 I just call the meeting to order. I don't think you did the roll call. Yes. Tom Williams is not able to join us today. Scott Holwick? Yeah. Roger Lane? Yeah. Allison Gould? Here, but remote. Tom Buster? Here. Ken Houston? Here. Nelson Tipton? Here. Wes Lowry? Here. Kevin Bowden is not here. Nancy Jackie? Here. Jason Elkins? Here. David Bell will be joining us later, whether or not the entire is here. And then it looks like we have some other staff members, too. So, Dr. Doyle and Raven Martin are both here as well. Council Member Martin is not able to join us today. Okay. Thank you. Let's start with the approval and the previous month's minutes. I think everybody's had a chance to read that many comments. I'll move to approve, Mr. Chair. All right. I'll second that. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. Who's doing the water staff report? Sure. I will. I will do it? Thank you. So, today to follow the Safe Rain Creek at Lyons Gate today at 25 CFS, the 124-year historic average for this date is approximately 24 CFS. The call on the Safe Rain Creek is pleasant by the reservoir. And the admin number is 7822, with a priority date of 6-1-1871. The call on the main stem of the South Side River is Riverside Canal, admin number 21,031, with a priority date of 8-1-1907. So, Safe Rain Creek Basin Storage at the beginning of November is 67%, with a five-year average storage at this time of year or seven percent. So, we're real close to the average storage for the basin. So, right-priced reservoir, but not conserved, is currently at 6,388.6 feet, which is quite close to 13,786 acre feet. So, we're down approximately 2,400 feet from full, and currently released in 30 CFS. And union reservoir is all at full, and we're releasing 70 CFS. That level down 2,000 to that. Pretty normal this time of year. It's a little lower, but it's pretty close at this time of year. As you guys all know, we, West, can chime in, but September was in October, fairly dry. So, we start some versions out there over the average, but we're pretty close. Any questions for Nelson? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Okay, I invited, the public invited to be heard. I see one public person to be heard. So, I think your name is Gordon Peter, or is it not? Hi, I'm Gordon Peter, 2639 Falcon Drive, Long One. I'm here to speak on the caching policy review that you have on your agenda. Well, West was good enough to make sure I got the information that I asked for. So, I'm looking mostly at his staff report. But, 1964, the policy was enacted by the City Council, and so therefore it's been around for a long time. And everybody that's proposing dynamics or develop are aware that they have water, raw water requirements that they must meet. Recent trends in the report indicates that since 2015 to 2020, more caching loo has been utilized than submission of raw water. And when I looked at the chart that was in your packet from the comparisons for the region, it seems to me like it's easy to see why the increase in caching loo is going up. That is, we're at $18,528 per foot, and the lowest next one is $36,000. That goes all the way to $75,000 per foot. So, just looking at this, and I understand from West's communication, there are some nuances that have to be considered. But one of the things that it looks to me like is that raw water is one of the options. Rovers and annexators can, from caching loo, if they shall choose, it's their option. I think that the caching loo should be reflecting the real cost of water. And if it's not, then we're subsidizing and discounting what we should be getting for our community for the median raw water requirements. Recent councils have indicated they want more density in this community, and they don't have a problem with it. But more density means we have more people who have fuel for water. And climate change is a big, big unknown. And as far as I'm concerned, our community deserves to have the water it needs in the future. And that comes from water. It doesn't come from mountains of cash. Now, I know that the cash is used for various things and storage and all those things, but I'm not trying to discount that it's a complex issue. But I'm trying to say that this citizen believes that what we need to make sure is we have water. We have other options for the community. And the citizens have other options for getting money available to build storage facilities and both type things. It's cold bonding. We all know how that works and we all have a right to vote on those. But you're going to recommend that the city council have policy. Maybe policy change, maybe not. But you're going to be recommending rates or cash in move amounts. And I think that they should reflect the truth's cost as well. But any developer or person in the annexing knows he has to respond to, it's not that difficult. They've known since 1964 they were going to have to respond to such a thing. If they bring in water, it costs such and such. If they're going to do cash in mode, it costs very similar to that same amount. And one of the things that I've noticed in the last 10 years is that just about every time the city council decides that they're going to discount something or providing in-city or a subsidy to a developer, it's about, oh, it's affordable housing. We've got to have affordable housing. Well, if you're going to use that as a reason for discounting your recommendation to the council about what the cash in move should be, I would like to see how you see those translating into real affordable housing, not just some theoretical, well, we're going to get passed on. My stance has been he gets passed on to the developer. It's a win-fall for him and it never gets transferred to the affordable housing. Thank you very much for listening. Thank you very much. I don't see anybody else. So we'll move on to item number six, the gender revisions and submission of documents. So you wanted to move the item number 10 up to the top? Yes. We could move 10A, the remote attendance policy, to the first item or up to this item so we could allow full participation for the rest of the meeting. And then also staff would propose to move item 8A, which is a cash in the policy, to item 9D that will allow us to have basically the rest of the meeting. But we think we can get through the agenda pretty quickly and that will allow us, we won't have to worry about getting to the remainder of the agenda and give us as much time as we need to talk to cash in the move. Honestly, I probably should have had it on 9D anyway, because we're not asking for a recommendation to council yet. So I should have had general business to begin with. So if we could move those to item 10A and 8D, we'd appreciate it. Okay, and 8A, do you want that to follow item 8D? To 9D, the last item, the 9-insuit staff. Okay. 8A, which is cash in the move. Okay, 9D. 9D. Very good. Okay, let's take on item 10A. Ken, I'll let you take down. Sure, thank you very much. So we have in front of you, as you, Water Board made recall last month, we looked at the Water Board bylaws to allow for remote attendance. Also, as you may remember, we specifically, Water Board specifically asked that remote attendance would be for Water Board members on an occasional basis, when they're either out of town, you know, or for some other reason, an annual attendance person. So we discussed last month that we would change the section 2. So if you look at page 78 of your packet, that is your current bylaws with the rent, you know, that's what we talked about last month. We hopefully got that correct. There is one revision to this language that I would propose. That is, it would say, attendance at Water Board meetings should be in person except during emergency situations. It's allowed by City of Longmont's electronic participation policy during City of Longmont Board and commission meetings. And then I would ask that we have comment as amended from time to time. This actual electronic attendance policy will go to council, like I believe it's going to council later this month. And then if they make revisions to it, what we're trying to do is, I believe we don't have to amend the bylaws that would have it changes. So then the remainder is that Water Board members expect to attend in person and unless out of town for health reasons. And then the other change to the bylaws that was proposed. Oh yeah, just referencing, just referencing the electronic policy. I think it was encapsulated in section 2. That, that meets Water Board's intention last month. I think we can go on and then all Board members and also be able to vote today. So I think Allison has her hand up. Did you want to say something, Allison? I have one point of clarification if I may. As you guys may or may not know, my reason for not being able to be personally in attendance is my son is ill. So I was wondering if this proposed language would allow for absenteeism on such basis. It's not my personal health, but it is health reasons. So that is something I'd like to clarify. Well, the way I read what Ken proposed in the last part of that statement or unable to attend due to health reasons, that could be construed as to not your personal health with health reasons within the family, I would think. It's wonderfully ambiguous. I think what is written there, Allison, kind of takes care of your concern for us. Okay? Yes, thank you very much. I appreciate that perspective. And thank you. Any other comments? Scott, you've had yours, but you can comment again if you want. Sorry, no, I actually think it's written to cover what Allison suggests. I think it's ambiguous enough that it provides some latitude. If we wanted to specify every potential permutation of why you could miss or participate, that would not be a good exercise. I was only going to suggest that we've got the bylaws of the