 Okay, I'm going to go ahead and call the LINE IT 2021 Water Board meeting to order. Heather, can we do the roll call? Tom Williams. Here. Allison Gould. Here. Tom Duster. Here. Scott Holbeck. Here. Roger Lane. Here. Ken Newsom. Present. Nelson Tipton. No. Kevin Bowden. Chris Jeff. Here. Jason Elkins. No. Dicca Velmo. Here. Councilmember Martin. Here. We have a quorum. Great. Thank you, Heather. So item three is the approval of the previous month's minutes. June 21st, 2021 meeting minutes. Everybody had a chance to look at those. Any questions, comments, or if not, we need a motion to approve those. So moved. The motion to read a second. Okay. An Allison second. Any second? Any further comment? Seeing none, all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Mr. Chair, I was going to abstain from voting. I was in present last week. Okay. Thank you. I was going to say the same thing. Yeah. I'm sorry. I want to welcome Tom because this first meeting here too. So thank you. All right. So we're on to item five. Public invited to be heard in special presentations. Is there any? Okay. Item six. Gender revisions and submission of documents. Yeah. I have a couple just for the record. The chair asked me quite a while ago to hand out a straight line diagram, but this is our first in person meeting. So you probably already read it. I apologize, but I have a straight line diagram for everybody that I'll hand out later in the meeting. Also, when we get to item eight a, I have a handout potential change on the water supply agreement that I'll hand out and talk about at that point. Just a real quick update. Also, we just got our bond rating back from for the sale of the bonds. Part of the bonds are going to get for me project. We got a double A and a double A plus rating, which are really very good ratings. And that, that has those. So that's the last thing we need to do to get ready to sell the bonds. And so we'll be selling those later this morning. So we'll be selling those later this morning. So we'll be selling those later this morning. So that's the last thing we need to do to get ready to sell the bonds. And so we'll be selling those later this month. And then we'll let you know how they go and what do we get. But we're expecting a pretty decent bond sale because of good moderating that. That's everything. It's all the water board work over the years, the staff work. It's a good system. It's good financing, financial. So it was good to get there. That's all. Great. Good visions I have. Thank you. That's good news. Okay. With that, we're on to item seven, which is the development activity. Did you want me to do a quick water standards report? Oh yeah, I'm sorry. I jumped over that. Yeah. Before, why don't you go ahead and do that? Yeah. So the fall in the same brain of Lyons was 122 CFS with a 124 year average of 300 CFS. The call in the same brain is rough and ready ditch admin, 7,012 appropriation date, March 13th, 1869. Calling the main stem of the South Platte is Springdale ditch admin, 13,349. The priority date of July 19th, 1886. Same rain based on storage and beginning of July was at 90%. Alprize reservoir, Budrock was full and we're releasing approximately 50 CFS. Union reservoir is also near full and releasing 10 CFS. That's all I have of us are some questions. Okay. Is there any questions for us on the water standards report? As could you hand me a napkin? Absolutely. Something really important. Good timing. Okay. Anything else? West, how many days of free river did we end up with? We ended up with around 40, somewhere between 45 and 55 days. It was a whole month and then some. So it's actually, we turned out to be a pretty good run. We had the best basin runoff in the state. So we did pretty well. We filled everything up that we were looking to fill. How did the overall basin end up as far as storage capacity? So in total it was around 90% for our select storage. Those that like think about Budrock, Pleasant Valley, McIntosh Union, some of those that we really have a strong interest in, we're like 98%. And so really good. What were the ones that were lagging? Pleasant Valley. I think we didn't quite fill it. We had some capacity restrictions and we tried to anticipate and run it early. There's another small reason where it fills on the top of that dish. We had to fill as well. But we're, we've got all the water in it. We really feel like we're going to have to have. So we're a good shape. Okay. Great. Thank you. Sorry to just get that. We're on to item seven, which is development activity. It's bad. Who's handling that? I've got that. Okay. Before we start this talk item, and if I can indulge, I'll say for both seven a on the agenda, eight alliance status that I work with for represents the golden entities. I'd like to reduce myself from the conversation in the hearing, but I like to ask the board's indulgence to let me stay in the room over in the corner and listen because we have so few dedication variances that I'd like to learn. So I'm not going to say a word of that. That's okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. So what's in front of the board is the Erwin Thomas final flat. As the board may recall, this was in front of the board back in April. There was a slight revision of the acreage since that time. And so this current plan reflects that change in acreage. So Erwin Thomas