 Okay, I'd like to call the July 20th, 2020 Longmont Water Board meeting to order. Heather, could you please start with a roll call? Sure. Todd Williams. Here. John Caldwell. Present. Kathy Peterson. Here. Roger Lang. I see you, Roger. I think you're muted, though. And then City staff, we have actually, for Renee Davis, she's out today. City staff, we have Ken Hueson. Present. Wes Lowry. Present. Kevin Bowden. Here. Heather McIntyre is here. David Bell. Present. Francie Jaffe. Here. Jason Elkins. Here. And Council Member Martin. She's here somewhere. Thank you. All right, Todd. Okay. Thanks, Heather. The next item on the agenda is approval of the previous month's minutes for July 15th of 2020, or June 15th, I should say, sorry, of 2020. Were there any questions, comments on the previous month's minutes? If not, we need a motion to approve the June 15th, 2020 Water Board meeting minutes. So moved. We got a motion from John and I guess a second from Kathy. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Those are approved. The next item is the water status report. Wes, is that you? Yes. So the flow at Lyons this afternoon at 115 p.m. was 127 CFS with the 124 year historic average of 240 CFS. The call in the same brain is James Ditch with an admin 6,756 or an appropriation date of June 30th, 1868. The call in the main stem of the South Platte is the Fort Morgan canal with an admin of 11,979 with an appropriation date of October 18th, 1882. Button Rock is currently full and spilling. Union reservoir is down approximately a half a foot. The local reservoirs in the basin as of the end of last month were at approximately 90% of capacity, which is pretty much the average. Let me look back in the last 12 years and I think that's all I have unless there's some questions. Any questions for Wes? Scroll through here. I'm not saying any. Okay. Thank you, Wes. The next item is public invited to be heard in special presentations. Heather, were there any requests of public invited to be heard? We have none for today. Okay. And I assume no special presentations either. None. Okay. All right. We'll keep moving. Next item. Is there any agenda revisions or submission of documents? I have none. Okay. Number seven is development activity. Wes, are you going to take that the Norse for filing one final plan? Yes. Today is development activity known as North Star filing one final clap. It's a 34.768 acre parcel located northeast of Plateau Road and North 99th Street and west of Renaissance Drive and South Clover Basin Drive. The historic water rights were transferred at time of annexation and applied proportionately over the annexation per the raw water requirement policy. North Star filing one final plat will be in compliance with the city's raw water requirement policy upon transfer. I'm sorry, upon satisfaction of the 69.466 acre foot deficit at time of final plat approval. So this is slated for 64 single family homes and is being proposed by the Ridgeline development group. So just looking for a motion to, that that's the deficit. That will be dissatisfied as part of this final plat. Okay. Thank you, Wes. Is there any questions? Please speak up. If there are, I can't, my screen, there we go. Now I can see the rest of the board. Is there any questions for Wes on the, on this North Star filing number one final plat? Any idea how they're going to meet their deficit? So they have not said, but what I've been hearing by most folks is they're going to pay cash in lieu. But I've not had a further conversation with them about that. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, we need a, I guess a recommendation or a final I guess determination on the raw water balance requirement as specified in the write-up. Is there a motion for that? Recommending that amount of deficit? John or Roger. Let's go ahead and do Roger is the motion and Kathy is the second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, that carries. Yeah, go ahead. Just a suggestion when you're calling for all those in favor. You want to try us raising our hands? Yeah, that'd be fine. Rather than a verbal. Sure. Yeah, that's fine. Does that work? I guess, Heather, for you in terms of recording the, I think if we could do both the verbal and the hand, that would be helpful. All right. We'll do both. Thank you. Thanks. Okay. So next item under general business is the climate action task force recommendation with water conservation. And it looks like Francie, are you going to be presenting this? I will jump in for a little bit, but Lisa and I will actually be taking most of the presentation. Okay. Great. Okay, go ahead. Lisa and Francie. Thanks. Hi, everyone. Lisa Novlock sustainability program manager. I haven't been to your, your group for a while. So I see a couple of new faces. Thank you all for giving us some time on your agenda this afternoon. I'm going to go through, I'm actually going to run through all of the recommendations. I'm not going to go into depth in any of them. I just want you all to see kind of the breadth of what's covered in the climate action recommendations report that came out from the climate action task force. And then the one that we'll spend the most time on is the water conservation one as Todd mentioned. So in feel free as I'm running through these, if you have any clarifying questions or anything just hop in. So, or raise your hand and I'll, I'll try to, if I can see you. I'll call on you. If not, if somebody else sees a hand raised, please speak up because they can't see everybody on the screen. Great. Okay. Heather, you can go on to the next slide. So just to provide you all some background. So the city council passed the climate emergency resolution in October of last year. It called for the convening of a climate action task force, a group of folks to get together and put together recommendations on what the city can do to advance climate action. And we, that was supposed to be completed within 120 days. And because of COVID, we were able to do that. And so we, we were able to, we were able to, we were able to complete the second half of the, of the report really got delayed for a couple of months. But we completed all of our recommendations and brought them to city council over two sessions on June 30th and July seven. This is what the report covers. It's pretty extensive in terms of everything that it goes into, but what we'll just cover today is, is really high level of the recommendations. And again, trying to get around to the, to the real agenda. And so the council passed the first four sign identified six primary topic areas that they wanted to develop recommendations in. So adaptation and resilience. Building energy use education and outreach land use and race management, renewable energy and transportation. And then they also identified equity as a really important consideration. And really wanting to make sure that as we're taking on climate action. policies or programs or decision-making could have on our community and different members of our community. Next slide, Heather. So we did our best to go through somewhat of a community engagement process to try to get some of that information of what people's thoughts were, what current community interests are around climate action, and then what are some potential opportunities as well as concerns. We did go through, we put out a community questionnaire which we got about 350 responses back on that. We did a couple of presentations and tabling events to get community feedback and we had some kiosks that key community locations and some posters driving people to the questionnaire. But of course right as we were in the midst of all of that, COVID happened and shut down all of our community engagement efforts as the city closed down and we couldn't do any in-person engagement anymore. Next slide please. But I did want to just share the key takeaways and the limitations that we had in that process. So in general, the folks that we were able to talk to were pretty supportive of climate actions and incentives and changes that would go along with that. There was strong support for increasing services and benefits for low-income communities and really addressing that affordability and equity issues I mentioned earlier. And the flip side of that is there's definitely concern about what the cost is and the impact, potential impact is on the affordability, particularly as we're looking at building code changes or land use changes and things like that. And then a lack of stakeholder engagement. As I mentioned, the limitations really, in the talks that we only had 120 days to pull the report together. Sounds like it might be a long time, but really especially from a community engagement standpoint. Obviously the impacts from COVID. The format of the questionnaire just was set up in a way that it forced people to break certain things without giving them the option to say I don't like any of the above that you're suggesting. And then so we know through all of that that we got limited representation. We just want to be mindful of that moving forward that we know there are a lot of voices and perspectives that weren't heard in this process and we want to just be aware of that. Next line. So I'm going to jump into the recommendations. Go ahead and switch to the next slide, please. And this is what we've done for some of the other boards. Again, the main recommendation that we'll be getting feedback from you on is the water conservation one. And we'll just, we'll get into the details of that and then ask for the board's agreement kind of from the thumbs up, thumbs side, thumbs down perspective and we'll chat a bit more about that in a minute and then just get your high level. Next slide. So the first topic area is adaptation and resiliency. And the, although the majority of the recommendations in the climate action recommendations report focus on greenhouse gas reductions or what we call mitigation, this component around adaptation and resiliency is really important because we do know that impacts from climate change are coming. And even if we are successful at reducing our emissions in Longmont by 100% by 2030, we know that changes are already under foot. We're already seeing some of those and we want to make sure that our community is prepared for those. So there's three recommendations in this area. The first is focus on public health and that's really looking at what are the potential health impacts from changes from a warming climate. So things like increased extreme days, poor air quality, potentially new diseases that might be introduced and understanding how we can prepare for that. The water conservation one, which is, I will get down into the details in a minute, expanding and creating new programs to achieve a reduction in water consumption, a city wide reduction in water consumption, 35 to 40% by 2025, which as I'm sure you all are aware is a pretty substantial goal in a pretty short time frame. So we want to talk with you more about that. And then flooding mitigation and preparedness education and this is focused more on educating the public around issues around flooding mitigation and preparedness. Next slide. So building energy use, this one is pretty straightforward of things that you can imagine. So looking at opportunities to increase energy efficiency and address issues like electrification, solar readiness, EV readiness in the next building code update, which will be in 2021. I do want to clarify there's been some confusion around this one that this is looking at pulling together a feasibility committee and developing a plan over the next 18 months would help identify how long a long month would be able to transition away from natural gas over the next 10 to 15 years or so. And then the remainder ones of these are focused on both commercial and residential energy efficiency opportunities, mostly through expanding our existing programs. And then the last one is is developing a fund that would help specifically focus on low and middle income businesses and residents to help support that transition and any costs and expenses that will come along with that. Next slide, please. Education and outreach. This is also pretty straightforward. The majority of these are focused on just that education and outreach opportunities to get folks more engaged and aware of climate issues and solutions. So through a lecture series, an article series, the Longmont Museum Teaching exhibit. So that's expanding the front rangerizing exhibit to include issues of climate change and sustainability. The one big kind of outlier in this section is looking at comprehensive workforce development program. So we know if we want to achieve a lot of these goals that we need to focus on training up our workforce so that we can help staff with can we we can have folks that are well trained to do energy efficiency, solar installation, all of the things that would be associated with a number of these recommendations. Next slide. Land use and waste management. There's only three recommendations here focused on promoting and educating the public around homescale food production, increasing recycling and composting in both the commercial and residential sector, and then a downtown paper parking policy that would be looking at changing downtown to a paid parking situation to try to encourage folks to take other alternative modes of travel into and out of downtown. The