Water Board here. We'll need to change that date in January 25th, 2021, when we determine that we amend those to reflect the new date. That's my sole comment. All right. Yeah, I'm good. I would also say that, I mean, if we had to specify health reasons and we have to maybe specify why people are out of town, that's just not a good exercise. So I think this is great. All right. I'm all right with the two. Is there a motion to approve the changing language? Yes, Mr. Chair, with the amendment suggested by Mr. Houston, I move to approve Section 2's bylaw modification as directed. We'll second you back. We'll second it. All in favor? Say aye. Aye. Aye. Pass. So Allison, welcome. Okay. Okay. Now, I would assume we'll just move on to item 7A, Nova Apartments Final Clash Action Required. And do you have any comments on that particular activity? Yeah, I think I'll also present that to you. Yeah. So we did the work back. Give us some information on Nova Apartments Final Clash. It's a 10.28 acre parcel located north of South, I'm sorry, Nelson Road and North St. Holder Street. All the historic water rights, including 18 shares of South Platte Beach Company, were transferred to kind of annexation. Supply the total remaining raw water deficit for Nova Apartments Final Clash is 3.4 acre feet or 0.334 of an acre foot per acre of land. So Nova Apartments Final Clash will be in compliance with the Raw Water Requirement Policy upon satisfaction of that raw water deficit. Additionally, I was just going to comment and let the board know that this particular final flat includes five 52 unit apartment complex. So about 250 to 260 residential areas is this part of this. And then, yeah, if we... Heather, if you could jump to the outline, just show on the map where that's kind of located. It's located behind, kind of behind Home Depot and to the west is the general orientation of this proposal. Is it all apartments? Yes. Yeah. In five buildings. Comments or questions? Just because it relates a bit to what we're talking about today, do we have any ideas how they're going to satisfy that deficit? So what we've typically found on a deficit of this size, which is relatively small, the developer will typically pay cash if we want our NCC to satisfy that deficit. And that's what I would expect here. Other questions? A motion to approve. Mr. Chair, I'd move to approve the... I'm not sure the language is here, Wes. The floor of recommendation to City Council to accept this. Thank you. I'll use your language in lieu of mine. I'll make that motion. I was looking for him. I didn't send that. So thank you. Second? Yeah, I'll second. I'll move second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All right. And Mr. Nelson voted in favor of it as well. Yeah. In season? Yes. Does she come in here? Yeah, she just didn't have her microphone in the video. All right. All right. Thank you. None needed on seven B of Ken as far as we're ready to take on eight B, right? Yes. Okay. So I guess we'll just hand it over. Yeah. I guess I will. I was not at your core of E. Ken and Wes updated me on your discussion and so what we did was included your two amendments. One was on number nine and I just wanted that from a personal perspective. I've been wanting to change the books to numbers for a while so I appreciate you guys changing that. That helps a lot when we're referencing back and forth. So on nine we instead solely with womenarily. And then we added 22 which Dresden's Board of Stewardship so that's all outlined in red and so that's basically all the comments I have on it so we just took your comments and put them in here and what will happen with this which you guys have a recommendation I'll send it over to Sammy Cedar and then she'll put it together to City Council in December along with the other water principles not just, I mean City principles not just water principles. Okay. Alright. Okay. Any comments? One of these changes? Allison I think? Have you been involved in the item nine if I'm not mistaken? Yes. Heather could you potentially move that up to? Sure. We're good there. Looking at the minutes, sorry scrolling back and forth here, my recollection is that the primarily was including, looking at something different. That is right. The recommendation I think was including. I think there was some discussion about whether or not that made for proper, I don't know, grammar. I think to the extent grammar is a consideration eliminating by could potentially rectify that in my opinion the word primarily has a different identification than including. Okay. You want to call it including by those? Without by. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. We'll add that to that. You're already done Allison. I did. Thank you. Alright. So any comments on the revisions that are proposed? Okay. If not, I'll ask for a motion to approve them. I motion to approve the 2022 legislative guiding principles, water principles as amended in the previous discussion. I second that motion. We're moving to second. All in favor? Second by we're saying aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. You say aye, Allison. Oh, I did. Aye. You want to raise your hand or say aye? She said aye, but it was silent. All right. All right. There's a little bit of time. All in favor? Okay. That's passed. Thanks. Thank you. Thanks, sir. Okay. We've got I am H.C. application for new water rights, appropriations, staff, water board for recommendations. City Council can turn into that application. The new water right on St. Rain Creek. So. Thank you, sir. Just briefly kind of this understanding why we're doing we're proposing this application. The water court, whenever you file for a new water right, it's required that, you know, you do an older act of appropriation. In the past, I usually now going out and sticking a sign on the creek and it says, hey, I'm going to file here or I'm going to dig a ditch here. More recently with with the increase of municipalities finding water rights, the courts have held that staff members, I can't go out and pound a sign in the town. Staff members don't have authority to file for a new water right. Actually, in the past, we did for many years, but the courts have held that the company board in the case of Walnut City Council has to pass an over back, which in our case would be a resolution. And so we will be going to the December water or December City Council meeting to apply for a new water right. And we will need a resolution. And so on. And obviously what council will want water board is recommendation on this type of resolution in an action. So that's what we're asking water board to make that recommendation. The actual water right filing itself is certainly different than many you've seen in the past. This particular water right is downstream of Longmont and we will be using it to meet downstream obligations. It's kind of ironic that actually one of the hardest things we have to do is to be able to meet all of our downstream obligations. You would think you would be getting water to the water treatment plant, which we work very diligently at, but we also have the downstream obligations. And those downstream obligations first and foremost is every time we change a water right to put it in the water treatment plant, we have to meet the historical return flows, ditch losses, those types of things that occurred from the historical use of the water, usually from irrigation. And so that becomes what we call a return flow obligation that we every year have to meet that return flow obligation. Secondly is things like the public service company exchange agreement. Thousands of acre feet we need to get down to them. And in exchange we get CBT water into our water treatment plant, which is very good. But we have that delivery obligation to them. And then we also have a number of leases and exchanges. And increasingly we're getting augmentation requirements from spent We have a number of augmentation requirements out at Sandstone Ranch, from some of the work that went on, mining that went on out there. In addition, there's a proposal, a mine that will open up fairly soon on the Golden Farms property just east of town. And that will have some obligations. Now all of those projects bring their own water rights in. But one of the things that unique about those water rights is given that they're irrigation water rights, they yield in the summer, but they don't yield in the winter. So we have delayed return flow obligations to the river that we need to meet during the winter time period. Much smaller than in the summer, but it still occurs. Including for the actual irrigation, what rights do we go in to water quality change them? And we use them, but then their return flows, the further away from the stream they are, the longer the return flows to get to the stream, usually it's about a year before you extinguish the return flow obligations. So in short, there's a lot of downstream water that we need to get into the stream as well. Including just simple leases that we do over the years. We've done a number of leases to downstream water users. So we have an obligation once we sign that lease to meet that lease. And then in our latest case, it's the bonus ditch change case which we just filed about a year and a half ago, a couple years ago. We had one objector, City of Aurora, which very vehemently wanted to make sure that our return flow obligations continued on into the future. Typically what we've done for debt, you know, for old forever, is that when you file for water rights, you not only file to change the water right and agree to meet those return flow obligations, but you file and say as soon as, now that we file, on this date, any return flows that historically get the river that are junior to this date, we won't have to, the reason, the logic behind that is