final flat is a 48.86 acre parcel located south of Colorado State Highway 119 and west of North Under 19th Street. All the historic water rights were transferred at time of annexation. The full 48.86 acres are subject to the full requirements, the raw water requirement policy. But the total raw water deficit for Erwin Thomas final flat is 48.86 acre feet or one acre foot of water per acre of land. So Erwin Thomas will be compliant to the city's raw water requirement policy on satisfaction of the 48.86 acre foot deficit and time of final flat approval. On the very bottom, you'll notice that the Erwin Thomas final flat includes a 16.82 acre lot and a 9 acre lot identified to be used as part of Walmart's economic development building incentive program and its affordable housing incentive program respectively. And so I'm going to just briefly kind of show those. So Heather, I'm going to ask you just to kind of bounce to the next page. And then we'll, so there's the plat to give you a general location. I think you guys kind of know we're just east of kind of the development with where you have Lowe's and Chick-fil-A and all that. It's undeveloped right now. We'll be east of that little turnout there if you want to go to the next page. So on that top map, this is just, we don't normally, would normally show this, but we wanted to help Water Board to have an understanding of what this is going to look like during this development because even though it's not part of this final plat, pertinent to the development, overall development of the entire property, the entire annexed area, there's going to be some mining and reclamation. And so again, it's not specific, but I wanted to help you guys have an understanding of what that's going to look like. So the plat itself is speaking towards kind of that red part square and then the brown part below. That's kind of the area that is part of this plat. When they mine, there'll be, right now it's looked at, there's going to be about seven different mine pits. A couple on the north side of 119 and the remainder on the south side. And then if you scroll up a little bit ahead, when it's all done, it's anticipated there'll be sort of remaining ponds, if you will, where the other will be reclaimed and there'll be some other development. So this is kind of a concept. It's not set in stone, but that's the way it's going to look as you guys are driving through 119. You'll see for years there'll be the mining application out there and then once it's all done, it'll look something like that. So if you want to go to the next page, Heather. So as the board may recall, back in August of 2018, for those of you that were here, Waterborne Recommended City Council approved up to 400 acre feet of the 1200 acre feet of community development incentives identified in the Longmont Water Demand Evaluation to be required to support Longmont's affordable housing incentive program. So as part of that, the way we're going to track this is fairly simple. It's going to be fairly analytical. We're going to start off with 400 acre feet and as there's lots that are going to be pertinent to Longmont's affordable housing incentive program, we will apply that credit that was earmarked, as I just described. So this is the first time that we've had an application of that credit. So when the plat gets signed, there'll be a credit of 9 acre feet of water that'll be debited from the original 400 acre feet. This is for Longmont's affordable housing. And then it goes grow up to the next one. Similarly, so you started off with 1200, 400 of which went to affordable housing. The remaining 800, as we're showing it right now, is for Longmont's economic development incentive. So what we have here is that lot, which I put in the asterisks of the other report. There's a 16.82 acre lot, one acre-foot deficit for a 16.82 acre-foot deficit. And we're going to subtract that from the 800 acre-foot. So this will just start growing on. Now the one point I would make for Longmont's economic development incentive, I think, I guess I didn't see it actually made it on the next page. Yeah, one on the next page, another all the way down, so you can see the very bottom asking. So one thing I was going to make note of, we've included the policies of pertinent to the raw water affordable housing and the economic development incentive. I don't think it's not relatively complex, but these are the pertinent parts to it. And for economic development, it shows, and you can read it right there, that the businesses that get that incentive would need to show that they're generating annual sales and use tax revenues of at least $2.5 million. So this isn't just willy-nilly give it out to anybody. And this is a, and as it's been expressed, this is for a potential feature cost-o site. And so it's believed to be in Longmont's best interest to incentivize them to build in Longmont, and that's where this credit is going to be applied. But again, if this is added, this, I think, reflects in front of the board, is truly just a normal development activity. There's a one-acre-foot deficit per acre, so a total of 28.86 acre-feet. There's just credit to those two parts, and then the remainder will satisfy Barbara, I'm guessing will be satisfied with cash and loop payments. So, and if there's other questions, I'll try to get where Kim can help answer questions