March 20, 2023 — Water Resources Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:01] Webinar is now recording. All right. I'll go ahead and start with some zoom zoom guidance if that works Okay, great. Thank you. All right. And thanks to those of you online who are from meeting, we've had a little technical difficulty tonight, so my name is Joanna Bloom, and i'm serving as the technical host for this meeting. We'll start by just running over some of the virtual meeting rules that we follow. These rules are in place to find a balance between transparency with community members and security that minimizes disruptions. We do need a full name associated with each person's participation and open or public comment, and we cannot unmute you without it. and if your full name is not currently displayed. or or when you come up, please change it, and or you can send it to me in the Q. A. Box, and i'm happy to change it for you. There is no chat feature for this meeting. The Q. A function is enabled and can be used to address technical questions only.

[1:07] Do you have any difficulty with the Q. A. Function you're welcome to text me at 303817, 1 7 4 2 members of the public may be unable to control the audio or video features. Video is limited to city officials, employees, and invited speakers only. I will unmute you when you're recognized to speak. If you're on the phone you may need to press star 6. To unmute yourself. You can indicate your desire to participate in open or public comment by using the raised hand function. You'll find this feature in the participant box that either the top or bottom of your screen. If you've joined us by phone, you can press Star 9 to raise your hand. I'll call your name when it's your turn to speak and announce the name of the next speaker on deck after I've unmuted, you please say your first and last name, and a 3 min timer will be displayed, and we'll start once you begin your comments.

[2:05] Thanks so much for your participation. It's up to me now back to you. Right. everyone. Thanks for your patience for us getting started a couple of minutes late. We are here. It is March twentieth. We have all of our Board members presence. and then, you know, second item on our agenda after convenient, the meeting is approval. Our February meeting minutes. any comments, questions from board members. If no maintain a motion to upgrade. I'll make a motion to approve from late February, the February meeting minutes

[3:02] bye right. and that takes us to our next agenda item, which is our public comment session. right? And I do see we have a number of hands up. We have 5 hands up, and I did. You want to distinguish. This is just for open comment, not on the agenda item for this evening. This item on the agenda is for public comment on things that are not part of the agenda. We will have a separate public comment, opportunity specific, to our public hearing and consideration of the Upper Goose Creek and 2 Mile Canyon Creek Flight mitigation item on the agenda. So if folks want to speak to that item specifically, we'd ask that you hold off until we reach the public comment portion of of that part of the agenda tonight.

[4:06] Great thanks so much so I still do see 4 hands up for open comment. not related to Upper Goose to Mile. If I do call on you, and you would like to speak about upper Goose to mile. You can just indicate that when I call your name as Karen do you have a clock available. Peggy Bashline, followed by Lynn Siegel Piggy, i'm going to try to unmute you now you should be able to speak in just a moment. Piggy, Are you able to unmute yourself?

[5:05] I see that the new function has turned off. Can you hear us. Piggy? We can't quite hear you yet. although I do show your microphone is unmuted. We're going to go ahead and go to the next speaker. But we'll try you again in just a moment. Okay. So i'm going to go ahead and mute you, Miss Bash line, and then we will come back. Our next speaker is Lynn Siegel Lynn. You should be able to unmute yourself. I, Joanna, can I go after the others? Yes. Did you want to speak for open comment, Link? Yes. Can I go after the others?

[6:00] Yeah, that would be fine. I don't have any concern with that great. We'll come back in just a moment. Oh, great piggy, we are up again. I will call on Tim Holbrook next. Piggy. Did you want to go ahead and try again. I do you. I do show you is unmuted, but we cannot hear you. Let me see. Thank you. Why don't you text me if you're able at (303) 817-1742, i'll go ahead and put that in the Q. A. And then we'll try to troubleshoot what's happening? I apologize for the difficulty.

[7:05] I'm I'm gonna go ahead and put you back on you, and then i'll go to Tim Fullbrook, and then Kirk Vincent is on deck after Tim. All right, Tim, you should be able to unmute now. Okay, Can anyone hear me now? Very good. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. I do have comments on the mitigation plan for 2 mile later on, and but I would like to make some comments that I believe would apply to all of the drainages in Boulder. If you permit me the 3 min. I would just like to the board to know that I was a a privilege to participate in the Citizens working group to help provide input, including the prioritization matrix for the recently approved stormwater and flood Master Plan. Thank you very much for that opportunity.

