 Go ahead and get the meeting Called the order Todd Williams here John Caldwell president Kathy Peterson here Renee Davis here Roger Lane here Ken Peterson here Nelson Tipton here West Lowry here Kevin Bowman here Francie Jeff Jason Elkins Heather McIntyre is here Here Next item is approval of the previous months minutes for January 27th 2020 There any questions comments? If not, is there a motion to adopt or approve Motion to have a second motion in a second further discussion Hearing none all those in favor say aye Opposed thank you the water status report So today the flow of the same-ranked Creek at the landscape at 8 a.m. was 2023 CFS with an historical average of 15 CFS for this date For all price reservoir by rockers there is at 6387 feet which equals 13,400 acre feet so down approximately 2,760 acre feet from four and we're currently releasing 20 CFS from Union reservoir each item is at 23.58 feet which equals about 9,000 So and we're really seeing 5 CFS roughly Call on same-ranked Creek is Union reservoir had been numbered 19,671 with a priority date of 10 6 1902 So Union still in priority, so we'll run a little bit of water We've got some icing issues But other now we're back kind of running Taking all that we can The call on the main stem of the South Platte River is Burlington ditch have been numbered 22,239 With a priority date of 11 21 1910 Currently no call affecting district 5 local storage at the end of January It's approximately 71 percent of average and then Snowpack West will go into more detail on the snowpack under water supply update Of a Colorado's roughly 118% South Platte is 129% and same-bran is between Any questions All right, thank you Next item public invited to be heard or special presentations Public that would like to be heard today Okay, I brought an article this is the science journal research article that's been in the news lately about the Colorado River There was one on KU and C KNUC had it a couple other places that this is the the science magazine American Association of Advancement of Science. It's actually a research paper And so I was going to ask that All of you get a copy? I brought some of this Yes And so yeah, that's more understandable But this has got all the great. Well, thank you Okay, and you said there's no special presentations Okay, that's item five items six. Is there any agenda revisions or submission of documents? Yes, I have one for the legislative update I know I would like to give you legislation To look at that board that this bill is one sense We can handle it This is actually House Bill 20-1164, so we'll talk about that in the legislation. Okay, thank you. One sentence, but it's a page one. Next item is the development activity, it looks like. Wes, you got your hands full. Yeah, so there's a number of development activities in front of the board today. We have five different ones requiring board action. We can be able to do them separately or all together, whichever you want. Well, they all take recommendations, right? So I wondered if we could do them one by one and do a recommendation on each. That's good. And then we can just work our way through and then we can maybe talk if there's any major comments. We can talk one by one. I got kind of a comment all over the long run. We can go through them one by one and start. So the first one in front of the board is Sugar Mill Annexation. This is 17.44 acre parcel located in South Gray Rest from your right in West Bees County on the road. There are no historical water rights burdened to the annexation. The four of the Sugar Mill annexation is presently in compliance with the raw water requirement policy. At this time, we'll be at time of final flat with satisfaction of the 52.32 acre foot deficit. Additionally, I understand that the proposal for this annexation would be to put in approximately 112 paired homes. So. 112. Paired homes. What is that? Duplex. Yeah, it's probably going to be like your duplex or something like that. What is there now on that piece of land? Right now, I don't think there's anything this way that's being annexed. I drove out through this morning and I was really curious because it's a... I was trying to figure out exactly where this 17 acres is because basically it's one of the great western holding ponds. I mean, it's cattails. So I was just, well... I mean, again, this is out of our bailiwick, but it just was kind of strange to me that unless they're going to... Yeah, between wetlands and between... I'm sure they know what they're doing, but I was just curious to speak to what's there now. It's a wetland. There's trailers and nothing else. There's a lot of storage out there, too. That's just on the east. There's a kind of a quonset thing that's just east on the east side of this. I was amazed how many residences there are down there along Great Western and south of Great Western. I didn't realize how many people were out there. I don't know anything about the annexation. I know about the Great Western. I'm going to develop myself here. But, again, that was just curious to me. Which doesn't even do with our role. I think they're planning to bring up Platt, DRC, and probably Watermore in the very near future. So we do have a little bit more detailed information, but certainly they would have to comply with whatever... Oh, of course, of course. Yeah, it's probably... What we've found is most of the lands that have yet been developed are that way for a reason. Is there