 I would like to call the June 15, 2020 Longmont Water Board meeting to order. Tammy, could you please start with a roll call? Todd, I'll start with board members. Todd Williams, Chair. Renee Davis, Vice Chair. Board Member John Caldwell. President. Board Member Kathy Peterson, and Board Member Roger Lane. For city staff, go ahead, Tim. Okay. For city staff, we have staff member Ken Houston. President. Staff member Nelson Tipton. President. Staff member Wes Lowry. President. Staff member Kevin Bowden. President. And staff member Francie Jaffe. President. And staff member Jason Elkins. President. And then for our council liaison, council member Marsha Martin. President. Fantastic. Thank you. Great. Thanks, Tammy. All right. The next item is a reminder to the public. Anyone wishing to speak during public invited to be heard, item six on the agenda, will need to watch the live stream of the meeting. Instructions for how to call in to provide comment will be given during the meeting and displayed on the screen at the appropriate time during the meeting. Comments are limited to three minutes per person, and each speaker will be asked to state their name and address for the record prior to proceeding with their comments. Item four on the agenda is approval of the previous month's minutes. As the board had a chance to review the meeting minutes, is there any comments? I don't hear any. If there's no comments, I need a motion to approve the February 24th, 2020 meeting minutes. I move to approve. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Caldwell. OK, we have a motion and a second. Further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed say nay. OK, looks like a pass is unanimously. All right, the next item is the water status report. Is that Nelson or West, who's going to give that? Yes, I'll present that information to the board. So the flow at Lyons at 1.15 this afternoon was 391 CFS. The 124 year average flow on this date is approximately 585 CFS, and that's very close to our peak. Ralph Price Reservoir is currently full and spilling, and we're releasing approximately 170 CFS. All local reservoirs are full or nearly full. The peak runoff at Lyons occurred on June 4th with a peak of 557 CFS. Our normal peak would occur generally around June 12. Union reservoir is full at 28 feet or 12,768 acre feet and we're releasing 11 and 1 half CFS. The call on the St. Verane is a supply ditch with an admin number of 10378 and a priority date of May 31st, 1878. The call on the main stem of the South Platte is Harmony Ditch with an admin of 17290 and a priority date of November 20th, 1885. At the end of May, local storage was approximately 86% full or currently at approximately 95% full. So essentially all reservoirs are full or near full as they want to be. And that's about all I've got on the water status report unless there's some questions. Are there any questions for Wes on the water status report? I don't know. Go ahead, John. I'm sorry, John. Any thoughts about why it peaks early this year? This year has been very non-traditional, not expected. We started to think we were going to see flows over 600 CFS. And for some reason, they just dropped. Then we thought, and so we've been reacting at button rock releases according to what we were seeing and also what we were historically finding. And so I've been in constant communication with the water commissioner. And we're all kind of perplexed as to why it was such a yonder of a runoff this year. We had good snowpack above average. And all indications were that we were going to have a fairly substantial runoff. We had hot weather there earlier at 90 degrees plus, which would have normally led to some higher flows. But for some reason, they just didn't come out that way. And so this year has been like none other that I've experienced at least in the nearly 28 years with water resources. And so I think the ground was just taking a lot of that water before it was accruing back to the stream. I think that was part of it. We've kind of seen a little bit of a resurgence in flow since last this weekend. I think that was a complement of these higher temperatures. I think we're scheduled to get about mid-90s tomorrow and 90 on Wednesday. So I think we'll probably see another little bump in flows. But I do believe our peak that we saw on the 4th at 585 was probably going to still remain our peak. Bernay, go ahead. Yeah, so I have a question, and it's not so much about water supply, but it's water demand. Are you guys seeing anything different with the COVID situation? So similar to the stream runoff, when it got hot there earlier in May, the plants seen a fairly high peak, a daily peak. We would normally be running at that time around, say, 20 or 22 MgD. And we were going between 26 to 28 million gallons a day. But within a week, it went back to normal. And since then, the flow rates have been near normal or below normal. So I'm not 100% sure the cause of it. But that's what we've been seeing, is below normal or just barely at normal flows at the plants. So the reason I bring this up is at Denver Water, we've got some AMIs, some rapid bead meters, distributed in multi-family and