[8:06] and in so doing I became a bit aware of many things, and that's why i'm making the recommendation to the Board this evening. The recommendation I would like to. I suggest, is that the Rab Board recommend 3 things to city council. Number one city send a letter to property owners that are are adjacent to creeks that have frontage to the creeks of Boulder, including 2 mile. with a figure that shows exactly how to maintain the creek, because my understanding is not the city's responsibility. It's not the responsibility of the mile of flood district. and those are the things that it need to be done. A number 2. They'd like them to change the city code or recommend to the council that they change the City Code 11, 5, 15, to include channel maintenance instead of a very unclear statement about rubbish. In clearing of obstructions

[9:09] number 3. I'd like them to suggest council that they enforce the city code once it is changed in the meantime, enforce these changes to be to include channel maintenance by using city code 11, 5, 16. Why are these recommendations needed? Well on at least for the projects I'm. Aware of the priority of this project compared to all of other ones in in boulder is unknown. The funding sources for the full completion of the of the construction is unknown. and the schedule, therefore, is quite unknown. In fact, it could take many, many years for this project that we're talking about tonight to two-mile or any of the other projects in boulder. I have those issues as well.

[10:01] and finally, the capacity is also unknown for some of these drainages. besides all the changes in the watershed, and the severity of storms increasing, so those factors drive the recommendations that I just said that the city send a letter to a property owners advising them. It is their responsibility to maintain Channel. Thank you very much. Okay. Thanks, Tim. We're going to go to Kirk Vincent next, and then Peggy will try again. I did put my my cell phone number in the Q. A. If you would like to try that kirk, and then you should be able to on the account. Can you hear me?

[11:05] And I. I know that the the the serving on these volunteer boards is a lot of work, particularly considering that terms of 5 years. And so I I suspect later in the meeting you'll do your best to sufficiently embarrass Pricia. Oh, and so I want to add to that to say that, Madam Chair, I I I thank you for your service on Rob and and the State. and I also that it was a pleasure to serve with you on. Thank you. I feel it's mutual. Okay. Thank you. Okay, Thank you. We'll try, Peggy. One more time and then you are the last person indicating to speak.

[12:02] Hey? I do show you as unmuted. Do you want to try to speak? I'm: so sorry we're having difficulty I can go ahead. And with the Rab email in the Q. A. I can also try to work with you later on in the meeting, if you did want to make a comment. Oh, i'm gonna type my number right now, and if you would like to make a comment again under the agenda item, we can try to get there. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and mute you. And then we're going to go to you, Lynn. That was very kind of you, Joanna, to let her speak later. I wanted to discuss the issue of atmospheric rivers which California is being blasted with right now, and which was the cause basically of our 2,013 flood

[13:06] the 1,000 year rain. and we're headed for more of these, of course. And yet. Rab Doesn't have any say about the development of C yourself. You know what Gilbert White said. The more you develop. the more you have to fight, you know drowning because you put man in the pathway of the catastrophe. and then you have water, purity. and treatment issues when when you get major flooding, and then you've got the interceptors that and the infrastructure that needs to be redone, you know, because of major geologic changes and over time

[14:01] deferred maintenance, which I have plenty of on my house. I know what the expense of that step is. Why are we doing this? Why are we not having, some say under open space, mountain parks of the disposal of the land, so that see you can build a campus when we're already way overcrowded with people. People cause problems with water more and more people. I mean, I hate to, at the risk of stating the obvious and sounding condescending. These are simple troops that we need to be very cognizant of. and the expenses of these things are outrageous when you've got the inflation of energy from excel, and from gas from the war in Ukraine and from the pandemic combined together, you've got a perfect storm, and then you have the banks failing it's it's water. Is life

[15:05] right? We all know that. And if we don't have water, we don't have anything. and we're headed straight towards disaster, economically being able to handle these kind of things, you know, on 2,006 pearl. The development of it's supposed to be for the missing middle, which it's, not because it's market rate. In reality there was one person that complained about the sewer in that area is already way overloaded, and has trashed out a number of houses there. We don't need more development subsidies to see you, and to 2,206 pearl. There are farming water supply done. Okay, thanks, Lynn. So I do see that the baselines are still trying to comment. I am going to ask them to unmute. We are trying to troubleshoot over my phone. If we can't get this round to work, it might be that I will give them the telephone number for the meeting, and then hopefully, they can call in

[16:17] hopefully on a separate line, and we can try to tag team that way. I just can't get my fingers moving fast enough, so let me go ahead and try to ask them to unmute one more time. Okay, so I am. You should be able to unmute now. and if this doesn't work I will go ahead and put the the zoom call number in the Q. A. And then we will get your comment that way. I still show you muted, but I do see it toggling If you want to try one more time it might unmute.

