 Welcome to a snowy Monday Water Board meeting, Monday, April 19th, the 2021 to begin. Can we go ahead and start with a roll call, Heather? Sure. Todd Williams. Here. Allison Gould. Here. Kathy Peterson. Here. Scott Holwick. Here. Roger Lang. Here. Ken Houston. Here. Nelson Tipton. Here. Wes Lowry. Here. Kevin Bowden. Here. Francie Jaffe. Here. Jason Elkins. Here. David Bell. And here. And Heather McIntyre is here. Councilmember Martin is not here yet. Okay. Thank you, Heather. Next item is approval of the previous month's minutes. Is everybody reviewed the March 15th, 2020 meeting minutes? Is there any comments? Otherwise we need a motion to approve the March 15, 2021 meeting minutes. So we have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Kathy is the second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Meeting minutes are approved. Item four is the water status report, Nelson. Yeah. Hello, everyone. So I'll give that real quick. Trying to figure out how to put the packet where I could see it so anybody else could access it. So I got that done. So the flow on the St. Brain Creek at the Lions Gates today is 75 CFS. With the 124-year historic average of approximately 95 CFS for this date. Call on the St. Brain is Highland Reservoir number three. And the admin number is 11,642. With a priority date of 11, 15, 18, 81. Call on the main stem of the South Cloud River is Tremont Ditch. And the admin number is 50,769. With a priority date of 12, 319,888. Ralph Price Reservoir at Button Rock Reserve is approximately 88.8% full. And at 6,391.5 feet. And full is 6,400 feet. And it's at approximately 14,376 acre feet, down approximately 1,800 acre foot. So we're leasing around 75 CFS currently. Union Reservoir is at an elevation of approximately 20 feet, which is 28 feet as full. And it's down approximately 5,300 acre feet. And we're releasing 7 CFS currently. So the Upper Colorado River Basin Snowpack for today, actually on April 19th, is at 76%. Normal peak date for the Upper Colorado River Basin is April 10th. South Platte Basin Snowpack is at 96%. Normal peak date is April 26th. So we still have a couple of weeks on the South Platte. We'll get this no storm. Maybe we can make it to 100%. Nice. So any questions? Any questions for Nelson? I've actually got a couple, Nelson. Dirt time. Go ahead. So I know we talked the last few months that you were going to try to maybe move some water, I believe, down into Union. Yes. And then exchange maybe other supplies back up into Button Rock. Is that still going on? Or what mentioned 7 CFS coming out of Union, how much is coming in? Just kind of curious what the plan is for this spring. Sure, Todd. I can go over that. So about on April 4th, we started releasing water from Ralph Weiss Reservoir. And it was the Clover Basin change decree. And we're probably releasing about 25 CFS. So we're roughly, when I do the numbers, we're roughly getting about anywhere between 20 and 25 CFS into Union Reservoir. So in that, and then in the course, we're at least releasing about 14 CFS, 14 acre feet. And so we're going to try and run that Clover Basin through the month of April. And then we'll, water resources will get together and we'll take a look and see if there's any other opportunities to move other decrees from Ralph Weiss Reservoir to Union. But we'll take a look at it first. But our goal is to keep running. And we're running about 25 CFS if I wasn't clear. And we're going down the Aligarchy ditch. And so we'll reevaluate that at the end of this month. So on May 1st, Todd, does that answer your question? Right. So you've got about, you're getting about 30, somewhere around 35, 36 acre foot a day. Somewhere between 30 and 35 acre feet, correct. OK. All right. So you move as much as you can to try to fill Union in advance and then, OK, then fill that rock. Just remember, we're about 15 miles of Aligarchy ditch. Just about 15 miles of ditch. So but we do get a little, when we get stormed, that really helps because we get some storm drainages in there too. So but we're being pretty consistent. The last two weeks, we've been pretty, pretty consistent. And then how's the storage content, maybe, as a percent of average on the same brain? Do you know that? You know, I just, you know what? I just opened that up. I don't sit this morning. I don't remember off the top of my head. West, do you know what it is off top of your head, the same brain storage? I can open it up real quick there, Todd. It doesn't take nothing to find it. When you can talk, you may be talking about that more as far as a drought plan. So actually, you can do it at that point if you want. Sure. But I could find it if you need me to. Why don't we, Wes, if you want to hit that on the drought plan, that's fine. OK, OK. All right, anything else? Any other questions for Nelson on that? All right, we'll keep moving here. Next item is public invited to be heard in special presentations. Heather, there's no public invited to be heard. Is that correct? That's correct. We have no one with us today. OK, and can any special presentations today? No special presentations. OK, just an item of note. We do have Council Member Martin with us now as well. Great. Well, welcome, Council Member Martin Gawad. You can make it. So next item, we're on to item 6, agenda revisions and submission of documents. Anything there, Ken? I have none. OK. So after many meetings with no development activity, Wes is making up for lost time here. And item 700 development activity, we have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Items. I believe you're going to do the first four. You'll go over those and then we'll ask for I guess we can do those together in terms of a motion and a second in terms of recommending those for approval to Council. Is that right, Wes? Yeah, so I'd like to go through the first four with Waterborne. You can make one recommendation on those four. Then I'll go through the fifth one because I have a little more additional information I'd like to share with you on that. The last one is just information item. But I'll add a little more context to it as well. OK. Why don't you go ahead and go and get started with the Rivertown annexation? So the Rivertown annexation is a 21.48 acre parcel that's located south of St. Brain Creek and west of Sunset Street. So kind of over by Isaac Walton Bond area. There were no historical water rights of pertinent to this annexation. Rivertown annexation will be in compliance with the raw water requirement policy time of final flat with satisfaction of the 64.44 acre foot raw water deficit. So this is a development that's being developed by Rivertown Longmont LLC. It's a 320 multifamily unit residential properties is what they're looking to do with 14 attached duplex units and then 20,000 square feet of commercial office and flex space. So that's all I have on that one. If you have any questions on that one, I'm happy to answer them. Otherwise, I'll go ahead and jump to the second one. Any questions for Wes on that? Yeah, the Rivertown annexation. Go ahead, Roger. Yeah, Roger. When you go over these, the next three or the total for, can you just cover how they're going to meet their water requirements? Just cover that briefly. OK, sure. Yeah, usually at annexation level, we really don't have much information on that. At Platte, sometimes we do. But as I have information about those, I will share that definitely with Waterward. OK, all right. Alison? I just didn't see. So I was wondering what stage they were in. So if people let us know down the road, that'd be fine. You bet. Thanks. Similar question to Rogers, and that is whether or not there's any information regarding storm water at this point. So as part of the development review process, our stormwater folks review that. That's outside of water resources per view. But there is a stormwater management component that is being looked at for these. I don't have that in front of me right now. It's something of interest on a particular development. I could probably share that with you, though. Just of this one in particular, seemed like given its location, it might be in flood zone and have some potential impacts to that area. So it's just particularly curious. OK. Marcia, did you have some? Yes, actually, it's a similar question to Alison's because we're getting some resident comments saying, yeah, this is too close to our water resources, too close to our nature preserves. And so stormwater is one question. Is this going to be changing the flow into the lake and riparian areas? And so anything you know along that lines positive or negative would be good. And otherwise, a clue as to who I should ask about that would be good. You probably know who else is on the review team. Yeah, so although I don't have it right in front of me, I can definitely get that and share that with you. I know that we have a stormwater engineer that reviews all annexations and all plants for complying with all the standards for stormwater. And I just don't know specifics of what those are, but I'd be happy to look into that and share that with you guys. Yeah, and just send an email before the council meeting because somebody will probably speak. So I would very much, very much appreciate that, Wes. And thanks, I'll let you go on. Oh, and Heather, sorry, I didn't know the chat was off limits. That's OK, thank you. Usually it's turned off, but we had a different meeting that was able to use it, so I didn't get it turned off again. So with that, I'll go to the next one, item 7B. Sandstone Ranch Apartments, final plat. That's a final plat of 36.79 acres located south of State Highway 119 and east of Weld County Road 1. It's a final plat of a portion of Sandstone West Conveyance Plat, the water board reviewed back in 2007. There's also part of the Maida annexation from 1998. The all raw water requirements pertinent to Sandstone Ranch Apartments were previously satisfied as part of the Sandstone West Conveyance Plat. So Sandstone Ranch Apartments final plat is presently in compliance with the raw water requirement policy. What's being contemplated here is a 276 unit apartment complex. I do know that anybody that's visited that Walmart, they've noticed there's a lot of prairie dogs out there. I think they estimate somewhere between 1,200 and 1,600 prairie dogs out there. They're working with Dan Wolford in the city of Longmont and working through the prairie dog management plan. So those will be addressed as part of this. And that's really all I have on that unless there's other questions. Are there any questions on this project? I'm not seeing any West. Why don't you keep going? OK. Next one, item 7C, Quail Commercial Center