and some things you have possible questions on, maybe also part of our further discussion on the farm supply, whatever you've got. So as we did, there's a 25.82 acre-foot credit, nine acre-feet for affordable housing, 60.28 for economic development, and our remaining 23.04 acre-foot deficit that they'd have to satisfy as it normally would. That's correct. Is there any questions for the Revenue? The Revenue, anticipated Revenue, how are they substantiating that? What's the process? I'll look at it, either Marcia or Jim. I can, I can, I'll probably answer that, and if you need me to, I'll scrape it out and pack it from last spring, if you want to read it and send you a link to it. But there was an extensive economic study done about, you know, two ways. First, comparables, like how much does Sam's Club, how much sales and use tax revenues does it generate? How much economic activity does it turn around and how many, you know, how many people does it employ? And then Costco opened up the Kimono and said, this is the economic performance of comparable stores in similar locations. And actually the economic contribution of the one month's economy is just pretty staggering. So to the extent that the city manager went to great lengths to broker this deal because we could come to terms on their first choice of a site. So it's pretty solid information and if you would send me a note, it'll get me there. Well, is it, would you classify it as a conservative estimate or is that a, I mean... That's, that 2.5 million is very considerable. This is the minimum that's necessary to be in consideration for any development. Yeah. Yeah, I just wondered how, how it came to the number and how it was instantiated. So I guess we're just tracking to see how it goes. Thank you. Alison, did you have a question? Yes, I did. Thank you. I was wondering more about the excavation and then what was going to become of the, what's like four different reservoirs as part of the one-marked water system as those were constructed. Yeah. So the excavation actually predates even the annexation of the property into the city of Loma. Do you mean the mining? The mining. Yeah. This property was going to be mined and vented annexed into the city. So, the annexed and had the mining. So basically it's just going to be mined as any traditional gravel mining operation. On the south side of Kencraft Boulevard they're going to leave a couple of the spent quarries. They're going to, the operator and the landowner are kind of still negotiating that a little bit. The idea is that they'll be slurry-lined and turned into, I guess maybe I could, or probably tell it to say it better, but an aesthetic pond that they'll develop around then. For the north side of 119, the city is currently negotiating with the mine operator and the landowner. Well, we're the landowner north of 119, Kencraft, the golden companies south of 119. We're negotiating to have that as a flow-through wetland, constructed wetland, similar to what, if you've been out to Sandstone Ranch and what we get out there, I think that's really a mock, honestly, for neat reclamation, functional reclamation. So we're hopeful that will happen, but that's just like the next negotiation. And I'll actually, on the water supply agreement, give a lot more detail on that. But yeah, it's basically storage on the south side. Do you have an estimate about how good those are? Potentially. The acreage is on the map. It's like 16, it works like... The top left says 8 acres, and the top right says 7. But we don't know how deep they are. We don't know how deep they are. The resource is about... The resource out there ranges between 15 and 25 feet. But by the time it gets to the bedrock, it's a little different, but when we're looking at mining it, it's a 25 foot deep. Would these be concentrated for a water rate or, I mean, an additional junior water rate? It might not be very useful. It may be an odd plan. We're just starting to have those conversations. I believe they will, just because they'll want to fill them up as they evaporate, because if they slurry line of them, they'll leave the instruments there. There actually is a conversation with the bonus ditch company, which, so why? It's the ditch on the west side of all this property, not a pipe system through... They've reserved that capability to fill those from the local ditch as the bonus ditch. I would suspect... I haven't quite thought that. I know one of them has always been planned to be a storage reservoir, which I presume they would always have. So, is the bonus ditch the historic water that you're going to need to use for those storage reservoirs? Yeah, maybe just changing those for... Do a change of use to be able to put those in the line of storage? Well, that's from the storage. Is there any other question? Go ahead. So, the tally, the two tally sheets, one for economic development, the other for housing, those were originally read upon. It looks like in 2018, there's only one thing on the list. So this isn't like something that's enormously popular, not popular as your own word, but enormously used such that there's some kind of competition for this water that we have to really discuss and parse out in the best way possible. This is really the first one on the list, and it seems like... That's why we're bringing this aspect of it. This is the first