 Hey, well, I guess I'll go ahead and have a meeting to order. There you'll go through your local please. Sir, I work at Alarodham. Yep. Allison Gould, here. Scott Holwood. Here. Roger Lane. Here. Tom Bustler. Here. Tim Houston. Here. Nelson Tipton. Here. Wes Lowry. Here. Kevin Bowden. Here. Dr. Tyler. And Council Member Martin, who's not here yet. Um, Mr. Order of Business will be the election of officers. So I'd like to open the floor of nominations for quite a bit more chairperson. I'll do, um, the nominated chair. I second that. Any other nominations? Okay. Here you're done. All in favor of having... I should ask Todd, are you interested? Yeah. No, you don't. Maybe I should give him an election? Okay, thank you. So, um, all in favor of Todd Lane's being the electorate for one more chairperson sitting at the same... I? I. Okay. So that passes. Chairperson Williams, I'll turn it over to you for the election of vice chair. Sure. I would nominate Allison by her role as vice chair. Okay. There's a nomination of Allison. Is there any other nominations? I would nominate, um, Roger. Okay. Roger, do you have thoughts on that? Um, no, I, you know, I don't know. The question I was going to have, does anybody not want to have that, you know... I've been here for... I'm going to say, I'm going to nominate you. It feels like 10 minutes. So yeah, I will decline. At least for a while. Well, Allison, I assume while you're nominating Roger, um, you guys were both nominated, but just like the, I guess, since you were nominated, are you kind of picking your name out of it then, or since you nominated Roger, I'm trying to figure out other... Well, not necessarily, um, staff is speaking to you as being nominated by Roger anyway, so I figured I would go ahead and do it. Okay. All right, um, I guess I'll just, we'll just take a vote on it then. Um, I guess there are two nominations, so, um, we'll start with Roger. Um, all those in favor of nominating Roger as the vice chair, say aye. Aye. Opposed? It's hard to say opposed. I'll say aye, we'll make it three, that makes it easier. Okay, so I don't know, I don't know the protocol on that since there have been nominations while I put it up for Allison. No, I just, all right. Okay, I'll just put on Allison, I guess let me take that back, do you want us to take a vote on that, Allison, or how do you want to approach that? Um, I would suggest that we, um, proceed with Roger. Sorry, I'm going to push it that way, that's fine. So, thank you for both of you guys for being a lot of time to consider that. See you again. With our officers now elected, I'll keep on moving on. So item four is approval of the previous month's minutes. August 16, 2021 meeting minutes. Anybody have any questions, comments on the meeting minutes? If not, I need a motion to approve. Awesome. We have a motion, do we have a second? We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. That's approved. Um, item in, I guess the next item we have is a water status report. Yeah. Yeah. It's not a whole lot, but dry out September. We begin to know everybody commented on this. I'll do a little dusting up there. I saw it. Well, with the same brain creek at Lyons days today of 23 CFS. The 124 year historic average is getting for CFS for this day. The call in the same brain creek is Palmerton Beach, having a number of 5,630. With a priority date of 531 1865. The call in the main stem of South Platte River is Riverside now, having a number of 20,969. With a priority date of 531 1907. Same brain basin storage at the beginning of September. There's 73% coverage. Right now, price up reservoir at Button on dessert is at 6,399.2 feet. Which is 16,028 feet. Down approximately 180 feet per pole. And we're currently releasing 30 CFS. The reservoir is down approximately 1,250 feet per pole. And we're releasing 60 of that. Now we're down to 60. And that's all I have. All right. There's any questions? Any questions for Nelson? All right. Thank you very much. Item six is public invited to be here in special presentation. So there's any public invited to be here? Yeah, nicely. Okay. And then special presentations again? Yeah, we'll amend the agenda to move it. In fact, the discussion to the cash in the line. Correct. So we have a proposal to move item 6A to be part of the discussion of item 9B. Is there a motion to make that agenda change? I second. The motion is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Okay. So the agenda item has been moved to 9B. Item seven is agenda revisions and submission of documents. Anything else? Okay. Item eight, development activity. Wes, there doesn't look like any development activity considerations. Correct. Okay. So now we're to 9A, which is a cash in the line review. Wes? So, yes. Once it's over, the court will be cash in the line review. I will award. I also want to emphasize that we're only talking about in this section, the quarterly review. We're not going to talk about the cash in the line review policy in about last month. We're going to do this. So with that, cash in the line review and whatever we call it, we'll be able to review it. And we'll get to the report in July, so you can also through the submission of cash in the rate of $18,528 per year. We include it in your packet. The details, the criteria for made of water rights, the cost of new water supplies, and CBT. The only changes in those three categories would be in a transfer cost. In those there was 87 units transacted in June at $59,000 a night, I apologize. I just recognized this is per unit. I should have changed these to a per acre foot, so we got a divide by 476. For July, there was 20 units with an average transaction of $58,000 per unit. In August, 79 units had an average of $9,418 per unit. As we call, we've been utilizing, more specifically, the Winnie the Pooh burning project cost, and the most accurate reflection of the water supply projects for cash and water. Again, that remains at, as of today, the information we have at $18,528 per acre foot. So, statifying that the current fee for cash and water I've received is, representation of the cost listed above, and therefore, new suggestions for revisions that are necessary at this time. Following our conversation in our next section, I'll take that information, so that that may lead to a different criteria and ratings for the sympathy. And as of right now, we're still operating the same way we always have, and that will affect the cash and water. Based upon what we've got from the project, it's still a factor. Good. I'll open it up for discussion or questions for us. No, this is maybe a silly question. I don't have the closet to go down the aisle with you and me. So, what happens is, a lot of times, there could be a couple of things that could cause that. I really looked here at this particular one here. So, on this particular one, there was one transaction in July that comprised of 20 units. In June, we had one, two, three, four, five, six different transactions. So, if you think of it as buying one car in July versus seven cars, or one car down seven cars in June. A lot of those transaction agreements occur many months prior. And so, it's a willing seller, willing buyer. And