filing one final plat. It's a 13.194 acre parcel located north of Quail Road and east of State Highway 287. So just immediately west of the Longmont Museum. Included in that 13 acres is a 4.994 acre parcel that will be transferred into city ownership to be used for future municipal purposes. Those are most likely going to be for additional parking for the museum and possible campus expansion. After application of the historic water rights, the total raw water deficits of pertinent to Quail Commercial Center filing one final plat is 4.10 acre feet. And it'll be compliance upon that satisfaction. There this particular plat includes four lots. One of those lots is proposed to have a four story 86 room hotel with an office building, maybe a small drive through coffee shop. And that's all I've got on that unless there's some questions. Questions on this project? One, I assume left hand creek goes through this property. It's bounded by on the north. OK, I guess maybe there'd be similar kind of questions or concerns with regards to the stormwater or the flood plane on that. Marcia looks like you have your hand up on that. Yes, Todd. All right, I am eating lunch. I've been watching that because again, this one is a letter generator being close to the creek. And for a while under the projects under construction map, there was a plat that went into the setback area. And then I looked again and it was withdrawn. And then I looked again and it was even off the withdrawn list. So have they reworked it or do you have any idea what's going on with that? Because they apparently are going through some kind of rework on the project. Yeah, there's been on that particular project. There's been several riparian setback variance requests. They've been working through with the planning department on that. Again, water resources focus on these is primarily with application of the raw water requirement policy. So I haven't specifically been involved in those setback variances. But what I can do is as part of that request, I can get you in contact with the project planner. I can email their information. And they would best be able to answer where they're at with that in terms of going back and forth and so forth. Appreciate it very much. OK, any further questions? All right, I'm going to keep going, Wes. OK, and let's see. Riverton, Silverstone, commercial and Harvard, Hover Junction, Final Platt. So 16.824 acre parcel generally located south highway 119 west of Oberstreet. All historic water rights were transferred to the city at time of annexation. The full acreage is subject to the full requirements of the raw water policy. The total raw water deficit for harvest junction, Final Platt is 29.089 acre feet. And it would be in compliance with the city's raw water requirement policy at time of that satisfaction. This particular one is a part of a mixed use employment zoning. They're contemplating a little over 6,000 square foot commercial space, kind of a neighborhood type commercial aspect with 236 single family attached dwellings on 36 buildings. You're looking at condos, townhomes, things of that nature. So this property has been looked at multiple times in the last 30 years. But David Brewer, the property manager, believes that they're going to be able to make something happen. So that's what I have on that one, unless there's some questions. Any questions on that project? I am not seeing any. So Wes, what you need is, unless there's we can break any out individually. But if not, we need a recommendation for items A through D, a recommendation to council of approval of the raw water calculation. Is that correct, Wes? Correct. OK. Someone want to make that motion? We'll move. OK. We have a motion. Is there a second? I'll second that, Todd. All right. We have a motion by Allison and a second by Scott. Any further discussion? I'm not seeing any. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? OK. Those for approved. OK, Wes, you're going to go on to the next item. Yes. So the next item is Irwin Thomas Final Platt. Irwin Thomas Final Platt is a 48.81 acre parcel located south of Colorado State Highway 119 and west of North 119th Street. It's part of the Irwin Thomas annexation number one that was annexed in 2017. All historic water rights, which included 34 shares of bonus, were transferred at time of annexation. The full 48.81 acres are subject to the full requirements of the raw water requirement policy. Irwin Thomas Final Platt will be in compliance with the city's raw water requirement policy upon satisfaction of the 48.81 acre foot deficit at time of final Platt approval. So with that, this Platt is like any other Platt that's came before Water Board. However, this Platt has a couple unique nuances. And I wanted to give you a little bit of context and history on that. So as you may recall, back in November and December, late last year, city council through ordinance O-2020-62 entered into a three-party public-private partnership agreement. They called a P3 agreement with Diamond G Concrete Company, which is Reggie Golden, and Costco Wholesales Corporation. So you've probably seen it in the Times Call, pretty big deal. The execution of that P3 agreement initiated the land development review process. That's what got us here today. The Platt includes essentially six lots, one 17-acre lot for Costco warehouse and fueling station, one nine-acre lot for city affordable housing purposes, and the balance of the four lots to be held by the current landowner of those four lots, three are commercial lots, and one is a residential lot. So the completion of that process is anticipated to occur mid-2021 and would include full satisfaction of the city's raw water requirement policy. The water resource staff is anticipating the raw water deficit, the pertinent to the Irwin-Thomas final plat, to be satisfied by payment of cash and lieu of water rights received, an application of credit from the 1,200-acre foot of water identified, and Longmont's water demand evaluation. More specifically, economic development incentive and Longmont's affordable housing program that was contemplated in table 22 of that plan. So one resources is creating a tracking sheet. So if you recall, there was 1,200-acre feet that was identified in the water demand evaluation. And of that, we carved out 400-acre feet for economic development, I'm sorry, for affordable housing. So we, and Water Board had that conversation with staff back in, I think it was 2018 and 2019, and then City Council acted on that accordingly. So we're going to break those out. So let me finish and I'm going to jump back here. Longmont plans to create what's known as a Harvest Junction East Special Revenue Fund and use monies from that fund as well as from its affordable housing fund to pay the cash and loofy. The money for these funds will originate from the city's fleet fund, which ultimately will be repaid from collection of sales tax revenues generated from Costco sales. So when it's all said and done, the cash and loof fund will realize approximately $450,000, and there will be an applied incentive credit of approximately 23-acre feet. And that's how this deficit is going to get satisfied. So with that being said, later this summer, Water Resources staff will bring back to Water Board as a development activity information item specific related to final compliance of the city's raw water requirement policy for this development. So in other words, what you're acting now on now is the calculation for that, the total deficit associated with this plan. And then after it's completed, after the deficits are satisfied, we plan to come back to you and discuss the details of how that was satisfied, that being a cash and loof component, and then the credit that Water Board had already approved through the water demand evaluation. And there's two parts of that, that's the building incentive, that's what we use to entice Costco to come into Longmont, as well as our affordable housing lot, that nine-acre lot. So there's some extra things that are going through this, all of which, if you wanted to really get into the details, there's a 10-page council communication from December 1st, 2020 that you can look at that has a lot of the details of it, as well as about a 46-page ordinance and agreement on how that all shakes out. But I think what's important for Water Board is to understand that there is a deficit and it is gonna get satisfied through cash and loof, and then through that credit of that carve out from the water demand evaluation. So I'm now ready to try to answer questions that you may have on this. All right, Roger, it looks like you're first about here. Yeah, I'm trying to understand items like affordable housing. Does that positively impact the cash and loof amount that we end up receiving? I mean, does it lower the cash and loof amount? I'm not sure I understand that completely. So I think with what was decided was that, I'm gonna use my own terms as part of the global negotiations to for the current landowner and to have Costco that was gonna, part of that was going to include affordable housing. And so basically, if you wanted one thing, you had to have everything. So the affordable housing is, essentially the cash and loof fund will get a check for the full amount. It'll be a cash and loof check that'll cover the entire 48.81 acre foot deficit. But then a part of that cash and loof fund will be reimbursed to the affordable housing fund. And when that happens, then what we're gonna do is start tracking a debit, if you will, from the 1200 acre foot of credit that the water demand evaluation identified is being available for these types of things. So you might think of it as the drought, or I'm sorry, the cash and loof fund not getting monies for the affordable housing or for the Costco, but it's being satisfied for that carve out that was set up through the water demand evaluation. And so yeah, that's kind of how that's gonna work. Complicated. It's very complicated. And that's why, well, you remember, I mean, nothing seems simple anymore, but these council, I mean, that the communication that was put out there back in December did a really good job trying to detail how everything's gonna work. And a lot of it goes beyond the raw water requirement policy. And I think it, so I tried to just pull out those pertinent parts that related to the raw water requirement policy, but as you read that and as you would have read in the times call, it's expected that the sales tax generated from Costco is going to cover the city's expenses in just over three years. And so the powers to be above a city council, city manager and others believed it to be that it