not the easiest to develop? So this sounds like... Could be. So on this one, we won't know until later probably what they do in terms of cash and lure. I mean, they don't have any native water. So it's all going to be cash and lure, Mackintosh, or something along the way. That's not a story. I would not be summarized if it's cash and lure. Okay. And then, I guess with regards to the water supply demand analysis that was done, I assume this was included. I mean, all these were included within that. And I guess what I'd be curious if there was big land use changes from what was modeled in water supply and demand in relation to what's actually coming in. So I don't know what this was, this plan land use was. I didn't have to write that down. As I recall, it's the same land use that was prescribed to what we did in our analysis. So it's probably similar. It's okay. So all the land use we used in the water supply demand, based on the vision long mark approach, would have to be the same land use, unless they apply for land use variance, which has had several lessons. And if I remember it with the vision long mark, the only big question was they had some that were pretty flexible. Yeah, they were flexible. So how that was modeled in relation to what actually we see in it being an excision. You may not know a lot of that. Yeah, some of these come through. They have an ambition used to know that it can be a number of things that realize what actually happens. And we've known that would not be realized or understood until the point. But I guess it does follow. I mean, if it's duplexes, triplexes, I mean, it's still more dense development. It's not. Okay. All right. Good question. Were you the one who was out there? I said, I'll call you out early on. Joe Bell, is there a homeless encampment out there? There's one right there somewhere. And I was wondering if it's still there. Oh, I didn't drive. I basically was, I was right. I was just driving along Great Western Drive. Okay. And there's actually a road. It's pretty interesting. There's a road that takes up Great Western and goes down to this, it's not a quonset, but this storage unit that's just, it's off of County line. It's kind of an interesting mix of stuff out there. So I had a question, Marcia. Where is the, in terms of the second development setback from St. Rain, where is that still in discussion or is that part of regulation? Where does that discussion at? It is part of regulation that there is a 150-foot setback for any development. There is, well, it's stretchy, but it's essentially a checklist of things that you would have to satisfy in terms of benefit to the city or benefit to the environment if anyone wants to apply for a variance to that setback. So it's regulated, it's in code, and the default is 150 feet. On each side from the tree line. So it's pretty far. Okay. Any other questions or comments? Otherwise we need a recommendation. All these take recommendations, right? That's correct. To counsel for approval. We're going to see it here. What's that? Oh, there we go. Urban. Urban. It was always on the move there right now. Wouldn't just wouldn't come up. Somewhere in the United States. Can you see it? It is there. Oh, I see. I forgot I left the refrigerator. I left the refrigerator right there. Oh, the updates. Yeah, unfortunately the computer's on tape, but at the same time we're trying to use it. Yeah, so here, if I'm allowed to hold it. Yeah, so this is where the cat-tails are and here's the river. And actually, I guess this straight line is actually, there's a berm that goes, there's berms here. So, I guess it's not really a wetlands and I guess I'm assuming they're going to have to do some fill where I, I don't know, it's just curious. It's really an interesting spot to develop. That's what it is. It's all lined up. I'm sure you have to do that. Well, it actually though, the lines I was going to say the lines back there, yeah. But this, that obviously captured Okay, I'll move the report to the city council. Okay, we have a motion to recommend this to the city council. Is there a second? Second. Motion is second for their discussion. Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right, thank you. So the next one is the Highlands subdivision final plan. The Highlands subdivision final plan is a 52.89 acre parcel located north of the State Highway 119 west of Boad County Road 1. All the historic water rights are transferred to time of annexation. The Highlands subdivision final plan will be in compliance with the city's raw water requirement policy upon satisfaction of the 37.122 acre per deficit at time of final plan approval. So this was part of the level of annexation. The proposal there is for 42 single family detached units, 10 three-story condos kind of an entry level and 67 town homes which are classifying as luxury town homes. We're expecting for this one, the owner's been, or the developer's been acquiring non-historic water rights for some time. He's been working for the city for their inclusionary housing efforts. And so we'll be probably getting non-historic for this. You mean McIntosh or? McIntosh and maybe some oligarchy. Any questions on this? If not, we need a recommendation for approval to the city council on this item as well. I move that we send a recommendation for approval to the city council. Motion, do we have a second? Second. Motion and a second for further discussion. Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you. The next item is the Mountain Brook subdivision filing one final plan. So the Mountain Brook subdivision filing number one final plan is a 38.05 acre parcel located in south of Rawneers Road in western 4th 95th street. Again, historical water rights were transferred at time of annexation. It will be in compliance with the city's rural water requirement policy upon satisfaction of the 12.563 big foot deficit at time of final cloud approval. So the proposal here is for 92 senior family owns and then eight duplexes. The duplexes will be through the habitat for each committee. And this is the same developer that's developing the prior one that was described and they too plan to use non-historic water rights. That's another affordable house. It's going to be a component of that throughout the entire humanity. So will there be, I know we passed the change to the ordinance or whatever where this could. So to the extent that it affects it again, that would be included. So they're still. And that would come into play with the amount they pay for cash. So it has to be a percentage. On this particular one, the 92 single family owns is greater than the amount. You have to have a greater than whatever the percentage. But with these eight duplexes it didn't trigger that. But I wanted to identify specifically that there was four duplexes that were going to be with the habitat for humanity. Got you, thank you. Any questions on this? If not, we need a recommendation to council. We have a motion for recommending this for approval. The councils are second. Motion is second. Further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Thank you. So next one is Mountbrook subdivision filing number two. So right next door to the last one we just talked about also. So Mountbrook subdivision filing number two is the final flat at 28.13 acres. The district historic water rates are transferred to time annexation. This final flat will be interplaced with the all our requirement policy of unsatisfaction of the 9.93 interplated deficit. On this particular flat they're proposing 18 single family detached 120 multi family condos or apartments and 29 town halls. They're describing as a multi year build out so this is going to take a while to fully develop this one. But again the same developer as the prior two plans to use non-historic for the bulk of their satisfaction. So is this curious what they brought through two filings rather than one? I think some of it has to do with the ownership. When this annexed HMS annexation came through there was multiple owners who were part of that annexation. I think there was some of that involved with the different ownership. Yeah, I think there was other reasons I'm not sure what they were. Any other questions? If not is there a recommendation to council for approval? How's the move? Is there a motion? Is there a second? Second. Is there a second for the discussion? Who seconded that because I got a tie on that one. Roger. Roger. You got a vote? Yeah. All right. So no further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Here we got river set annexation. So the river set annexation is a 7.24 acre parcel located north of Roger's early beast of Sunset Street. No historic water rates per unit for river set annexation. For river set annexation is compliance with the raw water requirement policy at time of annexation and will be at time of final plat approval with satisfaction of the 21.72 acre-foot deficit. So this one is a proposed mixed use employment zoning is what it was given. They're thinking up to 32 live work units in commercial retail but those can be fleshed out when they bring to their flat. Okay. What's the address again on location? It's 18 South Sunset Street 18 South Sunset. It's the northwest corner. Yeah the north, actually the northeast corner of Sunset and so across from Balt Colorado materials so that's an interesting so it's currently a county enclave right? Essentially Essentially there's another piece of it's not yet annexed on the east or the west side of because I noticed on the work that it says Roger Road and I was curious if that was still because it was in the county versus Boston because it's I mean I think it was being Boston now but it says so I was just curious what that was about. Yeah suffice it to say the parcel is correctly north of Colorado materials Yeah it'll be Boston once again. But I was just curious the reason that it's Roger's on the paperwork is because it's still as far as the county is concerned it's Roger's but it's but it is north of Roger's Correct. Well no it's well I'm confused. So Lawson's construction Yeah Lawson's parking is concrete. So Lawson actually owns a lot to the north so this is a piece not owned by Lawson but it's directly adjacent to the county. But he's got a bunch of his equipment parked on it. Yeah but it's roughly that rectangle there in the northeast corner I'm kidding It's got their development now It's really easy to do this Have you noticed that most of them have just started? But what they're talking about I think it really will create an anchor on that corner that will help facilitate because that whole area from on Boston is going to get over time is going to get redeveloped and by having an anchor there it seems like it just facilitates getting that stuff done I think we'll see probably this year land annexed to the west of Sunset Street so I will probably be coming. Any further questions? Could I just add that's a payoff for doing some of the resilient St. Brain work because I think part of the alleviation of flooding in that area is part of what spurred the development. I'd make a motion to forward to City Council. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Motion on a second. Is there a further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Hearing the home stretch here, West Range Filing Number 3 So we're lost to the 6th. West Range Filing Number 3 Final 5 is 29.228 for Marshall located south of Nelson Road, east of North 75th Street. West Range Filing Number 3, final plaque or any compliance with the city's rollout of policy upon satisfaction of a 50.980 conflict deficit approval. So this one is a development that's going to be developed by Markel Holmes planning 143 single family detached residents and on this one they're planning to pay cash and leave. So that will be a good jump into our cash and leave. Any questions on this one? If not, we need a motion for recommendation recommending it for approval to Council. Motion is there a second? Motion on a second. Further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed? If I had them all it's about 885 acre feet between non-historical cash and leave for these 6. So just to keep tallies of how much additional either non-historical. It sounds like the majority is non-historic but quite a bit of it's cash and leave. If we receive the cash and leave payment that's about $500,000 and we need about $3 million but we already know that some of them are going to be non-historic. So yeah, it's another development that we brought through in January for Agilish filing 3. They also plan to be bringing a check-in tomorrow. That will be about a little over $100,000. Comments are good. I'm going to touch your head now with the total number of housing units that we have down here. Close to 1,000? Yeah, it's close to 1,000. Okay, that's close to 1,000. That's a lot. That's a lot. I have to know how many of them are affordable or detainable. I don't know that or Mount Brooklyn. The rest of the L.C. would be worse. Not enough but it would be worse. That'd be 8. It's a city along Mount East Creek, Water District, Rapkow County, Water Authority and United Water IGA for Water Exchange Agreement. Yeah, I'll go ahead and be that one. So as you indicated, short-term water supply exchange agreement we've considered IGA to work with those water districts. As the board may recall, LOMI have been entering for about plus a year now. So the only thing that has changed from year to year is just the year and the actual dates there. So everything's kind of kept the same. The basis of the exchange agreement is water for water. So mainly East Cherry Creek and Arapahoe will use their decree for the consumable water to help meet long months. The ditch loss component of our union reservoir changed to create a sudden significant 222. And the reason it's a benefit to us is that the ditch loss is owed in July and August. And when it gets really hot, we have to get the ditch loss component down to the union ditch headgate, lower lathe of the ditch headgate, and the beech of the ditch headgate. And there's typically a dry up in July and August right around that lower lathe, and the beech is below that. So East Cherry Creek and Arapahoe have their water rights that are actually measured, and they're coming below that dry up. So it's really helpful for us. And they don't have to pay a lot of ditch loss since they have it coming down there. And so then the benefit to them is that Longmont has for the decree for consumable water rights that will help meet their winter return flow obligations to be from November 1st to October 31st. So like I said, it's water for water. And then to both parties, it's been working out well for the last five years, and we'll continue to do that each year. You got a couple of questions there, any other questions? It's so mentioned, social water supply claim that that's what they're gonna use for being able to use Longmont's water. What does Longmont have to do with it? Are you guys allowed for your decree to use their water as a source? So they have to get state engineers' office approval. And then we can use our pool that can consume a water rights the same as them to meet. Because they're decreed for augmentation, replacement, et cetera, et cetera. So as long as it's approved by the state, then it's allowed by both parties. I just wanted to give some supply for you. So they have to get the approval East Cherry Creek Routal United from the state engineers' office. We as Longmont do not, since we are decreed to either replace them. Oh, I see, okay. Follow me. Yep, last item. So they had in here that they can't provide water, any subject political entity or for any use within an urbanized area defined in chapter 14.09. Is that for the tri-cities? With the Longmont municipal code? Both for the water supply reviews on the tri-cities area. As well as any water in the wild against industry. Yeah, okay. And you also saw in there, we have that new paragraph we've added recently for you that it mentions is no, none of this water can be used for water gas. We have it stated right in there now. All right, that was all I had. Was there any? I'm just curious on the ditch losses. I mean, is there any thought of lining the ditch or reducing the losses? So it's a little bit different with these tickets for turnflow and ditch loss. So anyway, as part