so, things such as somebody has CVT and they needed to market it so that it would be for sure to sell. I.e., maybe a lower price that could be part of it. Could have been a discussion with the seller, which in this owner buyer could have been many months in the making. That could make a difference. It just takes a while to come to fruition. And then also just the supply and demand. There could have been more supply at one point. With respect to the CVT, that cost that we're showing, that's artificially depleted for a unit and not for the consumer. So, the cost in the graphs would follow the 58, for example, $58,000 per unit. Long-bought credits CVT at 0.76 acre feet per unit. So, to keep, if you will, apples to apples, we apply that factor. And again, I apologize for not doing that. But the relative cost of CVT versus the relative cost that we wanted, supply projects are made of basic copyrights costs that are significantly higher. But when you just looked at the CVT transaction costs, they were all fairly consistent with one another and give a date a couple percent. Any other questions? Yeah, awesome. Looking at the actual value of this punch. Someone can say NA and someone can actually have a figure. So, I don't know that necessarily anyone is obligated to give their transaction information. So, if I sold the card to you, I may or may not want to choose to tell you what to send it to. These values reflect people that were willing to tell what their transaction cost was. So, since it's not a requirement of doing that, they don't have to. We have a third party that wants to put this information together so they reach out and say, you know where they're selling these buyers and they're willing to share that information they do. So, that's how I think it's going to be. No, we use Eric McCarty and McCarty and the one or the other which will detect. I probably shouldn't say NA, I probably shouldn't say. Oh, no. Yeah, that would probably get a better one instead of saying NA. Okay. Okay, any other questions, comments? So, staff recommending leave it essentially at the current when you get from any project cost which has not changed. So, if we're good at that, then we don't need emotion, right? I understand. As you may have a problem with just leaving understanding that we're going to have discussion very shortly with regards to maybe changes coming up in December for the time being, everybody's going to leave in a different fashion. All right. I think we're good there, so thank you, Wes. All right, on to 9B, which is the fashion loop policy review. Ken? So, Water Board may recall last month we had a, in July we took the June Water Board recommendation with fashion loop. The city council asked Water Board, staff and Water Board to review our policy and our methodology, how we make recommendations on the fashion loop. We looked at some of the history last month of how we set the fashion loop over the years. And one of the things we're doing in the Water Board write-up is we're apologizing to look a little redundant but we're continuing to keep, like the history from last month, we're leaving it in the Water Board communication because when this thing's all done we want to make sure the public can go to the, whatever the latest document is, we call that up, we'll get the history, they'll get the legal part, they'll get the policy and it'll be much easier for the public to kind of follow what we do and how it's set. So that's why, and as time goes on, this will even get bigger. So I'll just skip over the history because we did cover that last year, excuse me, last month. The thing we wanted to kind of focus on a little more this month is the legal aspects of setting not only cash loop and impact fees in general so we have that conversation. Also, we've got some members of our finance folks here who eventually this also becomes, well how does this work financially? What do we do? There are other areas that we recover fees and costs not just cash and loop. So as we get a conversation, that keeps here to help us out, understand any broader financial aspects of this. Also, here at the head to listen, see where we're going. So before I jump into the legal issues, I just would like to point out in the past we've looked at some of the different areas that we do collect fees. And generally, for a part of the system that's already built and paid for and part of our water system, we collect the funding to kind of equalize when development activity occurs equalize what everybody else in the community is paid for to charge a water tap fee. Now water tap fee, if you think about it, it essentially covers the infrastructure that's built. A good example specific to Windy Gap that we have the conversation probably year or so ago when we first were setting up this policy utilizing the Windy Gap Fermi project is the development community will pay for both the parent Windy Gap project and the Windy Gap Harming project. The parent project, since it's already built, all the bonds got paid off in 2017. That kind of rolled into our overall system and that's the calculation of the water tap fee is based upon the value of the system that they're pulling by an inch. So the development covers that cost in the water tap. Now, in addition to that, we need to go out and secure additional water supply, which is what the Windy Gap Fermi project does. It funds off the Windy Gap Harming project that's paid to the water tap to create firm water. But that is a project that isn't built yet, isn't paid yet. And so that then is covered with cash and loot. So that's where that is paid. And then, in addition, there's costs for the overall, some of the bonds, and Becky, you can correct me, you can help a little bit here, but the blogs, we have a special Windy Gap surcharge that the development community pays for when they take out a tap. So they made up Windy Gap surcharge as well. So it's not just one small window that we're looking at when we talk Windy Gap. Windy Gap is a much larger project against the point I'm trying to make. And then those costs are caught by a couple of other things. So what we're really talking about today is the Windy Gap, I mean, excuse me, is the fact that cash and loot, how we set up policies, cash and loot is currently being used to help make the Windy Gap permanent. That's where we get that money. It is, in essence, it's a, what's called an impact fee, i.e., the development community has an impact on our system. The impact is you've got to, well, you get water because they don't have the full three per feet. So they don't pay that impact fee and they would actually be pulling water from other water users in our system. So that impact fee is what really you're collecting. And there's different examples of impact fees throughout the city, but cash and loot is just one. So at this point, so as we look at the policy of cash and loot, the policy of setting that, this particular impact fee, it will be very beneficial both for the Watermore and for the general public to understand exactly how an impact fee is actually legally important is. And so with great appreciation that Eugene came today, to give us a quick rundown on what impact