was in Longmont's best interest to entice city to Costco to come into Longmont. And this was all part of that kind of enticement package. Okay. The only one other comment, Todd, maybe Heather could get us that city council information somehow just shoot it to us on an email so we can grind through that if we can copy it on to Longmont. Sure, Heather, is that possible? Yes, we can do that. Okay, that'd be good. Any other questions? I've got a couple if I don't see emails with their hand up right now. So Wes, as I understand it, so they'll pay the full cash in lieu and then they have performance requirements both on the affordable housing as well as Costco before they're gonna be able to get the rebate essentially from the cash in lieu fund. So that's number one. Number two, they've already dedicated or they've already satisfied the direct flow component. Good job, Wes. I was afraid you were gonna get mauled there. So that's helpful. I apologize. No, that's fine, I get it. So they've already satisfied their direct flow component of the raw water requirement. So when the cash in lieu comes back to them if they satisfy their obligations, are they gonna get satisfied up to the three acre foot per acre at cash in lieu even though they're only paying cash in lieu at the one acre foot, the storage deficit? I mean, how does that work? No, we're only speaking to the remaining raw water deficit. It's only the direct flow component, the two acre foot that's done and satisfied with transfer of the historic 34 shares of Beckwith. So all that's being, so essentially, as you read through this council communication, basically a loan is gonna be taken out through the fleet fund. And the fleet fund is gonna pay the full cash in lieu amount. So from a different city account is going to pay for cash in lieu. And for all intents and purposes that's all water resources really concerns itself with. Now the greater city is concerned with other things that fleet fund and stuff, but the idea is that it'll come and fully satisfy this deficit. Therefore it's in compliance with the raw water requirement policy. But furthermore as part of the Longmont Municipal Code there's a section in the Longmont Municipal Code and I believe it's chapter 4.79 on reduction in subsidies that speaks to there being a method for the housing fund to be reimbursed. And then also for Costco to be reimbursed. It's part of that incentive. And so what will remain, if you will, is the money for four of the six lots. It will not include that lot that was Costco and it will not include the affordable housing lot. Those will be satisfied through that carve out. So any future plots, not this one, the future ones that have an economic building incentive would be the same way. There would be satisfaction of the deficits meeting the compliance with the raw water requirement policy and then there would maybe be a subsidy or reimbursement back to someone that would cover that particular part, but it would debit again from that 1,200 acre feet to start whittling down from that 1,200 acre feet. So I get that was so in this case, the Costco lots 17 acres, right? Yep. And they've satisfied two of the three acre foot of raw water requirement. So they have a one acre foot per acre. So what's gonna happen is they're gonna pay cash in lieu for the one acre foot per acre for the 17 acres. Yes. And then if they meet their terms and conditions of the agreement that 17 acre feet or one acre foot per acre times the 17 acres is gonna be essentially rebated back to them as part of this reimbursement agreement. What I'm trying to make sure is so in your tracking spreadsheet, and I think that's a great idea, I think we need to have a way to monitor this is kind of the charge of the water board to make sure we have adequate supplies going forward. So we need to know how much of that allocation for affordable housing and economic incentives is being allocated so we can track that. But in regards to Costco, so 17 acre feet would be the potential cash in lieu essentially rebate. The, you know, I guess what it would be the 34 acre feet that they've already dedicated that stain. So when you have a line in the tracking spreadsheet for Costco, it would say up to 17 acre feet would be rebated if they meet their terms and conditions, right? Correct. So that's exactly right. And I think in the actual, if you went to the ordinance that was attached to the council comp, it spells it out to the dollar how much they would get assuming cash in lieu doesn't change. I mean, it's very detailed of specific performance for all this and everything. And so I think we have a very clear picture. It's just, this is the really what brought this is making this one most unique is this is the first time we're implementing that building incentive component from the water demand evaluation that we've talked about years ago. All right. Are there other questions that the board has? Roger, you have another? Yeah, not to be just, but Wes, as far as meeting their contractual incentives Costco, is that time bonded? Like, do they have to do that over a five-year period or do you know anything about that or how long a period is that? It's very specific, yes. That's correct, Roger. They do have very specific dates that things they have to build by a certain date. I think it's by 2024. And all the details of that are found within that ordinance that was attached to the CouncilCon. So maybe when Heather sends it out, she can additionally send you the ordinance as well. And you'd be free to look through all the, again, I think the ordinance was 46 pages long and the CouncilCon was about 10, so almost 60 pages. But a lot of detail, and if you are interested and take the time to read it, I think the staff that put that together, primarily Harold, Dale, Jim Golden and Eugene May, they did a pretty good job of articulating what's gonna go on and what's required and the timing of all that. Okay, thanks, Wes. Are there other questions? Wes, one other thing. So they're gonna pay the cash in lieu and then are you gonna come back to the water board at some point when we know that their obligations have been satisfied and you'll confirm that with us and we'll know, okay, at that point, the 17 acre feet, for example, for Costco and whatever the specific number is for the affordable housing has officially been kinda designated to those uses. That'll happen, you know, I guess at a future time once they've met all their requirements. So when the applicant, which the applicant is Reggie Golden on behalf of Diamond G Concrete Company, when the P3 agreement is finalized at that time, then they will finalize and pay the cash in lieu, which right now is anticipated to be sometime around July or August. As soon as that happens, the very next water board meeting, I'll come in front of water board as an information item and I'll detail how much cash in lieu was paid. It'll essentially be the requirement acreage times the current fee for cash in lieu of water rights received. And then I'll break out the part that was for affordable housing and the part that was commercial development incentive. And I'll show those through a tracking form that we have that'll show a debit for each of those categories. And then as we get future development applications that have either of those components, we'll just keep breaking those out. So we're trying to make this as trackable as possible and as simple as possible, but it's just there's a whole lot of global negotiation that went into making this happen. And so I was trying, I'm trying to pull out just the nuggets that pertain to the raw water requirement policy. And that's what I've given you, but I think if you're wanting a more colorful mosaic of what's going on, again, I would recommend checking out that prior council comm and ordinance. So you'll come, whatever is July or August, show us the calculation, go ahead and deduct it from or add it to your tracking spreadsheet. I guess what I'm bringing up is it may be a year or two before we know whether they fully satisfy their obligations. If they don't, namely if they don't build Costco within the timeframe as Roger mentioned or they don't build the amount of affordable housing, then they would have to, I guess at that point, the amount that the cash in lieu that they paid, that doesn't get rebated or there'd be an adjustment at that point, right? So they satisfy all the deficits that has to occur in order for them to start moving dirt. So then the idea is that after they start moving dirt, the owner will put in the infrastructure so that then Costco can come and start growing up. And I don't remember the specifics on timing that's allowed for Costco to generate sales tax revenue that's being expected as part of this. But I think what I'm hearing you say is if Costco, so Costco is not gonna build unless they satisfy this, the raw water deficits. And if they build, then there's nothing else to worry about, except possibly they don't perform it, but I can't, their projections are based upon their, and it speaks to this in the Council upon, they looked at what they've produced in sales for superior location and Thornton location and out and so on and so forth. And I don't know, I think it said they're expected to be done to satisfy our sales projections within just over three years. And it feels like there was a trigger that it would have to happen within five years, but the things that would unravel, I think the tentacles go way beyond the raw water requirement policy. So yes, water resource is gonna have to stay abreast of what's going on and stay in the loop with the planning department and so forth. But I think the bottom line is they've, they've satisfied it, if it changes, then what it would need to change to a different use, if it's not Costco, if it's not affordable housing, then those deficits would probably then be reapplied. So in other words, if there's a, if the affordable housing nine acre lot became just a traditional residential, then in order for that nine acres to develop, then we're going to require satisfaction of the one acre foot breaker on that lot. But the nine acres lot is actually, as I understand it is gonna be owned by the city of Longmont. So I would think we would know if we don't develop it, that we, if we sold it that that would be the trigger. So there's a, so yeah, there's gonna be a lot, a lot of stuff that we're gonna have to pay attention to. We'll do our part in tracking the deficit that's pulling from the credit, from the carve out of the water demand evaluation. And then if, if, if it ever goes away from affordable housing or if Costco doesn't perform, then we'll have to, it'll have to be looped back in for the, for then future uses to satisfy any deficits that would be pertinent to it. And Todd, if I could just give you a little more specifics on that. So today's action will allow the final plat to be moved forward and the payment for the raw water deficit completed. And then the current schedule calls for a closing on all the property in, in July of this summer. And so between now and July, this def, the deficit has to be paid because at closing is when they'll credit back to the development developer will occur. And then once that occurs, then all the closing on the property can occur. And then there's a July 2024 deadline for Costco to have their store open, generating revenue. And then, and then that agreement has a really good clawback provision if those two dates are not met. Okay, that helps. Thank you for those explanations. Is there any further questions on this? Otherwise we need a motion for approval or recommendation to counsel, I should say of the Irwin Thomas final plat, water dedication or water calculation. Kathy, are you making the motion? I'll make that motion. All right, we have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll also second this motion too. Okay, we have a second by Scott. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, motion carries. And it sounds like West this last one is just for information only. So if you wanna go ahead and take that one. So the Longmont Church of Christ Biner subdivision is a 2.44 acre parcel located south of 14th Avenue and West of Collier Street. It's part of an annexation that annexed prior to the formation of Longmont Water Board. And therefore, according to the city's Longmont requirement policy for lands that annexed prior to the creation of Water Board, transfer the historic water rights, satisfy the policy unless there was a previously specified written agreement. And there is none for this property. So Longmont Church of Christ, minor subdivision plaid is presently in compliance with the city's raw water requirement policy. They're planning to do like a two story church addition and building a single family home in the area that'll be for, I think for one of the pastors. So since it's already in compliance and because it's, there's no further deficits and because it's before Longmont Water Board it's an information item only for you guys. Okay. Thank you. Any questions on that one? I don't see any. Okay. With that, thank you, Wes, for those. Now we're on to general business and it looks like you're up again, Wes, under the 2021 water supply and demand management plan. I am. So the, what you have before you is the 2021 and 2022 water supply and drought management plan. The purpose of the plan is to manage the city's water supply and anticipate, identify and respond to drought the St. Brain Creek watershed area. I thought I would walk through just a few of the highlights of the plan. It's very similar to a plan's water board has seen in the past. So the city of Longmont's raw water drought supply policy is outlined in the raw water, right out of master plan. I apologize, but let me, you guys are probably hearing some background noise. Give me just one second to take care of that. Sounds good. I don't know where you guys are at, but it is snowing hard where I'm at right now. So looks like I'm in a snow globe. Yeah, I'm just getting started to snow pretty good here too. Good. Turn right. Wes, I did mute you if you wanna unmute again. Great, sorry about that guys. So I'm just gonna highlight some of the parts of the water supply and drought management plan. Heather, if you could pull up that part, I think it's page 23 of the board's packet. I was just gonna kinda walk through some of these. Okay. So I'm just gonna hit some of the couple sentences and paragraphs and walk through this. The city of Longmont's raw water drought supply policy, again is outlined in the raw water master plan. It describes the city's policy of using a one in a hundred year drought recurrence interval as the basis of the planning for the city's raw water supply. And the drought interval is based upon a drought of approximately seven years in length. We like to highlight that, is many cities only use a one in a 50 year drought and some of them only use a one or a three year or even a five year drought length. And so we have a much broader scope in our policy. On the third paragraph, during 2020, the St. Rain River Basin experienced slightly above average stream flow conditions as a result of above average snowpack and average rainfall. As a result of the above average stream flow during 2020, Longmont finished the 2020 irrigation season with average storage in its local reservoirs at 70%. Current projections are that by July 15th, 2021, select reservoir storage will be 95% or full. So you were asking Todd about some of the reservoirs and where we stand. And I apologize, I didn't pull it up currently, but based upon where Buttenrock and Union are currently, based upon our projected yields on our water supply and on our change cases, we're expecting that those reservoirs will be full or near full and that Highland system, which makes it the remaining bulk of the deficit will be there. Hey, Wes and Todd. So on March 31st, I looked up on our state water commissioners report. And as March 31st, it was, or April one, it was roughly, roughly 62% for local basin storage. So, and what we wanna keep in mind on that. So the, we're kind of specific in ours when we talk about select reservoir storage. So there's a lot of reservoirs out there that are irrigation only reservoirs, many of which are junior reservoirs. And so what we're looking at in terms of our water supply and drought management plan are reservoirs such as Buttenrock, McCall, Birch Lake, Macintosh and Union as being the ones that would really impact Longmont's water supplies. So I guess that's an important distinction when we're talking about the reservoirs. I don't know that all reservoirs in the basin will be in total 95% but certainly the ones that would affect our water supply and drought management plan, we expect to be nearly full at the end of this runoff season in mid July. So then down below, we have a kind of a table kind of comparing 2020 and 2021. So in 2020, the total water supply available was just over 24,000 acre feet. In 2021, we're expecting a little over 26,000 acre feet of available supply. And we'll talk a little bit more of that in detail when we look at table A. And then our total treated water demand last year was just about 17,500. We're looking at about a 2% increase in demand this year for 17,835 acre feet. Now the snowpack, which is another indicator that we pay attention to on April 9th when we produced this packet, South Platte was at 92%, Colorado at 79%. As of today, as Nelson mentioned, I believe South Platte was at 96 and Colorado was at 76. With the snow you guys were talking about, we think there's a good chance that it's probably gonna go to 100%, which is good. On the next page, we have a number of description of indicators and forecast methods that we use, the natural resource conservation services monthly stream flow forecast. That's a forecast tool that we use and it's integral into our water rights change cases that speaks to what we predict is gonna be the flow at Lyons and then therefore how our decrees will perform. It's a wide range in average and in an average condition and that's what we're expecting this year is what would be termed as an average runoff. Next is the natural resource conservation services monthly snowpack survey. Those are those, what we just got done talking about that we think with this storm is probably gonna push the St. Rain Basin closer to 100% of average, hopefully. We're looking at St. Rain Creek Basin Reservoir Storage. I just spoke to that and some of the reservoirs, the most important of which is Ralph Price Reservoir, but certainly those others play a significant factor. Again, just as a reminder, it's gonna be Union, McCall Lake, Oligarchy Reservoir number one, otherwise known as Birch Lake and McIntosh Reservoir. Then we looked at our trends, mountain water supplies. That's CBT, it's carryover from the prior year. It's upper Baldwin ditch replacement water, carryover, any exchange CBT supplies that we got. And for this 2021 year, those Trans Basin water supplies by themselves were expected to yield about 18,500 acre feet of water. We also look at raw water availability for the city of Longmont. The city of Longmont treated water demands. Right now we're predicting a 2% increase from last year. We will see. And then lastly, the city of Longmont's water supply projections for multi-year projections. And that's part of our table A that I'll go over in just a minute. So those are the indicators. So next are the descriptions of the drought supply response levels. Basically, if the combination of supply and available storage exceeds projected demands by more than 135%, the city's water supply will not be considered in a drought scenario. So that means we would be in what is classified as a sustainable conservation level. At the sustainable conservation level, the city will continue to implement best management practices to conserve the water resources of the city. This level will include a projection of the following indicators. Storage volume in our outpriced reservoir greater than target levels for level one. We'll go over that with you here in just a minute on table D. And that our raw water supply availability projections for the current and next water year are at a level greater than 135% of projected water demand. If those aren't satisfied, we go into what's a level one, which would moderately impact the city's supply versus demand. That's when our raw water supply availability is between 120 and 135% of projected water demand. The next level is a level two, which would severely impact the city's supply versus demand. That's when our raw water supplies are at a level of 105 to 120% of projected water demand. And then lastly, on the top of the next page, level three would critically impact the city's supplies. And that's when our raw water supplies available are less than 105% of projected water demand. That means we still should be able to meet our demands, but that's barely all we could do. And so the next section is a description of drought response action plans. So I just wanted to mainly look at the sustainable conservation level because that's where we're at currently and that's where the data is suggesting we'll be next year. So we're going to continue public information concerning the impacts to the city of Longmont's water supply to encourage the best management