everybody that's on the river, they have a senior date when you file, so you're a junior to everybody. But the difference is, in that case, you don't have to meet that water delivery obligation in the future when a new water rights owner comes on and files. The courts have now gone away from that and we realize the City of Aurora got dinged a lot on that and so they're going to come out of dinged at any else. I personally have a real hard time with that because basically that kind of takes away the theory of what we call prior appropriation. Somebody in the future, 50 years from now, can file a water right and now we're junior to that water right, 50 years from now. I understand the concept behind it, I understand why the courts are doing that, partially because there are many times when the court comes off the main Sam, which is in January for his icing and they can't get into storage, then all of a sudden the court comes off the main. So what Longmont looked at this and said, it just makes sense now for us to go today out on the river, file for a new water right that we can use in the future. Rather than fillering water from our current water supply, we'll be able to have a new appropriation that will allow us to meet all those delivery requirements in the future, whatever they are. So just real briefly what our concept is, this is the main stem left hand creek coming in, the wastewater plant, main street right here, Martin Street right here. The primary point or the primary part of the filing will be right here, just downstream of main street where if that water is in the creek, we'll be able to either take an in-stream credit or pull it out and run it through an odd station and put it back in. Hopefully we take in-stream credit. I shouldn't say, I apologize for saying in-stream credit, bypass flow credits where we're taking credit for the stream, the water in the stream at that point, but we do have, we take this point because we have the capacity in an existing infrastructure there's a pump station, the pumps water from here up to the bonus ditch and there's a send-out channel in that that we can put a gauge on it so we can physically pull the water out of the stream, run it down the send-out channel through a measuring device and put it back in the stream. That's generally what the pollsters usually the state is the one that's really hard and heavy on that, asking for that. We're hoping to negotiate with the state so we don't have to pull the water out of the stream and put it right back in. We're hoping to negotiate because there's a fish passage there that will dry out if they make us do that. So ironically, one part of the state will say don't drive the fish passage another say drive the fish passage and measure it. Irrespective, we have the capacity to measure that water there. The second part of the plan is to either at the same grain creek pump station number one, which is there and existing we would pull the water out there pump it up to Union Reservoir and then at a later date be able to release it out of Union Reservoir. That would require Union Reservoir to be full or expanded for the future enlargement of Reservoir. What other point is some of the water that might be a left-hand creek or a sanitary creek pumped with the pump could come in here into the bonus ditch and we would put an augmentation station here on the bonus ditch and return it to the stream that way. Part of that is because earlier we just talked about some of the augmentation water. This is the Golden Farms property. It's open space owned by the city and we purchased that property. There was an existing gravel lighting operation already permitted and that's actually going to kick off very soon here and we'll want to be able to run water through that. When it's all done for reclamation efforts and then another point we have is dry creek at the existing augmentation station for the Saint Sanstone Ranch Reclamation Project. We'll be able to measure it and return it back into the stream at that point and then finally out east of town it's not built yet but Saint Grand Creek Pump Station number two we would again be able to pump it there up to Union Reservoir store it for later release. And that part of that part of the Union Reservoir picture is that it's very limited times this will actually be in priority because of downstream so you'll want to be able to pull water when you can and then use it later in the wintertime periods when you need it. We'll have a lot of downstream augmentation water available to us in the summer from both the bonus ditch change cases as well as the Saint Grand Integrated Reclamation Project at Sanstone Ranch. Those two irrigation rights are available in the summer but they are not available in the winter when we have to meet those as well as it allows us to pick up. So that's really the crux behind this application it allows us to follow up the sand today and have water for that downstream demand that we would like to be able to meet. So we'll be happy to answer any questions about it and where we're going with it but not to entertain a recommendation. One thing I would ask the board specifically make the recommendation for application we've also attached a draft application so that the emotion would be substantially presented to you because honestly this is a draft application with a few tweaks we still need to do to get that ready for water court but I mean our desire is to be able to get this filed so we have a 2021 water year appropriation so we would like to file it by the end of December so if we can get it approved today we'll take it to City Council for a resolution in December and still be able to hit the water court this year or else we'll get next year. Questions for Kent? So well just first of all how often do you anticipate being able to remove water under this particular right or be able to use this water? I would say possibly yearly because there's many times in spring the call will come not every year but many years in spring it will come up and many times in January it will come off because that's when they ice up on the lower river and they can't get water it's really Riverside, Jackson Jumbo, Julliver, Bezler they can't take it anyway that happened just this last year there was a period of time but yeah there will be entire years it's a very junior water and then under those years when we can't do this then it's just back to status quo fulfilling those obligations with three other things that we can do Other questions? Alison? Thank you very much you touched on my question Kent regarding the impact of diversions at these locations it looks like there's a number of different points of diversion as you pointed out at least two of them on the natural stream the river is a fairly robust amount and I was just wondering what the base flow was in winter when this was intended to be operated and if it would be sweeping the river and it sounds like it that would have that potential it is possible generally we're in the 30 to 50 CFS range in the wintertime period so it is at 40 it would be possible 40 is really comes about because we have 20 CFS capacity on both of the same ring creek pump stations so it's less than likely we'll use the full 40 at the and it's only 20 it's 20 CFS at the same ring creek pump station number one so if we pull that one if we pull into the two pump stations the same ring creek pump station number two is full of confidence with both of the creek so it has considerably more water down there than it does up at Martin Street but yeah there are times it will be my name would be quite 40 there but most of the time it's I would say it's probably closer to 50 30 to 50 as a follow up question to that I'm trying to imagine 10 CFS in those locations I would imagine that would just completely ice over and if so is anchorice a consideration or concern you know that certainly happens for the west it really happens up around the Budrock area except immediately below Brown Price Reservoir but we haven't seen it as big a problem down here in town but I haven't honestly operated the same ring creek pump station number two in winter so yeah it's not entirely impossible we have the same problem that's why we would like to be able to another reason we want to be able to operate it is a bypass flow rather than be required to divert it because as a bypass flow we can measure it we haven't really had a problem the measurement station that's there right now the same ring creek gauging station a little kenpratt boulevard east of kenpratt boulevard crosses the same ring creek and that gauging station has been able to operate pretty much year round we really haven't had a problem with icing over of that particular of course that's below the wastewater treatment plant so slightly warmer water hitting that then up above below large street but still we've been able to operate that gauging station and that's where we would measure it if we're allowed to do it as a bypass flow just by taking out the flow contribution of the wastewater treatment plant that'll be part of our negotiations if there are any objectives and with the state of Colorado does that answer your questions Ellison? it does thank you can I just ask one periodically maybe monthly for a while I might need some vocabulary assistance I still say near because so augmentation station is that just a gravel pit that we water out of later an augmentation station is generally it's a structure where stream flows or water deliveries can be physically measured so most augmentation stations consist of many of them pulling water out of the head gate of an irrigation ditch and then almost immediately even sometimes upstream of the before you go into the ditch they just build a flume where you put a partial flume or a Rubicon gate or some type of measuring structure