caveat that I put on that one this right now is that this all came about before COVID started. This recommendation in particular would likely need to be put on hold for quite a while until we're past the impacts of the pandemic on our down campuses. Next slide please. Renewable energy. So this one's also looking at accelerating smart meter installation and then a lot of different programs that are really supported by smart meters like home energy management systems, a broader energy savings program. So looking at how we can incentivize residents to install smart technology so that we can better manage and balance supply and demand. Carbon intensity signaling, so that's just providing information to the consumer, real time information about what the carbon intensity is at that moment in time so that people can make choices on when they want to run appliances or not, and then distributed energy resources. So that's developing a plan and putting in place some pilot programs, which will help us get to our 100% renewable energy by 2030 goal. Next slide please. And then the last section is transportation. This is focused on probably what you can imagine. So increasing the effectiveness of our transit system through what's called a checkpoint or flexible bus service. So that's allowing kind of a fixed route service to make some small detours to pick up folks, similar to kind of a call and ride situation, increasing electric vehicle infrastructure, a connected bikeways network, and then promoting alternative work schedules. So working with employers and employees to do things like telecommuting or changing work schedules to help reduce congestion during peak periods. Next slide. So before we get back to the water conservation recommendation, I'm going to hand it to Francy for a few minutes to talk about the Just Transition Plan Committee and their equity recommendations. Thank you, Lisa. So these recommendations, as Lisa mentioned earlier, equity was identified as an important part by the Climate Action Task Force. And one of the ways equity was addressed was through the Just Transition Plan Committee, which worked with the Climate Action Task Force and developed a series of recommendations. The Climate Action Task Force recommendations were more of like what different things you can do, why these are more of a how it's more of a process of how you can apply these recommendations to make any of the Climate Action Task Force recommendations reach more members of our community. The Just Transition Plan Committee process actually started at an earlier resolution in 2018 with the transition to 100% renewable energy, which called for the city shall consider the needs of lower income residents, which kicked off this process with the climate emergency resolution passing last October and calling for frontline communities or communities that are most likely to be negatively impacted by climate change, but maybe historically haven't had their voices heard, must actively participate in the planning process. So it aligned with the creation of the Just Transition Plan Committee already. So we used the opportunity to have the Just Transition Plan Committee work towards focusing on the goals of the climate emergency resolution. Next slide. So the recommendations are in two different category. The first is the equity assessment recommendations. These are kind of the approach of like how you apply equity assessment, the importance of providing both a foundation on equity and climate action using the equity lens, and then again, focusing on those frontline communities. Next slide. And then the bulk of their recommendations were in these overarching recommendations, and these eight recommendations really focus on our approach of how you can make sure the climate action task force recommendations are reaching all members of the community. They range from marketing and outreach, which highlights focusing on engaging cultural brokers and creating targeted culturally relevant messaging to using data and research to identify barriers. They also highlighted importance for equal access to jobs and kind of these different components here. A lot of their recommendations are framed as questions that can set when implementing the climate action recommendations, you can apply those different questions. So next slide. Great. All right, Heather, you can go ahead and move to the next slide. So as we mentioned, the recommendation that we want to talk most with this group about is the water conservation recommendation. So there's the description there. And this recommendation really focuses on preparing the city for potential sustained drought conditions and impacts to water availability due to climate change by promoting and incentivizing water conservation measures such as their scaping and the use of native vegetation. As you can imagine, it would require extensive financial resources and likely a significant read is in I know parks and golf courses in order to meet this goal. And we think that for research and analysis would be necessary in order to understand the full fiscal impact of this effort and identify a feasible path forward. And before we get into asking you to provide a thumbs up, thumbs side or thumbs down, I'm going to hand it to Francie. So she was really involved in working with the climate action task force on crafting this recommendation. And she'd be able to better give you the details and answer any questions. So I'm going to hand it to Francie and then kind of just open it up for discussion. So first of all, we'd like to know what, what do folks think about this recommendation? What are your thoughts, questions, concerns, anything like that? Kathy here from the board, I read the report net. It was very impressive for the time you had to put it together. I am really concerned about this recommendation 35 to 40% reduction in water consumption. And I understand the thoughts behind it. But I'm worried about the cost of parks, trees, both of which are micro climates within our city that help with coolness and, you know, I wouldn't want to lose trees. Also, we downstream water rights from return flows, the agricultural community. And just that short window of time, I think I'd like to look back a little bit on what happened in our last major drought, which was 2002 drought and what kind of cuts in use on a short term basis were achieved. And anyway, it's quite a complex thing. And I think that's just a really big leap to try. I think our people already have been cutting their water use. And I think to try to go for 40% reduction in five years. That's that's a concern to me. And I consider myself an environmentalist. It's not that. But I think it's a very complex issue. Lisa, this is Todd. This will go ahead, John. Yes, several things. One is, I guess, some issues similar to what Kathy said. This is pretty dramatic. And I'd have to see where they got the numbers. I mean, it looks like they pulled these out of thin air. And it's like, really, what, how do you get there? And the other thing did they look at the drought? We've we have all kinds of numbers for the drought 20 years ago. Did they really look at those numbers to see what can really happen? And why didn't this come to this question for Marsh, I guess, is why didn't this come to the water board before it went to council? I mean, to me, it just, it doesn't, you know, obviously I'm biased, but as a citizen, it doesn't, it cuts into the credibility of this report. Yeah, so I guess that's, that's all I got to say right now. I answer that. I, first of all, I agree with you guys. The I was on the Climate Action Task Force, not associated with this particular recommendation. And, frankly, none of the engineering work or research that you are referring to was, was done. The person who led this particular recommendation was working from ideological standpoint, talking to people like Gary Wachner. Some of the assumptions that were made were that the Windy Gap project would would be thrown aside and that, you know, the diversions would stop happening altogether. And so the Climate Action Task Force, as a whole, actually cut, Lisa, I'm not sure I remember. They cut, they cut the, they cut the goal significantly, but I don't remember what the original proposal was. Was it 50% instead of 35 to 40%? I think it was, but Francie would probably remember that better than me. Yeah, it was 50%. And it was also, it was specifically 50% of just parks and golf courses. And they did it to be overall water consumption, but then cut the percentage down to 35 to 40%. But so it actually, even though it got cut to 35 to 40%, because it moved from just parks and golf courses to overall water consumption actually became a larger goal. Yeah, I think that, I think that the Committee of the Whole, when approving it, just did not realize that that had happened. I certainly did not. But I don't endorse this particular recommendation either. We were just tired. I know it doesn't work. One thing I wanted to, this is Todd, I wanted to do, you know, I'm kind of, I'm sad that Renee Davis couldn't be here for today's meeting. I mean, she's kind of an expert in water conservation and a huge asset to the water board in that regard. She did, I tried to get a hold of her and she sent me an email that she asked me to read. So if you guys are okay with it, I'll, I'll share you, share a little bit of what Renee's thoughts are on this. And then I've got a few thoughts of my own. But I'll go ahead and get started says first, I'm excited for the city to be taking on climate work. It is essential and city governments have an important role. As a water conservationist, I'm also glad the city is interested in increasing conservation efforts. I do have a caution, however, I am concerned that the stated goal is not attainable. Note that the 2015 Pacific Institute paper shows a 10% decline in water use between 2000 and 2010. These figures are typical for gallon per capita day in utilities nationwide as well as Longmont. Easily achieved savings are part of the reduction and best available technology will not result in as much reduction. To aim for a 35 to 40% reduction in five years does not seem realistic to me. But if they can clarify how they do this, I would support it. I would like to urge fellow board members towards action items two or three and we'll get into those here in terms of the options and actions here in a second. I think acceptance of the subject recommendation with technical analysis to follow could work. A safer option could be to recommend a revised water conservation goal based on existing water conservation plan. So that was I just wanted to put that out there. I mean Renee working for Denver water and water conservation. She knows a lot more about this issue than I do. But I think she's kind of echoing what the general comment is of John and Kathy as well as Marsha. And I have the same concern. I mean, I think we've had is I understand it. We've had about 10% conservation that's been kind of in the water supply demand analysis to date. And we're assuming another 10% for new demand coming online in the future. That's 10%. We're talking three and a half to four times that amount with this this recommendation and without defining how we're going to get there. I just don't see how we could recommend that. And I agree with Kathy. I think the concern I've got is what does that do to the nature along? It also has impacts to equity. There's a lot of maybe the lower income. I think a lot of people aren't using water. Maybe they don't as much landscape. That sort of thing. If you have a 35 to 40% reduction, what does that do to water rates? And to those lower income folks? So I think we really need a lot more analysis of this before we, you know, at least I can support it. And I'm also concerned with, you know, if this gets adopted, what does that do to our water supply planning? This seems like, oh, hey, we think we're going to get 35 to 40%. Yet we have no plan to do that or no, we haven't analyzed it at all. That seems reckless to me with regards to what we do. And we've got another item on the agenda today with regards to how we may meet part of Longmont's future water needs. Adopting a 35 to 40% reduction or assuming that that can be done would suggest that that isn't needed. Yet there's no support whatsoever for that level of demand reduction. So I just can't support that. And I've got, I have tried a little language on the modified, those potential options, but I'll let, I don't know if any of the other board members want to also chime in on this before we get into the potential options in terms of recommendations. Just a comment, Todd, to John's point, if this is, and I don't know if council has blessed us or not, but in fact they have in March and you can jump in on this. I'm trying to figure out what the purpose is of using our recommendations that the things already have done deal further on down the line. I don't quite understand that situation. Marcia, do you have any comments on that? Yeah, Roger. It's not a done deal. The plan, and Lisa could probably explain it better than I do, but the plan is to run it past the boards with each board in making recommendations in its own specialty and then there will be a final blessing by the council, which is to adopt. Most or the council has options, obviously, but the formal adoption by the council, which would mean putting