practices are followed and the city will continually promote a public water conservation campaign. The voluntary measures are going to be parks and rec, golf course and school district are going to be encouraged to follow best management practices and conserve water where possible. That the city owned facilities will strive to set the benchmark for water use practices and that we're going to encourage all customers served by Longmont water utilities to implement best management practices for total water use. Level one drought projections you find on the next page that we're going to, if we were to get to that level we would voluntarily encourage all customers served by the Longmont water utilities to implement a 10% reduction in water use from historic levels. And that irrigation class tap customers may be required to reduce demand by 10%. And that community garden users as well as private garden users will be encouraged to implement a 10% reduction in water use from historical levels. The mandatory measures would be parks and rec, golf course and school district would result in a net 10% reduction in historical use, annual use, and that all other municipal water uses will be reduced by 10%. So building use, fire department, et cetera. So that's kind of it for level one. And we do make a note that union reservoir water levels would be lower than normal resulting in lowered ability to conduct late season recreational activities on a reservoir. It should be noted that under sustainable conservation level the way we're managing the union reservoir and integrating that into our water use activities that even underwater or a sustainable conservation levels union reservoirs may still be low. This just says lower than normal. And if anybody has paid attention to union the last several years, you'd recognize that it goes up and it goes down. And that's just how it's used. But level one says it may be lower than normal. If we were to go to a level two drought, it's basically a mandatory 20 to 90% water reduction for parks and rec, golf course and school districts depending on the severity of the drought. And level three, that's basically everyone's gonna have to really cut back, possibly completely eliminating outdoor watering and some of those things. But that's not even on the radar for this year. Again, that would take 105% of supply to demand for this year and next year. And we're not anywhere near that. So, but it does speak to that if and when we were to get there. So if we move, continue to move forward in the packet to table A. I just wanted to highlight some of the more specific water rights that make up our actual and projected water rights yields. So I'm just gonna kind of go through them a little bit kind of quick. I think a lot of them are somewhat self-explanatory. I think the important part to take away from this is kind of the final total numbers, but again, CBT quota, that was set on the ninth of this month by the Northern Board at 70%. Last year it was at 80%. Usually it's pretty safe to always think that they're gonna issue at least 50%. And that's what we projected for 22 and 23, respectively. Number two, our direct flow water rights. Those are a list of about 20, 15 to 20 different water rights. It's our upper transfers, lower transfers, 2000 change cases, things like that. We're projecting just over 4,000 acre feet of raw water available for those. And last year it was about that same amount. The reason that number, 4,000, is less than what's projected in 2022 or 2023 is we're planning to take those direct flow water rights. So as some of you may understand, when you get issued our water rights through our change case, we can put them for direct flow or for storage use. We are gonna take some of these water rights and put them into storage. So we're gonna take a lot of those water rights that could be used for direct flow but we're going to choose to put those into Button Rock and into Union in order to fill those reservoirs to the extent that we still have other water rights remaining to satisfy our deficits. And so that's why those numbers are kind of different. Our 29 transfer decrees, those are decrees that were from 1929. Primarily they relate to the Longmont supply and Palmer to decree. And so our projected available demand for those this year is 1,079 acre feet. The pipeline decrees, we have decrees for our North and South pipeline. And we're projecting the raw water available for those to be 973 acre feet. Next is transferred reservoir storage decrees. Those are decrees that are available to be used to meet treated water demand. For example, Pleasant Valley Decree, Union Reservoir Change rights. And so forth. And the yield from those is 11,663 acre feet. The next is reservoir storage available for release. This for the most part speaks to Button Rock. And it speaks to our design drought. And it speaks to how much water would be available if we were to experience a one in a hundred year drought over 70 year duration in that first year. It's expected and we believe it to be true this year that we could pull out 4,222 acre feet. And when the year is over, it can change, but that's what we're predicting at this point. Trans basin water rights. Again, I spoke to it. We're 18,585 acre feet. It's CBT, Wendy Gap. It's our XL water exchange. It's upper bald one in our carryover water. So slightly more than last year, primarily because of Wendy Gap. We've already been using Wendy Gap. We used it when we were doing our Button Rock Outlet Works project. We believe that Wendy Gap will pump some this year. And so what we had to do in order to get the Wendy Gap water thus far is we had to collateralize CBT. So as Wendy Gap gets pumped, that collateral CBT will come back to us. And when it does, that's gonna, that kind of makes up that difference from last year to this year. We're always striving to carry over a full carryover of 2,825 acre feet. That's the amount that's needed in order to yield our 20% carryover. So that's something that we just always try to have happen. It then puts us in the best situation for next year because we can then get that carryover for the following year. And then we have 1,000 acre feet for water rental and leases. And those numbers fluctuate a little bit, but they're fairly consistent. School district makes up a good part of that, but we have a number of other uses. So the total projected supply is 26,248 acre feet. When you look at that compared to the demand, which is again, is 2% higher than the previous year, it shows the percent of supply versus demand at a sustainable conservation level to be 147%. And as you'll recall, we talked about it needed to be greater than 135% for to be in a sustainable conservation level for that year and next year. Next year's projection, also taking an additional 2% increase in the demand, would put us at 139%. We actually go to another year, 2023, and even doing that, again, another 2% increase in demand, we're still at 135%. So there's that. And then the other thing we do is we look at how much water we have available to in our storage vessels that are available to be used municipally. And when you look at that, again, it's Button Rock, it's Birch Lake and Union primarily. The number of months available to meet those is about 21 months. So if we didn't get any snow melt and we didn't have the St. Rain River completely shut off, the reservoirs themselves basically would have enough to meet our demands for somewhere around 21 months. So kind of paying attention to that. The next page looks at Table B and it speaks specific to Ralph Price Reservoir Storage. That's our workhorse. That's where we get our water in the winter. It says that for the first year in a designed drought, at a sustainable conservation level, it needs to be a greater than 90% of storage. So as of April 9th, we were at 92% of full. We're projecting by July 15th, it'll be 100% full. And so therefore it'll be greater than 90% at the sustainable conservation level. So we've additionally included the City Council Communication Draft of that that we'll be taking to City Council in May. And we've also included the City of Longmont's Guiding Water Principles. Those are always good to look at and to review. So with that, that's our presentation on the 2021-2022 Water Supply and Drought Management Plan. And if you have any questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them for you. Thank you, Wes, Allison. Looks like you have a question. Yeah, thank you very much, Wes, for walking us through that. That was really interesting and very detailed. Couple of questions. What is the downstream call that affects the direct flow rates primarily? So there's a call on the river that's set by the water commissioners in different reaches. So the District 5 Water Commissioner, she'll set a call for the St. Brain Creek. And that would be like today, the call is Highland Reservoir Number 3 and it diverts at Highland Ditch Headgate up by Lyons. So the call that she makes affects from that Headgate diversion upstream and then the call downstream affects anything from that point down. And why that becomes somewhat significant is sometimes you can have a difference in call. You can have maybe a senior call on the St. Brain Creek and a really junior call on the South Platte River. And any flows that accrue to St. Brain Creek below the call on the St. Brain Creek could be potentially eligible to be used, for example, captured and pumped into Union Reservoir. That's probably the easiest one to think of that there could be some water that is available at our pumping station. Kind of there about right around Dick's Sporting Goods and the Wastewater Treatment Plant. There's occasions where there's water available there that we could turn on our pumps and pump it through the lower end of the oligarchy ditch and get it into Union. That then could be used for other purposes. So that's primarily where that lower call would affect Longmont. Does that ever create a situation where the river's being swept? Say that again, I'm sorry? Is there ever a complete dry up or do they sweep the system? So the state has a real analytical approach and looking at a zero point or a dry up on the river. So they look at water supply readings at Lyons and then they do a numerical calculation of amounts that are taken from the headgates below that until it reaches zero. So in that theoretical sense, there becomes a zero point on the river or a zero point where there's virgin flow. What's happened though oftentimes is that there will be what's considered a zero point on the river, i.e. no flow. But at that same time, you could go out there and physically see water in