you can measure the water and it goes back into the stream so this is the measure okay keep your eye on Ellison so given that thanks for the information Kim is there a motion to approve the application for new water rights? I would make a motion to approve the application for water rights as in substantially the form presented here in the application or in the packet with the request that consideration of how to enable measurement to take place in stream as opposed to or in channel water as opposed to requiring when we get out of channel retaking into consideration that doable yes absolutely no thank you is there a second? all in favor signify by saying aye thank you Kim Mr. Chair for the record is absolutely Kim's interest to ask for that unfortunately for Ken it's in the opposers interest to oppose it let's see who's more successful anybody we know no hopefully not but lots of people I know yeah that sounds like yes it's a good jousting application just to count on it you probably won't have a finite answer about how is this something you do on an annual basis or far less than that or just out of carry on well a new one very very solid we do change cases a few change cases the last one was the recreational in channel diversion in 2003 or so so it's once a decade or once every other decade we all get a mark get a mark for a new water right which is very rare okay how to make the fire restoration agreement is Bryce going to handle this? good afternoon for those of you who haven't met me before my name is Bryce Hadley I'm the senior watershed ranger of that button rock responsible for field operations up there drinking water releases and looking after the property included in your board packet is a service agreement between the city of Longmont and the left hand water shed center this agreement will allow the city to participate in recovery efforts on Calif fire as you're probably aware the Calif fire burned over 10,000 acres including areas of the left hand and south same green watersheds that drain into Longmont and provide raw water to the city's water treatment plants after the Calif fire the left hand watershed center helped found a stakeholder coalition that's known as the same green forest health partnership includes land management agencies forestry authorities and community organizations and you'll see your packet a variety of different agencies are contributing to the recovery funds Boulder County contributed well over a year City of Longmont in this service agreement is looking at contributing slightly over $134,000 which is the time to be the same amount as the same green left hand water and sea district so again this service agreement will allow us to participate in and contribute funds to these recovery efforts immediately following the fire Boulder County took responsibility for deal operations and perceived funding from the NRCS emergency water protection funding program WP together these efforts resulted in significant progress in protecting and recovery in the burn areas but there's still remains work to be done and substantial investment in the new demand for progress and recovery efforts to burn areas that haven't yet been treated the attached contract shows the current recovery effort is approximately $6.4 million level with again in Longmont contribution of $134,000 so we are looking for a foundation from the forward to City Council to authorize the service agreement for the fire recovery efforts in the California area so Boulder County and the City of Longmont others involved are they the principal ones in the coalition so in terms of funding programs that's laid out on the budget table which is included in packet however other shareholders that are involved in the broader discussion includes the U.S. Forest Service as well as non-profits including California Education Center all different authorities and stakeholders that contribute to the management protection of forest health and water quality in a safe rain watershed Questions for Price? Can I get a motion to approve the restoration agreement? I will move to approve the college fire restoration agreement presented today Mr. Chair, I would second that motion. Move in second. All in favor? Second by Mr. A. Thanks, Brian. Moving on to items 9A Just a quick update on the windy gap firming project and at this point they're continuing to construct I've got some pictures here in a second of construction so you may recall this is a photo from last month where we were in October 18 and just to refresh your memory this is the main axis of the dam because with all those pictures look at this hillside here the dam axis goes up here from the cross and comes all the way up here this is just one this will be one month of photos you can see the work on the core on the key trench for the dam along here you also are just starting the road there will be a road that goes to the backside of the reservoir you can see this is the penstock if you're driving up to Fort Collins you can see that penstock coming down there will be a bridge over that penstock because to get a road around the reservoir the road will go around the west side of the reservoir to the backside there's a saddle dam on the south side of the reservoir that's also under construction and that road is under construction you can see the overburden that they're taking off the site you can see they're starting to build paths here to store that overburden and it's kind of interesting to watch the material coming over to here, the paths watch the key trench going in and then watch that activity up here this is where the quarry is being built to protect the main dam as you build the main dam so these are just one week apart this is October 25th you can see some more of the overburden the next picture is November 1st, Friday but you can see the bridge going over the penstock you can really start to see more of the work on the key trench as well as now there's four stockpiles, overburden stockpiles as well as some of the work starting to go up there on the above, and then the next picture a week ago you can really see the key trench there and then the next picture is today and you can really see the key trench right here and some more overburden taken up there so that's kind of where construction is today always nice to get a fresh picture like that in terms of the work, the bridge over the penstock it's about a million dollars for that bridge they've got the abundance formed for that now on the quarry they've actually removed all the overburden off the quarry and they've done their first pioneering blast so they did one blast if I was better and quicker on the computer I would have had it up there but I don't have a copy of that yet on the saddle dam they removed approximately 10,000 yards of overburden for the saddle dam and that is going directly onto that road for construction of that road on the south side it's actually a fairly evolved road because if you saw those pictures you got high enough it's a lot of ridges that they're up to and so it's actually taking a little bit of work to get that built but that southern access road is about one third complete so they're moving right along in that in terms of the budget they've drawn so all the funding went into an account that is drawn on they've drawn about 23 million to date they expect to draw 8 million for the October payment about 10 million for the November payment and some real money in fact one of the bigger one large expenditure was the project just paid back 2.6 million to the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District for purchase of red top ditch shares you may remember a number of years ago Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the Red Tap project purchased a bunch of shares in the red top ditch which actually diverts out of the Colorado River and irrigated land and what was going to be the Jasper Reservoir site which was the original Reservoir site in 1967 and the original filing was filed for the construction of the project which decided it would be better to have the Reservoir on the east side the red top ditch shares are being changed they actually will longer irrigate and they'll be used for two things one to provide in-stream flow and augmentation of the Colorado River downstream of Windy Gap down the 15 mile section for Colorado River and as part of the negotiations for the firming project the original agreement with the west slope with the Middle Park Water Conservancy District was they got the first 3,000 acre deep that pumped in a given year so in years when there was no pumping they didn't come in priority, they got zero in years when it pumped they got 3,000 a feast of famine even more so than the project that doesn't work real great for them because they need water every year a lot of their augmentation programs similar to here in the same brain they need to meet that water every year so part of the negotiation was to reduce that total amount but make it every year and of course the project couldn't guarantee that based on its water rights even with the firming project but was able to do it by taking the red top ditch which is very senior and utilizing that water to meet that delivery obligation so that's kind of where the project is right now a companion project is a Colorado River connectivity channel going around the reservoir 90% design drawings are now completed and under review by the NRCS it's expected to get their review comments before Thanksgiving is the goal the permitting by the NRCS is still a critical path on that project and unfortunately it's the economists NRCS are all ended up so they have to do a cost benefit analysis and they're struggling with that I think they can't figure out what the value of the fish is we'll get there but it will be open for public we hope that it's open for public