of grant opportunities but there's also a lot of project opportunities that's a big bang for your mother that's great thanks for that, any other questions comments awesome, well thank you so, this is Bugamy Build Out has been replaced with Planning Horizon it was trying to be crazy that's great Julie noted don't forget that to me I won't forget alright so with that we're on item 10 one last thing water resources staff is going to operate a water tour can you ask me about that we're limiting it this year to staff and water water now some staff has already wanted I think we have about three staff members right now we're going to go yeah so we're trying trying to keep it to prime one vehicle and also Ken will be helping with that if you're interested in participating in that you can just let Heather know and then she will coordinate for that it'll be September 10th so it's Friday September 10th it's already been split and it typically goes from about 8 to 2 or 3 o'clock Heather you can withdraw me from that based on the calendar okay, no worries okay so yeah so what we made wanting to consider is trying to find that an alternative or something or maybe get that out sooner it's typically that it's historically been that second Friday in September it's when we've been doing it for the last 10 or 12 years so but if there's no reason why we couldn't do something maybe anything for can you reach out to especially the new board members and see what it's like we'll talk to Kevin he's been trying to what's that for 10 years and we can talk to him I think these guys are absolutely that's a possibility fine alright so item 10a is items from the board view of major project listings and items kind of we schedule for future board meetings I think next month we have when the cash is moved tie in door obviously follow up on this question any other questions on upcoming items sounds like and then in September you may have the same green left hand so the green left hand is that the we're going to do that one meeting with the watershed for the watershed report yes I believe so it's going to be a combined meeting with sustainability the parts for it and in this group it was a presentation that was given to staff we thought it was great to be great up in for this group and others to hear about making that you have to do this so this is going to be three separate meetings for the presenters and kind of what staff is thinking as we would do the water board and then that would be after the water board yeah that's great awesome any other questions on items okay wonderful so item 11a is I think informational items and water board correspondence I think is west alluded to the main item in there is the we can get from the project all bonds were issued it looks like the interest rates were very good what was the net did you have the net? well that was written down I remember it I remember I don't remember the exact number but I remember June 1 we were very depressed with the numbers of the gods yeah it looked like the net interest cost that's it was 1.84% all right that sounds right that's great I hope there's any questions comments on the materials that were in the packet on that correspondence item 12 items scheduled for future board meetings to talk about fashion future board agendas we'll talk about the chair and vice chair next month and then we'll have that join me to bring left hand awesome anything else you may ask for the work I'm seeing that being the case I'm going to go ahead and join me thanks everybody