 Call the meeting order. Meeting the Alumni Water Board Monday, September 19th. I want to hear the roll call. Yes. Roger Lang. Here. Allison Gould. Here. Tom Dester. Here. Staff, Ken Houston's here. Wes Lowry. Yes. Kevin Bowden. Here. Hope Larbett. Here. David Bell. Here. And council member, Marshall Martin. Here. OK, mayor, Trevor, we have the floor. All right, thank you. Just a quick question about Jason, is he here? He's at the middle of a project, so I'm going to cover for him today. It's a skeleton crew. OK, let's talk about approving previous months' minutes. Any comments or questions about the minutes from last month? Some motion to approve. I approve. Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All right. Who's doing the water status before? That'll be me and Roger. OK, very good. The flow on the St. Brain lines this morning was 34 CFS. The historic average, 120-foot-favorite historic average is 54 CFS. The call on the St. Brain Creek is the Nailot Ditch with a priority date of June 1st, 1865. The call on the main stand in the south by river was Harmony Ditch with a priority date of May 3rd, 1897. Right now, with the price reservoir, at Montenegro, it was full in spelling at an elevation of 6,400.2, and passing full North St. Brain over the spillway, which is approximately 26 CFS. Union Reservoir was in an elevation of 25.2 feet, of 10,756 acre feet, which is down approximately 2,000 acre feet from full, and releasing 16 CFS. On September 1st, 2022, St. Brain Creek was the historic St. Brain Creek basin storage place. It was at 71 percent. So we're pretty dry out there, just from the flow on the St. Brain. And just a question. A year ago, we can remember, it was well-priced, full, and it's building, also. It was a typical period. Yeah. Occasionally, we released some water in September, but we tried to cut short releases. Still, you know, October 20, was it ever first now? Great. All right. Any questions for Kevin? Thank you. Thanks, Kevin. I don't see anybody from the public here, so we'll just move beyond that one. Any agenda or provisions or submissions? We have them. OK. Item 7, development activity. Done, now, done. So all of this, all of this, I am made. I guess that's what I said. So this is the board's quarterly review for Cache and Lue. I should remind everyone that it was back on March 8 for the City Council approved resolution 2022-35. Set of the fee for Cache and Lue at the current $48,500 per acre feet. And that was based on the Windy Gap Birmingham Project in its entirety, which was equivalent to $30,000 per acre foot for the original Windy Gap version of the company project and $18,500 for the city's current investment in the Windy Gap project. And we were hoping, well, I shouldn't say we were hoping, we were anticipating there being some information on Windy Gap sales for PRPA. But we had contacts with them. It looks like that's not going to happen or be available till spring next year. So we don't have any new data in terms of changing costs. The project itself is using some of the contingency money, as they expected it. And but we believe there's sufficient contingency money in there to continue the project. So with all of that being said, we're recommending no change to the current deeper Cache and Lue. And looking forward, you don't see much changing those numbers? We do not. We'll continue to update the board. The next, I would say, substantial piece of information would come with the sale of CBT. Or if we get to where they request the participants to contribute additional dollars because of low funds and the contingency fund. But right now, that's not being anticipated. So I think based upon council's direction, we're right where we should be. Tom Rills and any comments? Yeah. How have we had applications? I think the last time we spoke about this, most people were trying to get in before the change over. Have we had folks coming after? Bringing Cache and Lue? Yeah. Yeah, good question. There was a lot of people that came in right before, actually have wanted the process right now of bringing a check-in. That check was for around $170,000, which seems like a lot. But it actually only represents, like, you know, three or four acre feet. But we have seen Cache and Lue coming into the city's coppers from after this change. So projects are still leaving for as they happen. That's amazing. Yeah, I mean, I've always been proponent of more information. It doesn't seem like there's a whole lot more to base an opinion on. So I don't see any rationale really for a change relative to previous discussions that we've had on the context. Anything else? That's all I have. All right. So item nine, you're going to take that, Ken. Yeah, first item to report on is some of our engineering projects that are ongoing right now. Probably the two most significant projects are the constructing a pump station from the South St. Ring Pipeline to be able to pump into the North St. Ring Pipeline to pick up some of the winter water on our South diversion. It's a little more difficult to get. Otherwise, that project, the pump is in. And that's why Jason's not here today. They're actually doing the tie-in from the pump station to the North Pipeline. So we're cutting the pipeline, putting it together. That'll take a couple of days to do a two-lengthy project. That's going on right now. So that's good. Should make the project halfway operational by sometime in October. So that's two years. Actually, one of the last of our purchases of that pump station is one of the last of our plants. We're that close to giving that down. The second project that's going on right now is some of the bearish to the outlet of the up and down. We've got a failure of a flange gasket and addition on our low flow jet flow gate, as well as the actual regulating gate where it seats down. This was leaking, and so just the opportunity before since the spillage is still spilling, all the water coming down can go over the spillway. So it doesn't impact the stream at all. This time of year, it's kind of critical to do that work. This time of year, you can't do it in summer, because you didn't have too much flow over the spillway. You can't do it after November, because we lose our sink rate supply canals. It's always a real tight window in September. I'll try to start a project like that. So let's just start in Jesus of the Kingdom. Hopefully, both of those two projects in the old seat out of the old regulating gate is already out. So that part of the project will go on now. I'll just get a new seat put in and stop it. I'm sure that should be coming along pretty good. And then the last, and I'm sure this will come up, is going to be a quick update on the media filming project. I'm sure it'll turn that on in a photo. I'm sure we can ask that quick question. Robert, do you need a term that vote on the caching list? Well, my opinion is there's nothing to exchange in every way. I didn't see that we need to be one. Yeah, we normally only vote if it's a recommendation to counsel. Good question. I thought about where I came on. Big up today. There we go. All right, picture again. You look so happy again. I'm going to put a tease on that. So that's an actual picture from today between the old project. So that's hot off the press. You can actually see, so there's the quarry that's been there a while, that you can see the asphalt plant is up there. Now, that area when the project's done, becomes the parking area for the Larimer County Recreational Area, which will be good, that you can see that. The bridge over the Pennstock is much better. We see it now. And then they're still working on the plinth. Got a little bit more to do here in a little tiny bit. But a good portion of the plant is down and constructed. A little bit of the rock fill is starting. And then around this side, you can see the footprint of the dam very well. And around this side, you can see some of the downstream filter, where any CPG would be picked up in the filter and taken down in a controlled fashion. That's it. Probably done a whole lot different than last month, or even when we were up there turning it. It's coming along well. And I think, although we reported last