review in December and so we'll certainly let everybody know if that's going to have public review because we hope to get a lot of organizations saying hey this connectivity channel is a good thing it helps the environment it helps fish passage it helps sediment transport public input will be great anybody would say it's a bad idea to do that and then if that review comes to fruition and there isn't a lot of the process with the federal review is that then the federal government has to respond to the comments they receive during the public review process hopefully there isn't a lot and they actually NRCS is hoping to have a fauncy or finding a significant impact by the end of December if that happens we'll actually be able to catch this construction we hope to start late spring some of the construction out there it's not that federal permitting process you never know so that's the status of let me get it done questions? alright thank you next item a lot of resources engineering projects update Jason taking this? yes Mr. Chair I wanted to give you an update on two projects both regarding the South St. Brain Pipeline the pump station is still being manufactured and right now it's still on time to be delivered in February we're currently working with purchasing contracts to get an advertisement out an invitation for bid to get a contractor on board so that we can start preliminary excavation and construction starting in January so that'll be going on to advertising in the next week or two the other aspect of that pipeline is the rehab project I think the last time I just spoke to you I told you that the liner was coming from Germany and was stuck in customs down in Texas we passed through customs we're now on a train heading to Colorado it should be here any day now so it's very exciting and so we're working with the Tonal Lions to make sure that once we have possession of that liner we can start tearing up certain parts of the town and putting in those temporary access points and get that liner installed as soon as we can we'll be doing a lot of that work at night due to CDOT's Highway 7 project we want to stay out of the way and so we're working with CDOT and the Tonal Lions we've decided to it'd be best for us to do our project at night so that'll be the thing that's going on but we're going to take extra measures to make sure that we try not to disrupt the adjacent residents as much as we can that's really all I have for those two projects if there's any questions on those projects or any other questions? Any questions? Anybody? Thank you Okay, water conservation updates Yes, thank you I believe the budget passed since the last four years so the additional half water conservation position is official for 2022 so I look to Kenny for when that temporary access will happen we are finishing up the year so we finished our research central contract and are planning for next year I believe when I did my last update the request there's an ask about whether we're going to increase our research central school to school outdoor water audit we are doing that, we are going to increase that next year since we did I think we ran out of funding in mid-August to reach more households next year we have seen that an uptick in our Efficiency Works commercial program that launched last year so there hadn't been a lot of participation but in the past quarter three we started to see more businesses applying for toilet rebates and other indoor water programs we still haven't seen multi-family participation which is our greatest opportunity but the most likely reason is still COVID our equivalent on the energy side over our long-run power communications they also haven't seen participation since COVID started with multi-family so hopefully as the pandemic continues to get better we can see participation in multi-family building where we can hopefully do a 30% of the toilet at once which could have a lot of water conservation opportunities we are continuing right now on our residential side we have irrigation rebates we have not yet developed that on the commercial side we're doing some regional talks for Collins, more than water and Loveland about non-residential irrigation rebates and trying to do that in a regional approach that also works with landscaping companies because you can upgrade the irrigation system but if it's not managed properly you actually won't save water it's not as easy as if you upgrade a toilet you might as well flush and save water no matter what less so of the irrigation system so we're talking regionally about combining kind of working with certification programs or looking into what that would look like before guidance and non-residential irrigation rebates we also have one opportunity to do the AMR grant that was received by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation last year we are just starting to receive a data coming into our next 360 program that we can start to look at notification, continuous water usage so we are just starting to talk with a number of staff of what that would look like in our thinking of next year doing a demonstration project so that we can see how do we engage the customers when they have continuous water usage that is most likely a leak because that is a high opportunity for water savings that really there is a system that allows us to do much more proactively depending on how many days but after two days or three days we can know if they have continuous water usage we would know earlier but we would want a couple of days to make sure someone decided to fill a pool in the summer so that would allow us to hopefully help catch some high water leaks and save water so those are the main things that we are working on right now lots of opportunities for next year we are continuing I believe earlier this year to have a growing water smart effort we are continuing to work across city departments to identify opportunities for how do we integrate land use and water use planning and are continuing to bring in more staff to have those conversations and look for opportunities for our internal, our parks as well as in the development and redevelopment and developers so looking for lots of different opportunities of how to continue that effort through that for next year question for Frances? I'll just make a comment that we found one of your leaks when we were doing our landscaping a couple of months ago and several of those drops of water made into our basement nothing substantial the leak has been fixed other questions? I love old town okay let's move on to item we call it 9D gas relief policy review as you got into your packet West she did a good job of putting this together there's a lot of information let me just suggest something as we go through these by section by section give us your comments how much you want to read and what have you and now I'd like to just stop and see if anybody's got any questions and then move on to the next session because there's a lot to digest here rather than waiting so if you don't mind we'll just take it piece by piece okay so I'm going to just go ahead and start there on page 11 of our packet and I'm going to start with the early history as we go through this information I'm going to highlight kind of the major tenets I'll capture just the highlights in the paragraph some of these will have different staff members present some information and I'll explain what we've got going on the early history it really starts back in 1964 when we became a whole new city when the water board and city council set up the Royal Water Requirement Policy and so this has been in place for almost 60 years now that there's a requirement of transferring 200 feet of water into direct water to the storage and then it talks about how to make up a deficit if there is one so in 1988 the water board and staff looked at the way that it was evaluated cash and loo and so there was a report done in that it was determined that the marginal incremental cost pricing method would provide a sound graphical means to determine cash and loo it basically talks about that it would be based on economic principles that annexed property should be responsible for the cost of the latest or mixed increments of raw water capacity that they caused to be purchased and so we continue to evaluate cash and loo in that way and then further in 1993 the city's Royal Water Requirement Policy was formally adopted by reference in the Royal Water Municipal Code and then in 2004 it was codified for a specific inclusion of the code so since that time it's been an actual part of the code in 2013 the current methodology was looked at in the review of the current cost of water conservation efforts new water supply projects identified in the City of Walmots Royal Water Master Plan current market value associated with the purchase of CBD and then the current market value of not-as-worth water rights and so that's kind of the distant past of the early history of it is there any questions on the early history at all? I guess somewhere in here did we at one time through this period just base the cost on CBD by itself without you know that would be correct there was a period within our early history where we were putting the emphasis on the selling price of CBD we were struggling with getting the basic water rights back then as far as the cost of what the basin water rights were and it was a limited amount of basin water rights in the network with the CBD and at the time there actually we made some fairly significant CBD purchases so at the time it probably even made more sense when that's what you're buying it makes sense to me value it on what's your requirement so this is just something to keep in mind maybe for the rest of the discussion I don't know if it needs to be answered here but my so my question about this entire process