[17:13] so I apologize for the difficulty. Let me go ahead and put the number in, and I will to keep an eye on the phone, and you can press star 9 to raise your hand when the time comes, and I believe you are able to comment under the upper goose to my agenda item. and beyond that I don't see any other hands raised for public comment. Okay, thanks, Joanna. I helped with that. So, and we'll move on to agenda. Item number 4, which is our public hearing and consideration of a recommendation on a produce and 2 Mile Canning Creek Flood mitigation study. We'll start first with. I know we have at least one board member who wanted to make a disclosure so want to give an opportunity for for that to happen, and any other Board members who may have anything else to to say so

[18:08] over to you. Yeah, thank you. I just wanted an advice with utilize staff in the city attorney to disclose that I do on property and live within the Upper Goose Creek 2 mile flip plane. And so I just wanted to make sure just those that before we get into the discussion and the vote later today. So thank you. Thanks, John. Anyone else. So I think with that it's over to you. Thank you tricia. It's. Good evening, everyone. I'm. Joe, Teddy and I'm. The director of the Utilities Department. and our our first item tonight is the public hearing and action. Item from the board on the Upper Goose Creek and 2 Mile Fund mitigation plan. I'll make a few introductory comments here, but I might introduce the other staff that are in the room with me here across the way there is Chris Douglas. He's the manager of our engineering group that does all the capital projects across all 3 utilities.

[19:09] and then on my right are Debbie Fisher, who is one of our new project managers and our Storm, Water and Flood engineering group. She'll be leading most of the discussion tonight, and then, most of you know, Brandon Coleman, who is the supervisor of the the flood and Storm engineering group. So before I turn it over to them, just a few introductory remarks. And I think you heard during the public comment a few times the plan that we're talking about tonight was referred to as a project. and just to make a a distinction there. Debbie, in her presentation, will describe the planning cycle for these flood mitigation efforts. But what it is before Rob tonight is a flood mitigation plan and the mitigation plans. That's the kind of the holistic plan for an entire drainage. So the Board is not being asked to approve final projects or or funding Tonight it's the plan itself.

[20:12] and then upon a Rev. Recommendation, and if we have a successful council, approval of the plan will then be able to bring forward individual design and construction projects as part of our capital improvement program. So I know there are a number of emails to the Board during the day where people were asking for more detail on things, and those with that detail would normally come out at a subsequent phase. But later in the year you will see some funds in the capital improvement program that are allocated for this, provided we get the successful votes, and about 50% of those projects that we would bring forward would be from the open drainage and drainage way areas, and then about 50 of them for the pipe stormwater projects in our planet. Storm Water utility

[21:07] includes both of those. And then, as we had discussed with the board last year, when we were successful with the approval of the stormwater and Flood Master Plan, we will bring all these projects through that project prioritization tool as as they come forward. So that's what I have, and I think i'm going to brandy next. So great. Thanks, Joe. And so i'm Brandon Coleman, I'm. The engineering manager in the Storm Flood Utility and I just wanted to kind of open up for us. We've had a lot of turnover in our group recently, and Debbie as a new Pm. Who's taken on this project for us. So I did just want to say, thanks to the community, and particularly the neighborhoods and the upper goose. 2 mile watershed for all the community engagement we've had around this planning effort. It's been a long process, and we've had a really active engagement period which we really appreciate as a utility. So the Community engagement and the mitigation plan started in 2,015. We've had multiple outreach meetings. We've had over 800 questionnaires. We've done website updates. We've done neighborhood walks, virtual and in person community meetings, and they've all been really well

[22:28] attended, which is really important to us as a utility, and also a huge thanks to the community and our most recent one. We had an information session just a few weeks ago to go over these recommendations, and we had over 50 people attend and it was our first in-person event, since the pandemic so just did want to say a huge thanks to everybody who lives in the strange way who's been really involved. I think it really makes a better project for us as a utility. And that being said, I'm gonna turn it over to Debbie and let her introduce herself and walk through the presentation.

[23:03] So sorry. Looks like it's going to be one of those lights. There, there you go. Yes. No. yeah. We got it. Sorry. So stop sharing. That's 1 s here.

[24:07] as I will take this moment to chime in and let the bash lines know that I can see their hand raised, and I do believe their interest is in Upper goose 2 miles. So I apologize if i'm wrong about that. But i'll go ahead and call on you again during the public comment Portion for Upper Goose, 2 mile, and that is the next opportunity for public comment. While I was waiting here I might just speak to a few of the emails that you that the Board received today, and I looked in this direction. So you have to let me know if the screen. There was. There was one community member who referenced a conversation that I think they had with someone else in the community, and there were concerns about waste water, infrastructure, and backups, and that we weren't paying attention to that.