the adopted recommendations on the comprehensive plan and the council work plan hasn't happened yet. Most of the other recommendations don't set initial goals like this because they recognize that, you know, in less than six months a team of volunteers really did not have the ability to do the math and figure out what was aspirational, what was realistic, and what was necessary. And so the first element of most of the recommendations is to do some research, come out with pilots, and then have milestones over the next five to 15 years, depending on what the recommendation is. This is really an outlier in that it didn't do that. But again, set up, you know, it was more based on climate ideology in my opinion. This is my opinion now than client science. The other thing is that there are some other recommendations, such as community gardening, not solar gardening, but gardening, gardening, and incentives for zero escape, and soil conditioning, and a lot of those things are inconsistent with this adeption, because while some of them will end up reducing water consumption, they will require more water consumption than this. So, you know, it's my opinion that this needs work. And y'all want to step up and at least make some recommendations that this needs work. Yeah, my only other thing I wanted to say is that when you get into something like this, for me to have, you know, approve something like that, I need to, I need to see the calculations and how people are deciding that this, this is feasible and what what they're planning to do to make it feasible. So I'm sure a lot of that is not available, but it creates a lot of doubt in my mind of the feasibility of this goal. So I'll just leave it at that. I don't think it was done, Roger. I can jump in and I worked with the group who worked on this more and the fact that I answered questions. My understanding from their work is that we did provide the water efficiency master plan. We did provide the raw water master plan from 2004. My understanding is that the group wanted to set a as Council Member Martin said a very aspirational goal. But there was no kind, there was no I don't I do not believe there are any calculations or anything that went into the numbers that were chosen from my understanding, because I was also asking them to be more clear about acknowledging how this would impact the budget. And my understanding is that they very aspiration and goal and then have staff figure out all the details. So this this to pursue this would require extensive analysis to that that just hasn't I don't think has been done by that group. So this is time. Go ahead. So this john. So on the back of a napkin I can show you why this hurts economic development, it hurts social equity. And I can show you my garden that what it produces the amount of my water bill that it makes. Yeah, I believe in I believe in gardening because I'm doing it myself. But in terms of water consumption, it makes no sense at all to have garden. So anyway, well, and from the equity standpoint, I live across the street from one of the best parks, Roosevelt Park in Longmont. And a lot of people use that park who don't have their own lawns who don't have their own homes they live in apartments, it's hugely used by people who don't have access to that. And that is a community benefit for all of us. I just think that's not to be diminished. I think that's something that's important to our community. And I would hate to see the parks reduced in the greenery that grows there in pursuit of Gary Wachner's vision, which honestly, I really don't like to even hear that he had any say in this whatsoever. I do have I guess one question I've got maybe for Ken and Francie. And I know you're going to get into this later on. But can you remind us what is the Longmont has a water conservation plan, right? That's been adopted. And it has a formal amount of conservation that we are kind of forecasting or including in our water demand currently, correct? How much is that? And I guess I look at it as saying we already have this as a established policy. You know, do we want to change from that or do we say this is our policy? And if the this climate action task force wants to look into additional ways to increase conservation, fine, so be it. Go ahead and analyze those and come back. But do the proper analysis, look at the impacts of that. And then we can consider it at that point. But you know, I think at least from my perspective, we I want to just kind of endorse what we already have in place. I don't think, you know, changing to this without any background information just seems reckless. So I mean, what what is the current conservation plan? Yeah. Yeah, I can answer that. I first, before I answer that, I do want to clarify the climate action task force is no longer meeting. So if this goal or similar goal is decided to pursue would be on staff to do that research since the climate action task force has kind of goals of what they're doing. And then to answer your original the first question. So the the goal that we have that was actually first our most recent water efficiency master plan was stated it was in 2017. That's still following a goal that was actually set in the 2004 water raw water master plan to reduce a raw water supply by 10%. Oh, since then, we have mostly used metered water and the decrease in metered water supply to see if we're reaching that goal with the acknowledgement that that's not including all our raw water sources, but we have the best ability to track metered water usage. I actually have some graphs from the update I was going to give later in the meeting. But if we're looking from a five year average from 2004 to 2009 and then 2015 to 2019, we've actually had a 12% reduction in metered water consumption in that time period. So we have been working forward in meeting that goal or getting close to that goal of that we have set. So I could see if we're already meeting our water conservation goal, I could see that there could be the proposal to update that goal in the future since we're already meeting it. I'm not not to specifically support this goal in the climate action task force, but that is an option since we have been meeting that goal. Townsend Martin. Thank you, Francie. I was going to suggest essentially the same thing, maybe if we wanted to honor the intent of the task force members to have an aspirational goal. Excuse me. Let's think about what an aspirational goal really is in terms of water use reduction, because this is an apocalyptic scenario that's kind of been presented and you know, we'll know the apocalypse when we see it. But when add a task to the front of the thing to figure out what it would take to do a couple more percent of water reduction, we know without too much pain, a 10 to 12% reduction was achieved at least going on. So maybe pick a more reasonable aspirational goal and say, let's have the water staff do a study and see whether this is possible and also set some criteria for when it would need to go into effect. Because you know, we have such diverse water supplies and essentially, you know, redundant water supplies that it's hard to imagine that we would need to do that. And some of the other benefits to the city of continuing on the course that we're on are probably greater, both in terms of social equity and climate action. So, you know, it would be sufficient, I think, to understand what a worst case scenario aspirational goal could be and hear that recommendation in a couple of years. So I guess one thing, Marcia, that I was going to suggest or kind of in line with that, but, you know, we have these, we have different levels. What the community, what's what in the policy, what's going to happen if we hit certain drought goals? And I guess if you want to add either, like Todd said, we can relook at those and see if we want to tighten those up, or we can add, I think we've got, correct me if I'm wrong, Ken, I think we've got three levels right now, is that correct? And if we want to add a fourth, almost apocalyptic and then a fifth, a pop, a pop, apocalyptic level, add a couple more levels and yeah, I mean, that I guess I would suggest that we maybe wrote it that way. I think that's a good idea. And that's in the context of the drought plan. I mean, we really have two pieces here. We have the conservation plan, which is kind of ongoing, you know, trying to reduce annual demand. And then we have the drought plan that under certain hydrologic conditions, then we, you know, do additional conservation measures beyond that and those go kind of hand in glove, right? You try to increase efficiency as you move forward, which I totally agree with. And then if the hydrologic conditions are extreme apocalyptic, then you gradually increase the severity of additional conservation measures to try to, you know, address that. So I'm fine with that. One thing I put together some language, I'll read it and see what you guys think it may need to and I don't have kind of, we need to reword this. That's fine. I said, so in relation to the Climate Action Task Force recommendation on water conservation goal, the Water Advisory Board recommends the City Council continue to use the current conservation level as established within long months adopted water conservation plan or Francie, however you worded that plan for demand planning until the technical analysis and public input analysis is performed on the Climate Action Task Force water conservation goal or something along those lines in terms of additional you know, kind of different levels more severe, whether it's part of the drought contingency plan or whether it's kind of on an ongoing basis. But what I'm concerned with is I want to, I want us to stick with our current water conservation master plan conservation level. That's what we're getting. We're getting 10 to 12% savings. And that's what we need to plan on in the near term. If we can get beyond that and we can fold that into our plans great, but I don't want to start making, you know, different supply decisions based on, you know, something that's beyond the 10 or 12% that we've seen. So I think, you know, I'm trying to encapsulate maybe, Marcia, what you're saying of, hey, let's look at it. And maybe, John, what you're saying, we can analyze that that, hey, we have these aspirational goals. But it's even hard to define those because we don't know what the repercussions are. So it's almost like we just need to say, hey, we'll look at that as part of future analysis. But right now, I want to kind of reiterate that we're using our current conservation plan in terms of the water supply and water demand planning for the city of Longmont. That's what my recommendation is. Any thoughts? Well, Todd, I think that's good. I appreciate that I would just maybe add also the both the conservation plan and the drought mitigation plan as ongoing planning documents. That's a good point, Kathy. I like that. So does any other, Roger, you got a thought? I know I'm comfortable with your language, Todd. And and Kathy sat on to that. No, I, I don't want to create something over and above what we have already that we think is working for. So no, I'm very comfortable with what you suggested. Marcia, your thoughts? Yeah, I essentially agree. I I don't want to be unprepared in case of a high drought scenario. But I also to the you know, to the extent that in the last two years, I've learned to understand our drought contingency plan. I think we would, you know, part of the what's built into it is if we have a series of of years where we're in the in the high contingency plans, and then we change our methodology, right? So then we'd go for for higher levels of conservation. And there the other thing I would like to maybe think of is is to do an impact analysis. Nobody has ever really talked in my presence. And I, you know, I could have gone and read the details of your plans and maybe even should have. But but what gets impacted, you know, like Lynette wanted to not have golf courses anymore, not water them. And, you know, things like that that would obviously cause an insurrection. I mean, people weren't even willing to stay off the golf courses for social distancing for three months, you know. So it would it would be good and not to do this in advance to but to insert into the plan some contingency analysis for what we would actually do in extreme sources that go beyond the existing drought contingency plan. Again, it would just be not a task that would be done, but an acknowledgment that their their perhaps is an apocalyptic scenario out there. Kathy, that's kind of the way I feel about it, too. You know, it's more it's it. The water the water organization has really detailed contingency plans already that are that are based on conditions on the ground. Am I correct in my assumption, by the way, that if the windy gap firming project went away, we would still be able to carry out all the existing plans because that's what it seems like to me. Can you want to speak to that? Yeah. So so Councilmember Martin, are you afraid to if if we if we didn't participate in windy gap firming, are the other water supply projects still viable or on the table or Yeah, I am saying if if we continue doing what we had now and and say Walkner's lawsuit was successful, you know, so they didn't get to build that reservoir. I know that that's not an outcome that anybody but the