really kind of boils down to what essentially like what and I don't know I was going to quote somewhere in here but we keep talking about it as the next kind of incremental cost right so that word has like a timeline associated with it so it's like okay what's next that's done what's next and so I'm always curious as to like those transitions that have perhaps happened in the past being able to kind of inform what happens in the future so at what point do we say okay that project is done next right and so the because then the next thing is what we actually have to kind of like base our our cash and move along right so so for example to put a fire point on it when do we decide that like when you get a firming project is kind of done because the bonds are issued and so that cost is kind of like in place and then we say okay the next project is this and then that becomes what we base the cash and move on right so I don't know that that necessarily needs to be answered right now but it's just like kind of the way in which I'm thinking through some of these issues and I don't know if that from a historical context whether any of that discussion has been had already such that maybe that would inform the future as to what we're doing in the future yeah we to be really honest we stop using CBT if we request the city council when it took off you know we went from seven or eight thousand acre foot to nineteen thousand acre foot within a year we took almost a three fold increase and we had permanently made the decision in our raw water master planning efforts approved by city council that we would not focus on acquiring more CBT so both of those things happened at about the same time and that's when we said now we'll go back and look at projects you know what will we spend the money on and that's when we went about for it yeah I think that's a really good answer and I'll punch on actually answering maybe yeah because I think it would be good to have a conversation between staff and board we'll go forward other than to say I sort of we sort of look on setting this price based on what really does become policy whether I think it's still reasonable to use Wendy Gapp every project partially even though it was bonded but we will pay those bonds off over time 30 years I think so it's not like even though it's built and bonded you still have some money there but also it is a very reasonable we're really trying to find what's a reasonable metric to use to set and that would seem like a reasonable metric all the others we've listed here are reasonable as well and I would say you don't have to use maybe way some CVP in there still it's reasonable to do that which is what we'll get into later there are a number of different ways I'm setting it and I think all of them are reasonable but yes I do agree that we should have that conversation what is the next step when does it start I agree when does it start any other comments or questions on the early history then I'm just going to I would like to briefly touch on more of the recent history so this would be from about 2013 today so since and following kind of council direction in 2013 more specific emphasis has been placed on the unit cost of when you've got a funding project and kind of explain a little bit on that a significant amount of the near term future cash and leave funds they also go towards payment of the bonds that were issued for construction of this capital facility that will serve the new newly proposed developments and so kind of going along with what you were talking about Tom we were realizing that was where this cash and leave money is going to go so therefore that would seem like a good benchmark to be looking at and further in earlier this year in July council directed us and board to further evaluate the current methodology and for establishing this to be and provide some analysis on the possible impacts if the fees were raised so that's kind of where we're at in recent history and just to comment now council's direction to further evaluate is there a thought in council's mind that maybe what we were using needed to be tweaked or how did that happen so it would be it would be great if Marcia was here she could kind of help elaborate on what the what we have in front of you is what was taken from the action minutes of city council and so it was left pretty broad I think I think they were just looking for us and board to look at how are we setting it and and if that's still appropriate if we're still looking at it as appropriate or so the changes need to be made but I don't know if we were given specific I didn't feel we had specific recommendation on what we should be doing so it would be kind of broad sort of like our policy so I will say that what's the doubt segment of the July board meeting there was a motion on or an amendment on the cable essentially to to utilize I remember the rational but the 21,000 amount so that's the union state or the union reservoir pump so to utilize a different metric that water board had set and so there was enough of a kind of and it had been second and they were about to vote it seemed like and then there was a lot of discussion about the implications and the ramifications of that choice and that decision including things like whether or not that would impact local agriculture because now people are going out on third developers are going around the market to purchase a water from them instead of just paying us to do the for example so so I think it was enough that there was a little bit of some other ideas there from council basically another way of saying is there a better way I don't know if that's full simplification but I think they were just looking for a way to set the metric at a different value that would that was higher and have a rationale for it specifically we have attached the water board communication as you know from your quarterly meetings the water board communication has a lot of data in there and part of that data was union pump back union enlargement and so those were in the low 20,000 range and that's that's what council was saying let's just use those criteria and then at that point that says no we really want water board to review this we were a little uncomfortable taking their own decision you know so that's really why they're asking the water board they just felt using the windy gap only brought down a little lower than they were comfortable we like this to add additional alright this next section business services division Becky you are ready to give us an insight on that I am I'm Becky Gould, our carbon solidated services and Heather is pulling up some slides we're just going to go over kind of generally the financial structure of the water utility it's been a little while since we've done that so it seems like a good opportunity to review all the funding and expenditures for the water utility the next slide Heather so there are four funds that make up the water utility we'll start from the right side which is the most restrictive the raw water storage fund which the revenue source for that was the sale of high mountain dams in the long long ago and the permissible use of that fund was only for storage projects so we have now fully expended that fund and we'll close that down so this will never appear on one of these slides again so that went so that went into that was part of our payment to northern water for the construction of Virginia Tolerance so then water cash acquisition fund the revenue source for that is cash and new water rates and the allowable expenditures are for water supplies so new water rights water conservation, expansion of supply so pretty restrictive you have a question? No I'm sorry you can finish up and I'll ask a question so then the water construction fund I'm sorry is there a balance no one balanced at this point in cash and new funds that have been brought in and not yet expended? Don't recall a balance in the fund we very much expended most of the balance in water cash acquisition fund also for Virginia there could be maybe no more than a million the only amount I think that recently came in this year in 2021 there was a particular development the last couple months that brought in about $940,000 so I think that's still yet to be expended all the cash in the prior to that I think it's pretty much been is it historically an in and out fund and cash in and then cash goes out almost immediately? no we do do it different ways we do tend to build up balances so we expended probably close to $7 million in total for the Winigap firming project and we had been not making many other expenditures up until then I think we made some smaller purchases of water rights over the last 5 to 10 years but not really large so and now moving forward potential expenditures include making part of the bond payments related to Winigap or other supply projects as appropriate thank you so the water construction fund is funded by system development fees so these are fees paid at the time of building permits and the allowable expenditures for that fund are cost to expand the system so primarily you can also spend it on meeting new regulatory requirements but for the most part it's adding capacity to serve new development on an annual basis that can range between about $3 to $5 million right now we expect that funding source to diminish over time as we approach our planning horizon where our population expands less and then finally our water operating fund is our most flexible fund so that's primarily where rates go into fund things as well as miscellaneous revenues associated with things like you know button rock permits and everything else that doesn't fit into a different bucket same on the cost side so anything that is related to the operation of the water utility is an allowable expenditure in the water operating