fees are, how we can and can't look at them, how we can and can't set up, what's legal. So if you want us to go ahead and queue up your... Yes, that'd be great. And thank you very much for the invitation. I've been City Attorney for 12 years. I don't think I've actually ever attended a Watermore meeting. I see you guys come up every now and then for the W&D app discussions. You're the chair representing the board. And as you know, the City Council made a correction to take a look at the methodology and for cash and loot, the statutory impact fees, there's actually a quite simple state statute that gives criteria for how we have imposed these fees and what it can be used for. So that's really what I'm here to give you the legal underpinnings of statutory impact fees. So the next slide. So the purpose is of the statutory impact fees is to fund mobile government expenditures for the capital facilities we need to serve in development. And you needed a statute to do this and I would distinguish impact fees from sort of fees for service. Your basic, you know, water rate, the fee that you pay for plan development review. You know, you're getting a service and immediate service for what you're paying for. The impact fee statute, you know that the legislature recognized that capital facilities are expensive. They take planning. You need to pile your money together before you can pay for it. Oftentimes. And so the city does have other impact fees. We have a transportation impact fee to serve new development to improve the transportation system for increasing population. We've got a recreation building impact fee where you have, you know, kind of poor money and look at the new rec center and the new park has served a new population coming to the community. So, you know, it's a longer horizon for these capital facilities. Next slide. Capital facility, very simple definition. It really is a useful life of five years or longer. You know, you're looking at buildings and water storage projects, that sort of thing. Distinguished from O&M costs for the capital versus O&M. Next slide. So, the statute sets forth the criteria by which you would pose an impact fee. Legislatively adopted so city council has to pass it by ordinance. In this situation, generally out of the world of broad class property, you can have a number of different types of properties. In other settings, you might have residential versus commercial tier you know, you can slice it. I want to get too fine. You know, you don't want to single out particular sectors. That's why what I read has the broad class property. And then obviously the funds received need to go towards defraining the costs of those capital facilities caused by the new development. I think our other impact fees defray, they don't pay the full cost. But you have that flexibility up to the full cost of the new capital facilities. Next slide. The statute gives you some guidance on how to set your impact fee. There's a requirement for quantifying that capital facility and the cost of that capital facility caused by it as opposed to development. This is all about the new development and the capital facilities we deserve. You know, the second one is it's not a profit making fee here. We're looking to defray those costs no greater than the amount of the cost. And an important restriction is you're not fixing things that are deficient. You're looking at new capital facilities that the new development is going to do. So I look at, say, an expansion of our waste water system. That could be an impact fee. It's about, you know, increasing the capacity. But if we have deficiencies in our existing or impact fee, you should not be used to remedy those deficiencies. Next slide. And there's just a couple other considerations that are sprinkled through the statute. No double dipping. That one makes sense. You can segregate them as, you know, we heard Ken explain what we get as a couple different fees, but they're going to different portions of the project. An important one for one of council's priorities is impact fees can be waived for lower moderate income housing, explicit in statute. You know, I think it's important to have this explicit waiver because the statute says applicable to broad categories of property yet you're carving out this small sector of low for moderate income housing. Could run afoul of the broad classes, but now it's explicitly legislatively authorized. And then in terms of timing, it kind of makes sense. You collect it at the time of development permit or thereafter. You can go all the way to certificate of occupancy. You know, that's mostly residential. That's further down the development timeline, but you're not supposed to be collecting it before the development permit is issued. And that's it, I think. Next slide. Yeah, it's a pretty simple statute. It's in the back of about five pages long. It just provides you general guidelines of how to impose legally defensible impact fees. So happy to answer question now or once we get into this discussion on the policy. You know, in a simplistic definition of that. The most reasonable to assess a fee that's close to what it really costs to use quality to provide you charge more, I understand, you know, but if you charge less, somebody's going to pay for it. What have you? Is that a simple way? I mean, the more accurate or closer to represent the true cost, is that where you ought to target? You know, I think there's a lot of considerations. This one, you know, I think it follows mostly in the development phase it's like. And where you do try to, maybe you can cover close to the full cost. I think there are other areas, say, recreation, where you may not, you may be defrauding the cost, but there's dollars going in because it's going to be good and distributed around the city. And then, I mean, you know also well that there's a political will to impose fees on development and how does that affect the amount of development and how development-friendly the amount of ideas and, you know, what the goal is for the community. And so I think you put those all together and come up with a reasonable nature of impact fees and the property of the cost. Any other questions? Yeah, we can get into more of a broad discussion I guess after that. Go ahead. So I'm just curious about like, I don't know exactly how to frame this question. I know that you can't ask for a greater cost than what we expect, or ask for a greater fee than what we think the cost will be in the moment, essentially. Because of course we can't profit from this endeavor. But what if there's a scenario where we, and we were reasonably, reasonably artistic, greater difficulty in securing kind of water, for example, in the future, is it better to kind of, is there a mechanism in place for essentially like a rainy day fund like within city government? I know that within federal government there isn't really. Or at least it's not obvious to me how that works. But is there a mechanism in place by which we collect, slowly collect greater amounts of fees now in order to fray very future costs? Not five years from now, but like 10, 15, 20 years from now and build up that fund today such that then that money