people who wrote recommendation think is a good idea at this point in the history of Longmont. But what what I guess I'm driving at is is how much redundancy do we have in our systems? I'm just trying to look at what a debate about this would look like in council and what the people from the public are going to stand up and say the recommendation from this board is make no changes or or maybe make you know add a level of aspirational contingency plans. I would like to I'd like to be able to argue for that position. And and one of the main arguments is is an honest risk assessment associated with windy gap. Because is being held up it's behind the risk hasn't dropped very much. Yeah, yeah, so so yeah, as in any project, there is a risk that it may not go forward, especially when it includes federal permitting. I get that and understand it. And yes, we have maintained our diligence in a number of different projects. We certainly are continuing to to maintain our diligence in the Union Reservoir Enlargement. We have the possibility of the Union Reservoir Pump Act. We have an enlargement of Ralph Price Reservoir on the books. We also have a longstanding nearly as long as the history of Longmont that has greatly benefited the community and that is we don't go out and purchase agricultural water rights and dry up the valley. And certainly you could you know, we have dominant eminent domain over the county on open space. We could take their water. There's yeah, there's lots of different areas. I would not suggest we go in, of course, any of those directions. But there's there's lots of options. We just think we have the best most near term lease cost option in front of us right now. But we also buttress that with our water efficiency master plan and our water conservation efforts. And we would be more than happy to look at all of those plans, update those in our draft contingency plans. Yeah, we can certainly do that. Yeah, we'll never leave our community in a situation where we're dependent on any one thing or any one project where we believe it's our responsibility to make sure that we're always protecting the community. And I believe we've done that very well. Well, I believe I believe that too. And so my suggestion is not that you go do, you know, redo all that work or anything because I have strong confidence again, after listening to y'all for two years or more that that you have done that. What I was suggesting was let's add a paragraph about just how resilient our water supply already is to be submitted with Todd's language. I like that. That's good, Marcia. John, you got some thoughts? Just a quick quick story. So 20 years ago during the drought, we I forget now Ken could probably I forget what level we went to. But we we went we came through Longmont came through and pretty well, we came through in really good shape because of our Marcia, our wide diversity of our portfolio of water. And while we were at a level one or two, some of these other communities that were were really short of water and the Denver television media, which back 20 years ago, everybody in Longmont watched that. So we had people voluntarily doing what the television told them to do. But the television was actually talking to a different municipality than in Longmont. But we had questions about, well, get this drought. Why aren't we doing this and this because people were still able to you know, keep their lawn green or water, their garden or whatever, because we had the resources and I guess it's kind of an oversimplification. But if you know, if we don't if we have pure resources like when the gap or whatever when the apocalypse come, we're just we're going to run out of water faster than if we had it. I mean, that's kind of the bottom that's kind of the bottom line. I mean, it's pretty simple. So anyway, that's I jump in quickly. So if you all don't mind I'd like to share my screen. I try to kind of summarize what Todd said, and then just for consistency, we're asking all boards to do thumbs up, thumbs sideways, thumbs down just so we can have a guide that council can use for generally do boards love the recommendation. Do they like the concept of but want to make suggestions or do they just flat out? Do you know how to improve it? So we can add more comments from the discussion into this. But let me share my screen and then maybe we can just have that. That quick vote so we can at least get for consistency, the thumbs up, thumbs side, thumbs down. So the main comment I have is in relation to the Climate Action Task Force, the water advisory board. I'll fix this language to continue to use the current water efficiency master plan, drought mitigation plan until that a technical analysis and public input analysis has been performed on the Climate Action Task Force goal before accepting a more ambitious goal. And then I wrote paragraph to highlight how resilient our water supply already is. Does that seem to and I know there's some spelling errors here. But with that main comment, do we want to just have a quick vote of thumbs up, thumbs down, thumbs side and we can still adjust this comment if need be. So for antsy is is what you have up here. That's the sideways because that's the change or the recommendation that we're coming back with. So we're we're saying, yeah, OK, you have these aspirational goals, but this is the recommended change to that. So is that what I'm just wondering, what are we voting here? Yeah, so just to jump in, that's a yeah, just to verify that. Yeah, the thumbs up would essentially be approved as written. We're good to go thumbs side would be to approve in concept with the following consideration and that would be in the comments or the thumbs down is no, we don't want to approve this at all. I have a question about interpretation, Lisa. If some sideways adds the kind of comments that we have were or alternative process, but leaves 35 to 40 percent in place across the board, then I would go for a thumbs down under those circumstances. If if we could, if if the aspirational goal would be a smaller reduction, that's that's more realistic considering how well fixed we are for water at the present time, then a thumbs sideways would be a more appropriate vote. And I don't get a vote. So I'm just asking for an interpretation. But what would the interpretation be? So what I would suggest, and this is just my interpretation, but I think how it would help to clarify would be for you all to specify in those comments. If you think that that goal needs to be revised or there needs to be additional language to say initial analysis needs to be done and to confirm goal, confirm the goal or to revise the goal, if you want to keep it as a thumbs side. So we approve it with the following consideration, I would make sure that if you want to adjust that goal, that that be done in those comments in some fashion or alternatively, you all could vote the thumbs down to say we don't approve this because we think this goal is is not feasible. However, we would approve a recommendation that showed either additional analysis before setting the goal or a lower goal with the additional analysis. So if I could quickly weigh in, I think that's what I'm hearing from the board is we're willing to continue to work on these kinds of things. But the goal is written. I'm not getting a warm fuzzy feeling from anybody that it's a great goal. So I think the last way you discuss that would be what I'm hearing to reflect what the board is saying. I agree with Dale, I think, because otherwise we're we're framing it in the context of the 35 to 40 percent, which a big thumbs down on that number. So I think we say no, and we're willing to look and analyze and say what is realistic, but we know that you know, in my mind, 35 to 40 percent is not. So I think it's a thumb down and then here's how we reframe it. We're willing to look at additional conservation, additional drop contingency plans, but, you know, we need to do the technical analysis before we can come up to a, you know, come up to a number. So I'm kind of that's where I'm leaning is to a thumbs down and then use that language. So one thing, Todd, and you I agree with the technical analysis, but I think we've mentioned. There's a whole lot of issues other than technical issues. I mean, Kathy referred to a couple of them. I talked about economic development. I talked about, I mean, there's a. There's a whole basket, pardon the pun, of downstream effects of this thing. So. Yeah, technical analysis is a huge piece of it, but there's a whole bunch of social and quality of life and a whole there's a there's a lot of other questions that can be have ramifications of this. I agree with you, John. It sounds like the study was trying to incorporate some of those. So I think we need to add that in as far as what is considered in the analysis. Yeah, so I think we can broaden that term analysis and then list the number of things, you know, technical social impacts, quality of life impact, whatever you all want to include in that analysis. Anything else? Otherwise, do we want to go ahead and I guess we'll make the vote as you're asking? If that's what you want, Lisa, so that you can record that and then we'll have the written response that'll go to council. Is that what you're looking for? Yes, and I think Francie took a stab at rewriting it based on the comments just provided. So I'll have her read through that and then we can take a vote. OK, great. And I just say, do we want volunteers? I know John talked about the equity and quality of life and economic implications. And I was a pretty good paragraph and Ken spoke a pretty good paragraph about the reason of the existing supplies. So I'm not sure it's necessary time wise to have Francie have to capture it all out of these comments. Maybe a couple of people would like to volunteer as as Todd has already done to paragraph for her incorporate. I guess my question on that would be to Heather about how we would go about approving that final language if that's done outside of the meeting. Yeah, I think if they were going to vote on it, it would need to be brought back at the next Water Board meeting in August. So I am I am quickly I was taking notes here and I am trying to to drop them in here. I probably should have done this in here. But so I have been trying to drop some of those equity concerns and concerns about impact to the water supply here. I would definitely probably meet up at least Ken to fill out this paragraph. But what I have in the comment that I added before this one was that do not think the goal is realistic. You'll make this a little bigger are willing to look at more water conservation analysis before coming up with a new number and need to analyze the social economic and environmental analyses. And then I tried to drop some of the equity concerns and I can pull up these notes because there's also concerns about microclimates with coolness and so I can pull some more of these into here as well. So from a process standpoint can we is it OK for us to come up with to do a thumbs down I'm hearing from everybody on the particular recommendation and then bring this language back in August. Does that throw a wrench in the plan in any way. I think it throws a wrench in the timeline but since it's a thumbs down anyway that may not be a problem. The other thing I would like to ask is is there a precedent for this board approving stuff by email. The process for that would be that the final language gets sent out and applying only to Todd replying only to Todd. The other members say yes or no to that language which would allow it to come to come before council on the planned night. Sure at this point in time we have no precedent for email voting and nothing in our bylaws that states that we're able to do that. OK some of the other boards do do that was the reason I am. One I guess only concern I've got with just a pure thumbs down and not a response is it I mean I think we're saying we're willing to look at additional conservation and you know during droughts but we want it to be you know more analysis needs to go into on what's realistic so I'm a little nervous about just saying thumbs down and that's all that goes to council on the near term. So I'm wondering if we go ahead and try to you know word it. I'm almost wondering so we need to add the supply paragraph. I'm wondering if we could even you know postpone the voting on this and tell later in the meeting and can I don't know if you have you're on most of these but if you had a little bit you could type up a little something to add into that. I'm wondering if we could come up with language that we could go ahead and approve today so that we go to council and we're not you know just given a pure thumbs down we're putting it in context. Yeah I can I can get with Francie although I have the next item. Wendy got firming but I can get with Francie right after that and see if we can get some together. I'm wondering if we do that I mean we're all in agreement on how we do it we just want the proper language in there so it captures you know the correct message going to council and maybe if we can get we can go through Wendy Gap and then if you want to maybe even if we need to take a short break in the middle of the meeting for five ten minutes get that added in we all read it and then we can take the official you know action at that point is that does that sound like