summer, we did have the groundbreaking on the connectivity channel. That went well. The nice thing about having groundbreaking, it was kind of a quick permit, and that allowed some of the funding to come in, which allowed the contract to be left, which allowed the groundbreaking, which allowed some of the last of the funding to come through. It was kind of everything was sitting there. Hey, we thought everything was ready to go, but it's now coming to the channel with a little bit of luck in the Grand Lake County area. We'll have a little bit of time this fall to get some construction done. We'll smoke it pretty quick. But we're getting started, so that's good. That's all I can think of. Maybe this fluctuates a lot, but as far as being on schedule, is there a sense is where we hoped it'd be? It is. It's probably one of the ways you look at that is expected expenditure funds and how much you've expended. We're in about that 90%, 95% range. As close as you can predict a construction project at this scale. So right now it's tracking on schedule. Financially is cost, sir. And financially, as you would expect, there are some change orders for mostly varying conditions in the foundation and a few other things. But for the most part, yes, we're still well within the budget. No big change or a change. Any other questions for Ken? OK, thanks, Ken. So that's what Jason would report on, and then you all take it. That's all we have on the budget. So we'll let you go. Hi, everybody. So I just wanted to give a quick update on a conference slash workshop that we attended last week. It's called Growing More Smart. And it's a yearly workshop held on by the Sonora Institute and the Babitz Center for Inuse Planning. And basically, it's to put people who normally don't work together in the same room so that we can connect the dots between development and more resources. So Ken and I were able to go. And then we had three planners, a long-term planner, an environmental planner, and a development review among some other wonderful GIS people. And we had a really wide array of people on our team to go up to Estes Park. And it's basically like a deep dive into where we want to see our city go in the face of our water resources and development, hand in hand. So we developed an action plan. And that's OK. And part of one of the perks of going to this workshop is that it opens up opportunities for fun things. So we kind of created this mission statement for our Growing Water Smart team, which is not just the team that went, but a variety of other people who work on water-related projects in the city. So you get parks and open spaces, and storm water, and flood plain, and all kinds of water is involved in everything. So we've got people from all across the board on this overlarge team. And you guys may remember that Francie went in 2020. And so this is our second friendly camp in 2020. So this is our second time attending. This time was different because we got to be in person. So we feel it was much more valuable to create those network opportunities and personalized relationships with people. So we feel very much more motivated. And we created an action plan and a mission statement that I'll read for you. Despite the adversity we faced, Longmont is an adaptable community that continues to be a responsible steward of our resources. But Colorado is challenged by water issues. And Longmont is not as resilient as we could be. Our path forward can better reflect our values. Therefore, we can commit to fostering an equitable, safe, and resilient community that contributes to Colorado's water future. So basically, we came up with some overarching long term goals. The long term, the long horizon goal is we would like to update our coded design standards to reflect water efficiency better so that we are developing with water efficiency in mind instead of having to focus on retrofitting developments that are new. We also want to coordinate upcoming plant updates with water efficiency in mind. So as you all know, we have our water efficiency master plant update coming up. That's going to play a lot of the groundwork in language for other plants to borrow from. So Parks and Open Space is doing an update, as well as sustainability. And then the city's comprehensive plan is also hopefully already updated soon as well. So we're really making sure to have a coordinated effort between all of those plant updates so that we're all on the same page in developing and planning for the same goals. And we're going to do all of this with projects that are data-driven. So we can have data-driven proof decisions. Lots of community engagement and outreach, lots more efficiency on public property. So in our last month's meeting, we mentioned this city becoming kind of a role model for water efficiency. And that was a big part of what we wanted to do. We wanted to focus on what we can control here, kind of get some quick, fast, easy wins, develop some case studies, get really good data on why we should be water efficient, so that we can prove to council eventually someday why we should update our code and prove what works and how it saves water by being efficient. Counties, oh, there's updates, so. Good. Just get them ready. We're ready. We are not ready. We're ready to be ready. And we broke it out into subcommittees, which is probably the main difference between how we're moving forward with the project management of groundwater smart versus now versus 2020. And so it's not just me as it was just frenzy, kind of coordinating, wrangling the cats. We kind of are doing a subcommittee approach to disseminate and delegate leadership so we can pull the category more. So yeah, we're excited. Where was the meeting going to take place? It was in Estes Park. And it was three days of pretty intense breakout workshops facilitated brainstorming. But it was really great. A lot of, all of the planning is really excited. And we're excited to get these projects moving. Are communities attended? Four other communities attended. So Cheyenne was there, which was the first from Lion Lake to ever participate. And then us and Broomfield, Windsor, and Lions. So five, I guess. Right. And it was great to have Lions there, too, since we're right next door. And we provide the attribute water. So it was good to collaborate with them. Very good. Anything else, though? Right. That's a lot of them. Yes. A question about what kind of role in terms of vision, let's say, as far as term, in terms of preferred placement and also codes, as far as what we have in our future development. I hope that's something that's going to be part of what is going to be presented to City Council. Yeah. Well, so I have a question, a reinforcing question, maybe, about that. I, first of all, just have to brag a little bit. I just had my turf inverted and have zero state plants and a drip system in my yard now. And I'm doing all of this scubble or mulching it and all that stuff. It doesn't require any skills. And I'm not very strong at it. But the situation we've got is that a lot of people can adopt policies for even codes that manage households, right? You have to do with single-family home turf removals. But existing HOAs, and I'm not sure about future HOAs, that maintain their own green air spaces. I don't think we have any ability to tell them they have to pull out their turf and re-landscape that because homeowners associations or quasi-governmental agencies that are sort of not underneath the municipality in certain ways. And so I wonder whether that was discussed recently, within the last few years recently, the state legislature awarded homeowners in HOAs the right to zero-scape their own property regardless of what their HOA covenants are. But that doesn't speak to the land that is maintained by the HOA covenants. So I just wondered whether that was put on the table. It's been discussed on the legislative side that we would like to request that our representatives try to broaden that exception at the state level so that the HOAs don't have to, you know, we can restrict the amount of turf that they use. So question for you. Yeah, that specifically did not come up. I wasn't aware of that. So that's good. I mean, that's