of the, so when we, when City of Longmont did the change case, so they're not injured, then the water rights that were removed from the ditch is sold union, lower late them and issue. So they're not injured. The other shareholders remaining in those ditches were required that would go through the court process to make sure that they're not impacted. So that's why we have to get the ditch loss to their hanging. So typically what that ditch loss will do is stay in the ditch for, so none of the other remaining shareholders are injured. They don't have to pay any additional on top of what they already have to deliver and follow me since we took the water rights out of that ditch. Okay. I hope I did it. I think I kind of understand. Yeah. It's really been for struggle. Tish Lutz hasn't heard prior to 1986. Okay. With the water rights, that pertains to the water rights that City of Longmont changed. And that's typical for most of the change cases that we do. All right. So the remaining shareholders are not impacted by the change decree in any way. So they're not harmed in any way. Okay. Any other questions? Is there, is the amounts that we exchange every year turn out to be pretty, similar, pretty consistent? What I was thinking of, we exchanged on our end 600, but they only do 300. Is there any adjustment or, how does it work? So how that work faces with John is, is we don't know when we do the exchange agreement now, what exactly the court obligations are gonna be for until we, our field period is done June 30th. So of each year. So we have to have that done into the state by the first week of July. We have to figure out how much was stored in our city of Longmont's account in union reservoir. And then we calculate the place of obligations with the digital. So that's why we put a match number in our 600 acre feet. So once that's calculated, then we know what that number is. And then that's the number they need. And then we have to say Longmont matches that. So it can't exceed, but it can go anywhere between there. And it varies each year on how much we store it. And we were down almost 5,000 acre feet this year in union. And a good portion of that, 85% of the city of Longmont's share of that. But the amount that they provide is the exact amount that Longmont provides, regardless of whatever it is. Okay. They do their part first, and then we match it. We match it. Because there's in July and August and ours is November. Right. So it's equal amount. Water, water. Okay. Of course I would do it because of Longmont, if there's a dry up, and I've said this each year, is we can meet it, the dish loss, we can meet it, but we have to, typically we have to slug it in order to get it all the way down 30 something miles. And then you have the trans cost, sometimes it increases when it gets dry. So we kind of don't have to, as long as we have this exchange agreement, we don't have to. Well, the other benefit you get is you can meet it with that form during the winter, primarily. So if you had to slug it, you'd probably be able to access our unions. The levels are good, lower too, right? Yes. And before this exchange agreement, we were slugging it when it was dry. In some years, we have rainstorms and we don't have to dry up, and it varies from year to year, but typically it's a, it seems like regardless, this is in Longmont's best interest. Yeah, yeah. It's over the long, yeah. Okay. Is there any other questions, comments? Otherwise, they want a recommendation from the Waterborne Council on it. Most likely, I didn't indicate it, but most likely, we'll be going to City Council on March 31st, unless it gets bumped in any way that it'd be here, but for now it's March the last meeting in March. Okay. Is there a motion to make a recommendation to Council for approval of the Intergovernmental Agreement? I would move to make a recommendation for approval of this Intergovernmental Agreement. Okay. The motion is there a second? Second. Motion is second. Further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed? Okay. Thanks, Nelson. Yeah, thank you. Appreciate it. All right. Wes gets to give the good news after a large play up date. So just to kind of follow up with some of the information Nelson in the board, included in the packet is monthly information from a number of sources. The first being the USDA is calling on the WaterSupply Outlook Report. I put that report out each month. Because of this month us being a week later we're pulling a week away from getting the new report. However, suffice it to say, in their February 1st report, they reported that the snowpack in the South Platte River Basin was above normal at 119%. They saw precipitation in January was 79% of average and that brought the water year to date at 99%. Reservoir storage at the end of December was 111% of average compared with 104% last year. So to summarize, we were in better shape than we were in the past. So that was good news. As we move forward a couple pages in your packet, looking at the reservoir storage end of January, a little more specific, we had at least select reservoirs about 838,000 acre feet in storage compared to the year prior, which was about 773,000 acre feet in storage. But an average of 750,000. So the South Platte looks good in terms of storage. Moving forward a couple pages, we as always pay closest attention to the forecast for the same rate for the lions. Again, the expectation for both April through July and the April