something that would work. Yeah I think we could do that. So look Heather here's but can we give can we give Todd the authority to approve the language and do it take a little they could dare to take a little more time to get it right and give Todd the authority to approve it. I think so I don't know why that would be an issue. I would suggest we do that. I think that makes more sense than trying to need it. Marcia at the for council. So we're we're coming to council August 25th. So some time before it goes back to council but we wouldn't have enough time to bring it to the August meeting. So if we could get it I would say you know by the end of July at the latest I think that we'd be fine on time. I'm good with that if the rest of the board is so we could go ahead and I guess what we'd do is officially do the downvote subject to the language. I would get the wording and then subject to my approval then it goes to council at that point is that sound workable. The other piece of that is if you guys did want to officially approve it in the August meeting you would be welcome to do that because that meeting would be August the 17th so we could still be able to get that information to council as a pending but then put the final approval maybe in on that Tuesday morning the 18th. What do we do that? That makes sense. That makes sense. So I would we go ahead and try to get the language. I'd go over with staff we'd get it approved that goes to council but it would say it would be pending. Go to the next board meeting with that language in the packet everybody can officially bless it at that point so that when staff goes in front of council they can say that the water board is officially approved that or if there's any slight modifications that can be brought up at that point that's where we're at. You know just one comment Todd I think we all agreed that numbers that they propose as far as percent reduction are a non starter. I don't know exactly how those numbers get changed or modified but as they are I think we all feel strongly those numbers are not I don't feel they're doable at all. So I'm just I don't know what somebody's going to do with the numbers but I think they ought to be looked at. Well I think what we're doing is just doing the down vote Roger and then saying you know here's how we're qualifying it we're willing to consider additional conservation through the the you know additional measures through the drought or the conservation master plan as well as the drought contingency plan. But we're not adopting we're saying those numbers are unrealistic so we're voting down on that. That's what there's a response. All right so I guess with that do we want let's go ahead and do the vote. We can do that right now. I'll get language from staff. I will approve it. That will go to council. And then at the next board meeting we'll bring back that language and get official you know vote by the water board on the official language at that point. Does that sound good? All right let's go ahead and take the vote on the climate action task force recommendation on water conservation. Roger there we go. Okay do we need anything else on that item? We we're good there I think. Yeah just unless you all had any other follow-up comments on on any of the climate action or the just transition plan recommendations that you wanted to add otherwise that's what we needed from you all. I think I'm good. Anything else from the other board members? Okay all right the next item is 8B which is the Windy Gap firming project update Ken. Thank you Todd. Yeah before you today is is really a combined update on the Windy Gap firming project as well as a request for a recommendation to city council on moving forward with the final allotment contract. Today we've been using interim allotment contracts. Kind of some of them were by period and some of them were yearly but about once a year once every other year we came in with the new interim allotment contract. So what we have before you today is a final allotment contract that will actually be for participation in the project and moving forward. Before I get into that I'd like to give you a quick update on the current status of the project. Probably the most significant thing that's happened most recently is the State Water Court filing for the project. And it's probably as significant as the federal lawsuit. The federal case is kind of almost a yes or a no type suit but the state court is really the water court filing is really what we needed to be able to continue moving forward with the project. As you may recall there the original filing of the windy gap water right and the original planning for the project there back in the 1960s and 1970s included the construction of a reservoir on the west slope of Colorado most specifically west of Lake Granby over by Willow Creek Reservoir. That reservoir would have we would have pumped into that reservoir and then pumped into Granby. About 21 years ago we launched the effort to complete the second half of the windy gap project which is the firming project half of it. And one of the first things we had to do was to look at that reservoir site that reservoir site actually had some critical wetland areas called FENS which were almost possible to replace. It also had a few other site difficulties with it. And as part of the environmental impact statement process you have to study all the reservoir sites and so that's really where we got to the Chimney Hollow Reservoir site was through studying over a hundred different reservoir sites to figure out the best site. Because we actually changed the location we didn't change the fact that we're ever going to store the windy gap water that was always contemplated part of the project and it was always going to be part of the project. But we needed to change the location of that storage. Also there were a number of things over the years that have where we now understand that even the parent project better. We needed to go back into the state water court and basically take what we have and make sure that it's legal that it fits within the confines of the original decree. Also one of the long standing agreements we have with the western slope is that we'll include most of the permitting, most of the agreements that we've done with the western slope and inherently include them in the water right decree so that it's not just an agreement we've signed with them and what happens if we don't, if that agreement doesn't, isn't followed, it actually becomes part and parcel of the underlying decree that allows us to pull water. So everything that's been committed to over the years is included in that state water court filing. A lot of eyes on that water court case on the western slope and we're able to get through the water court case, essentially unscathed and the referee has on July 6th entered that decree. So that was huge. There is a 21 day period, a protest period where for actual opposers, actual participants in the case could come in and oppose the form of the decree but that's not expected because everybody signed off on the form of the decree so it would be unprecedented if they filed but it could happen. But after that 21 day period then the water judge on the Colorado River would sign the decree and it would be a final decree. So all of that will happen before we move forward to the allotment contract. That's great news to have that timing done. That's actually extremely significant and it also in that decree was a decree for the connectivity channel around the Windy Gap Reservoir which is really the biggest mitigation issue for the west slope to get connectivity on the Colorado River around the Windy Gap Reservoir pumping plant and we needed to make sure that how that was going to operate would also comply with state water law and that's been looked at that's gone through and that's included in that filing. So we're really good on that. As far as the allotment contract we have that before you in the board packet it's a fairly lengthy one but because there's two different financing options either a cash financing or a bond financing along that will participate in the project on a cash financing basis but it's set up so you can do either. The final design of the project is completed. The state engineer's office has signed off on it. In fact, they're working with the contractor on some of the submittal reviews. There's lots of equipment, things like pipelines valves, mixed design for the asphalt hydraulic asphalt core, placement design for the rock fill, those kind of things that have to be looked at in the Colorado state engineer's office is working with the project participants to look on that. The Windy Gap Reservoir Connectivity Channel is just completed. It's 30% design phase. That's significant because that 30% design will now go out to bid. And the final design and the construction will be a design build. So the 30% design is really if you want to think about it in terms of a more conventional project, it's done. I mean, the design is done at that standpoint. The design build is because it's such a unique project and such a unique construction that it will help to have a contractor on board during the design phase to help with that design. Biggest outstanding course is the federal suit. Ironically, the final briefs for that case were filed on July 25th of 2019. So we're rapidly approaching within a few days, a one year anniversary of the final arguments in that case. So the court has had it waiting on a decision by the judge for about a year now. Typically, a lot of these types of cases is anywhere between a year to a year and a half. So from that standpoint, we at least are very hopeful that we'll be getting a final decision on that case sooner than later. The current director, as you may recall, is Barnard Construction, large firm out of Montana. They're on board. They've submitted almost all of their project submittals. That's what really holds you up early on on a project. So by getting them on board, getting them on site, getting the contracts submittals in, 75% of those have been approved through both the project review board as well as the state engineers office. About 25% of them still to be reviewed. And those are actually kind of being held up a little bit right now at the Bureau of Reclamation because in addition to the state engineer's office and the project participants, the Bureau of Reclamation since many of the facilities touch their CVT system, which is a federal bureau project. The Bureau of Reclamation has to approve those. So they're still a little bit, they're still working on that. But it's pretty good that we've got the 75% down tonight. I believe we have most of the long lead items already done. So and a couple of the really super long lead items like a couple of the valves were already being acquired because they come from I think one of the valves come from Germany. So you want to make sure you have that. There's a power line for local service. Puder Valley REA has designed it. There's a unfortunate right away issue delaying the installation right now. Not a big issue. Well, the right away was going across the short part of the line goes across private property and the family that owns the land. It was all set up to get the right away signed. And then the family came down with COVID-19. And unfortunately, put that all on hold. But I think we're probably past that now. And I think we'll be able to move on. And then, of course, there's the WAPA power line relocation. And that's still being out. WAPA is not going to has indicated they're not going to do that work until after the federal suit. It's unfortunate because it has nothing to do with the federal suit, the federal suits on the reservoir, not the power line. But they want to wait on that. So that's really the status of the project. And so the projects really, really well primed to be able to start moving forward once the federal lawsuit is resolved. That's one of the reasons. There's really two over overriding reasons that were that the Windy Gap Firming Project Enterprise is recommending we move forward with a final allotment contract at this time. The first is, you know, we're really down to the wire and feel like we need to be ready to move quickly when we're finally ready. And the second is part of the funding for those who are participating in the pooled bond financing is a subordinate loan through the Colorado Water Conservation Board, $90 million. It was actually money that they had loaned out previously to, I believe, it was Aurora for the Prairie's Water Project. That money was paid back a little early as well as some other funding that CWC. They assembled that $90 million and committed it to this project. But right now, with the state's budgeting processors of concern, that it's possible it's unlikely, but it's possible that might get clawed back. And so the project, the firming project, would like to get that money tied up a little tighter than it is right now in the form of an actual loan and execute that loan. But you can't do that until all of the contracts are signed. So the intent right now, the goal is to have all of the contracts signed by October 1st, which will allow the Windy Gap firming project to enter into negotiations with the Colorado Water Conservation Board during the month of October. I'm sorry, did I say August 1st? I meant October 1st. They want the