something that we're hoping to do a lot of is really deep dive into our current code and design standards and figure out, like, because right now our code is very vague and it says things like preferred low water plants. And that doesn't really mean anything. So we're hoping that as we move forward with these projects that we really do some deep dive into our current code, current laws, what we can and can't do. And that has a lot to do with HOAs too. I can speak to a lot of community members are really interested in doing a lot of retrofits in their HOA common areas. And I feel like if it's resident driven, then the HOA will most are more likely to adopt that. But that's good to keep in mind. I think you appreciate that. Yeah, and one thing that our legislator could maybe even help a little bit is when I read the statute on you can't compel a property or an HOA, they don't use the term HOA, community something. But what is HOAs? It's clear that you can't compel a private property or some that don't feel that applies to an HOA itself. That's what I was trying to say. And I read it, I don't know the attorneys. I kind of think that you also can't compel a HOA. But it's not clear. So I think, yeah, that would be great. That would be great. I mean, if we changed our code so that you're limited on periphery, you'd have to reduce. Something in, I mean, I'd be happy to test that. So maybe give you the opinion on how far that extends. It's an area we probably need to look at a little harder. So Marcia, where is this heading for single-family residences? Where is it heading? Well, what lies down to them is their discussion about having codes for them, is how much term they can have, or is that even a discussion? Right now, no. I mean, right now what's happening, as David could probably explain it better than I have, is that we're focusing on incentives now. You want to maybe explain, because I don't know, for example, how much more we put in the budget for incentives. So that probably is a kind of hope piece of there. We in the parks side of the ones are doing stuff internally in the parks on some of the city properties that we have right now. So we are actually taking steps to do conversions for a couple of reasons. One, to get out in front and see what really works to reduce the water demand for the city. But also then to be an example for our residents and say, here's something you can actually look at. It can be a demonstration of such a product. Be that conversion of grass types to different grass types. Or, as you did, take it from turf to some sort of zero glasscaping. So I don't know a lot of the pregnant dollars in it. We've done anything yet to help with the residential side. Yes, we have. Yeah. So we work with Resource Central. And last summer was our live trial period to see how successful it was. It was wildly successful. We had 40-something applicants. And you could only find like 12 projects. So we doubled our budget for next year. And then we also have applied for a grant through St. Graham-Lapton Water Conservancy District to give us more money so that we can make it bigger. But the plan is to increase those incentives year over year. And then state funding will come into play as well. So the CWCB, the house, though, that just passed recently for the turf removal incentives. We'll get, hopefully, we'll apply to get some money through them as well. So, David, from a city standpoint, some of our properties on your talking parks and what, are you zeroing in on a particular initial one where you actually removed? Sure. I'm just kind of curious. So we've done mostly work done, removals right now has really been around municipal buildings. So this building right here, actually, we have taken out bluegrass. And I think, I'll determine what species we put in out here. But I'm curious to see what we've put out here. So much more less water needs for those species. Then over at the Sunset Building, we've taken the turf out in front of that. And I think we put a dog turf in one area. And on the other side, a dog turf. And on the other side, we put a rock-type landscaping with zero plants. So we're really doing our properties that we've done the taking out of turf. And we've done it on city properties that are really municipal buildings and accesses. As far as our parks, it's been a design piece that for probably several years now that we've looked at our parks and said, do we really need all that turf? And we've been designing in more native, naturalized areas that could be pollinator habitat. It could be more xeric. They're really trying to super-buy that green space with a cooling for people to get out and just use that. But looking at those perperies, especially, is spaces that really could be designed as more naturalized areas that don't require as much water. And the next ones coming up would be Mino-Garro and Clover Basin, both ones that have a much more significant amount of naturalized area than you would have seen 20 years ago. And I can maybe update you, too, is that we just started this project working with Northern Water Park. Yeah, with the parks department. So we're doing an advanced sprinkler audit on Roosevelt Park and garden acres. And then we also are having them help us determine areas of those parks to transition. So at Roosevelt, there's a hill with some trees on it that's never used. And so we're like, okay, let's put native grass there. And then there are some other potentials to do different varieties of demonstration projects at Roosevelt Park. And then there's a lot of space at garden acres where we can potentially just reduce the mowing and reduce the watering and kind of let the native species that are already in that area kind of take over where the ditch is. So there are some things that we're looking on to do current parks, too. Now, you said advanced sprinkling, advanced irrigation audit. And so Northern Water Sponsors irrigation audits for big properties like golf courses and parks. And so we're getting this advanced irrigation audit, which an engineering firm is coming in to do a systems-based audit. So they're gonna look at the way the system is designed, not only if our sprinkler heads are efficient, they'll tell us that, too. But then they're gonna look at, okay, but this type doesn't make sense to move into this type and those things. So I have, I guess three constituent related questions that kind of fit into this. So if we're not too strapped for time, one is sprinkler system audits. I have had resident complaints about mosquitoes. And what I do is I go out and it's always from an apartment building. Nobody from a single family home ever complains. But people don't like the spraying, though. And so I go out there and say, yeah, this is all HOA land. We can't get the city to do anything about this standing water. But boy, do these HOAs need a sprinkler system audit. So if there's a... There is, yes. Northern Water and our sponsors as well with Resource Central. So we have a goal to do at least five big properties a year. So HOAs just have to apply and then it's free for them. Great. So we need to have somebody selling the idea to them? Yes, yeah, absolutely. Yeah, including my neighborhood. Move Waters the Street a lot. Yeah, it's common. Yeah. This is a question for Dave, I think, which is I was in the historic east side and they're worried about their old trees because people are watering their lawns less and the city doesn't water the right of ways in that HOA list neighborhood. And they're worried that the trees aren't gonna get enough water. So do we think about that? Do we have a soil test that we can see how the tree is doing? So we think about it too with one of the things we're looking at. So there's a couple of things. Water conservation is something I think is a very responsible way, but also water can get expensive for some people. We have those large trees there. It really is, when you have to start cutting back, where do you cut back? So in that historic east side, we're trying to look at those trees and see if there's something we need to do our code to say we recognize we need to keep this asset from losing that. So we're looking at it right now. So