fund so that's how the funds break down and we need further questions on funds themselves just a quick question then since that can move as a subject at hand that does not impact rates directly or not directly yeah that's exactly right so whatever we raise in fashion and part of the reason that I went from right to left there it's like most restrictive to least restrictive and pay with those restricted funds is something we don't have to pay out of rates so it's really an avoided cost more than it is a direct impact to the rate if that makes sense okay so I have a slightly wrong about that yep so just trying to I'm really trying to work my way through this so that there was a statement at the city council meeting where it said impact fees can have been used through test rates is that did I capture that correctly so in other words like our cash in lieu and and the rate structure are they all intertwined so in other words can we get if we fix the cash in lieu at a different price could that somehow be used to make sure that water rates residential water rates either the fees don't go up or the rates don't go up in the future or that we could somehow diminish them or something so not directly but yes indirectly so if we collect cash in lieu and then use that to make for example the bond payments related to that's an expense that we don't have to pay from rates however we don't we don't project revenue from cash in lieu because it's all dependent on the development cycle so when we set rates it assumes no revenue from cash in lieu so it only affects the rates for the next time that we set them whatever costs we were able to offset through what we collected as development occurred it's such a tricky one because I'm a member of the public right and I say well I want developers to be charged more via cash in lieu so that my water rates don't go up if the answer to that is well those two funds are disconnected so therefore they're not related and so we're talking about apples and oranges here that's an easy thing to say that's not what we're saying though they're kind of intertwined but not in a predictable way and so therefore we don't know whether cash in lieu in any given year would affect the rate structure but perhaps it could but we're not sure so in convoluted stories it's the hardest to tell really concise message but it's an important factor to the public I'll guarantee you Cheryl anyway alright carry on Mackie alright so next up we just want to talk about how we set those rates in fees other than cash in lieu next slide there so rate setting is a pretty straightforward process there's an industry standard methodology that we use where we essentially determine the revenue requirements so what's the money that we need to operate the utility then we go through a cost of service allocation where we take all that money that we need to operate the utility and decide which user classes to allocate those costs to and then once we know the cost of serving each user class then we design a rate to collect the cost of service from each class so right clear it's money but you know the very very clear method that we use there so then we have our system development fees sorry for your conclusion so for system development fees as well as for the WinGAP search card which is the next one here we use a buy-in methodology in contrast to an incremental method or you know marginal methodology which is what is used in cash in lieu so what we do with a buy-in method is we try to look at the value of the infrastructure that the community or utility has invested into date and then figure out the value of that on a per connection basis so that as new connections are added we're moving the value like everyone is contributing you know what the value of what was already in place when they when they got there so what we do is we take the value of the existing infrastructure and so for the system development fee that includes our treatment infrastructure our distribution and then the raw water lines like so the supply infrastructure but not the water rights and not the WinGAP project and we subtract from that bond principle outstanding because that's going to be part of what these new customer paper and their rates as we move forward and then we divide that by the single family equivalent unit so looking at all of the connections currently in the water system you know if those were all single family residential taps like how many would there be so right now for a single family resident that works out to approximately $6,500 per connection there's a component that's related to the domestic use and a component that's based on a square footage of a lot so that can vary a bit question? Yeah I was only thinking whether the single family equivalent units for those that were built at the time that you valued out or those that have been planted built at some point in the future. It is the ones that are built at the time so sort of that existing infrastructure of these then along with that's around 30,000 then on the commercial side that is calculated in a whole different process it was strictly residential. So we would convert and we would say a brewery uses about as much water as to the houses or something like that so based on the average use per class as well as the capacity of the leader for that connection we go for a whole So this covers all users? Yeah so we convert everybody to what would it be like if you were single family equivalent. Same essential calculation for the wavy gap surcharge but what we've done there is we've taken the value of both the parent and the firming project or long miles contribution to the parent from the firming projects subtracted upon principle outstanding and divided by those same single family equivalent units so we just reset this in when was that October after we made the payment to northern so we'll revisit that periodically as that bottom principle outstanding reduces and that's approximately 15 to 20 per unit so I don't know if there was anything in particular that was all I had on that I don't know if that's... Further questions about thank you for the information appreciated thank you okay let's move to topic front range water provider cash in lieu of comparison so West you got some comments on that yeah so Nelson's actually going to get some of the highlights on this particular one so what I want to do is so we kind of started this late October and they had it off to me early last week so these are the entities that we've actually had a hold of and I don't want to go through each entity because everybody I just want to make general comments so when you look at this and you look at the different pricing based on our conversation that our research that we've done a lot of the research has been also through their website as well for the websites for these entities we'll have information on so a lot of your higher fees will be entities that is mainly asking for CDT units so that will raise your make it to your higher range now your lower range is usually entities that will ask for their cash in lieu will be based on like basin water rights or their own water storage projects or other entities will have it based on like their basin water rights plus regional projects like the one you got before me and then this which is the sort of integrated project so they'll base it on that so they kind of every entity or we look have different criteria and different reasoning behind the cash in lieu it is not the same as long line and then one entity to the other entity is not the it changes each one so as I kept going through this I kept saying wow I can't believe how how it's set so much different so everybody looks at it differently and sometimes they'll be asking for cash in lieu for and we've talked about this in our discussions they'll be saying we want cash in lieu all link and then a year or two later they'll look at it and they'll be asking for water rights only so it's really kind of goes back and forth for entities so I kind of want to get that out there before we start you know have an overview of that because you know we did this kind of quickly and and a lot of this a lot of them that I've seen they do review some will do it like every few years some will do it you know more recent like every year and every six months can be kind of you know that's also how they review it is differently from ours ours is quarterly so everybody does the review timing different they do their reasoning behind it different so it's hard to say we're at this we should go to this because they are because everybody has a different reasoning behind it that's my point I hope I'm clear that's my main point on this this sheet here that we're looking at and for December we'll continue to reach out to other entities or fine tune information that we have on these entities and when I do that I'll correct the date from the top there so we'll just keep doing that as we're progressing through for December at a level so is there any questions because I didn't want to go into and pull out like a poor call on to go through the detail I guess I think that's not necessary because they're all different you know to simplify this is very much a simplification if you're looking at what they're doing I mean it is the bottom line in these cases everybody's trying to look at the cost of water basically that's very simply said but basically what we're all trying to do that's a good point so when folks are looking at just CBT the rate of that is going high so that's why the cash rate is high if they're not looking at other other sources other sources like the basin water rights are their own projects some of them have their own projects that they're involved with their own storage and so they focus on that because that's kind of their priority that's something that they