commercial and all of that. And so we're monitoring our situation. And then, of course, we've got the monthly data. And we're seeing residential is like humming along at like 20% above normal. And then commercial is way down. And I was just wondering if you guys, our overall is up, though. Like the residential being is such enough of a mix, even in Denver, that it being high is enough to offset commercial being reduced with everything shut down. And I just wanted to share that nugget with you guys, because it could be a big water year. Yeah. And we'll talk a little bit about our water demand. And when we do our water supply and drought management plan, but so far, it's been about average or about what we've been expecting. But every time I think I've got an idea of what's going to happen, it's definitely changed. So we'll find out in July if my story is still true. Right. Or the weather could change and everything changes. But just thought I'd share that, too. Thank you. Thanks, Renee. Anyone else? Kathy, Roger, any comments, questions? OK. Thank you. So next item is the public invited to be heard in special presentations. So I'm going to go ahead and read this little statement here. For any public wishing to speak for public invited to be heard, please call in now. Here. The following. Excuse me. We're having problems with the live stream. It is not connecting for me. So this is sort of a moot point at this point in the meeting. If I do get it running, I will let staff know and perhaps offer another opportunity toward the end of the meeting, if that's all right. That's fine. We can just postpone the public invited to be heard until I hear back from you. Very good. OK. That's fine. All right. So if we move on to item seven, agenda revisions and submission of documents. Ken, do you guys have any additional items or revisions? I have none. OK. So item eight is development activity. We have two items that I think they both need recommendations by the board to counsel for approval. Is it Wes or Nelson going to go over those? I'll review those with the board. I can take singularly or take them both together. However, you all prefer. But let me share that information. The first one was Sugar Mill Paired Homes Final Platt. That's a 17.43 acre parcel. The historic water rights were transferred at time of annexation. And after the application of the historic water rights, there's left a remaining deficit of 50.739 acre feet. Sugar Mill Paired Homes Final Platt is being developed for 112 Paired Homes. And we've had some preliminary discussions that they may be looking at doing cash and loo for that. But that's not been decided for sure. The other item in front of the board today is springs at Longmont Final Platt. That's a 25.703 acre parcel. It's located south of Highway 119 in east of Countyline Road. Historic water rights were transferred. And after application of those historical water rights, left a remaining 68.602 acre foot raw water deficit. That particular development is being developed for 212 unit multi-families. And they too are thinking that they're going to do cash and loo. And to give the board a sense, if both of those developments come through with cash and loo under its current rate of $17,683 an acre foot, those would add up to $2,110,000 approximately. So we might get a surge of cash and loo. But that will be determined. And that's all I have on those, unless there's questions on either of those. Are there any questions for Wes on the two developments? If not, why don't we take them one at a time? We'll need a motion to the council for approval. The first one is a sugar mill pair homes final plat. Is there a motion to recommend that the water requirement for council approval? So moved. John? OK, so we've got a motion. We'll say Roger motion. John seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed say nay. All right, it carries. Why don't we go ahead and do the second one, which is springs at Longmont final plat. Once again, I need a motion for recommending the water calculation to the city council for approval. I move that we recommend that for approval. OK, we have a motion. Is there a second? I'll second. OK, Renee has a motion. Kathy with a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? OK, carries. OK, let me see. So the next item that we've got is under general business and is the city of Longmont's 2020 water supply and drought management plan. Wes, it looks like you're on a roll here. All right. So what's included in the packet is the same information that came to the board in their informational packet prior. We did not update this is what you have, but the overall recommendation is the same. So I'm going to go through and hit some of the highlights if you want to talk about any of the details. Let me know. But I think all the information in there is relatively clear. Back in back last year in 2019, we were in a sustainable conservation level drought response. We remain there to date. Last year, our total water supply available was 22,709 acre feet, and our demand was 15,356 acre feet. Typically, the board would have reviewed this back in April or May, and we would have had some