time we've applied this part of the policy. And again, it's a fairly high standard to even be in consideration of applying it this way. And when Water Board made their determination in 2018, they set forth that high standard that says if you're going to be able and allow to have this incentive, you're going to have to truly bring something exceptional along. That's what this project is proposing. Maybe the other thing for Tom's benefit. So, I mean, the city's been trying to do kind of a build out what's the build out water demand. And these were put into the water demand, in comparison. So, you know, that's kind of the other element of this, is how much water do we develop and also allocate water to the verbal housing and the economic development. So that's kind of the other place this plays in, is if there were a run on this, I think there'd be a question of you're going to allocate more water to this sort of purpose without them bringing water, then the city's going to have to develop more water supply. So that's the other place I think this plays in to the long term. And supplying the man planning for the city. Sure. So on what other tally sheet or on what other spreadsheet does that 1200 acres, acre foot exist? So in other words, like, is that, you have that in a reservoir somewhere or is that just water that you know you have a little play in the system? 2012, and then it was updated in 2018. You know what we call a future water demand evaluation. So we look at how much water we'll need. Luckily in Longmont, luckily Longmont's pretty well rained by either open space or other developed areas. So we pretty much know what Longmont's going to look like throughout our complete planning horizon. So in our more recent water demand, future water demands, we said, what do we need to build all this area? So in that study, we evaluated a number of factors and one of them was a carve out for the economy. So basically in our water planning, this water is there through other means, but enough to build out. So that's why Water Board felt it was a good idea to track it. Because if we ever get close to the 1200 acre feet, which we don't feel we'll ever get there, we'll never exceed it, but we should track it. So many years down the road, if we do hit that, then we've got to think about it and make decisions. To be real honest, when we did those evaluations, the way we did it was took all the water, all the land that was not had the deficits already met and estimated how much could be used in the economic zone and that was the maximum number. So we don't believe we'll ever exceed it. If our 20 days is perfect, we don't feel we'll ever exceed it, we don't feel we'll ever have to portion it out, but it's certainly something we want to track. Thank you. This is the second approval. It's been a long way in the last few months and that is my question. Down the line, will there be more that we will have to approve on this plan other than this one? Will things change? Probably not in economic development because there's only a few small lots left for commercial type. The rest is residential. There might not be some affordable housing. If this affordable housing program goes through, it goes great. I can't say that there won't be more affordable housing out there. I was talking about this particular piece of property that's working at right now. We had an approval a couple months ago. And again, maybe I was wrong, but one of the primary reasons this is back to the board is because the acreage changed and therefore the required acreage changed. So when it came through in the beginning, it was a smaller flat underground. Because it changed, we wanted to be sure water board seating, the acreage as it stood is going to be asked to be approved by council. So had we not had that change, it may not have even been necessary to come back in front of the board, but we want to be sure that what we're signing off on and the approved flat matches what water boards see. So that's the real reason why we brought it forward. And we thought this would be a great water board's knowledge. And created a context when we talk about this water supply. One question. So this ties to the red and brown and orange on the red ground. And the road. So the lakes you were mentioning, they're going to do a slurry wall around them. Those may be going to keep them high for amenity. So does that mean down the road, they may come in with a plan for the balance of the property to the east. That's a good question. I don't know whether for your private. If they were doing economic development or low cost housing, maybe there would be another request, but that's properties not included in this. I would just looking at the three college property. We had talked about not I didn't realize. Okay. Anything else? So do you need a recommendation so we need a motion by the water board to recommend the council approve the water requirement as described in the memo. I'll move. There's a motion. Is there a second? A second. An analysis in seconds. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Here we go. So we do not have anything under we're under nothing for seven B's. Now we're under a day which is the water Erwin Thomas water supply agreement. Yes. I have two water supply agreements before you today. For the most part there are fairly standard water supply agreements that you normally see there are a couple things about the history of the I need to slightly different so I wanted to highlight that. The second thing is I would like to hand out I'll hand out potential change in the second of the agreements. I'll explain that when I get to the second agreement. Just to kind of give you a little bit of the history the property that we were just looking at so so this property north of is owned by the city open space in the properties south it's still owned by if you go back in history a little bit all of that property was going to be mine at one time and the golden companies sold the property north of to the county who then sold the property to Longmont so now we own that we call it golden farms both and then north of the creek there's another smaller part so you can't really see it there but actually if you go into this one it's exhibit A to both agreements there you go so property in green is what the city came from the county and there's also one small parcel north of the railroad tracks that also is contemplated for mining and one time the entire was contemplated for mining so when we Longmont purchased that property from the county the mining was already set was already permitted through the county and ready to go so as a result the mining company had always planned on utilizing the historical water on the property for the mining operations when we acquired the property in green we the city acquired two shares of the bonus stitch company which in that agreement it was agreed that that water would be able to be used for the mining operation even though it was included in the overall so so when it's all done and over you will still own the water once the mining is done and then south of Kenprout Boulevard while originally that the bonus water in the south of the creek of Kenprout was planned to be used for the mining operation but then when the annex of course you have to dedicate all the historical water to the city and then consistent with our long standing policy in Longmont we do lease the historical water back to the landowner until the time that it develops so there's really two parts to the overall mining operation the first part is a short term water supply basically they need a water supply while they're mining both any stream depletions that occur during the time of mining but also for mining operations dust control those kind of things we certainly wanted to keep the dust down out there right beside our community but also when they take the product out and call the sand and gravel out it necessarily takes water out from that sand and gravel it doesn't sound like a lot but when you haul many many truckloads every day that's all the water so between all of that there is a water demand during the time of mining so the two mining agreements you'll see one mining agreement will say exactly what it says don't worry about any water supply and it's a short term agreement only lasting for the extent of mining and then the second water supply agreement is a longer term it's proposed to be a 20 year agreement and it will be for what's called the reclamation what's it done mining after a claimed area and a significant impact on the stream has to be the water has to be replaced to the stream we don't believe there's a lot there's going to be a lot of water so but this agreement the second agreement the reclamation agreement is the maximum amount of water so the agreement is up to that amount they're currently the golden companies are negotiating with the mining company and they want to they're going to they're pretty sure they're going to slurry wall the pit staff in there we still have to sit down the city and the golden companies and the mining company to determine whether I don't know that there will be a slurry lining if we end up doing it as a reclaimed one but that's yet to be determined but there's sufficient water even in the current at any rate all the water has to be done by the golden or the mining company through the process of mining and reclamation after we sent out on the second agreement after we sent out the copy to water board in the recitals it really doesn't not a real big deal on sub paragraph half of the second agreement of reclamation there is a provision there that basically describes there's a mining lease between the two companies the mining company and the golden which we're not a part of do and we'll let that stand as is both those parties wanted the reference in the water supply agreement to their buying up to their mining lease in that mining lease they had this first language in paragraph half that says less or golden companies would supply all water owned by golden companies for the mining company's operation during the mining lease provided that these operations are conducted in accordance with the reclamation plan so the language I haven't read after we sent it out the mining company said we want that language in there it had been left in it was kind of a later addition to the agreement it was not left in because it doesn't affect the city but one of the two parties doesn't want it in there so we still have to negotiate that I wanted to highlight that so we'll ask the water board to approve these two agreements I don't believe the form before you and I don't believe whether the language is in there or out of there A it's in the recitals so