the stream. And so some of those are from irrigation return flows. Some of those are from lawn irrigation, groundwater flows. Some of those are available for us to use minisculely. Some of them we haven't changed. So what usually happens is after the runoff season, if we're trying to take water below the calculated zero point on the river, what we then do is we have what we refer to as our peck-ditch augmentation station. And it's a place where we actually divert water out of the St. Rain Creek. We physically measure that flow and then we return it down below kind of down about golden ponds. And it's the measurement that we're able to record as physical water being delivered that we can then take some credit. And so it's kind of an integrated part of our system, but the zero point does come into effect often. It usually comes into effect, usually later in the season, probably around, it could be as early as July, but usually it's like August through October is where we're affected by that. Does that create a drive above the peck-ditch augstation? Yes. So again, there's that theoretical zero point where you can't divert down below, but yet if we're still passing water through, if we, for example, during that period of time, wanted to run water out of button rock down to Union, there could still be flows. What we have to then do is measure those flows, those flows through the augmentation station, then we get that credit. Because there used to be a gaging station at Golden Ponds. So if you were ever around Golden Ponds, there was a bridge that went over the St. Brain Creek. If you looked immediately upstream, there was a place that there was a gaging station, but that kind of got washed out and wasn't functioning 100% grade and the state did not want to replace it. So we have a gaging station to hygiene. Our very next one is clear below our wastewater treatment plant. So a pretty big gap, if you will, in the river point. And so that's why they use this calculated zero point. Had we, we've tried to work with the state to maybe put in a, and replace that one at Golden Ponds to actually record flows. But now that we have the Peck Ditch augmentation station, it works better. It's a newer augmentation station. We've used it a couple of years now, but with operational experience, it's working pretty well for us. But it's off channel. So in order to get the quantification, you got to take it out of channel. Exactly. And it doesn't, from an outsider looking in, it makes no sense that you have to pull water out of the river in order to get credit. And we spent years with discussions with the state on that. And that's what we had to do. Thank you for your curiosity on that. I have two more questions, obviously. Okay. Now, where does the 135% come from? So the 135%, it was, it was something that we looked at back when we started the water supply and drought management plans, you know, back after 2002. And the theory looked at knowing that you needed to be able to meet your current year demand. And you also need to be in a position to meet your future water year demand. And so we looked at, you know, if 100% was needed to be met for this year, there wasn't an exact science coming up with 135 versus some other number. It was based upon looking at what we would could reasonably expect from most years in terms of snowpack to look at what we would normally use at Button Rock. We looked at a whole bunch of different factors and it was believed that if we had 135% in a given year, we would then be feel relatively safe within a standard deviation or a certain confidence level to meet that year and the following year's demands. But we kind of groan it to say, we're not just gonna look for 135% this year, we're also gonna look for 135% or more next year. So even kind of became more conservative in our approach. And that's kind of how we got there. And last question, what if any impact might a shortage declaration have on long months water supply? So if we declare, if I understand you're correct, if I understand your question, if we were to declare a level one drought that we had a shortage, is that not what you're asking? No, I apologize, I meant for Lake Mead. Oh, okay, yeah, for Lake Mead. So what you're talking about is kind of that newspaper article that was in the Denver Post. And okay, I'm with you. You're talking to shortage declaration on the Colorado River by the Bureau of Reclamation. Right, would that affect our Trans Mountain at all? So it won't affect long months yield necessarily this year because a quota has already been set by the board and that quota was based upon water that's already in storage. Where there could be an impact is as I read it, it was projected that maybe there could be a call on the river as early as June that Lake Mead call would be below 1,075 feet. I think right now it's at 1,082 feet. So it's almost 147 feet below full. So it's down a lot and we understand that. What it would do, what it potentially could do is require more CVT water to be required to be delivered out of the state. What that would then do indirectly would affect possibly how much got into storage and future quota declarations by the board. But and Todd might be able to help and Ken might be able to help me answer this. I believe even with a 70% quota that's already been determined for this year and a 50% for next year, which is relatively conservative, I think with what's currently in the CVT system and a reasonable expectation of what would get into our storage before June when they anticipate Lake Mead would kind of hit this critical piece that we're still sounding that. So that's a lot to say, yes, it could impact us but the way it would impact us is by the quota declaration in future years. I can add a little Ken, you wanna go first? Yeah, let me just one point of clarification I would like to say is a shortage declaration by the Bureau of Reclamation on the Colorado River functionally affects the lower basin. In essence, depending on the level of Lake Mead it reduces the amount of release from Lake Mead to the lower basins. It does not affect the upper basin because the upper basin by the interstate compact Colorado River Compact is required to provide 7.5 million acre feet per year or 75 million acre feet in 10 years which honestly, we've exceeded that like quite a bit over the years and there's nothing to believe we wouldn't do that. Psychologically, it'll have a big impact. It really will, it'll start a lot more angst and concern but functionally, quite honestly, it will help. The lower basin states have been taken an excess amount of water out of Lake Mead and it will require, that'll stop during the shortage protocol. And so that won't hurt anything at all and the upper basins actually been heard a little bit by the equalization protocols between Lake Mead and Lake Powell and a shortage declaration helps minimize that impact as well. So there's positives and negatives for the upper basin. We'll still be required to meet our interstate compact at least for area of 7.5 million acre feet plus our half of the Colorado River Compact. I mean the Mexican Compact but yeah, it's, I think as big as anything else it's a big psychological shake up on everybody. And then yeah, I'd welcome any more input Todd. No, I think you did good there, Ken. I think my discussions on the Northern Board is, you know, it's multiple years before there would be really an impact, potentially to the upper basin and the CBT delivery or yield, I should say. And even then I think there's a question asked that if there was ultimately a compact call how's that gonna be done? And there's a 2026 renegotiation of the operating rules for the compact. And I think this is all gonna play out in that as well. So I don't view it Allison it's not likely gonna have any real near term impacts on the CBT yields based on my discussion with Northern staff. But in, I made the argument I was supporting a 70% quota versus others were hoping for an 80% and part of my rationale is that that there's uncertainty long-term with that with the quota due to the impact or the issues on the low reservoir levels and like Mead and like Powell. So I think long-term there's definite concerns seeing the amount of drought that's gripping the Southwest and the, I mean, there are levels in like Mead and Powell that they haven't seen since they started filling those reservoirs. So I think we need to keep that in mind with the kind of operations going forward but it doesn't have any real near term implications in terms of the yield per the Northern staff. So anyway, hopefully that helps. Is there any other questions? Okay. I don't see anybody else have any general questions about the recommendation by staff is that we forward a sustainable drought conservation level as part of the 2021 water supply and drought management plan. So I don't know if there's any further discussion otherwise we'll need a motion to that effect if everybody's in agreement. I said move. Okay. We have a motion by Allison. Is there a second? I'll second it. We have a second by Roger. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Motion carries. Thanks, Wes. Thank you. All right. We're on to item nine. Nine A is a sustainability and per capita use information. Ken, are you having this one up? Actually, I'll introduce. Thank you very much, Chairman. I have Francie Jaffe's here today to present this information. We wanna do two things. One, water board had asked for some specific information on the per capita use and Francie put a real good information together there as well as kind of our annual update on the water conservation program in general. So I'll go ahead and turn it over to Francie to present that information to you. Great. Thank you, Ken. Heather, can you pull up page 42 in the packet? I'll just walk through those different. So board, I just wanted to start with kind of an overview of our annual needed water consumption and acre feet from 2007. I just wanna highlight that you do see that jump in 2020 from 2019. That jumps probably a lot higher with the combined with 2019 us having so much. I don't think people started turning on their sprinkler systems until July because there was so much water that year compared to last year, which was very different, much more drought conditions. So even with that jump, if we look at a five year average, if we can do like 2007 to 2011 and then look at the past five years, there's still about a 6% average reduction in water consumption. I also wanna highlight that the larger increases, you saw increase in 2020 from 2019 was residentially, though it wasn't as high as our last drought year, which was 2012. So we did have less