snowpack information. There is none updated. That snowpack has already basically ran out. We've got just as a reminder, and I'm just going to cover the sustainable conservation level pieces if we want to talk about level one, two, or three we can. But the description of drought supply response for a sustainable conservation level speaks to looking at the storage volume in Ralph Price Reservoir. Again, as I reported earlier today, we are full and spilling. And that's what we were projecting to have happen no later than July 15 of this year. The second criteria was that the raw water supply availability projection for the current mixed water year was at a level greater than 135%. And you would see that when this plan was produced, it was at 150%, and it's actually slightly higher than that now. So we've met those two criteria that would keep it in the sustainable conservation level. I want to jump to kind of our tables. There's a table A and a table B, where we kind of detail some of the specific items. In that table, we had a CPT quota declaration of 70%. As I understand, the northern board is considering increasing that another 10%, which furthers our water supply available. But at the 70%, our current direct flow water rights are yielding approximately 7,300 acre feet. Our 1929 transfer decrees are projected to yield around 1,300 acre feet. Our pipeline decrees at 1,800 acre feet. Our transferred reservoir storage decrees, that's basically Pleasant Valley Reservoir, is a little over 1,100 acre feet. We have about 4,200 reservoir storage available for releases. That would be out of Bud and Rock. Transfer water rights, we had just over 12,000 acre feet. Again, that would go up an additional little over 1,000 acre feet if the board issues that 80% if and when they issue that additional 10% quota, taking it to 80%. We show our projected carryover between years. That's what we do each year. We like to carry over the maximum amount of CBT to put us in the best position possible for the following year. So we try to reserve if possible 2,800 acre feet for that. And then we have approximately 1,000 acre feet for water rental and leases. So our total projected water availability is 24,000 acre feet. And right now our demand is projected to be 16,119 acre feet. And so that's kind of the table A details, the table B details. Again, if you were to look at that, I believe it's page 27 of your packet, we were projecting to be full on July 15th, and we're there. And we have full intentions of remaining there, which puts us in that sustainable conservation level, which asks it to be greater than 90%. So there's really not a lot to say other than we're in a good position. We've got our reservoirs full. We've got a robust CBT amount of trans-basin water to available for us. And the water demand is looking to be average so far. If it even if it goes above average, I think given that we're probably, I'm guessing, closer to 155% of supply to demand. And knowing that we need to be within 135%, I think we've got a lot to be able to give and to still be able to remain at a conservation level status. And so that would be staff's recommendation. We're planning to take this to Water Board in July. I believe it's July 10th. And to City Council for their acceptance. So what we're looking for here from you all today is to accept the drought plan as presented and to recommend that we pass this on to City Council. Thank you, Wes. Is there any questions for Wes on the presentation? I can make just a couple of comments. So that 10% quota that Wes was talking about did get approved last week. So that will be about 1,000 acre feet of additional CBT water available. Maybe a couple other notes. They are kind of on the border on whether or not they think the CBT system is going to fill, or I should say spill or not. And that's depending on whose forecast you want to believe in. I think most are still suggesting they'll spill, but it'll be relatively small amounts. But with that came the decision that they're not going to pump Windy Gap this year. So there will not be any yield specific to the Windy Gap project for this year, given all the storage is full. So just a couple of notes there. If there's no other comments as Wes recommended or suggested, we need a approval of the drought management plan and a recommendation to the City Council of a sustainable drought conservation level. Is there a board member that would make that motion? I'd still move. OK, give a motion. Aldwell. All right, John seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. Great, that motion carries. All right, so we're on to item 10. Which is items from staff. The first item is 10A, water smart, water and energy efficient grant funding update. Francie, I think you're going to handle that. Yeah, so the board last September provided a letter of support for application for the US Bureau of Reclamation's water smart matching grant for applying for funding for the AMR, a transition to AMR meters. The city did receive that grant funding, but I believe primarily do, I'm guessing, they didn't say specifically why, I'm guessing it is probably related to COVID, but the USPR is greatly delayed. So