we don't have a new solution, but it's something we have looked at over time even prior to some of the water conservation. Just said, yeah, that we're putting that burden on individuals that may not have the same interest or prioritization of that city resource within that area. Right, it used to just be accidental because they were watering it in the spring. Right, right, right. Yeah, exactly. So we are looking, so our forestry and timber and the parks group are looking at that to see how we do a better job of making sure that we're meeting our water conservation goals, but also not losing some of the assets. So again, cooling and all the other pieces were sitting. You also monitor the trees for health, I assume, because we've got some ancient cobblers that probably are at their end of life anyway. That's one of the pieces that, probably a little more you're asking, but as I was going out and looking at some of our parks and seeing some of the areas that I felt a little bit lacking is because we really have shifted over and really start looking at some of those more historic higher quality trees that have a risk to people and property if they fail. So there's a tree limb cycle that we try to get on, like in about every 10 years, every tree gets looked at. We're taking that down below 10 years now. So really, that's what we've been trying to get caught upon all those big trees that are getting older and making sure that the health of those trees is something we want to keep out there in the community if we need to replace it and if it needs to be proved in a way that helps maintain the health. So those big trees are a high value, high asset, high risk if we don't take care of it. So we can focus on those right now. Some of the old guys aren't much of those risks. So I've been seeing a little bit more loss in those areas, but we're trying to find that balance. Okay. And we also have part of our, we have a, I'll call it a pre-programmed information, public information on water conservation. And part of that, where we zoom right in on, make sure you continue to water your trees and even suggest in the wintertime periods, people get out there in January and February and water their trees, and they might not otherwise think of it because there's no leaves there, but they need moisture. So we do have that in our information pre-programmed package. Thank you. Both great answers. My last constituent question, the constituent is Allison, who the last time I saw you, Allison, we were both zooming out the door and you mentioned something about if we have water surpluses, do we have a way of leasing it to a consumer on the less slope where the drought is? And so because all of our conservation efforts we know are pretty much so far, they're proactive, right? We always have enough water. This is just, I don't expect you to have the answer, but I think that the council would approve some water quality improvement leases, river quality improvement leases, if we have the capability of doing it, but of course the council has no idea whether the city has the capability of doing it. So we don't have an individual capability of doing it because for two reasons, one is the windy gap water is only comfortable if it's needed. Sure. So it's not, and it's not needed, but no, not at all, but there isn't any access for it. For the CVT system, that underlying water right, A is owned by the federal government and it's just distributed by Northern Water, but it's a long month, it has a latte, can get an allotment, but the state law is pretty clear that you can only use water up, right? Projects of concerns within guns in the district. So to get around all of that, Northern Water Conservancy District, I'll say maybe more than general water for range water users, we've gone together, we went together years ago and acquired water on the west side of the card. There's a dish called the red top dish diverged out of the Colorado River upstream of Shadow Mountain, Colorado River goes into Shadow Mountain and then flows down with that, right? So we purchased a lot of the shares on the red top dish and you can't, essentially quit irrigating a bunch of high mountain meadows that, I mean it was grassy, nice, well grassy, but better use for that water was leaving in the stream. So that water from the red top dish accrues to the project and to see Shadow Mountain, they grab me and then is dedicated to downstream water use. And primarily the 15 mile reach and the endangered fish species on the Colorado River. So that's a fairly effective, it's, if I remember right, it's been years, but I remember right, you know, 5,000 acre feet. So that was a lot more effective than a long one, where we'd say, oh, we got a couple hundred acre feet, we could lease, you know. So that's 5,000 acre feet. And then in addition, part of the, when you get a perming project, the first three, the first 18 other, so acre feet is assigned to, goes to West Slope. So they get to use that, if that's used, but as part of the settlement for the firming project, if the West Slope doesn't need that for consumption use, i.e. middle park water concerns the stream, any of that excess then in August becomes available to Grand County, then can use it to augment the Colorado River in that August period. Windy Gap is never hardly ever pumping, it's never pumped in August, but even though it doesn't pump, the natural stream flow is a little, getting a little too warm. So we could pull it off of the fish, though. So it goes, it's released in the ice. So there's a, so the simple act, those programs are actually much more effective. They are, they are done. So, yeah, we just can't say I'm gonna take a little bit of water, water, long water and send it somewhere because. Right. So that's always the answer I've given and I've never really been sure of my ground. So, but I get the question a lot. Like, can't we just put it back? And so the answer is that regionally, those are, those needs are designed in to the extent that we can and we're doing what we can. And as a municipality, there's not a really effective way to do it. Yeah, and it wouldn't be as effective if we tried to do it. But certainly, Council has always supported Long Island and Northern and has supported those kind of regional, I think, sort of connectivity channel and the Red Top Ditch deal and all those things that happen. It'd be wonderful for me to do more. But it's best down the region. Right, thank you. Mike, does that sound good? Well, it's reasonable, Allison. I mean, I've done a year's worth of that, too. Well, it's complicated, that's for sure. Very, very good. Yeah, I just got David back to the city removing turf. And, you know, I think it's important that we can aesthetically do some of these things. I mean, things can look pretty good, even though grass isn't there. And to the extent, maybe we can show for two reasons, here's how good it can look. And also, we're doing our part at this important. We do, too, that's one of the things that I think trying to get on the front more, we can do demonstration stuff, if it's, you talk about mulching, that mulching can be wood mulch, it can be rock mulch, rock mulch. It's not this capacity that's dumped in a spot and then starts growing weeds in it. But, you know, we've done stuff over at Roosevelt, the entrance there, we've taken down some of the plant materials there. We've put in some more, really, my park sounds like rock by rock places. But it does have an aesthetic look to it. So using rocks, using organic mulches, using right plants in the right place is another really important piece that we try to do. And again, there's a lot of pieces that as we think about this, that just taking out turf, turf bluegrass in ourself, it helps water be taken in and absorb more soil than just running off. So we think about the run-off side. We think about the cooling side of it. We think about the greenhouse gas absorption by grasses too. So how do you strike that balance of keeping our city cool and green while having, again, that water conservation piece? So I think as we keep going forward this, we'll keep in our parks and in our public spaces good chances to try to evaluate that and hope