is spent greater. Yeah, it does make sense. I think it's a great question. You know, under this statute it was about that in 2001 there are no cases interpreting, so no challenges they impact these. I think your question would go to that language in the statute that talks about a reasonable quantification. And, you know, I've been following the wind gap and there's an uncertainty factor with the wind gap and how much water we need and building up all that. I think that you could potentially collect greater fees in your hard costs now based on uncertainty. And, you know, the only guidance we have is it has to be reasonable. And so, you know, I've seen the justification to prevent uncertainty with climate change, distribution of water, you know, demand on the resource and I think those are all reasonable I think, you know, at some point they'll become unreasonable and, you know, at least the lawyer of these says we don't want to be the testers. So, of testing what is reasonable, you know, I would I'd call it an uncertainty factor not a rainy day just because uncertainty sounds more reasonable. Rainy days sound like you're kind of thinking a little flush one on the side. Well, and if it rains rain rain so maybe what I told you but no, I mean, I think climate change is maybe the point, right? Like, is there a circumstance where we could charge a little bit more now but just a little bit more to kind of build up some future uncertainty fund, right? Relative to 30 years from now when it really pretty dire will now all of a sudden return a lot more or something. And, you know getting ready for this meeting and the whole review of the cash in lieu, talking to the staff you know, some of our uncertainty factors that they're talking about are expansion of Union Residual or fight around. You know, those are reasonable uncertainty factors to have a backup plan. You know, a lot is critical to your community and we don't want to be shaving it too close, I don't think. So, interesting area of conversation and at least from a legal perspective no case law guidance. Alison, do you have a question? Yes, I did and this is just trying to read this carefully. Thank you very much Specifically, I'm looking at in the staff in section 2A there's a couple of lines that are just a couple of words that anyone would like. Yeah. Perfect. So the first one is the existing capital of the series so it looks just kind of quickly with that, right? We're trying to tie to what has been done in the past for those who are through the future and in one journey there's a way to reassess to kind of square a kind of analogy so for example, you think there was been a cost I've said my money is good a lot of money and for example, the library and that same sort of cost that's times two is there a way to clear that or are you stuck with that existing capital of the series? No, I think in fact people can be re-evaluated, can be reset based on new information and new costs and you know, the value of money is reasonable in that and so to the lawyer that means you have a reasonable amount of pretty big discretion on what's reasonable and I know for other impact fees in the city you have studies and justify your costs and so a litigation and time of material and construction costs if those make your costs go up I think you can adjust your estimated expenses and adjust your impact being according to that new information and how it should arise Someone has a similar question to be directly related to typical development similar to the sounds of the US litigation hospital Yeah, I mean I think those are direct costs and final question is would you enjoy the simple legal challenge that is dismissed with some sort of proficiency in the firm it would just be a legal challenge or if there was some kind of success in the legal challenge that that would be proficient in such a way you have excluded from that last 762 act I'll give you a lawyer answer to that it depends on the facts you know, I am thinking about some of those west-west environmental impacts or mitigation measures that didn't get incorporated but if they didn't get incorporated as a part of litigation and denied you know, if I would think unsuccessful litigation would not have any ground on whether it was efficient or not, you know, you lost and the process was not held so, you know, I think it's hard to generalize on deficiencies and what that finding is you know, at least for when you gap in what you know it wasn't about, I don't think the existing matter it was about the legal storage and so, you know I think that didn't squarely in the capital facilities when it was and so it seemed like those costs would be separated from anything that existed when it's about the legal matter or new capital facilities any other questions there we go I have a form of information I guess sorry I'm a little uncertain as to whether I am able to participate in this discussion since I'll be voting on it I have some questions that haven't been asked but maybe I could just listen to this discussion and ask them later you know, this is a legislative matter and I call it a judicial matter so, you know, I could put it off this week especially in that case you know, we've been talking about the expenses, you know the changes in the cost of infrastructure even the cost of the new debt process part of itself but at the present time with the state of New York we have actual uncertainty as to the water supply because the new debt the version there's going to be one of the first to go if we start using the functionality of the PDAs and the water will stay in the Colorado as I understand it so may we and I don't know if it's a Eugene question or a water question but may we include costs, anticipated costs based on the contingency that we can't use in the debt water which has an associated cost but we would have to we would have to use CDT water which costs a lot more than you got applications I don't know I think I could step into a little bit of that so I guess in my mind there's quite a few unknowns, one of which is if there is a compact call how it can be implemented there's new operational rules that are going to come into play in 2026 they're already starting to negotiate those and those may have a bearing March on ultimately the order and how are their shortages and how are they pulled out so I think and then all that kind of plays back to the squirming ratio that we've used in the context of you know what's the if we're going to try to price cash and loo to add one acre foot of firm yield and have the developer pay a cash and loo rate equivalent to the marginal cost of adding one acre foot of firm yield when you get there's risk involved in that right and I guess in a couple of points one is there's risk on the entire system not just when you get but in my mind we're saying when you get maybe as a higher risk and is it maybe back to Eugene's point is it appropriate to add an additional kind of safety factor or whatever word you want to use there uncertainty to try to accommodate or account for that and the only other piece I guess in my mind is as we go into the future I think some of these uncertainties namely the new operating