consumption this in last year than to 2012. I'm also wanna highlight that our city water usage was our third lowest since 2007 in 2020. And I think that's important to highlight because that highlights different upgrades our parks have been doing in the past five years from moving from more to more, from more from treated water to raw water, also doing different irrigation upgrades. So I think that actually highlights some of the work that even last year with higher water usage, our city water usage was actually not as high as previous years. Well, still higher than last year, but not as high as kind of the past over 10 years. Next slide. So this is our gross per capita per day. So this is looking at, we take the water, the plant effluent and then subtract outlines usage and then divided by our service population. So we take our city of long, long population, estimate the amount of, we have a couple, more, well, a little bit more than a couple external households that we estimate that residential population. And that's our total service population. So again, you can see that jump from 2019 to 2020, but it's still a downward trend from 2007. Again, that five-year average from 2007 to 2011, or sorry, the five-year average in the past five years is about 141 gallons per capita per day, is that average with, it'd be a little bit high this year at 145. And then that five-year average reduction from that 2007 to 2011 versus the past five years, it's about 17%. So it shows a higher savings per person because of our large increase in population, but our water usage compared to our how our water usage is going down. So hopefully I'm based on Wes's estimations, we'll probably see a similar or maybe a little bit higher water usage this year. And then so if you can scroll down to the last, and this is our water conservation program update. So I know there's a lot happening on the left side of the screen. So with our resource central programs, they actually ran out of gardens last year. So we sold all our discounts, but total gardens sold in Longmont was actually lower. They had the same problem this year, they ran out of gardens, I think in late March. So I think they weren't even, they were open for about a month before, or no, it was the first week of April. So they were open for just over a month before they ran out of gardens. Last year with our water-wise seminars, we actually had our second highest amount of participants. And that's, I think pretty impressive because it was the first year we actually did webinars due to COVID. So actually because of how, well, with COVID still happening, but also how successful it is, we're doing webinars again this year. We actually had that first webinar that you can see that I estimated 103 were registered when I sent this over to Heather. Since then we've had the reservation, sorry, the webinar this year and we had 76 people attend. I don't know how many of those, I usually they'll tell me at the end of the season how many Longmont specific residents attend. So then we also had our last year, we had our highest number of people participating in slow the flow. So hopefully we can continue and have more people getting those irrigation assessments. We had not as great a year last year when it comes to toilet rebates our sustainable business program grant. This was actually they got a, it was a number, it was a small grant to fully cover the cost of different indoor appliances. So they were poor toilets. And then if you actually looked at the efficiency works, we only had six residential toilets last year. I think that's a couple of reasons. It was a new pro, we moved the program to efficiency works. It was stricter requirements. It was COVID, there's a lot happening. I think the fact that already this is from, through March, we've had the same number of last year. That's a better idea that we'll have more people participating. We did some more outreach in April. So I'm hoping at the end of the month I'll see also increase in the number of toilet rebates. We actually had a, I thought a pretty good launch for a residential irrigation. We had 101 different rebates from match precipitation rotor heads and rain sensors and Wi-Fi irrigation controllers make up that 101. And then we had four different projects with multifamily and commercial and we did not have any toilet and urinal rebates. We're still trying to figure out this year how to best engage the commercial multifamily market. That's completely new for us. So we have, well, we did, I just found out today that the multifamily buildings are, with all the snow happening, have some other priorities. So we're gonna push them again, but we're really trying to be strategic and try to target those industries more this year. And then we're also hoping to bring on later this year. We're just waiting for final approval, more commercial rebates, especially in the commercial kitchens. So we can really offer more opportunities specifically for restaurants. We'll be targeting restaurants more this year. So lastly, we had some different projects. We, I worked with Parks to, we received a grant to transition 1.25 acres to a water-wise turf. So hopefully by the end of this year we'll see, we estimated 50% water savings. So we're hoping to see if that's accurate. And then also work to create a more strategic plan next year for turf transitions. And then we also did a indoor fixture upgrade pilot with the St. Brain Valley School District. We fully covered the costs. We wanted to do a large project so that we could create some case studies about, okay, if you fully replaced a large number of toilets and urinals, how many, how much savings would you get so that we can better target more other schools, maybe some of our multi-family buildings, but unfortunately we probably won't get some good data on those savings for a couple of years because schools have been so virtual on and off virtual. So I kind of jumped between 2020 and 2021 as I went down. So a lot of our, essentially most of our 2021 programs are still running except for garden in the box. And the last thing I wanna highlight before any questions is that this year, we actually offered a pilot program in Resource Central's Garden of Box. We did an income qualified program. So long one has a program called CARES that is a kind of one-stop shop application for different rebates. So CARES participants this year could receive a 80% discount on their garden. So actually I have the number wrong. We actually had 52, not 51 income qualified gardens sold. I think it was a total of 38 participants. It's still in grain because we didn't sell out all our discounts. So they have another fall sale that I think we have, we could sell maybe about 10 more gardens. So we're gonna push that. So I'm very excited to learn what went well with this program this year, how we can engage more of our income qualified community and get gardens out to more individuals where cost has been prohibitive in the past. So that is my overview. Any questions? Roger, go ahead. Can you go back to the chart before that the per capita usage? Heather, yeah, okay. My question, Francie is what is our objective on this particular measurement right now? I mean, what are we targeting? Yes, thank you for that question. So our current goal in our, based on our Raw Water Master Plan specifically focused on overall water usage. And I do not believe how to specific goal for gross per capita per day. But I'm sure based on overall water usage, we could essentially projected population come up with a target. Ken, I saw you. I'm sorry, did your video. Thank you, Roger. That's an excellent question. So Francie is absolutely correct. Originally in our Raw Water Master Plan we set a goal of a 10% water savings at essentially build out what was called planning horizon of the city. That's a 3,500 acre foot savings through a lot of people's efforts, Nelson's and Francie's primarily over the years. We're really about there. And that's most excellent. We're very, very happy to be very successful in that those efforts, which means that when we do our next Water Efficiency Master Plan update, we'll be able to engage with Water Board and have a serious conversation about looking at that savings goal and seeing if we can make it a slightly more aggressive and increase the final water conservation effort and goals for the planning horizon of the city. So Francie's absolutely correct. Our ultimate goal is to meet the 10% savings at the planning horizon. And we've really done that thanks to her and Nelson's efforts. Yeah, but now you're still talking about total water usage, right? Not per capita. We're talking about the total water supply for the city. That is correct. The total usage. You know, I guess my point is, and I think a measurement of usage per capita is a lot more relevant on what we're doing as individuals and just saying the total water usage. If you're not figuring in or factoring in our population, I think that doesn't tell the whole story. And I'm just giving you my two cents, I would be much more favorable to watch per capita usage. I think it tells the story a lot clearer than total water usage. That's just my opinion, Ken. Yeah, no, I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, normally many times when we do these graphs, we have the gross per capita line and then below that we'll have the single family, multifamily, commercial, because each one of those I agree needs to be looked at individually. And yeah, for the single family, that's a real good indicator of what somebody in a single family home's doing for some of those other, and it allows you to understand where you need to focus your water conservation. And we do have those numbers and we didn't wanna overwhelm the graphing right now, but yeah, we're more than happy to have the conversations around those individual metrics as well. Yeah, maybe we can look at that sometime down the road. So anyway, I told you how I feel about it. Hopefully we can go from there. Cool, thank you. All right, thanks, Francie. Any other questions, comments? Francie, I got one question on your slide, the annual metered water consumption. You mentioned kind of lower demand for the city properties. Is this is just potable use, is that correct? So I guess the point is, as you were saying that, there's been conversion of parks and golf courses, let's say from potable to non-potable use. I guess my only question there is, to the extent the park or whatever's using ditch rights that may be available either now or in the future to the city's potable system. And I guess I would say, there may be water rights that we could integrate A or B with a pump-back