through September is that we have a greater chance than average of exceeding our stream flow forecast for those periods. So let's keep evolving as we move forward depending most predominantly on the snowback. But as of February 1st, we were expected to have a greater chance than not of having average snowback. The next couple graphs, the South Platte River Basin History, that's for the NRCS. It was reported as a February 19th, a percent of average of around 127% for the South Platte, which was good to see. On the next graph, the upper Colorado was showing at 114%. So both of which were above average. And as you see from either of these graphs, you can see, you pay attention mostly to that. Kind of like last year was indicative of most of them, one good snow in February or March makes a big difference because those are usually so wet. So hopefully we get one or two of those and that'll put us over the hump. So we'll read back that updated information next month. The last page just has the northern waters snow watch information that showed the same thing, everything running above average. This particular one shows that Colvin Lake was significantly above the prior data. So we had good wet snows down low. But we're also, by having those early snows that we see in February and November, that was good because those are the snows that get snowed on top of ice in and out late. So I don't want to jinx it, but right now things look good. Yeah, not good. We won't make you eat those words. Okay. Any questions for Wes on the water status report? Right, great, thank you. 9B is the monthly legislative report, Ken? Yeah, I just wanted to, wanted to update you on two bills. House bill 1097, which was that bill for the interconnected systems. The water rate has been changed to be used in the interconnected system. It died in the House Ag Committee, the post-war was indebted, so that one was died. And Senate Bill 20-153, which was, which we were opposing, to set up a water fee for water projects. It basically required us to have a pretty healthy water rate increase. So long months, customers would have been paying for something else's water project. That was postponed in the Senate Ag Committee. They postponed it indefinitely, so those two bills are done. I did hand out today a copy of the bill. House Bill 1164, it's really just one sentence. Actually, the title of the bill is a bill for an act concerning an exemption of housing authority from certain fees imposed by Water Conservancy District. And so, in the sentence that operative sense is giving an exemption from Water Conservancy District fees, this sentence proposed that in addition, all property of whatever kind or nature owned by housing authority with the Water Conservancy District is exempt from any tap fee or develop an impact fee imposed by the Water Conservancy District. So, we don't have a whole lot of information from the other Water Conservancy Act called Northern. The last I talked to them, their board had not taken a position, but I don't know if they took a, did they take a position? I had a position just before. Okay, so I don't have any of the Water Conservancy District's reactions to it yet. I don't think they would be opposed to it. We're just, it has not, it is, no, excuse me, it is on the House, it's in the second reading on the House, so it's starting to move a little tiny bit. I'd hoped I could just make that for the Water Conservancy District. I guess we're probably leaning towards opposing it for a simple reason that in the language I couldn't find even really a definition of tap-fee or develop an impact fee, it's, it's, if you just read the language, you would presume that that means treated water. The only Water Conservancy District I'm aware of in the state provides treated waters to the Ute and the Water Conservancy District called by Palisade Grand Junction area. And this may be coming out, something going on over there, but I'm not sure I've heard from them their thoughts on it. But I would, I would have preferred to have it defined. And also, it starts to make me uncomfortable whenever you start giving stuff away free by statute. I think it could be, I'd definitely go to positive it's out of city, should provide it free. But once you start this, it's kind of an effort. So I don't know if the board is prepared to take a position yet, because I, of course, I don't have a lot of, but I wanted to highlight it to you and just let you, let you consider it and see if you have an opinion. One way or the other, if not, I'll certainly continue to track it and I can bring back more information next month. Thoughts on that? Do we just monitor? Which one are the people? The people I'm trying to reach out to, you know? So yes, Mechler, so Janice Rich is from Mesa County, which is the Conservancy District. So that's where I suspect that's going from. Karen Becker is here, Boulder. Actually, she represents Boulder, Clark Street, Gilbert, I think she's from Boulder. And Rachel Zenzinger is from Jefferson County. And I don't think it's, I don't suspect it's as much there as she was Janice Rich's because she's from, I don't know if she's ever in Mesa. No, she's, Janice Rich is a Republican from Mesa County. So it's got a little bipartisan support. Karen Becker is Democrat from Boulder. House Districts is from Boulder, but she's from, Rachel is from Jefferson. She's one who responds to it. So it does have both a Senate and a House. And that's really