it's not part of the agreement part of it and B it doesn't change the context of the agreement at all or any water we would provide or affect that anyway so I believe it's not a substitute to change whether it's in there or not but I just wanted to highlight it we'll have you prove it I made that one change I wanted to let you know So does the reclamation plan currently show those as line reservoirs? It shows them as reservoirs I think there's still a discussion I believe it says I believe it's reservoirs lined by slurry walls I guess as long as it says lined my concern would be if it does not show a lined reservoir because they got a bond for that in my mind it would be a little bit extra sure of you the city that you don't have a you've got a temporary lease and you've got a 20-year lease if they don't line these you have a perpetual obligation I guess long when it would only be obligated up to 20 years I guess in my mind and I don't know far maybe does the reclamation plan show it as a lined reservoir then it would be in accordance with that there's temporary water demand versus more of a perpetual obligation as my only concern Go ahead morning Under the mining plan they have bonded to the slurry wall So it is bonded South of the realm is bonded to the slurry wall How we line those cons and how we work with the city regarding their long-term depletions is still in pass And I'm not worried about the rest of the board is beginning to put on stuff on that the city owns I'm more worried about the randomly owned that if we have an agreement with somebody on the reclamation plan and they're bonding and everything fits together with what the agreement say that's binding this around So per the standard requirements we bond for a slurry wall until and unless an augmentation plan is approved has been Right So they'll have a temporary structure to pipeline Correct The plan is to line the cons Right How we do it? I just want to know that they've got the bonding that they have that cost and they have that obligation such that they're sure in the city they will open the line in one shape or form So we don't have a prison ongoing obligation that the city would somehow do Because we've been pretty clear in our negotiations with them that we have a historical lease back where the water until we go through our court until Kalaan develops until we need it we can lease it back when we come real clear this water south of 119 is never going to be part of a permanent augmentation plan because you're going to build development out there and we need to put it in the tab And I just want to make sure that the reclamation plan kind of follows that if somebody goes The reclamation shows now one life bond however the permit is bonded for a slurry wall around the entire property So until when our boats are lying and there's an augmentation plan in place the bond stays in place for the slurry wall for the PRMS and the stand here I'm going to sink about that Are there other questions? Go ahead Ellison So is the plan to get a five-year SODSP and then their court? Yeah, they'll have to get a temporary substitute supply plan for the term of the mine so that'll be the first of the five-year agreement They'll have to get a temporary substitute supply plan and that will be a separate process And then if they don't Well they'll have to do a permanent augmentation plan afterwards that's the long term agreement and assuming that they get a slurry line and assuming the state accepts that wants the state accepts that So the temporary substitute supply plan is like before the state engineer the permanent one is But they wouldn't have a permanent augmentation plan if they line If they line it and it's accepted Right, I mean there'd be maybe some depletions that go once the lining there may be certain things that would be longer but I don't think they need a permanent augmentation on that if they line talking about the land to the side They should if it's truly accepted by the state the obligation would be if they want to change water and put it into storage and that sort of thing which I don't know if that would be the bonus ditch that they have or how that would work in terms of what water they would use for a junior primary Anyway, but I think that's how it would be I don't think they'd have to change the bonus to shares for the augmentation Well, they've already dedicated the bonus to shares to the city and we're in the process So we would supply them to the water Yeah, we would supply them water for a 20-year period if it's needed We're hoping that it's not needed But I think the bonus ditch has been dedicated to the city. It'll ultimately be used for the potable supply for the property around the lakes The lakes are lined so they don't need permanent augmentation They could file for a junior storage right to try to fill them with that way But that's absent the lowest ditch Namely, that's been dedicated to the city that's going to be used for potable water There'd have to be other water used to fill them or a junior procreation would be how the water would work in terms of the water Yeah, which is probably what they would use We would use the Reclamation Agreement to fill them more than likely Unless they fill them during the free river But that's only a 20-year period There's not a perpetual one So the city's obligation would only be