allotment contracts by October 1st, so that during the month of October they can do that negotiation with the Colorado Water Conservation Board and then hopefully be closing on that in early November or mid-November at the latest. So that's kind of why we are where we are. But because of that, we're now we're really at a point where we're going to ask Water Board to make a recommendation. Our intent is in the July meeting to get input from Water Board on the allotment contract, the escrow agreement, our participation level, give you some information on that, and then we will give that to City Council. Right now we're tentatively scheduled for August 4th for a study session. We'll take that to City Council, get City Council's input and recommendation from that. We would then be able to take all of that back to your August Water Board meeting on August 17th and get a final recommendation from Water Board to actually whether to enter into the contract or not. And we'll base that upon the input we get today and the input we get on August 4th will be the form of that agreement that you'll see in August. And then finally in September, we will take all of that to City Council with your recommendation, at which point we would hope to be able to get a final vote on entering into a allotment contract. It's a little, you know, a much bigger deal now, of course, since it's the final contract. Once we sign it, we are committed to participate in the project at whatever whatever level we have. So really, you know, I think everybody, both Council, all Water Boards for 21 years have been on board and supportive of this project. And our biggest question right now is the final capacity recommendation. There's really a couple, couple different ways we we can do that. You know, we've in the past done some based upon all existing conditions. We we know we can participate at 6,300 acre feet will be enough to get us to build out well, the planning horizon for the long planning area. There's kind of an intermediate level, which is 7,500 acre feet and 7,500 acre feet. We've been looking really, really strongly at our funding capacity at this point for the project. And without making major draconian cuts in other water projects and needed infrastructure for a water system, 7,500 acre feet is what we can support from a financial standpoint. And that's a little bit new. We haven't had that in the past kind of being part of the consideration, but it really is now for a number of reasons. The third option is to stick out the current current council direction is 8,000 acre feet. That's where we've actually prepared the contract with. That's where we're in the project with other participants and can certainly do that. And but it would require a little more additional input. And then finally, you know, other, you know, we I can't ignore, you know, some of the climate action climate change, task force recommendations that can't other options. There's things such as if we can't move forward with the final agreement, yes, going that way to go away. We actually might, you know, you would drive us to a higher amount. And if we can get additional water savings, you might be able to reduce them out. But we're not recommending any of those right now because none of that you can really put your finger on and say, we know for sure that's what the future is. So at this point, you know, I'd like to kind of I would make a recommendation that we we look fairly strongly at that 7500 acre foot because that's really where we can financially move forward with the project. So we're doing that 75 and a 7500 8000 acre feet. I think it's a good area to be in. And if the board would like a little more information on that financial aspects, both Barbara Green and Becky Doyle or were invited or on the on the water board meeting today. So if you'd like a little more information, I'd invite either one of those to add additional financial information if you need some. Other than that, I'd be happy to answer any questions on the project or where we are. And certainly would would invite your advice and recommendation to both staff and the city council as we move forward. Thanks, Ken. Marcia, it looks like I know we're going to have quite a few comments here. I don't want to you start us all. Thanks, Todd. I just wanted to ask and I should know this because I was on the phone. But has has PRPA made a decision? And they've they've announced a firm closure date on Rahide of 2030. Did they decide what they were going to do with their extra water or hang on to it? What's the story? So they haven't indicated to me what they what they do. They do know that they do believe they have a little bit higher water need than they thought in the past. I mean, it doesn't even when they shut down the Rahide, they still have water needs. And I can I can weigh in on this. Marcia, what I understand from Platte River is that they are holding at their current participation level. They're seeing this both for their water needs as well as an investment and a major asset that they own. And they understand the value of a firm Wendy gap unit versus a unfirmed. So that's what I believe they are standing at. And I think that's where the board is at this point. Could I just second that? I absolutely think I absolutely think we that's that's the way we should look at it. If we have to scrape money together to get 8000 acre feet, you know, why would you pass on buying something at twenty five thousand dollars when it's automatically worth a hundred thousand dollars? If we decide we don't need it, the city can get a vote. The city they can we can sell some of it and use that money. I mean, it's just this is this is an investment that investment people I mean dream and drool over. I've never seen an investment where it was worth four times what you invest in the minute it's finished. It's it's crazy to give up on anything. Give up on any of it. And if I could just real quickly on that, I know that that is certainly in the West. That's what how most people look at it, right? You rarely get criticized for having too much water. And so I understand that. I think the staff understands that. I do believe we're sort of in a situation maybe similar to what we were when the city was building Button Rock Reservoir. They could have also built that dam another 50 feet higher for what today would be a fraction of the price. But they didn't think they could afford it. And so they went for the amount that they thought they really needed for the short term and the long term of their community. And so and when I when I look at the sort of the complexity of the overall utility and the financing and trying to go to a vote this fall, hoping that the city council decides to put that on the ballot, we're trying to weigh everything on this. And I think a 500 acre foot shift in this particular project is rather insignificant when it comes to water supply. It is however more significant when it comes to the balancing of the overall utility needs. And so that's how we have come down, John. And so I I absolutely understand what you're saying. And but that's that's where we have come to with our overall analysis of everything. Roger, go ahead. Well, I'm unclear exactly what kind of financial pain moving from eight to 7500 is in the only comment with this. I hate to change. Eight. This thing was bodied around six thousand, ten thousand, eight thousand back and forth, back and forth. And I think everybody's comfortable with the eight thousand number. But is there I can't conceptualize how much pain is involved if we stay at eight versus 7500. And I don't know if you can like me around or Dale. I think Becky can probably inform us on that as well as anyone. Sure. So one thing I'll mention is that, you know, when when we had arrived at that eight thousand dollar, excuse me, eight thousand acre foot figure, everything is dollars for me. Previously, you know, there has been a per unit cost increase since then. And so what we found when looking at our overall capital plan, particularly this year as we went through the CIP process for the twenty twenty one to twenty twenty five period, we found that the trade offs for the overall capital plan were very challenging and that we weren't able to do all of the asset management projects needed for other projects in the system, you know, replacing treated water storage and things like that. And those those choices and trade offs and kind of getting everything into the five year plan became much simpler when when we reduced participation to seventy five hundred acre feet, just as sort of a test. So I would say that there are significant impacts to asset management in other parts of the system in order to stay at that eight thousand acre foot level. I've got a couple of questions. One is, you know, we've got quite a few development projects come in that it looks like they're maybe moving towards a cash and loo of water. And I know that I guess at this point isn't guaranteed. They could buy Mac and talk shares or something dedicate those. But to the extent they go on it, if they do dedicate cash and loo, is that I assume you had a projection in there for how much cash and loo would come in. And I don't know if you guys have looked at those projects that are kind of on the maybe coming in in the relatively near term. How much additional cash and loo would come in and how that compares against the capital needs of the, you know, the seventy five hundred versus eight thousand. Yeah, we can. I don't know if you want to jump in there too. We did have we did have a cash and loo projection for this year specifically. And we're still, you know, collecting to get up to that level. And the other thing is we would use future cash and loo to pay against the bonds that we'll issue to finance a large portion of the project. Well, I guess one other question there isn't, you know, we've allowed non historic, let's say Mac and talk shares to come in. I mean, is there a if we wanted to go at eight thousand, would there be the possibility of not allowing, you know, doing a change in that policy of Mac and talk shares, you know, to a cash and loo only option? I guess I'm just thinking, you know, if that would be a way to help finance that 500 acre foot difference. I mean, the hard part, I guess is you don't know exactly when that's coming in and you're having to potentially raise rates or you're issuing bonds. So maybe that's the reason you can't do that. But once again, if there is, you know, if you could move towards the development, paying the cash and loo, does that change your, you know, kind of financial calculation? You know, I just hate the bunch of cash to come in cash and loo to come in. We've let the 500 acre foot go and then we got the cash, but we don't have the, you know, we've reduced our participation at that point. Yeah, so so as Becky just said, we actually did this just this year, significantly increase our projection for cash and loo. What we're finding is there just isn't as much Macintosh out there for people to pick up and the developers are starting to just, our cash and loo is, you know, compared to other cities is lower. So it's not scaring them at all to come in and pay our cash and loo fee. So, and Becky, you can please correct me, but I think we were before we were in the 200 to 250 thousand dollar a year range of projections of future cash and loo. We've upped it to close to a million or so or half a million. So I did just look it up, which is why I was facing that way. But so it's actually in 2019 we had budgeted that we were going to receive 750 thousand dollars in cash and loo and we only received 73. So we're sort of still making up that projection. And you're exactly right, Todd, when we are counting on certain revenues for repayment of the bonds, it's got to be something really secure and something that we know is going to be there to make those payments. And cash and loo, unfortunately, is not quite predictable enough. Okay, the other question I have is, and it kind of gets into the final capacity recommendation write up. The first point there says that Longmont could make ends meet essentially with 6,300 acre feet of firming storage. Can that, and I hate, I'm a broken record on this slide, but does that include the Piesco trade as part of Longmont's water supply when you say that it could meet it with the, it does include that, does it not? It does, yes. So I guess a couple points there. One is we just got done discussing kind of the climate action task force and, you know, Longmont's goal of becoming, getting on 100% renewable power sources was it by 2030. I guess I just bring up, keep in mind that, that trade of water with Piesco is tied to a natural gas fired power plant. So to the extent, you know, and also I think everybody's seeing what's happened to the value of CBT water. To the extent that water goes away, you know, that 6,300 is not correct. So, you know, that's kind of where, you know, like I said, I'm kind of a broken record on this, but that 6,300 in my mind, especially if this goes to the public or goes to council, needs to be qualified. That that is including the Piesco trade and that if that goes away, you need, you know, we're saying if we go to 8,000, 7,500 or 8,000, we're going to need that or more, which would be the Windy Gap firming project at 7,500 to 8,000 and then you're having to do the Union Reservoir Pumpback at