even though we received notification that we received the award a couple of months ago, we will not have our next steps meeting until October. Just wanted to thank the board for their letter of support. Great, thank you Francie. Is there any questions on that? Wonderful, well thank you for that update Francie, appreciate it. So item 10B is the water resource engineering projects update. Jason, are you going to handle this one? Yes, sir. So I just want to let the board know that we, as of today, we've issued notice to proceed to the CNL water solutions for the access point installation for the South St. Verne pipeline. As I may have mentioned before, we're currently doing the rehabilitation project on the South St. Verne pipeline, and there's some stretches in there that are like 2,000 feet long and they can only jet and vacuum within like a 500 foot reach. So this phase of the project, they'll be constructing temporary and permanent access entry points. Typically consists of installing a type of vault, which is a fancy way of saying a manhole. So we'll issue the notice to proceed and they should get the vaults on order. Hopefully they'll have those for the next six weeks and we'll be installing them in the coming months. We're still on schedule to have the South St. Verne pipeline rehabilitated in service by the end of this year. Currently it is on schedule and on budget. A new development is the South St. Verne pipeline pump station project. Prior to this meeting, it was just kind of a concept, just kind of an idea that we had and it's now been greenlit for the FEMA PAP funding that we have. That PAP funding is on the order of $800 to $900,000. And so we've decided to make this project a priority for that PAP funding. And the project is estimated to be around $3 million, which I know is a lot, but we're going to defund some other lower priority projects in order to fund this one. One of the main reasons we really like this project is it really does compliment our South St. Verne pipeline rehab project. The goal is to be able to pump water from the South St. Verne pipeline into the North St. Verne pipeline. This will be extremely beneficial, especially in the wintertime when we're trying to use some of our senior water rights and not having to convey that water into the Highland Ditch and deep with icing and debris. So anyway, we're hoping to have this project completed. It has to be completed by the end of next year, but we suspect that the majority of the project is going to be planning and permitting land acquisition. The actual construction of the project should be no more than a month. So any questions on that? Any questions for Jason? I actually have one, Jason. So it looks like you've got what 2.1, 2.2 million in funding that you'll be moving around to fund that project. Is that right? That's correct. And it won't just come out of water resource projects. There's other water utilities and other CIPs that probably be defunded as well. Okay. And I guess I ask, I know one of the concerns on the Windy Gap firming side is what the ultimate cost is and whether or not there's, if the cost goes up on that, that you'd be in a similar situation where you'd have to potentially move funding around. So I don't know, is there still, I mean, there's still kind of quote unquote optional projects out there that could, and I don't know, can you maybe give an update on the latest Windy Gap firming project costs? But I know that's a concern of the council. So just want to be kind of aware of it or what flexibility we have within the budget. Yeah, absolutely. So the goal of defunding other projects to fund this one would be with the intent so that we don't have to reduce our budget or Windy Gap participation just because of this project. And so we're meeting with Becky Doyle, Barb McGrane and Dale Reddick-Maker later this week so that we can discuss which projects on that list that we could potentially defund for this year and next year and push those out two to three years. For example, we have about $600,000 next year budgeted for the upper Northline access improvements. That is a priority project, but that would be something that we could push out two to three years. There's no immediate need to make those improvements just yet. And so by freeing up money from smaller projects like that, we'll be able to make up that difference of around $2 million. We're also going to do some value engineering of installing two pumps, potentially just install one pump with the ability to add a second pump at a later time. So there's going to be some careful consideration as to how we're going to do this, but it is our intent not to have to decrease our participation level just because of this one project. Thank you. And then whether you go with one pump or two, you'd still have enough expenditure on the city side to get the $800,000 to $900,000 in federal funding, is that right? Yes, that's correct. Okay, thank you. Any other questions on that for Jason? My question was the same. Okay, great, thanks Renee. All right, so the next item that we've got is the Windy Gap Firming Project Update, Ken. Yeah, I'll go ahead and cover that. Couple