dedicated, right? So there's no perpetual obligation for the city to the ponds to the water We've been real clear about that So Chalk this up as a newbie question I suppose I mean, the liner covers groundwater losses or is negation external losses So what we're talking about here is for example, that would be the city's obligation to refill after that 20-year period No If they don't file for a a new junior storage right or they don't go somewhere else and release some water from the park then their ponds will basically eventually dry up They're going to want to keep involved for aesthetic reasons because they have development around it So I'm pretty sure they'll eventually go file a junior or a right And then what they do is they just basically fill them and there's surplus and then they can agree Whatever there's a very junior call Or they can lease water other places Are there further questions? So we need a recommendation by the water board and I guess we'll do it in two pieces One for the short term and one for the That'd be great, yeah Just wait I don't mind making sure it's substantial in the form because there's always a tweak here If anything changes significantly of any significance then we'll have to come back to the water board Okay Any further discussion? Otherwise we need emotion and we'll do it We'll do eight The temporary We'll What we're calling the temporary mining water supply agreement first So we need a motion to recommend that for approval Let's see We've got a motion Is there a second? Okay, we have a motion to second Further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye Opposed? Okay So now we're on to the second agreement which is water supply agreement So this is the 20 year agreement, is that right? Yes Once again we need a motion to recommend approval of the water supply agreement for the Urban Thomas Reclamation to the city council We have a motion, is there a second? Second Motion to second Further discussion? Hearing none, all those Just one more question So is it typical to not have, for example a little bit more certainty with respect to kind of like that Of course, I understand that we're working from the city's perspective Right, and so and of course there'll be this pond out there that potentially that will probably be filled probably be filled because the developer wants it to be aesthetically, you know of course the city probably has kind of what to say in that in a way other than just telling our community nice and pleasant to live in and not have a big line pond that's empty I suppose in the middle of it Do we Is it typical to have that type of uncertainty at this point in the process, I suppose Or is it from your experience then, for example in other types of scenarios that you've been in, has this been kind of where people are at in the process, where we're at right now? Actually this is the first ever mining we've ever had Yeah, it's We've never had a gravel mine in a long level before This seems very strange to me I mean I know that we have historic mining within our community and eventually those things get kind of annexed into the community etc and we have all these gravel ponds around us, etc I'm just curious, and this is of course the first one where it's going to be an active I think cooperation within the city limits just a bit more special consideration with respect to their reclamation plan like a little bit more certainty with respect to their reclamation plan, given that it's within the city limits at this moment right, and it's not just something that will potentially annex later because it's outside of our curfew Now no, it's a little bit that way there is some certainty in that if it were mind and reclaimed pursuits we would have a reclamation plan so if it were mind so a little bit of that uncertainty is because of what Longmont is doing by asking for the reclamation to be changed North of Kimpratt South of Kimpratt honestly the entire area was going to be mine while the entire north decided because the area through here was always going to be mined all the way over and then when Costco came in that shifted that took that mining out which kind of put the whole reclamation plan a little bit in limbo and so a little bit was because we're balancing the great community interested in having economic development and affordable housing so that's what kind of so that made it hard for the mining operator who now has a much smaller area of mine and still has to put this big slurry wall in so that's why the negotiations were a little bit so that's why it's a little bit different in this one because of what and why we do have to change the mining reclamation plan a little bit because we are performing but yeah I would say I don't know if we'll ever have much more mining in the city but it's a little those things we're trying to juggle multiple competing interests here Tom brings up a good point though you're going to have two lakes right on highway 118 then if I understand this right they don't have the permanent water supply other than maybe a junior filing such that if those go in at some point from aesthetic perspective long months not obligated to provide the water long term so they've got to figure it out at some point I think Tom brings up a good point that development occurs all the way around the property does that somebody come back to the city down