criteria for the Karau River is going to become a little bit more clearer such that then that uncertainty may become a little less in the future but you know does it warrant given their additional risk when you get one beyond what our current firm yield ratio is and two beyond what we feel the risk to the overall water system to allocate an additional kind of safety factor or uncertainty factor to that cash and loo rate to try to account or accommodate that and that in I guess in my mind is where we could try to address some of the issues Marcia that you're bringing up and I don't think it's necessarily going to be binary yes or no it's going to be we're still going to maybe have wet years with obligations to the lower basin states and that allows certain diversions in certain years so it's not going to be it's not at all or nothing and without a lot of modeling and a lot of assumptions on stuff that's going to be negotiated from now to 2026 2026 I don't think we're going to have a good answer for that so you know you're putting a caliber on a putty ball is the analogy I like to use of I think we need to what's appropriate for that level of uncertainty place that and then we can adjust it as we get more information and maybe some of these unknowns become known or a little bit more known so to speak so in the past times the permanent ratio was it recalibrated year to year or was it just based on the first few years of experience or you know it was it was computed somehow so the first thing we have to do is with the obvious changes or the weather that we're seeing in the last few years we acknowledge that the permanent ratio was probably different than it was and second we acknowledge that an upcoming ruling could or an upcoming shortage emergency such as we have now could be outside of permanent ratio just saying you're putting all the water in the block you have to move the power right now because those seem like two separate situations to deal with that's correct the current affirming ratio was developed a little earlier on during the project the windy gas farming project in the implementation the one of the first things during the environmental impact statement preparation by the federal government one of the early on activity was to do combined CBP and windy gas systems to determine that model was done post 2002 which was our driest year so it did have the benefit including the driest year and it used a lot of years of data so that was an excellent prepared model that being said there's certainly no difficulty certainly possible to relook at that affirming project number and see if it's different and also look at some policy around that inside you know do we want to accept it on its face or do we want to apply something for the future that's certainly something that we can do about that okay for the discussion on that item it sounds like we're going to have additional discussions I don't know what your thoughts can on and we had kind of a discussion of this uncertainty or in the context of yield associated with windy gas firming what's an appropriate level of safety factor or however you want to word that based on climate change the state of the Okara River upcoming operating criteria that's being renegotiated with all of those items I think that's maybe the next step in this discussion the way we wrote this up and what we were hoping to do today was kind of taken as a two step process the first thing I was hoping we could do is look at our current ordinance language which we put in under policy in our requirement policy the current code language says the water rights shall be based on water water water water water water water water water supply projects the current market value of CBT the current market value of non-circle maybe facing water rights and so that is kind of the that's what we looked at the quarterly report that's the information that's included in that so there's two takes on really what we're doing here one is do we need to go back and adjust the code language is there something out there that we should be looking at beyond the portfolio of assembly of information we have the second is then you look at the policy of how we set it based upon what we look at so staff's recommendation is really the current language we have in the code I do believe is sufficient we've got we've got face of water rights we've got water conservation we've got projects we've got CBT we have a large window of items that the water board and council can look at except the cash loop I believe that's robust enough I think that helps us then we want to step back if that's acceptable then we can step back inside of that kind of portfolio and say what does each one of those things mean and how do we set the fee so I think there's enough in what the current code language has to look at I mean right now it could be as inexpensive as water conservation which is 10,000 an acre but there's almost half of our current cash loop or it could be as expensive as CBT which is 80,000 an acre but you know much more so I believe there's a wide enough window in what we have in code and then then we can if that's the case and the water board agrees with that then we can go back and look at be real more clear on the current philosophy and look at what some different things are how to review that in that context so the first thing I would ask the water board if the water board's okay would be to let us know if you want any change in the code language with that unsolvable of what we can look at and then the second would be if there isn't or if there is we'll come back what we need to do is what to come back with next month are we looking at code change to include additional additional items to look at or are we just looking at the policy and then once we get to the policy what's the additional information the board might want to make ultimately we'll come out with a recommendation and say to council this is how we think we should look at the policy so I'll throw that out and I guess as my first step suggested step would be to think of just that window of the code is that code language sufficient for what we need to do and then if that's sufficient then we can talk about what additional information we want to start coming back to the policy there are questions comments on that I do have one so the way it's worded now in the policy philosophy is current cost of new water slide projects identified in the C's role in master plan you're right we've got this huge you've got from conservation to CBT I guess where we're going though and I guess where my mind's going is we're talking about adding kind of an additional safety factor so to speak to that do we need additional language and I guess you can speak to this you know what I'm afraid of is current cost of new water supply projects identified in the city of one month draw water master plan so if the master plan it says 2.42 you know is the firming ratio so that's equivalent to this much yield per storage and this is the cost of the storage do we have the capability under the current policy to say well you know as Tom was alluding to there's things coming down the road namely and Marcia was climate change