of areas I wanted to cover. The first is the legal aspects of the project. Still haven't heard anything on the federal cases. So that's on kind of perpetual hold. We hope to hear someday. So on the state, water rights finally know, it's looking better all the time. All of the objectors have now settled. We've got settlement stipulations with everybody. That opened up basically the arena to draft up and submit the final decree. As in any water rights case, the final form of the decree is fairly, closely scrutinized as well. And so currently the other participants in this water, the state water rights case are reviewing that. And we're hoping that that is getting very, very close. So that'll be a major victory that really almost any time soon, we hope that will be moving forward. One other related item is the connectivity channel around the Windy Gap Reservoir on the Colorado River. That actually has reached 30% design this last month, which is kind of one of the initial milestones. Once we reached the 30% design, the proposal is for this particular project is to get a design build firm. And so the next step for that project is getting a design build team together. So Northern staff are putting together a request for qualifications and proposal to get that design build team. That helps in the design process is a pretty specialized activity that's gonna go on to build that connectivity, so it'll be very helpful to have a contractor on board as that goes forward. A related item is that there's been a formal request put in to extend the deadline for, so part of the funding for the connectivity channel, a large part of the funding is coming from the natural resources conservation service of, so it used to be SCS, Soil Conservation, the federal government. And that has a deadline to be completed and it's gonna be really hard to meet that deadline. And so for a number of reasons, it's felt that that might be able to be extended for a year. And so hopefully, so that's gonna be a formal request that's put in on that. Then jumping back to the actual Windy Gap firming project, as you're aware, the contractor Barnard Construction is on board and they're actually working, they're doing some site prep and some cleaning and grubbing. But mostly they're working on project submittals. So far, we've got about a hundred project submittals and done and approved, ready to acquire material and only 25% to go. So about three-fourths of the way through the project submittal process. It's a pretty extended and lengthy part of a large project like that. Still continuing to try to work with WAPA on the power line relocation through the site. I totally understand it, but they're saying, they can't move forward until after the federal lawsuit, even though the federal lawsuit has nothing to do with relocation of the power line, they feel that there's enough of a nexus to the power line relocation with the project that they are, the WAPA is uncomfortable in moving that power line until after that federal case. So I get that, I understand that. And actually, if for some reason the project couldn't go forward, then we wouldn't need the power line removed anyway. So unfortunately, that will be difficult because that'll be in the way of moving forward with the project once we do get the federal lawsuit taken care of and are ready to move forward. Larimer County has asked the project to, I'll just say, refresh the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Chimney-Hallos construction site. Larimer County chose or decided they did not need of 1041 permit for that site because essentially anything that would happen in that 1041 permitting process had already been worked out and prior with the participants and Larimer County, and of course Larimer County is anxious to get the project done so they can open their Blue Mountain Recreation Area, open space area. But they are asking to refresh that IGA just to reflect any changes that have occurred in the last four or five years since that has gone forward. Probably the biggest thing that's happening right now, well, it's not the biggest thing but it's the most significant thing I think Water Board needs to know is that since about last January and February, we've been working on the form of an allotment contract that all of the project participants will find. You know, when it actually comes down, once we get a permit, once we're ready to kick off the project, once we're ready to start the financing, we'll have an allotment contract, a final allotment contract. We've been doing interim allotment contracts since then. That allotment contract is actually coming along pretty good and is close to, is probably, you know, well, more than 50, it probably goes to 75% done. We have additional, it got obviously similar with everything else in COVID. It got slowed down a little bit last month, month and a half, but it is getting kicked back up again and we really expect to see that this summer. As such, I'm not sure it'll be July, but it may very well be. We'll be bringing a draft copy of that allotment contract in for Water Board to review and possibly starting to initiate the final project