the road at some point say we need permanent that isn't what these agreements say that's just I guess a concern in the long term and I think it's a good point they are incentivized in other ways to keep those the only concern is they've got a 20 year agreement with the city where they could fill them so the issue would be okay we have this 20 year agreement we're going to keep them full and then is the developer gone at that point and now what do you do with these bonds down the road in terms of keeping them full the actual in the agreement there's a condition the developer is turning it forward to the HOA pretty quickly and the HOA is going to be set up eyes wide open to take care of that organization well I just get nervous with the HOA does get it and they don't have a good permanent water supply and you want to keep levels full somebody could be an issue so I think Tom's right to bring that that's a good point it goes through the process and development plans come for that parcel I think that's something that needs to be very explicit the developer and HOA if you just have a junior right there may be long periods where you're not in and if you're viewing those as aesthetic bonds it may not turn out that way I mean so that's a good point in the sense that there's another bite at this apple I suppose when that area around it gets developed so like this isn't the and don't necessarily with respect to making sure that the bonds they build and that at some point when that industry can get developed that maybe it deserves more scrutiny in that right I think that's a real one is there any other questions on this paragraph 5 of the second agreement indicates that it looks like you need a lot of extension of 20 year term there there is an extension so would they be obligated if one not wanted to continue in the supply would they be obligated to continue to pay for that they would be obligated to take it it would just give them an opportunity to enjoy an opportunity to take it any other comments? really up to the city whether it would be extended or not the city is not being able to control whether so one more I guess just one question on process when they come through, so we're dealing with right now we got Costco and multi-family there's going to be a subsequent raw water dedication whatever they plow so to Tom's point when that plows that's going to be coming back to the Water Board too and that would be another point where bringing that issue up it's not necessarily a potable water requirement per se but I think it is so just making sure everybody's on the same page if there's a water application there especially if the UN isn't at the static lake they don't have a permanent water supply currently there alright so go ahead and spot us I mean you got the recognition do you have emotion okay alright so emotion in a second and that was the further discussion any further discussion all those in favor say aye aye great so welcome back Scott thank you so we're on to item 9 we didn't have any items on the staff items from board review of major project listings and items kind of established for future board meetings I guess one item is Kathy was the vice chair of the water board so I don't know at some point we're going to need to establish a new vice chair so it's obvious to be re-elect anything else from the board considerations okay item 11 is informational items and water board correspondence can I think you'd have an item or two attached that I'm going to speak to those um they're just copies of emails we're trying to re-transfer some of them and we're on to 12 days cash in the blue review that'll occur next in September and now we're on to item 13 which is an executive session to discuss security protocols for one most water system so based on that we're going to need to close the meeting and I don't know at the executive session we have to read some protocol and step in just this right there we have previous records generally one of the board would make a motion to go into executive session under documentation under the I'm not the attorney for the board so I'm not going to make that my recommendation I think we're going to generally do it just fine well I would think that's our question I think she's part of the board yeah so you see some of it one way or the other here's your hat which you're going to receive thank you for my taste I think another question we're going to have I don't know about recording camera can stay on until we make the motion okay well sometimes I have whether or not it's recorded or not is that the recommendation okay alright so do you want to do we have something to read in in terms of prior to the recommendation based on what statute that's my experience of executive session yeah step the last water board to convene in an executive session to discuss matters to study specialized details of security protocols along with water system primarily focused both on cyber security and what does this stop doing we're doing it's not in an executive session because all water system security are thoroughly controlled on disclosure so we need a motion by the board to go into executive session so there's a motion is there a second motion a second any further discussion hearing none all those in favor say hi hi so we'll go ahead and take a break while you you want to turn the recording to white