some level to probably make up the balance to meet long months build-out demands. What I don't want to lose sight of here is if we go down to 6,000, if that gets put on the table, then we're back to, you know, having to do a huge effort with the Union Reservoir Pumpback and I know, talk to Dale about this, it may ultimately result in having to try to pump it back to Nelson Flanders and keep in mind it's also kind of ironic because then you got more pump, you know, you got electricity demands within the city to use those supplies and how does that fit into your sustainability, you know, the climate action task force. So, I mean, all this stuff is kind of, you know, kind of connected in that regard, but I just wanted to make sure that 6,300 acre feet, everybody understands that's with the Piesco included. If that isn't there in perpetuity for the city of Longmont, the demand isn't 6,300. It's, you know, an increase. It's probably 8,000 acre feet or more that you would need affirming to make ends meet. So anyway, I just want to make sure everybody understands that as we look at this. And Todd, if I could just chime in on that, we certainly have analyzed that as well. And I know Ken is working right now with the folks at Piesco to determine whether or not we can make all or some portion of that trade one in perpetuity. So that's yet to be seen. That certainly could come about. I think the other caveat for all of us to also keep in mind is that the demands that we're looking at are presumptive of going through a one in 100 year drought without any reduction in demand, which I think we would all agree the city would certainly step back on its demands as we head into that kind of a drought. And so sort of like this last discussion, we had lots of complexities in the whole thing. I think what we're trying to do is we're really down to a finessing level of participation. I think the other unknown that we are still faced with somewhat is the final cost of the project. I think we're much closer, you know, having a contractor on board now. But we all know there could continue to be some additional increases. I think the staff is ready to, frankly, I would say we would forego other projects to hold at this 7,500 foot level. Frankly, once you sign a contract, you're done. You've got to figure out how you're going to pay for it. I'm trying to not get us set up where we not only stay at that higher level, but then we have an additional, say, cost increase that hits us. And so we've ran, poor Becky, I feel sorry for her. I don't know how many scenarios I've had to run. It was almost daily at times. And so yeah, we get it. We think staying very close to that 8,000, which was sort of the grand compromise between the 8 and the 6. And Lord knows the last thing I wanted to do was to look at changing that number yet again. But we're very close now. And we're very close to moving this thing forward. I think we'll maintain both a level of participation that will serve this city well into the future. I still think a bit of a conservative side. And as Ken said, there's no way we would ever want to leave Longmont and anything other than a good position water-wise. And so it's never the easiest thing to try to make that sort of a recommendation. But SAF absolutely also appreciates our relationship with the water board. And we certainly want to maintain that going forward as well. I'd just like to add that I would think that going down to 7,500, if staff is confident that it's financially conservative and that it still meets a conservative goal, I would be totally open to that. And I also think it shows a willingness to be both conservative in a financial sense. And let's face it, we're all going to be hit with big costs from COVID coming down the pike. We don't know how that's going to hit us. But also, it's something we can say, we just went through this whole sustainability report and say, well, we're willing to pull back a little bit on this aspirational goal of having 8,000 feet. I think 500 acre feet is not going to sink our boat. So from my standpoint, I could accept 7,500. And I agree with Kathy. The one message I got from council is if it comes back and there's additional costs, they're going to be asking, what does that mean in terms of work that's not going to get done? And to the extent that that 500 acre feet is the runway, so to speak, to make sure that the necessary work gets done and that you've got enough to get this project to the finish line, I'm OK with that. I want to make sure we're responsive to the, albeit I think the cost of the wind you got firming in the context of the overall rate increase is relatively small. It all adds up. So I get it. And I'm OK. I hear John's comments. And I concur with those as well. But I think being here in the council and what the concerns are, and I know what the discussion is going to be to stay at that 7,500, I'm OK with that from my perspective. So anyway, just my two cents. Marcia, go ahead. Marcia, did you want to say something? Yes. My space bar doesn't mute me or when it's supposed to. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it doesn't. Sorry. I just wanted to say this council member doesn't want to let go of that 500 acre fee anymore. If you want to talk about reversible over the last three years, but an asset, as Dale was saying, or somebody was saying, that's four times its value as soon as you pay seems like a hard thing to let go of. And so I want to ask what would be a best case scenario where there was enough without sacrificing anything major to keep it at 8,000. So for example, as I think it was Todd, you suggested, what if we did really well on our cash in lieu? Find some things like that. I will not defeat the entire budget over 500 acre feet of water. But at the same time, I'd like to look real hard. I like having that cushion. I believe that we have a lot of room for additional conservation in the way we use water now. But it's just so valuable. So I'd be interested in hearing alternative plans when it comes before council. And council member Martin, we will be happy to have that discussion. And again, we're trying to obviously look at the totality of all things related to the water utility, as well as climate change, as well as the recommendations coming from various task forces. And quite frankly, the amount of input that we're getting is greater than what we can probably even analyze with any sort of certainty or level of diligence. When you look at 500 acre feet and you look at the firming ratio that gets you down to about 200 acre feet of water, I don't believe that our analysis, engineering or otherwise, can even get us that close to knowing that our over a seven-year drought that we're going to be within 200 acre feet of getting it right. I'd like to think engineers are good, but I don't think we're that good. And I also think we have a number of other water supply options in our portfolio. And I, for one, do still envision the day that we have the Union Pumpback Project because I think it is, even though it takes power, we're also moving to renewable energy to move that water. And so I think Longmont has a very bright future. I also think I'm a strong supporter of the Windy Gap firming project. I think it is the best regional project in front of this city. We need to stay in it to the end and be part of it. And so we're going to get criticized, I think, no matter how we go on this. And we can't really base our decisions on that. We have to base it on the data and information in front of us at the time. And I know staff has done a ton of work on this. And again, we're more than happy to be more explicit with regards to the consequences. And at the end of the day, I'm also, and I know we all are, I'm concerned about the rate payers and our ability to maintain trust with them, especially during a pandemic and everything that's going on. I think for them to hear from us that we're really sharpening our pencils and being as cautious as we can, but still trying to do the best for the long term at the city, I think it's something that they would hope that we're doing. And I appreciate, Todd, I know you feel very strongly about this, as does John. And you guys know, I absolutely respect everything you do and what you're about. John, you've always been sort of a mentor to me. And so help us get through this. We'll figure it out. But it is going to take all of us together, by the way, to get through this and to get through a bond election this fall. And I think we all need to, those of us in the water industry, need to really stay focused on that long term. Thanks, Dale. Anybody else? Any other comments? I'll just say that it's not going to be any of the world to me to go from 8,000 to 7,500. If, in fact, there's a lot of comfort at that level, I hate to bounce the number around too much. But if you're quite confident, that's not going to be a liability with long line. I don't have a problem with going down to 7,500. Thanks, Roger. Anybody else? I guess with that, we're down to making a recommendation. So Ken, we're going to have two, sorry, muted myself. We have the allotment contract, but that's coming back. Is that right in final form? So I guess the question you have is if there's any comments right now on it? Yeah, if there's anything in it right now, and I apologize for its length and it's primarily pretty standard. So yeah, either any comments from the allotment contract or just the general concept of, you know, we're going forward right now. So, but I would say, though, that this allotment contract has been about six months working on it with 13 different participants. So there's a lot into this to get it to where it is now. And we don't have a huge window to do much change to it. But if there was something in there that anybody really had heartburn with, let us know and we'll try to work on that. But I do think it's pretty well. It's in good final form. OK. So anybody have any comments on that document? OK. And then I guess the other recommendation that you're looking for is, as I understand it, it's going in early August in front of Council. Is that right on the participation level? That is correct. So so I guess we need a recommendation from the Water Board to City Council as to what participation level Longmont should be in with regards to the firming project. Is that correct? OK. So I mean, I think the obviously the discussion is it looks like 8000 or 7500 acre feet. Does anybody want to make a motion as to the go ahead, Roger? I'd move we recommend 7500 as our participation level. All right. Roger makes a recommendation, 7500. Is there a second? Second. Kathy seconds that any further discussion? Speak now or hold your peace, John. Come on. Well, I mean, I think you know how I mean, I've said how I feel and, you know, I know where it's going and. And so, you know, I could be, you know, they've, you know, we've already been already been called water buffalo. I agree with that. And, you know, you know what I think, but I guess I thought I've always been a team player and yeah, so I'm. Yeah, I'm. I'm going to support the I'll be with I'll be I'll be on the team. OK, so hearing anything else, hearing none, all those in favor of recommending 7500 acre feet when you get firming storage to city council, say I raised your hand. I opposed. OK, motion carries. Thank you. Now I just got to find my my itinerary here. Next item is eight C is cash and Lou review West. Yeah, so. For the board is the cash and Lou valuation information. So what I wanted to do is just speak a little bit to what's what's different than the last quarter of your review. We have received some Lake Macintosh and all oligarchy ditch transaction data. Those are reflective in those native basin water rights transaction costs that are there and the average was just over 15,000 an acre foot for those and those by the way were acquisitions for people that are going to be transferring. It's not historic long months of those kind of reflect municipal costs there. As we look down on the second bullet there, the cost for new water supplies, water conservation, we still have a 10,600. That's a number that we're working to refine. We're going to we're going to have a presentation following this. We're going to talk about water conservation and hopefully with some time yet this year we can update that. There's a lot that goes into that as we talked about earlier this afternoon. Depending on your amount of water conservation, those costs go up. But for now, we've left that at the 10,600. When you get firming project costs, those are still the same as they were before. We don't have any revised numbers or anything that suggest any different cost at this point in time. What has changed, though, is the value that we've put for Union enlargement and pump back pipeline as well as the button rock enlargement. For those two items, we looked at some additional costs that weren't originally in there and got some updates for things such as property acquisition, planning, and permitting, design, and mitigation. And so we've brought those up. Those are relative to what we would see at Windy Gap firming. And we think that those are a better estimate. And so when you take those collectively, the average of the cost for those is at $17,788, or the weighted average, which reflects based upon a dry yield would be $16,660. And just to remind everybody, we're currently at $17,683, which is the Windy Gap firming project. And so all those things come into play. Then lastly, the CBT allotment unit transfer cost. There was a little over 300 total units that were transacted in the last quarter, the majority of which were to the North Weld County Otter District or to a developer. And those come from irrigators. So those costs averaged $80,549 per acre foot. And then there was no data for May, is COVID related. So those are the real numbers that I think are important to look at. And we tried to hear Water Board and update our union enlargement and pump back pipeline and button rock enlargement cost. And so those are now reflective in that grid. So that's really all that I had unless there's some questions. Are there any questions for Wes on the numbers? Please speak up if you need it. There you go. Now I can see anybody. Any questions? So if not, right now, the Windy Gap project cost estimates the same on a per acre foot basis as our last cash and loo. Is that right, Wes? That is correct. So if we were to stay with the same methodology, we would leave the cash and loo the same at this point. So I guess I would just ask, does anybody want to discuss changing that? Or if not, if we leave it the same, do you still want a recommendation, Wes? Or do we just want to go ahead and leave it? If we keep it the same. You could just give me the exact direction. Okay. Anybody want to discuss changing the cash and loo from the current price, which is tied to the Windy Gap firming project cost? I don't see any. So I guess Wes will just go ahead and leave it at that number for now. Okay. Thank you. Hey, thanks for updating those costs, especially I think that helps us as we look at those other projects as well. So thanks for doing that. You're welcome. Okay. So next item is item nine, which is the water conservation update in Francie. Are you going to handle this one? On my video and not my audio. Yes. And I also did want to, I know we are over. So I wanted to, I just had four short slides that I can go through quickly or I can just email them out based on the board's preference. Sorry, I muted myself again. Do we, I say we just keep going. Does anybody have any problem with that? Let's just go ahead and go through your slides Francie. So thank you. Great Heather, can you share those? Great. So I'm just going to start with kind of two graphs to give you an update. These are both graphs that are in the water efficiency master plan that I extended out through 2019. That line at the top is treated water production effluent. And then the bar graphs are metered water supply. Probably the main takeaway is I created a trend line for that total treated water production effluent since 2007. And you can see kind of, we have had that consistent decrease. And I mentioned earlier in the meeting kind of the different percentage in reduction. I do want to highlight there that there is that drop in 2019. And my guess that's primarily because of how much water we got last summer. We didn't have like a huge increase in water conservation programs. So that would be my assumption. So it'll be very interesting to see what 2020 water usage looks like since this year has been much hotter. Next slide. So we can also look at water use per capita per day. This uses our service population, which is our city population. Plus we estimate the amount of people that are outside the city. It's a very small percentage. So we don't think our estimation is too off. And you can again see, I think this even highlights even more because our water consumption has been going down as our population has been rising. So if we do that five year average since 2007, we actually see a 18% reduction in the water use per capita per day. Next slide. I just wanted to give a little update about how we did in 2019, as well as kind of going through since we're halfway through the year in 2020. What's highlighted in green on 2020, are things we're still working on by what's bold and black that are done. So we did have a few, fewer garden in a box sold this year in Longmont, but I was told the supply actually ran out and they think more would have been sold. Our water-wise seminars got moved to be webinars and then actually we had more folks attend. And we actually did a new water-wise webinar this year focused on rain barrels that was really well attended. So we'll probably continue to focus on that topic area. Already this year, we're close to the amount of slow the flow that we did in total last year. Again, I think that's due to it being a little bit drier this year. Our toilet program has changed. So we used to have our own toilet rebate program and then the flush for the future. So we had about 144 toilets last year. This year we've only seen three actually rebated and with 18 folks being denied. There's probably a couple reasons for that drop. Well, one, we're only halfway through the year. Two, we've been focusing on irrigation rebates and these are new rebates that have started with efficiency works. And you can see we had 70 there, but also much stricter toilet rebate. We are only rebating toilets that are 1.1 gallons per flush or below. So that also may be why a reason that a less folks are applying. And again, both of these rebates have been moved over to efficiency works. We had Paces, the Boulder County program for businesses. I don't have an update so far this year, but you can see the numbers from last year. Efficiency works, we have been doing the multifamily program. We had low participation so far this year due to COVID, but we did have some good participation last year. And we also added a commercial multifamily toilet rebate this year, which has also had low participation. And that's mostly probably due to COVID and minimizing our outreach there. We have a couple of pilot projects between last year and this year. Last year, because we hadn't launched our irrigation rebates yet, an HOA had wanted to participate in it last year. So we did a special pilot program from them, which I'm going to see the impact of transitioning to the MP rotator heads over the next few years. This year we're transitioning on 1.25 acres to water-wise turf. We're in the process of doing that right now. We're expecting to save about 50% of water on those sites. We are also working with the St. Rain Valley School District to do an indoor upgrade to see the impact of transitioning a large number of toilets in a school, which we could apply to any large building. So we're working through the details with them now. Then the last other thing that we're coming up this year that I forgot to mention is that we are attending water resources. Engineers, planners are attending a growing water smart workshop to talk about water efficiency and land use planning at the end of August and September. So that's also coming up later this year. So that's my update. Any questions on the water conservation program? Thanks for granting any questions. Thank you. I think it kind of shows that there's a lot going on as the use is dropping. I think it really shows the value of all the programs, as well as just kind of the efficiency of new fixtures and developments. So thank you. I think it really shows water's being used more and more efficiently. So thanks. Okay, next item is we've got items from the board review of major project listings and items tentatively scheduled for future board meetings. Any questions, comments there? Go ahead, Roger. I was wondering if we can see the details of what the language or what's involved in the bond issue and that I think it's about $80 million bond issues. Is there a way we can get some information on that? I'm just kind of curious how that's going to impact rates, if it passes or doesn't pass, things like that. So I don't know, Ken, is that information available? Yeah, well, we have some information on it. We'll be happy to send that out. And also we'll be bringing it to the August water board meeting. Great, all right. For your consideration. Well, if August is soon enough, otherwise we have some preliminary information we can send you right now. Be happy to do either. Could you do both? I can do both, absolutely, yeah. We'll send out. We did a PowerPoint to counsel not too long ago so we can send that to you. Thank you. We'll do that. John, did you have some? Yeah, Ken, assuming that our 7500 goes through, who is likely to pick up our 500 feet? And I can't remember when we gave up our 2000 and PRPA picked it up. Do they deal directly with us? Or does it go through the, how does, how will that work? Yes, if we're dealing directly with us, we sold the 2000 acre feet of capacity to PRPA for the cost we had put in the project to that point. And we'll do the same with the 500 acre feet. So the 2000 acre feet when we went from 10 to eight went to PRPA all 2000. And then PRPA turned around and resold about 100 or 158 acre feet to Loveland who wants to go up. We'll have a conversation probably with Loveland first. They may very well want to go up. I don't know that they'll want the whole 500. If not, there's a couple other entities that will probably want to pick it up. We'll have to do that pretty quickly after the August 4th meeting with counsel may end up. We may end up having to actually sign up for a little sum of that if we can't sell it all and then resell it then, but we'll be trying to balance that, how that will work versus how quickly we can move it. Yeah, we'll sell it directly to another participant. And then they'll sign an alumnus contract with that much more water. You don't anticipate a bidding war? I don't, yeah, there are actually a number out there that want it, but we have our water supply reviews on that kind of limits the prospective purchasers. And so there's just a few out there. Anything else? Okay, next item, I guess we have informational items and water board correspondence. One note is I want to say thank you to John for continuing his tour of duty here on water board. Thank you, John, and I'm glad for this meeting in particular that you were able to be part of it. So thank you for your continued involvement until I guess the city council starts putting new board members in place, but thank you for your continued involvement, John, appreciate it. So that raised the question I was gonna ask Marsha, Marsha, excuse me, is by next, are they gonna have a replacement? Are you, are you wanna, I'm not gonna be a pan of the butt again next month or what, is there a plan, do we know what the plan is? Yeah, this Saturday we are interviewing applicants, John. So yeah, you won't need to do this. Hate to see you go though. Well, thank you. So I just wanted to say, obviously it's been 45 years ish, and I've learned so much and gotten so much out of this that a lot more than I've contributed, but I appreciate serving with everybody that I've served with the various, I mean, actually, so what I got on, it was, we heard this story was Todd's grandfather was my, was a mentor, and then staff was Jim Sinia and Pete Moore and then Gail and Ken, and so they're on and on and on, and it's, they're great people and they've done a great job and Long Mod has done a, over the years has done a fantastic, long before I was on the water board, done a fantastic job planning. That's why we're really fortunate to have the water resources we do. So thank you very much. I really appreciate it and I'll miss it. So anyway, thank you very much. In just one note, we're still working the details, John. We do wanna have a reception for you just to say thank you for your time. So thank you for all that and we'll, if you're not here next month, we'll be in touch with regards to that reception. So thank you. Like I told Heather, I don't wanna cause undue work to the staff and also any potential for any health issues. So I'd rather pass and tell, you know, tell this is the co is in the distance. Anyway, so I had that. So thank you. Well, I think there were, I appreciate some thought. Okay, well, there were some thoughts maybe doing it with distancing, but we'll run that by you. Make sure everybody's comfortable with it and then we can get it in place when it's the appropriate time comes up. So anyway, with that, that's all I had. Anything else for the good of the order? I don't see any. So thank you guys. I know it was a long meeting but a lot of good stuff today. So I appreciate all your participation staying in there. So thank you guys. Thanks everybody for putting up with a long debate on the climate action task. No problem Dale, did you wanna say something? I do because I don't know. I hope I get invited to John's reception whenever that is and I'm ready to have a beer with you, John, whenever we can have a chance. You are, let me see. We all owe you a great amount of gratitude for all of your service and the pay wasn't the best but your work, John, made a foundational difference to this community and thank you. Yeah, that's true. Well, thank you. I'm always available. As long as the weather stays nice and we stay outside, I'm always available for a beer, physically distanced. So that's not an issue though. Anybody wants to have a beer, physically distanced, I'm ready. Roger knows that, right, Roger? Yeah, we do all the time and John works well, I agree. As long as you're not- Well, thank you guys. As long as you're not drinking Corona beer, that's it. Sounds good. Well, thank you guys. Have a good day. All right, bye. Bye.