see that they could be built sooner to help their supply and a lot of the northern entities are in this well quite a few of these that are up here are in this they are in that project and northern is helping with this I know Ken know more about it than I do but you definitely a lot more part of that for this probably one of the differences between us and many of the water providers because they have one fee as Becky just showed you we have the cash in new and then we have a way to get source they're different they're not the same thing and so I caution not you can't add them but you also can't forget those two charges developers can come in they're going to pay a tap fee if they want to get a surcharge fee they're going to pay a cash in more water rights so they're different in that the water rights are specifically to bring you up to three to three per acre whereas when you have surcharges for an incremental cost when you get but it's still it's still all there I might say it differently on the weedy gap surcharge because weedy gap surcharge is really to recover the cost of the infrastructure like the supply infrastructure but not the right itself and that's I think what is different between that charge and what they do is cash agreement and so chairman one of the things I want to add is I did talk to a couple folks so some of them were CBT and then they have the ability now with no basin water rights they have their own basin water rights now they're having the ability to get involved with basin water rights so then they stop asking for CBT only and then they're trying to generate cash in more they help pay for both basin water rights where as Ken pointed out for water law is we have a lot of basin water rights and the basin water rights usually wouldn't say always but usually with a lot less than CBT and so that's another reason a lot of these other with the low rates should we go on sure okay so I'll just touch briefly on the next section it's the evaluation of prior weedy gap project a lot of contract sales so those are kind of the parent project so since the parent project that being maybe gap was allocated it was originally six cities and Longmont was one of the six and we had one six ownership in that so what we have here further down there the table which shows what has happened in the last five years in terms of sale of those units of the parent project and I think what I would note in here as you can see the progression of increased price unit price this time went on and we're running around 1.5 million per unit back in 2017 it went to 2,000 and keep going up and then most recently in 2020 we're selling a unit of about 2.7 million and then we'll note it in here that PRPA they still have 10 units that they're planning to sell by bid in the next few months and they're expected to set a minimum bid price of about 3 million per unit that's what's expected continuing appreciation of value in those so that's really all I have generically on the sale of that specific things so this just to be fair this is units of windy gap for me it's a part of the parent project so this is really separate from the windy gap for me there was a finite amount of parent units and there was 480 units total and we have a city along by has 160 or 80 excuse me 80 of those units and then other entities have the remaining 400 so each unit represents roughly 148 thousands of an acre foot 100 each unit is 100 acre foot what 40,000 the point is this just for the parent project we're talking about your sale of the parent projects in order to be part of the windy gap for me you have to own parent project so for example when we when we buy into the parent project this is initially for the very okay so this is okay yeah so 1980 so if I may and this may be speculative right the parent project has existed it has a track record it has a deal that is somewhat reliable and the firming project now as a bonded project is being constructed and is there any indication that people that are involved in that not feel that they have oversubscribed or have different full demand needs going to the future and is there going to be a market for the firming project units as well and so is that has it started yet? I know among the missed participants there's been a lot of talk about that and they're waiting on the record decision to have some certainty so if you guys have some certainty under when you get firming so long months so we were long months originally in the project 16,000 acre feet we we got down to 10,000 acre feet and the costs were equally distributed so we got our money back through that reallocation once we get 10,000 acre feet more than said we're done reallocating costs if you want to get your money back you got to sell so we sold at cost previous we went from 10,000 to 8,000 then 8,000 to 7,500 and those two times we went down we sold those units for at this point no there's a great demand out there everybody would love firming project water but there isn't anybody willing to sell any probably will be some PRPA water as they start to go to renewable energy but how much we don't know how is that parent I just want to get all my ducks in there how is the windy gap parent project how is that distinguished from CVT water because it all comes to northern presumably or man's land northern so CVT is separate CVT was that was the original we have a certain amount of ownership of CVT in 1980 their water right that uses their system but as a time they didn't have any storage for that and so they're kind of like a little bit like a brother in the system they come over through the same infrastructure so there was just more there was additional potential to use the infrastructure and move more water and it does it come over the windy gap project water does it come over and get stored in harder and more stupid than all of those that part too or not? No it can pump into Lake Grandby but it can only be stored in Lake Grandby only stored in Lake Grandby when there is access to a lot of storage capacity so some years Lake Grandby doesn't fail so you can put some water in there and then next spring if you haven't used it next spring and Lake Grandby fills it spills the windy gap water so that's the real crux of why the firming project because there is more water than you could pump erotically the windy gap project was actually the tail end of the CVT project when the CVT was originally contemplated they were going to pull water off the Fraser River bringing it around and drop it into Grandby but that was too expensive with the garden so they didn't build that last segment of the project so then later on in the 1960s the six cities went together and built the pumping plant on the Fraser River to pump up to Lake Grandby so that's but they knew that was wouldn't be sufficient so they filed a water storage vessel called Jasper Reservoir on the west slope and then when it came time to build that looked at that and of course one of the things you have to do is look at all the other alternatives for the federal permit and there were 258 reservoir sites that looked at study very extensively and Jimmy Hall won one of the big issues was there were some environmental issues on the Jasper Reservoir site but one of the big issues was you wanted to get your water underneath the continental divide to this side of the dividing cases in the tunnel in case the tunnel capacity is being fully used by CVT you can't get your water over because the tunnel is full which a lot of times in the year it's full so yeah that's what happens so yeah that's how those two operate together it comes over and then it has to be immediately distributed you can't store it except for now we're building the reservoirs right now what you do is you can take what's considered immediate delivery so if we want some if we have we can get out sitting we can try to be we can just pull it out for a lot of work here it has to be sitting over there and then they'll bring it over in a later date let me make a suggestion it's 452 I don't want to rush through this because there's a lot of meat still left in this thing I would suggest we stop at this point and pick it up next month we're talking about that anyway in our December meeting but these discussions are pretty substantial I want everybody to understand what's going on so we can come up with a decision a knowledgeable decision so if there's no objection I'd like to stop Mr. Chair I have let Heather and Ted know and Todd know that I had to leave at 4.45 I mean it's going to be 5 that would help me tremendously it's going to be a tough one but thank you be ready for more next month and Allison and thank everybody for coming to this can I ask one question just in case it's not available and it wasn't in here and it could be provided in December the ability for anybody to bring in water to dedicate that is in basin water is somewhat limited by the amount of in basin water left available and not already brought in or otherwise encumbered in some other fashion but we have a sense of how much native water is left it could potentially be dedicated to long months current rules of what they accept and so forth I don't think I saw it in there I was curious if there was knowledge and if that was something we could perhaps see we'll be able to provide a general sense of what that would look like balancing what you can bring in versus what you have what how much remaining non-historic water would be eligible likely to come to a long life we think some de minimis amount of additional land that can be annexed into so there's some metrics on there that factor into what we should expect people to be able to bring in versus bringing in a different fashion than our existing program okay great thank you anything else on item 10B in that weight 10 no 11 anything on 1 can't wait 412 we're adjourned