about all I can have here. Unfortunately, I can't give you a strong recognition on the other, the other staff is, I guess, initially opposed to it just because it's pretty. I'm concerned that the tap fee should be defined. I would hate for it to be read like the assessment. You know, the water level is an assessment on CBT units. Everybody pays an equal share divided by I mean, there are 10,000 units. Should somebody say, well, that's an impact fee. That's a tap fee. And of course, more than water, it doesn't want any water. So they don't do tap fees that trouble me what somebody could say that really means. And or for me, it's also that then you start taking it. That's step one. So it sounds like staff's suggesting that we pose as any thoughts on that. So from my perspective with tap fees, development fee, system development charges, assuming that's what they mean. Those are really important that growth pays for growth. And the part that I'm curious about what makes it a housing authority? Some developers say, well, we got a housing authority so we don't have to pay fees in. And you're right. If it's just a treated water conservancy district, doesn't seem to affect us. But I don't, I don't like it. I don't like the precedent. I don't like the precedent, no. I think growth really should pay for growth. I think housing authority is probably otherwise defined in the state statute that it's not defined. It's titled 37, which is water. And it's not defined here. Right. So I agree with you. Again, I believe when I read it, I believe I know what housing authority means. Sure. So do you want to make a motion on that? I don't know that it doesn't seem to apply to us right now, but I'd be comfortable if we wanted to have a motion to oppose this, to recommend that we oppose this. Any other thoughts? It's fine, Lane. Yeah. So what do you guys want to make a motion? And move that we oppose housing for bill 20-1164. Second. Second. So motion a second. Further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you. Can anything else on that? Thank you. Yeah, I just want to have a decision, Mr. Schmidt. Okay. I see, which is the Windy Gap Permit Project. Yeah, I don't have a whole lot to report. It'll seem like not a lot going on in the Windy Gap Permit Project, but actually there is quite a bit. Almost, there's a legal for all the attorneys for all the cities have been working pretty hard on starting to develop an allotment contract. And we're struggling with the legal committee, struggling with we have a login contract and a operations contract. Do we bring them together? And it's much more complicated than it sounds. And that's fine. We've had two all day sessions and we'll have one more, we've got another one scheduled coming up. So working really hard on that. So hopefully, hopefully in the next month or two, we'll start to see some good progress on that and we'll be able to come before you talk about that. Not a lot of progress on it. Well, no progress since last month we were reported. On the federal case it was reassigned to a different judge because of a backlog on the district court. So it wouldn't surprise me that that's a number of months for the new justice team. Crack the case open and find out what it's about. So nothing on that. On the state water rights case, continuing to have a good conversation, there's still two remaining objectives to continue to have good relations with them but aren't there yet. So I thought it was hoped it would have been done by maybe this month but it looks like it's still a little ways out but that's still annoying. The contractor is, matter of work, getting project proposals together, all the different equipment, determining their methods and meetings and working with the technical staff on that. So that's coming forward so hopefully that's all ready. So right now it's about all we have in the court. Any questions? Okay, thank you, Ken. Item 10 is items from the board, review of major project listings and items currently scheduled for future board meetings. We'll review cash and loo again in March. So next month, is that right? Yeah, and hopefully we'll be able to publish works of natural resource staff, we'll be able to report both on union reservoir and mud rock efforts and then we're expecting to have boards at the report available for you guys to review next month too. Great, sounds good. Any questions on that? Next item is informational items and water board correspondence. I handed out that, sounds like maybe the same report that you had brought. Just the research behind that. Oh good. Press readers. Yeah, I just gave the executive the high level. Yeah, start reading his first. Mine has all the charts and data. That's great. Anyway, I think this just came out, I heard about it just a few days ago so I think it's pretty hot off the presses. Sounds like in general they're talking about hotter temperatures, which part of the result of that is less snowpack and less kind of reflection from the snowpack, which means more maybe heat absorbed and more kind of issues with the remaining snowpack and the water supply. So they're talking, I think in this they're saying every Celsius degree increase means potentially a decrease in supply, river flows by nine percent. So that's pretty scary. I guess the other thing and I guess the one other piece I wanted to maybe relay from my end is so the city for Collins did a climate change analysis in how it would impact their system, including