project. I don't know, I just wonder, it's kind of that efficiency, how efficient are they being versus if they just go to irrigation water, that supply may have another use long-term. And anyway, I was just kind of curious in terms of that measure of efficiency, how much of that is just switching supply versus, hey, they're actually using less than what they maybe had historically. So I don't know if there's any numbers on that or if you guys have looked at that for the parks of just regardless whether it's irrigation water or potable water, how much or are they actually reducing their use by a certain percentage? So Chair, I know kind measuring raw water usage has been something that we're trying to improve a better way of tracking that I believe not ever, that it, that there are still abilities to track it better. So it's not something we have consistently tracked. I know the parks over the past two years have been working to install some different ways to better track, I think three or four of the parks that use raw water usage to have a better understanding. So we could, I believe, track total water usage for both raw and treated better at our parks. I think we've only recently had the technology to even do that at some of our parks. So I think there are more opportunities to do that, but I also know that our parks, we are like have explored different irrigation upgrades and are exploring doing different, not just the turf transition project I highlighted, but installing more water-wise plants. They actually installed garden of box at two different locations. So I know they are exploring, but that is something we could explore better in the future. I just think it probably just helped tell the story a little bit more of, you know, they are being more efficient with their use rather than just maybe a transition of supplies is my only point. So I think what you're doing, it'll play out that way. Krancy, as you're suggesting, I was just kind of curious. Looks like David, do you have your hand, your virtual hand up? My virtual hand is up. Thank you, Chairman. Just real quick on that, that is a question that I've been asking my park staff as well. We fortunately say good cart in front of the horse. We started making some of these changes to our systems on how we could be more water, conserve more water in our parks before we had a system in place to truly measure it. So unfortunately, we can't go back and probably make up that data. It's more of the idea that we know we've done better irrigation systems. We reduced the footprint of turf in our parks. Like Krancy said, some of that comes in retrofitting. Also other pieces are coming in the design. We're designing a lot more native vegetation to our parks as well too. So it is gonna be unfortunately a missing part of the story where I wish you would have had the data to show that because now we're gonna start showing change from a point where we've already taken some of that low hanging fruit as we start incorporating this. But it is something we definitely want to do a better job at trying to calculate our raw water usage. Thanks for that input, David. And I think that is the image for the rest of the city of the city is trying to be efficient with its use and Xeric plants and that even having that information going forward and maybe its application rates over the areas. But anyway, I think that's great work that'll I think help the validity, the conservation ethos within the entire community. So I appreciate that answer. Thank you. Any other questions, comments? All right, well, we'll keep moving. Thank you, Francy, for that. That was a good presentation. Thank you very much. All right, next item is 9B, which is a windy gap firming project update. Ken, you're gonna give that? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Just really a fairly quick update on the windy gap. We are still negotiating a settlement on the federal lawsuit. I don't have anything, any result to report yet, but we're getting very, very, very, very close. And I don't wanna jinx anything and I'm not able to even say anything, but we believe we're close enough that we might even see some kind of information on that yet even this week or that. It's that close. I think that'll be great news if we move forward with it. But again, until every party in the case has signed on the dotted line, we're not done, but we had real good conversations with the contractor on how we move forward, have real good conversations. I'm hearing good things coming out of the legal team as well as we're all taking a quick look at the financing. So I think we're getting much closer than we are. And certainly as soon as we hear something, we'll inform the board as well because it will be big news and it'll come pretty quick. And we certainly are hopeful that it's good news that you'll be hearing soon. And that's really about all I have right now, Todd. Okay, are there any questions for Ken on that? It does not look like it. Okay, thank you, Ken. Next item is 9C, a monthly legislative report. Looks like you're going again, Ken. Yes, and we have nothing to add. We do not have any bills that we're recommending or asking for a recommendation. We're moving forward right now in the water arena. Seems like we've got a whole bunch on sustainability and electrical. Our electric department's got a bunch they're looking at, but as far as water, we're kind of mostly just monitoring right now. So we don't have a real easy report this year, this month. Okay, thank you. So next item is 9D, a same-brained left-hand water conservancy district stream management plan update. Yes, and water board recently, you may recall recently asked us to work with the same-brained and left-hand water conservancy district to get an update on their stream management plan. Unfortunately, they had the staff member that was the project manager resigned. And so they had a little bit of a setback on the scheduling on that, but they have replaced that position and they're hoping to start really moving forward. I have talked with Sean Corden, the executive director and he feels he can come back probably about July. They'll have been able to do enough work on it to come back with a report. So got Kevin on the hook today to answer any questions if the board has any specific questions or need he has a little more information than I would, but if there aren't any questions, we'll kind of hope for a more complete report in mid-summer. In mid-summer. Okay, thank you. Any questions there? Okay, looks like we're on to item nine E, water resource engineering projects update, Jason. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I just wanted to give the board a quick update on two projects, button rock outlet repairs are complete, button rock outlet is now fully open or it's fully back in operation. And we also installed a new flow meter up there on the 54 pipe and it's now transmitting to the state. And I believe the state's about to adopt that as their new measurement coming out of button rock no longer using the in-stream gate or the downstream gate. So that's good. We will have to go back in and do some touch up repairs to the outlet in the fall, but for now the gate's up and going. It's minor stuff for what needs to be done up there. The gate's not leaking, it's just touch up spots that we need to smooth out a little bit just to prevent scouring around gate seats and the seals. The other project I wanted to give you a quick update on was the South St. Vrain Pipeline pump station project. We now have Smith and Loveless under contract to construct and build us an in-below ground pump station. And they, as of last Thursday, we sent them the of award, they have a week to sign it, get it back to us, but all the negotiations are done and that project should be starting to move forward. We'll do everything we can to make it for lost time, but chances are we're looking at probably the earliest that the pump station would be in operation would be January or February of next year. So a little less than a year out, but still a few months behind our original schedule. And I'll also be working with some city staff on asking FEMA for an extension because we're using FEMA PAC funding to purchase this equipment and we're gonna need an extension to get that, but we don't think that'll be an issue and we don't think the funding's in jeopardy, but we're gonna start asking for that extension now. So is there any questions? Any questions for Jason on his report? I don't see any. Thank you, Jason. Thank you. All right, item 10. 10A is a review of major project listings and items tentatively scheduled for future board meetings. Does any of the board members have anything they'd like to bring up on that? I do have one item I was just curious of. Ken, we had talked, I think it was part of the when you get firming discussions about talking to Excel Energy, about the trade agreement that we have with them and making that permanent rather than we have, albeit it's a long term, it's not a permanent agreement. Have you had any conversations with them or where is that at? Or is that maybe something you can address at a future board meeting? I don't mean to put you on the spot, but I would like to hear on that. No, that's fine. Actually, we have had conversations with water resources staff at Excel Energy and they are interested in receiving, it would be receptive receiving an offer, an updated offer for the contract. We've actually prepared one and I have it in review by the department's leadership team and as soon as I get input back from them, we'll be able to forward that onto Excel Energy. And so I hope that that will move forward at some time in the near future. When it does, we'll all get you that information. Awesome, thank you. Appreciate that. Okay, so we're on item 11, which is informational items and water board correspondence. I think the only thing that was in the packet was, oh, I guess a appreciation from the city of the volunteers and the water board. So thank you all for your service to the city. I don't know if there's any questions, comments on those items that were in the packet. I don't see any. Item 12 is items tentatively scheduled for future board meetings. Looks like we'll have the cash and Lou review again in June. I don't, is there anything else there can we need to be aware of? I don't have anything else, no, thank you. Okay, all right. Anything else for the good of the order? Otherwise I'll go outside and watch it snow. So start shoveling. So thank you all and we'll, the next meeting date just for everybody's calendars is May 17th. So we'll see you guys then. Thank you. Thanks during the meeting. Thank you all.