who works very closely with Ben Gratton and my horticulture crew were there that that relationship is we can start measuring that too and say that we achieve our goals. The goal is just to reduce water. There's ways to do that. If there's a way to reduce water, maintain those aesthetics, maintain some of those other desires of our community, I think that's much harder. I think we're working really hard at achieving that right now, finding that balance. That's hopefully gonna be part of our growing WaterSmart. We have one person who's really dedicated to creating those metrics and creating project templates so that we can have all of our projects being measured by the same metrics. So that's really important. And then I just wanna say that that came up a lot at that point at the workshop, is that turf net is not evil. That's not what our goal is, is to, that we can't just live in a world without turf. It's important. But that's when efficiency comes into play. If this is essential turf and it's used, then we wanna make sure that it's used and we're watering it in a sufficient way. What is the incentive for turf? Where are we offering it in the city now? We're offering sort of like a stipend. So up to $750 of working with Resource Central. And you can use that money whether you get a discount on having Resource Central remove your turf at a discount rate. So without being within the community at Longmont, it's $2.50 per square foot of removal with the Resource Central program, it's $1. So you could use, if you have 750 square foot that you wanna remove, you can just pay them to do all of it. Or you can get garden and box plants. So it's kind of a choose your own adventure stipend that we provide for our community members. You're familiar with Resource Central? Yeah, it's a non-profit that operates out of Boulder. They're the ones who run and manage the majority of our programs. So they're a conservation based organization that tries to get our communities in Boulder County. And actually all across the front range. They work all the way up to Greeley to Colorado Springs and actually Pueblo too. So they provide garden and boxes with curated water efficient program that you basically get a plant by number guide. Then they give you all the plants and you just follow how to plant it. And then we do their turf removal program as well. And then they also provide education. So we use them for water-wise seminars that we do twice a year. And our slow flow irrigation audits for multi-family homes like our HOA properties and businesses, churches, big properties as well as individual homes. And real quick on the turf conversion piece of what we're doing right now. That was something that I think some councilman first brought to our attention. The other communities were actually taking part in that. What was long not doing? And what we're doing and not doing. And it really was kind of taking initiative and saying we can find some dollars. We can't really probably do it all about a budget cycle but we can find some dollars within our program. So it can really mean to happen, just. Thank you again. Because I don't know who else got letters but I sure did. My neighbor down in Luffy got their turf removed. Yeah, we knew we were gonna be there at some point. And I said, I can't just sit in front and see what we can do. Yeah, and it was oversubscribed, right? Now I'm feeling guilty because I figured I wouldn't get in. Now feel lucky. Yeah, well I do feel lucky but it's like. No, don't go there. It's great. We're gonna get everybody eventually. So the next trick is to teach a carbon sequestration class, right? So people know how to manage their newly available soil so that it sucks up. Yes. I love that. Okay. David's helping with that. Yeah. That's grasses. You would notice how much biomass is underground and how much carbon sequestration and grasses and stuff really provide us. So there are some people in organizations like stand with our same brain that are heavily into that, so. Yeah. Definitely work close with that group too. Yeah. Good discussion. All right. Hope. Ron, you have a question. Sorry. So not going back and forth between two kind of different conversations, but can I have a question about like the red top ditch deal and things that you were talking about? Who, like, where do those projects come from? So in other words, like this, you know, in the case of the couple of examples that you showed, like, did those come from Northern Water or from the Bureau or from somebody, or Reclamation, of course, or somebody, or did, you know, from top down or did that come from kind of like some grassroots kind of idea that kind of trickled up from the bottom up or do you remember in those cases? The red top, no, the red top ditch, whole concept of credit, Northern Water, how it happened was as part of the conversations around the endangered species on the Colorado River I don't remember the numbers there. When a species conservation plan is done or it's called a recovery implementation plan, that identified a large amount, I'm going to say like about 15,000 acre of the water was needed in the 15 mile reach, which is just upstream of Grand Junction, the critical reach for the endangered fish on the Colorado River. How was that going to happen? And so all water providers were pretty hard. Some water was available out of Rood Eye Reservoir, and I think that water's leased. I'm not sure if there was some excess water in Rood Eye. It wasn't a lot. That was a federal Euroreclamation project that all of it wasn't taken out. So some of the water came from there, and then I believe Denver Water did some water out of Wolford Mountain Reservoir, because when they built Wolford Mountain, they didn't need it. It was half of the Colorado River Water Conservancy District and half of it was taken out by Denver, but it was the Colorado River. So Windy Gap was built, the original Project 85, made a payment to the West Slope to build compensatory storage. So Wolford Mountain was a compensatory storage reservoir for the West Slope for the Windy Gap project. Denver Water came to the table with some money, so they got like capacity Wolford Mountain for like 50 years or something like that. And then of that overall capacity, some of that was dedicated to that, some of that, but then the water provider was in the northern Colorado, in the northern water. So we've got to come up with some water, too. We do that, and it was determined too difficult to just say, hey, we've got some water and see what we can get out of this down there. And that's when the idea of the Red Top Gauge. And so, the idea comes from YouTube, the big multi-stakeholder kind of... Engagements, engagements. That then identify need, then the various stakeholders go out and try to identify ways to meet that need and in a collaborative fashion. And so, yeah, that makes the difference. So the Windy Gap project, CBT, Northern Water, CBT purchased a lot of the Red Top Gauge Windy Gap project, also contributed some, I believe the Fermi project, really contributed a little bit in wanting to do that. I can't remember how that all looked like. But yeah, it was a result of regional cooperation and Northern Water stepping up, saying we need to make this happen. And here's how we can make it happen without impacting. And when it's all said and done, Northern Water is the representative for the various people that get water through Northern Water. And they're ultimately the stakeholder on those committees or those entities. Yeah. So they're in a way, I mean, for all things purposes, they represent us in a way on those efforts. I'm sorry, just to... Let's show how complicated this is. We've talked about that regional ability of working with the Westlake. When you have that little bit, Water, Longmont has leftover, why can't we send it there? Can also get as pushes, why can't we use it here? We have local agriculture coming to Longmont, quite often, saying, you guys have some additional water. Why aren't we using it here in same-bound ditches? We also have ecosystem needs here that a lot of those times it'd be nice to have some water in our same brain for our fisheries here, too. So if I deal with