participation, details, capacity, financing, and those kind of issues. So I'm not sure, I won't promise that it'll happen in July, but I believe it might actually start in July. We're getting, we're kind of getting that close, getting much closer on the allotment contract. And once that happens then, you know, it'll be a fairly quick, well, it won't be real quick, but it'll, we'll need to start quickly on that allotment. And so we'll want Water Board well, well-versed on that before we actually come to you and ask you to make a final recommendation on that final allotment contract. So I think that's all good news and things are progressing well. So that's all I have right now. So I'll be happy to open it up if there are any questions. Are there any questions for Ken? I don't see any. Okay, thank you for the update, Ken. All right, so next item is 11, is items from the board. The review of major project listings and items tentatively scheduled for future board meetings. And I guess 13 kind of relates to that. We have the cash in lieu that'll be revisited in July. Is that right, Ken? Yes, that's correct. We just didn't quite get all the data this month, but we should be ready next month to do that. I guess along those lines, I have not heard any changes to the budget for the when you got firming project. Is that correct? Just since we missed the last cash in lieu date. That is correct. We do not have any additional. And we probably won't have any real revisions on that unless we miss, we've obviously missed the April project start date in the bidding process. There were two start dates, one in April and one in fall. Certainly we're hopeful that the federal case will get down and then we'll be able to meet that fall deadline. That would be kind of the next critical thing. If that doesn't happen, then we'll be negotiating with a contractor for a new bid price. And that then would adjust that when you get project estimate. Okay. Is there any other, from the rest of the board, any other questions, comments on the future? There's a listing in the packet of water project status report. Any other questions, comments from the board? Okay. Hearing none, the next item is the informational items and water board correspondents. Does any of the board have anything? If not, I do. And let me get my notes here. I just, I don't know if everybody's aware, but this is John Caldwell's last water board meeting. He's term limited. And I just wanted to personally say thank you to John. He's been, he's given, he's been a wealth of knowledge. He's given a lot of his time. And I was looking at the water board a little right up. And the best I can figure is he's been involved on the water board or the liaison to the water board from the city council for almost 40 years. I just think it's a testament to, you know, the civic duty he's felt and the amount of time and effort he's put forth to the city. So I just personally wanted to say thank you. I talked to Ken and I'd like to, and I ran it by John, I think he's okay with it, is if we can figure out a proper social distancing way to do a reception, to say thank you for all the time and effort you've spent. John, we sure like to do it. So I think Ken and staff are gonna work on that. I'll be in touch with the rest of the water board as we get hopefully some details on that. But I just wanna say thank you, John. It's been a pleasure to work with you. And I just, I really admire the work that you've done for the city. Thank you. Well, it's been a real, I don't joys the right word, but I think I've learned, I've gotten more than I've given put it that way. And starting with learning the water board was like 15 years old, 16 years old, 16 years after the home rule charter when I got on the board and Todd's grandfather and Melton Nelson and Larry Flanders were the ones that really taught me a lot. And Jim Sinia was the staff person at that point. And there's been a lot of water under the bridge. Since then. And I just wanna thank everybody on the city staff starting like Jim Sinia and Pete Moore and now Dale and Ken and Nelson and Wes and Kevin like to thank them for everything they've done. And Tammy and the secretary have been with the water board with the water board and also the chair such as Dennis Jan, Dennis was chair for a long time and then John Bruning and now Todd. So thank you very much. It's really been, it's been a real privilege for me to be able to be on the water board. So thank you very much. Thanks, John. Is there anything else that any of the board members have for the kind of good of the order? If not, do I need to check back, Tammy? Do we need to revisit the public invited to be heard? Is that a possibility or are we, if not, I think we're ready to adjourn the meeting. Chair, I was not able to recover that opportunity. So, and my apologies to the board and city staff. I also failed to present Wes's presentation. So I was in the midst of trying to get this stream up. So, no, you do not need to do the public invited to be heard. You are welcome to adjourn. Wonderful. Well, thank you all and thank you, John, for all your service over the years. Have a good day, everyone. Yeah, thanks, John. Thanks, Todd.