and its impact on Colorado River Basin we got policy another new operating criteria for Colorado River can we fit within that current policy we think there should be an additional safety factor added to make the windy gap on a marginal basis of adding 1 acre foot of firm yield it should be the cost plus 20% I guess that's my question does it fit within that language and if not then do we need to get language back to make sure it does fit within that or give us that ability you know this is long beyond my level expertise I would say on reading that current cost of new water supply by the city I don't know so I don't know in that language there is the ability to insert the margin there the other ones look pretty set, program market value of CBT and non-historical so I mean I think what I would suggest is take that comment recommendation let the legal staff get together and work it out for the next month and you know I think there may be a lot of detail set the attorney to get promotion with to understand what all goes into the current language so I guess so sometimes I like try to put myself into somebody that's paying the cost I think to myself okay well where's that actually 20% right so if something has changed and I notice it and say well okay where's that 20% going so this maybe puts a finer point on the question that I was asking before can that 20% go into bank account or something to because we believe in the future there will be additional costs that we'll have to pay for we'll have to go into infrastructure immediately such that like maybe you all say well in order to deal with this and we do need to expand in your door and so the cost goes directly into that infrastructure or can the 20% so that's maybe a minor so is that can you put it into an account that is for the future you know I think so 20% I'm actually working on the cost of the project this is all public the information there's a 20% of contingency built to deal with infrastructure contracts you know I know it's pretty standard infrastructure contracts have a 10% contingency I think kind of the concept we're talking about in this uncertainty margin of error is the contingency and I think it's pretty standard practice to have those built into contracts I think that the contingency is probably increasing given the the supply chain and all that now I generally think it's reasonable under the impact of the criteria reasonable quantification of the expenses it's reasonable to put it into an account that's what the people did when they planned these projects I do think they want to be restricted funds you know the contingency is going to come true that those would be especially cash and loo they would have to be for water facilities because the other way that I could see getting around that issue then perhaps into the future you say well we have we're fixing this to the cost of Windy Gap firming project water however we recognize into the future that maybe we might have to rely more on CPP water or something given to the uncertainty and so you just gradually begin to progressively do some fractional percentage of each or something so you say well over the next 10 years we'll say Windy Gap firming money over the next 20 years will we anticipate that we're expecting to have to be able to purchase 10% or 20% of the additional proposed water or something from CPP and so you can kind of grab anyway it's a quick comment to bother me a little bit you know again Shell included current costs in the water supply that would be more comfortable Shell means you're going to put that in there regardless a May is a much softer word because we may choose not to use some of these suggested items but I would assume that's prerogative of boiling it down to what you think makes a little sense in developing the market last time we were talking about you know cost to water projects is up and down all over the place to me if I was being charged to be I would like to see something on a more consistent basis rather than well here's a new project so of course your thoughts are going to go you know it just doesn't make sense to me it's too variable I would rather see something that develops consistency to be able to understand but not when a newcomer comes on board all of a sudden that bothers me so I don't think people understand a lot of variability in fees that may come down the road of course you have to go high because it doesn't weigh as well as being reasonable because it's too very violent any other comments go ahead Elsa I actually put this on the one right after Roger's show which we shall include and when I read that there's a list of factors that does not exclude any other considerations so yes while requires consideration of those three elements it doesn't exclude considerations of others with that said I think there's something to be said which is like what's actually going on with consideration where there is some sort of margin of error for uncertainty probably black and white even though I would say arguably so I guess I think if there's a strong sense that there's something concrete that we should consider it should be added but I don't think that if there isn't I don't think it's necessary to change the language because it's not the way talking about the lawyer like that so as far as next step some of you guys will get together maybe take feedback come back to us with something based on the feedback you think will happen I mean the only last piece I'll add that is Thomas speaking is you know we've got Wendigap and then beyond that we'll talk about at least in the context of my mind in the master plan we've got the union so to the extent that Wendigap doesn't yield as we anticipated it will and we add a 20% factor you know if we're having less yield we're adding cost to try to make them pay the kind of marginal adding makes a good that only gets us so far and then they're going to have one month's going to have to start implementing the union reservoir pump back project to try to make up the balance so in the interim the money maybe could even go to pay down the bonds you know use all of it for that purpose and then once that's gone you know we've sold all of the Wendigap yield we have then I think the money that's coming in on Cash and Loo I assume at that point and one that hasn't met its build out and still has water demands coming and it's going to be planning and implementing the union reservoir pump back or whatever that project is at that point so it sounds like we'll get some feedback next month we can consider that in advance of hopefully November trying to fine tune it so that the December meeting we're going to have a new policy in place such that we can set the Cash and Loo whatever we feel is appropriate or a recommendation I should say for the council except the Cash and Loo and then Marcia can have fun with the funds I don't know how many of you guys listened to the discussion by the public about this topic but I would encourage it since you know I'm going to give another bite if it's because there were a lot of interesting things I usually don't agree with the public who has points to make about the water but this time I thought some were going