these local issues plus those regional issues, Ken and Wes and this group is always gonna pull down where is the best place to keep our water, hold our water, make sure we're not drawing things from our next year's needs here locally, too. Yeah, I mean, I think that's enough for the time that I'll raise my hand at it. So I do think that like, you know, and we've talked about this, I think, multiple times, it's kind of come up quite a bit. I think that there's an interest in this room about having some kind of, you know, for lack of a better term, kind of mitigation program, right? Like, but if Longmont is to control such a thing, right, then I think the water that we have the greatest amount of control over is things like, you know, water up and down, for example, you know, to be able to kind of like design our systems in such a way that we're getting water in the same brain in ways that are helpful to our kind of local ecosystems, right? And so we've even had discussions within the kind of, the framework of some of, you know, the options for water coming out of Longmont Dam and, you know, that project that would have put water, you know, further up into the river further upstream, for example, in under varying kind of, you know, those options that would put water further upstream into, you know, from there. So, you know, those are the types of things that I feel like we may have like some control over and potentially could innovate around. I think like the West Slope is probably such a complicated discussion that those things, you know, those things are very much outside of our, our realm of direct influence at the very least, but like I said, these kind of local ecosystem issues, we may have more, more ability to do something. I think that's a great idea. And if I hadn't been rude enough to ask a fourth question, that would have been it, you know, it was like, but I don't know how long the agenda is. So I thought maybe another time. Pretty well, yeah. Where are they close to the end? Well, then, so. Well, you got 10 minutes more. OK, Roger, this is not a 10 minute question. I frequently am asked by the people on the far edge of the conference conservation special interest, why do we have golf courses? Why don't we drive those up? You know, why don't we? And I always come back and say, well, you know, you probably are in the minority, don't want to bribe the golf courses so far, but what are you going to do with the water that you're not using on those golf courses? And so at some point, it seems to me that we should be developing some hierarchy, you know, because even if the water stays on the east slope, you've got golf courses at one end in the spectrum and keeping our reservoirs full. And then you've got agriculture east of us. And then you've got sending water down so that the water table out near Kansas can be replenished. You know, that's a stretch, because I don't really know. Sometimes you read that those water tables are at risk. But it would be good if one had more of a policy about that, or maybe internally we do when it's not articulated, but I just think it's something to think about. Yeah, we certainly can put more detail to that. Our guiding water principle says if we have excess water, that it doesn't impact our water supply. We can use that for some environmental projects. That's not a very specific. I mean, I totally agree with that guiding water principle. But yeah, more meat on that could be good. Yeah, and that's right, because when the council has asked the question like why are we wasting water on golf courses, we don't have an answer for where is the unmet need. Because in the long run, right now, we don't have any of that needs. But there might be higher and better uses than a golf course at some point in the future. And so we shouldn't thought it through before there are more than three people in the city that are asking that question. Just a question about golf course watering. Is that all? Is that treated water we are using sometimes? Yes, sometimes, no, or all? Two of our courses are raw water, and one of our courses is treated. Some of our courses are treated. You know, and I heard that I always thought there was ditch water running right through sunset. And why are we using treated water? I'm sure I'm missing something. But maybe all that water that runs through there is spoken for, I don't know, make any sense at all. Historically, there was some ditches that ran through there. And I think at one time, it probably was being treated with raw water. I'd heard that too. But at some point, it was transferred over to treated. I was going to say, your staff is always thinking that way. I know Ken had just talked to me again about it. But there's definitely those trade-offs, as far as that's a conversation that we need to have with recreation. Because managing a group that managed some parts with domestic water, treated water, and some with raw water. Raw water has definitely some challenges for operational side things, be it filters and pumps and ponds and all those pieces. So it does have some challenges. But I know Ken and I have just recently talked about this desire to see what can you really do to look at trying to make sure as we convert parts to raw water, also be that for all of our golf courses. I do apologize. I have a 4 o'clock with David. I'm on first. Thanks, David. Yep. Glad we got this in the discussion. I was going to say, it started stirring. See you, David. Thank you. All right. OK, moving on. Oh, Jeff, Natalie, right? Can you wait? Thank you, so much. Yeah. Just a couple of things. This has been a really great discussion. And I would love it if we could continue it. I think that to take your point, we are a lot of the water that we get from the last vote has never achieved our participation in deals with water. So Northern in some ways is our representative, but also we are their client. And to the extent we have interests in figuring out solutions where some of the water that we would otherwise divert and conserve can be put back into the west slope system when and where it's needed, I think that voicing that interest to Northern if it doesn't come from us, who would it come from? And they're the ones who are going to know their system better than anybody else. But if they don't have something coming to them and telling them that's what they would like to see happen, why would they do it? I mean, their goal is to deliver water to us for what we want it for. And if that's all we're telling them that we want it from them, then why would they ever do anything to them? So that's point number one. Point number two is there's a lot of reservoirs up there. There's a lot of different Euroreformation contracts up there. One of the things that my organization does, it buys water when they do a reclamation. But it's already degree 400, and it delivers it down to our generation, which is right by the team on each, for hydro-cow purposes. So it takes things that are already agree for certain uses and buys them and gets them to where they want it. And the key there is timing. The fish recovery program is called 300 to 400 CFS short almost every year. It's getting worse in the early summer. And it's a matter of timing. I didn't know that. Yeah, and it's just this really discrete period. It's not all, all time. It's just this one discrete period because you have different calls on the river. And it's when this big call down comes off, all of these trains facing the river are like, oh man, now's our time and go for it. And we just seriously pump the crazy just to refill. And for example, the one for it goes dry almost every year for this exact reason. And if we could just figure out ways to retime that and just get the water back on the river, just for that discrete period of time, it would make you have a difference. The last point is, you're touching on this. There's programs out there. We don't want to lose our water rights. Like that's something long and incredibly good job ensuring that over the course of 70, longer years. If we do loss of conservation, we should be cognizant of the fact that by not using that water, we're opening ourselves up to decrease. And the historians