CBT yields. So the Northern District, I went up and we spent about three hours going over that. In general, what I understand is coming is they're saying it'd likely be hotter but there's, and it alluded to it in this report, there isn't really a consensus as to what will happen to precept. It's kind of, I think there may be more variability but they're not sure it's gonna be necessarily less precipitation or more precipitation. That's a little uncertain with the studies today, but there may be more variability. I guess in my mind, big picture is, I know it may have impacts on the windy yet firming project in terms of lower yields and what that means in the Colorado, the flip side of that is you're gonna have more variability. You better have some storage to capture the water and the wet years when you do have supplies to carry over into maybe the more variability in terms of the dry years. So that was just something I wanted to kind of relay and that study that for Collins did, if anybody has interest I can, I think I got a link to the study, I can send that to you guys, but they get pretty deep involved in the modeling of their system and how it would react to higher temperature and more or less precipitation and what that means to the kind of vulnerability or reliability of their system. That's what they were trying to look at and then look at their water policies in relation to that. So anyway, just a couple of thoughts there. I didn't know, I know we went past public and I didn't be heard, but if you wanna, are you going to say that? Well, yeah, I think the key is that everybody thinks that this is a precipitation issue and of course it matters if it's rain or snow, but it isn't just that, that the bare earth because of the higher level of evaporation and transpiration means that you can have as good or even better precip, but end up with less yield because of those losses and that's what's really, this article is saying is going to vary negatively affect the Colorado River, which of course then means that the water right that supposedly might exist at some point in time for windy gap exists in much, much less points in time. Well, once again, it'd be kind of that variability of I think the last few years have shown you may have some good years where you can come, but you may have some bad years too. So the yield may go down, but you're still gonna have some years if you have a good year. Another thing that I guess I've alluded to and they alluded to it at the end of this article is in 2026 is when the current operating guidelines for the Colorado River expire. So they're supposed to before the end of the year start renegotiating five years in advance new rules and that's gonna be key to this whole deal too is how we've got drought contingency plans, but all that is kind of the stop gap until these new operating guidelines come into effect. Cause that's gonna impact the upper base and lower base and kind of relationship in some of the allocation of the water. So there's a lot of variables right now. Anyway, this just kind of highlights a few of those that are common climate as well as kind of administratively. So anyway, thank you for bringing that. I appreciate that. Yeah, so if we can make some copies, I think it's good background information cause you can go to the charts and see what they're talking about in the press release. I appreciate that. I didn't feel like making all the stuff and say so. That's fine. If you could do that, maybe Wes and Ken for the next meeting, that would be a lot of appreciate seeing kind of stuff behind there. Any questions, comments on? Thank you, appreciate it. Anything else from the water board as far as correspondence? Item 12, 12A. So we'll consider Cache and Lou in March. We talked about, we'll have the annual water board report in March as well. Yeah, go ahead. Just drill, we don't have it down though. Reminder of the water board, we've got this spring water users meeting is April 7th in Greeley and it's open now. If you just go to the field, either a call or sign for yourself. That has where she can sign yet. It's in Greeley. And then also, I want to try to get you updated each month on the climate emergency and what the Climate Action Tax Force is doing. So right now they're focusing on renewals, transportation, and energy use. So they haven't launched their water committee yet. All of that effort's coming up. However, on March 3rd, City staff is going to be doing their monthly update to City Council. So that package should be coming out probably tomorrow. Maybe Wednesday. But as soon as that packet comes out, we'll just email you a copy of the packet so you kind of see where it is and where it's out. And I don't know, Marsh, if there's anything else you wanted to, you probably know better than I do. Well, I do know some stuff for the renewables committee. We have several essentially complete recommendations that have been suspended already. I don't know, they don't go past me for the other two committees yet, but the middle of last week, each committee was supposed to submit at least one. So that's kind of where we are in terms of how much volume that we can expect. Anyway, let's show that after this. Okay. Right now, I'm just following the features that I have. Okay, thank you, Ken. For that, that's all we've got on the agenda today. Anything else? Otherwise, I'll adjourn the meeting. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Good job.