to have fun which I was afraid to be going out of I was wondering if you could identify that and how he distributed it I don't have that information but they'd write it I don't have that so I'm going to have the second regular meeting and it's a lot of fun you're a good writer you like the office what's the title of the office office 14th we'll get that if you could get it imported to the board just a link to the video audio option thanks did you have anything else I appreciate your input and how you can give us more direction of where to go it's a good one again but I don't have it in front of you I'll identify in section 14.05 post 16 the current market value facing water rights. I don't suspect that includes the market value of wind gap units and I don't see where the wind gap units would be considered by a suspect as the project ensures the maybe purchasing sale of wind gap units. I hope I have too many or don't have enough and that's a market based additional supply source that I suspect the city might have an interest in. That's a really good point because the GRP didn't sell some of their units and we have not in the past included that in the list of water rights but that we probably should. Now she got to the point where there's a actual plan there's building going on it'll be more fungible to make this work we've been there's yeah good point we'll hold that down because so far our assessment of the dollar or our assessment of the the cash in lieu based on the based on when you got firming that's been based on the construction the construction of the firming project of the firming project. The native based on the water rights listed here Mackintosh and Overby did. Right. All right so we're on to item 10a which is the wind gap firming project update. Cool just a quick update as you all know the we got the construction started August 6th and ground breaking and the construction started shortly thereafter. Currently they're primarily working on the copper dam, the saddle dam, and access roads around the area. We do have some pictures. We've got a couple pictures so this was taken today so it's pretty current this shows the you're on the apartment on the east side of the reservoir just west of Carter Lake looking down into the valley and you can see the start of the key trench there's a lot of material been moved here they're moving between 10 and 15,000 cubic yards a day so they're moving a little bit of dirt and you can see you can see the start of where the embankment will go on up here and I don't know if you can see it when you get back a little over this picture but you can see some of the access roads and some of the work and the scale of what that is in the next picture. This is looking there's the very edge of where we were looking at this is looking further west you can see the quarry is over here and they're just starting to strip a little bit more topsoil off of the quarry the saddle dam is clear back here generally the reservoir is pretty much you can see the tree line is about where the high water line the reservoir will eventually be if you see here the background this is the Wapa power line that was relocated it's now up and completely functional and the old no power line was completely taken down it actually had to stay because unfortunately some raptors made some mess on and we had to wait till the young fledged in august that's done now so that part of the project's all done new car lines up and energized and then the work going on to the west so good good news they are working also group field sold this bond say where the last entity was settling bonds so group field has now sold their bonds and all of their money has been transferred to northern both to the municipal sub district when you get a permit project so 100 of the funds are have been all the bonds including the pool of financing for other expenses all that's sold all the funds are up in northern for the construction of the project so that's good news as well and also at the start of construction triggered a number of the mitigation payments and mitigation efforts through the permitting process so then about eight to ten million um in uh in mitigation costs a lot of that money's been pushed over some of it went to the state division of wildlife and other other and some of it went to Frazier well Frazier water sanitation district for construction of a wastewater cream of plant nitrogen removal project on their um their wastewater treatment plant which is some of the mitigation for uh to prevent the introduction of additional nutrients into the three lake system so a lot of that mitigation has gone on and uh that's all I got Mr. January who are we're we're taking the project off and it's going any questions on that thank you again um next item 10 v is a st green force health partnership project okay yeah just real briefly on this that's why Barton may recall um city council had ended into a kind of a joint agreement with boulder county and long bond boulder and uh a lot of the fire districts and uh some of the watershed protection groups to do it to do joint um at large scale forest mitigation work locally at morphine do what's called the same brain uh forest health partnership uh project that's being led the public information part that's being led by the pen watershed center which well here are a little bit about that five o'clock when uh when they give their presentation of one of the projects they're working on um but more specifically uh the u.s. forest service um is really getting a good start unfortunately because the u.s. forest service is one of the partners in this overall effort which since they all across the land that blessed here in the mountains um they are required to do an environmental uh review of their project as they would with any federal action they are doing quite well i mean they're they're well into that and they're um they're probably halfway through their efforts we don't won't see or hear much of that because that federal government kind of tends to go out in the corner do their work and then they come back here it is but um it's just going to take any back down before that was you know but um that that aside the left hand watershed center has been um has had a number of um public tours they toured the hallowed fire area they toured the left hand creek some work done down there um they toured the bud rock preserve and we showed some of the forest stewardship efforts we've been doing the bud rock preserve and it's being very well received by everybody that um does an attendance tour and have also been working with uh left hand watershed centers to start doing public outreach that's that's where the watershed center really helps and you know the federal government is or the city or bullet county it's hard for a government to not say hi we're from the government we're here to help but left hand watershed center and they found they have experienced this and improved it comes out bringing this out that has helped so they're they're working hard on getting um that public innovation out and I think you'll hear a little bit more about that so um just wanted to let you know where we are on that unfortunately still