have to use which termination is the value of our water rights and also potential agreement. There are programs out there that are intended to protect that, but they take due into that in place. So to the extent we want to protect our water rights, but simultaneously taking advantage of the fact that we can't do conservation, I think we should marry them to a certain individual. Okay, those are great points. I didn't know that either. And I just want to put in in terms of regional influence and something that we online have at least some strong with is the water rights have long been a power authority because they are in the next 15 years, probably unless they get heavily into hydrogen electrolysis are gonna need less water. And they've got more water than they need now. And so those water rights need to be protected or properly disposed of. And even if they're in a electrolysis, I mean, that's a pump that you prime and then you can recapture the water and use it over and over again. So we should use our influence with PRPA on water. Water policy, I guess it's part of that whole general. It's not an immediate need, but we shouldn't be caught flat-footed on this. What was that point when I dropped it? No, I'm sorry. In terms of providing water to agriculture, I think that's great. If we can do that, we should tie it in a way that not only does it deliver large agriculture, but maybe fortifies the stream in between. So say we know that the sacred creek really tanks in the 15 days in September, that's when we do time, our delivery is too bad, that's downstream of that dry stretch. So we can do both, it doesn't have to be zero. When we do the same, we'll do it with the same water. Same water, yeah, so. The problem that is a lot of water is just kind of a sub-forbast in my answer. The dry up point is down here. So like on the highland system, they're pulling away my lines. I think it's a good idea to have the dry up is down here. That's what we're seeing a lot of other guys bringing. Kim Buck has a bill that he runs periodically about farther east ditches. You know, I'm not Kim Buck's biggest fan, but there is a bill out there that might fund rearranging the ditches so that they, so that seasonal needs would be better addressed by the network. You know, there's being a maybe unused water. When's the last time the comp plan a bidder's in the process of being a bidder, Mark, or? Yeah, I don't know. Just because I'm not smart enough to look at the budget and see whether those pieces are in there. There's comp plans, new comp plans, items in the budget, but I don't know how much for a portion of it. Yeah, I don't know. They kind of indicated to us that they would really like to get started on a comp plan update within the year. I believe they're looking to start their R and Q process, R and Q process, within this year or next year to get a consultant to do that. And that was the thing I was talking with you and Harold about too is, yeah, is what densities we model because the planners are looking at considerable increases in density, which means, you know, less turf. Yeah, well, that's where my thought seems like our densities are, I don't know what they were planning for, but it's coming our way and do we have, what are the consequences, water-wise? It's a long range, but it's all stuff we think about. It's not that long range anymore. Because of the housing crunch that we're in from many different directions, for people leaving houses, housing too, we don't really know if we got more than 120,000 people here, which is the end of our current comp plan, but I don't know how much water we would, how many, how much population we could use for this. So I can't tell you what you currently see out there, which, you know, it was really contemplating the last comp plan update, which was then incorporated into our latest, most recent water, future water supply demand analysis. So we have the water for what's happening now, what you're seeing now. Yeah, the comp plan updates, it has significant, and I'm talking from four stories to five stories, you know, maybe 20, yeah, really significant increases. Then we would have to take a look at that. I can't tell you without running a membership, water conservation is gonna play an enormous role in meeting that future demand. Very confident in our conservation program. It's gonna take us, it's gonna really take us and help us, so that will be very significant. Then the second was we have projects, traditional filings and projects out there that we can rely on. What are we gonna need to get to be attainable through projects in money, but it's a little bit different than what I think about Aurora, they're growing out to the east, they're bone dry culture, you know, they don't, they gotta do something else. They're gonna do something different and well, that's very fortunate to have a foresight in the project for me. I just, yeah, just one last thing. Your comment about some influence in Northern water, I don't know if you ever worded that. Are you asking the question where that can come from or how do we influence them? I'm not sure where you were going with that. I guess asking the question first, I mean, average for everything is more than one. Well, Marcia and I sit on a- On the wind, yeah, which is subset, but the other question I have is we had, I wrote recommendations for two former water board members to be on the Northern water board. I don't know whether either of them were selected or not. Well, Todd's on the Northern board and Dennis Chan-Chunis is on the Northern board. Okay. Both former board, one, one, one, one, one. Okay, so two out of three. I didn't, Dennis was before my time, I believe. Yeah, not too long. Yeah, or maybe he was, he didn't ask me for a recommendation. Pam, that was Pam, is that right? She used to sit where Roger's sitting all the time. Did she say, yeah. No, it wasn't Pam, it wasn't. No, it wasn't. Renee Davis, yeah. Yeah, I think. It might have been it. Maybe she moved out of the area, Joe. Yeah, she moved out of the area. Yeah, so she would have had a design if she was selected. Right, but yeah, I think not only Longmont, but the other front, we've got Boulder who's been always Longmont, and Fort Collins is really in there. Generally, the larger men's families, their board just needs to hear from us. Yeah, takes a while. And that means that the people who know what could be suggested need to raise the issues before the council, then we can push the policy suggestions around. Okay, I was just going to just really quickly add it. I mean, so those west slope issues, I guess the point I was trying to get through before was that those west slope issues are so publicized. I mean, it's the Colorado River, it's a big thing, right? And so there's these multi-stakeholder entities that need to figure out what is needed on the river and what we can do, et cetera. And I agree that being engaged with that and especially working with our partners and pressuring or working with them in some way to kind of be engaged in those programs is really important. Of course, having worked for a smaller, similar organizations to kind of like Colorado Parks and Wildlife or something, but on smaller streams and rivers, right? Those are, of course, not nearly as publicized. I mean, I don't know that any of us could, I mean, I think some of us in here could figure out what is needed on the west slope or heard that in news or something, but for example, what's needed in the same frame, right? And we work with our kind of like local, very local, hyper-local program managers and things with fish wildlife parks just right here in our local area that we could potentially have influence on by helping with the needs in our local streams and rivers that we again have more control over, right? And I feel like those issues, of course, are of lesser priority, both the fish and wildlife, you know, but also, you know, with news organizations and things like that so we don't really know what is needed in this kind of local, hyper-local kind of area, right? But again, I think that those types of projects, those are the types of places that our local populace goes, you know, on weekends to go fishing, et cetera. And if it was like, there was a sign at some, you know, I don't know, some popular fishing spot that basically said, you know, some fraction of this water was provided by your local waters and, you know, organization by the City of Longmont, essentially. You know, those are the types of things, I think, that really do a good job of kind of like leading by example, by kind of exemplifying the values that Longmont wants to, or, you know, meeting the chains that we want to see in the world, essentially. You know, those are the types of things that I think we have more control over and are maybe a little bit easier wins than trying to solve the rest of the problems, although you should, of course, be engaged in that as well. But anyway, fill in that. Yeah, along that line, the same, we work closely, capital work really closely with the same rate of low-time water, because everyone's a district on a stream management plan. Yeah, that stream management plan really gives you a guidance of what we need locally on the same-brained creek, all the way from environmental flows to recreation flows to projects. Right. And so, yeah, I think that is, stream management plan is kind of our local areas' goal or vision for helping the same-brained. Isn't it? Yeah. I agree. We can have some influence on that. And I believe the district is interested in finding out, they've made the plan now. Sorry. Interesting. Okay. Item 11, information, items and water board correspondence. You know, I had a question, and I don't know, particularly, this item, but in the information Heather sent us some information about board appointments. And if we had anybody in line, like me, I was just kind of curious, Tom, Allison, have you two come up with anything? Anybody that you have proposed to apply for the board? And you don't need to share, but I mean, is that something that there's a movement? Well, I'll just spend, so I have not suggested, so my problem is that my kind of community, my water community, you know, is kind of distant from local, right? Because I mean, my work is down in Denver and I engage in a variety of different kind of statewide issues, but I don't necessarily this is my first kind of foray into the long water scene, let's say, so I'm relying on all of you really to be kind of tough to learn from. And so I haven't, other than I'm inside this entity, I haven't really engaged outside. So, well, maybe we'll see what's left in, but so what's left in my issue, Allison? Yeah, I reached out when we had the last opening. I was particularly interested in trying to be an engineer in terms of my application. There's a couple of water engineering programs in town. Well, if we can do that, I've tried and did not get much movement so anyway. Yeah, I mean, it's too bad. I hope we can fill another position to see how it works out. I know there was one individual in the development community that was interested, but he didn't get his application in on time. And so one of the three posts that I believe he's going to reapply. Well, it's opening now to really blow this. So if there's some out there that I don't want to cut off the October October 14th. Yeah, so give that guy a poke. Allison, give that guy a poke. Yep, I will. And I will contact the city clerk's office to see if they've received it for all I know they've already received some. I don't know. Yeah. Okay. Okay. I wonder if I could add one thing on that. I was going to bring up anyway. As you may remember, there's a little bit of a new interview process with the board. So we'll be asking board, water board over board meeting if anybody's interested beyond the interview team and setting up whether you do it as a all the board members who generally the city clerk staff is saying best is the couple so you don't overwhelm the applicants. But I'm certain to do it as a board and we'll probably set those interviews up in November so that information can be given to council and then council does the final review if they need an interview and selection in December. We had that discussion as I recall the way we left it is we individually decide if we want to be in the interviews or not and if we want to be in the interviews if we left it so be it. So that's kind of where we left it. Can I ask somebody saying well two is the number but I didn't get that education if they wanted so. Actually two is the number so you can do it as in this meeting so that it's a posted meeting or if you want to have an extra meeting to do it you can do it with two so that it doesn't have to be posted or you need to get the city clerk's office to post it or we can advance if all you wanted to have it without the staff but more than two board members there. So it's just like any other open meetings and a lot of things. Anyway we'll ask another one. We'll follow up with the board on that. Just the last item item schedule. Do you have any questions or comments on what we have left in the program or do you want to add anything to it? I kind of wonder so we tend to have what I've noticed when I first started back last year let's say through that fall and into the winter we were really heavily engaged with a lot of discussion about captioning and I think that that one's kind of self-sustaining because there was this big change that we were asked to participate in it's somewhat self-sustaining at this point sometimes we have development activities sometimes we don't and what I tend to notice is just like this meeting and it seemed like there wasn't a whole lot to chat about 3.30 year old around and it was kind of like you might be out of here by 3.45 and then we kind of had almost like an impromptu type workshop in a way about some kind of bigger issue right but where a lot of questions came up and we were talking a lot about different constipation approaches so I'm wondering whether we should have almost kind of a list of tackling some of these bigger issues in a slightly more prepared way than just kind of talking informally when the time is available when it seems like we're going to wind down in 3.45 and then all of a sudden we start chatting about stuff whether or not we kind of build in half an hour or something into each of these meetings that could be the first thing to get knocked off the list if the discussion of the other issues runs longer than expected and so whether there are topic areas that we can have a more kind of considered discussion where we all kind of expect that that's what we're going to talk about if the time elapsed or something and I so those types of things could be many of the things that we talked about today could be things about how to kind of manage water a little differently to kind of keep water in the river for various times of the year if we have a point person who has in their hip pocket kind of the talking points on those issues again if the time I mean of course the priority to the things that are on the agenda that maybe have a half an hour's discussion kind of in our hip pocket waiting if we have time that may kind of that we can have those discussions I think is a good point whereas if we have something burning that we feel that we're time-respected on if somebody has something like that we ought to feed that again or have that so we all know that it's sitting out there if we can tackle it you know I have no problem with that and it probably would be a little more thought-provoking if we knew that's down the line and we could think about it isn't that what the call at the beginning of every meeting for adding items to future agendas is there for because you know as a the stimulus this time was the report about the workshop right and it's oh well if all that's on the table here are all these other topics now what a time for Heather not to be here right because ideally she would prepare a list and then we would put those on future agendas but not all at once that's a good point it was a good discussion I mean I'm glad we had the time because we're still on half an hour early yeah the market began 10 minutes and you took 25 no no no I took my time this was so interesting that was a good discussion okay anybody else well given that it was a good meeting was it