linked on the federal EIS you know federal environmental process once that happens um it's still about I think they're I think they're looking mid next summer to have that all their environmental work and then we can start looking at projects and once that happened that's when some real work large-scale work multi-jurisdictional so we get into that and more information will continue to update the whole world on it that's all yeah the little bit about projects seem to overlap a bit with this new climate culture reaching core thing that the that the governor announced this week is anybody I'm just curious whether there's any overlap with with some of the state level proposals yeah there's not there's in terms of overlap of work there won't be overlap of work I could see those state efforts are going to help fund and they're going to help maybe provide if they do a conservation core you could bring that core in to help do some of the forest forest stewardship really honestly some of it is controlled you know is is burn where robert you you want the professionals out oh yeah but also it's going in before you burn you got to go in and clean and clear and grab and cut some of that's just back breaking hard work and certainly conservation cores could be used to help bring some of that material out before you started you know prescribed burn so it doesn't get away from it so yeah I think they could certainly work through that any other questions great thank you then um item 11 a is a remote attendance policy can or what yeah I'll go ahead and just kind of queue it up so there's really two aspects of the remote attendance policy hopefully we'll be talking about today the first the first is real simple the city manager has asked all of the boards and commissions to kind of give him feedback on what your preferences are for board meetings and remote attendance and that whole subject from a long term perspective and then there's the short term perspective with the more recent increase in some of the variants and we want to really ask two two questions one is is the board in the next couple months from a COVID perspective comfortable with continuing to have our first meetings and so that's a short term answer and then the lower term is the board's current policy doesn't allow remote attendance other than carrying a prescribed emergency which is likely to seem better to require emergency to the council you know remote all over for so that's currently what that is and then luckily Eugene's here so I'm going to prevail on Eugene to just kind of maybe silverboard in a little bit on kind of the legal perspectives of having remote meetings and depending on what what we'd like to do you know where we might be able to go yeah so I look at these from an open meetings perspective boards and commissions are covered in the bill of public meetings law and the open meeting law generally says you know government business should be conducted in public there is a right of citizens to observe uh oftentimes we provide public invite and be heard or public comment periods those are not required for boards and commissions they are required by the charter for city councils but I think it's good sort of transparency and community engagement to provide that opportunity so at least from my perspective there aren't a lot of legal restrictions if you guys want to remote or not and I think it really is up to different boards and commissions on their own preferences we've been working with planning zone commission they did go back remote you know that is a good test case because they do closet judicial proceedings with land use applications with property rights uh so there's a higher level of scrutiny and process you know as an advisory board you know you guys generally aren't going to get in trouble um by not strictly complying with the open meetings but I really can bear a lot of discretion through the board to express its preferences and conduct them using the way they want to as long as there's the ability of the public to observe that's all I can just so it sounds like you want this we can just do a maybe a hands up kind of a vote of during covid do we what does the board feel in terms of in-person hybrid or virtual so and then I guess the second question in long-term in-person hybrid or virtual um and I guess that would be um apps in a city-required so the first one is during the covid the near-term situation I guess a show of hands for who would prefer just purely an in-person meeting and um no hybrid or virtual in that situation is anybody built on that and the hybrid model so that would be in-person and it would also have the capability of being virtual or wanted so and then lastly would be just all virtual anybody have a preference for that okay and then no strong preference and then long-term same thing um I guess long-term we're talking about apps and a emergency order in-person hybrid or virtual so long-term in-person and then hybrid and then virtual purely would so you guys get the feedback yeah yeah um and one one uh if I people and one one kind of caveat we would like to to check on the kind of the long-term because all we need to do is come back to some proposed language for the bylaws to you know there is a little bit of difficulty with I'm not trying to make it easier on staff if you make it there's a little bit there's a lot more difficulty if we quote out the public um invited to be fully accessible to hybrid it's identifying them and being able to actually pick it up on the live video record so um maybe like to suggest that the you know a board member who you know if it's like board members going to be you know it's not either not comfortable coming to mean that they are going to be out of town or you know they're a board member and they're only a you know a hybrid means a board member right so public if there's public it might not be heard it's going to be in it's going to be here that's no I think there's circumstances where you can be incapacitated not physically be able to be there but still you're able to participate yeah I think it should be an exclusion for board members okay well we'll we'll go ahead put some language together and bring back that it's going to bring it to look at and you can chill around that okay so I'm good um so we're on to item 11b review the major project listings items been just good look for board being that's in the pack of anything you want to highlight there item 12 is informational items and waterboard correspondence um there's items in the packet if anybody has any questions comments on those I do not see any um item 13a so once again the cash only review will do get in December and we'll have the discussion on the policies in advance of that next month in November and then um any items for future waterboard agendas you want to bring on Kim yeah I don't have any just a huge one uh option if there's one something brought up you don't have anybody have anything there you'd like them to bring in just one I do not see any so with that I'm going to end the meeting thank you thank you Eugene for being here today we appreciate your input thank you for being here I'm happy to best pay you a lot of your being