[25:13] I would say for me. And last month you had the urine review from Rep. That has been actually one of the bright spots during our capital investment, and we have, as a result of that waste water backups in the 2,013 flood. We have advanced a number of projects that are that have actually been constructive. Last year we completed the Baseline and Foot Hills Major super project of the year before that who's c. And then in this year's, c. I will be talking about the main interceptor project, which is, I could argue. One of the most important projects in the utilities took care of one email, and it looks like the stuff is is working. So we go today.

[26:06] Good golf. You're good. everybody. Hear me. Yeah. Folder. That's the designation of being the number one flash flood Risk community in the State of Colorado. The last major Pre. 2,013 Flood was in the 1960 S. The last lot of record that was actually a designated 100 year. Flood event was in 1,894. 2,013 fled, resulted in hundreds millions of dollars damages in the city boulder. In the past many homes and structures were built in the low, shallow banks of the flood plains of the creeks

[27:03] that historically provided adequate flood, conveyance, and natural wildlife corridors. little if any understanding or thought was given to the fact that construction in these flood planes diminished conveyance, capacity for flood waters and jeopardized property, the health, sustainability and quality of the ecosystem consequently select water and wildlife. We're squeezed into smaller and similar areas. Eventually the wildlife found a way to adapt to the diminished and non-native habitat. But flood water was forced out of the natural stream corridors and into streets and private properties. Today many of the stream corridors have disappeared completely. Countless residents and habitats were subjected to flooding debris, flows, and averages in the twenty-thirds flood event. and all those things have settled down and appeared to have recovered the danger of additional flooding and destruction of the wildlife habitat is still present. This is clearly see. The need for improvements of the storm water system is evidenced by support for the increases in the storm water fee.

[28:11] the multitudes of stormwater projects being completed, will alleviate small local storms, but will not prevent or accommodate extreme floods. Can I? We are going to present some information and a mitigation plan to correct many of these issues plan for resiliency, and in the future to prepare for and accommodate flood water, restore habitats and lower risk to life and property consistent with community values. The Greenway Masters plan and a comprehensive storm. Water Master Plan Folder operates the flood management program on a cyclical type of program over here on the left, you see that we have.

[29:03] This is the entire creeks system for all of Boulder there are 16 major streams, and tonight we're talking about only 2 of them 2 Mile Canyon and Goose Creek. So the way this cyclical program works is: First. the mapping is created, and this was done for this watershed in 2,015 post, 2,013 flood. Next, a mitigation plan is put into place, and that's where we are. Right now we're talking about this mitigation plan to identify and evaluate the issues of flood mitigation. And then the third phase is design and construction after design and construction occurs. Then we go back to mapping and update the mapping. Again. The comprehensive flood and storm watermaster plan that was talked about was approved in this in September of 2,022 after multiple community engagement opportunities, and several outcomes were published in that plan.

[30:13] There is a high priority to prioritize project to do the greatest good for the city of boulder first. and provide equitable construction in these projects, and we want to be aware of climate change. Prepare for the future as much as possible. and then continue to be able to maintain systems that we have. and of course fund the program. This is just a quick timeline of some of the events that have occurred in the upper goose and 2 mile watersheds. There were many public engagement, open houses and workshops, public meetings, questionnaires, public comments.

[31:01] outreaches, and all this information was tabulated and put in to consideration for this mitigation plan. Just quickly. we're going to review a a little bit of the terminology, and I understand flood planes just a little bit for the benefit of people who may not be entirely sure what we're talking about. So the 1% annual chance storm is often referred to as the 100 year storm or the 100 Year flood plane. and it's it's really misleading. According to Fema, the definition for a 1% annual tant storm is all land areas subject to inundation by flood waters. approximately one foot deeper, more from the 1% chance flood event. The term a 100 years misleading

[32:00] it. It's a recurrence interval which is 1 100, so it's a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. This is determined on statistical analysis. It's in a system called frequency analysis. It's based on past observations and extrapolation and available records of rainfall and streams flows that we currently have in boulder the the defining 1% annual chance storm is a short duration, high intensity, storm. Something that we are normally used to is our intense summer thunderstorms. and that is an equivalent depending on the area in boulder. But somewhere between 2 and 3 inches of rainfall per hour. That's actually what Fema uses to define. The 1% chance flood 2,013 flood was something entirely different. It was a very long duration, lower, intense storm, lasting anywhere from 3 to 8 days in some areas

[33:06] and Boulder received over 18 inches of rain in some areas so very, very different kinds of floods. Interesting fact is that a home in a flood plane in the life of a 30 or more each has a 26 per 10% chance of being flooded. and nearly 40% of the flood damages are outside the maps. What plane? So we're, Considering all these things when we are proposing flood improvements. Some definition specific to boulder is a high hazard zone, which means that the flood water is 4 feet deeper, more, or dad the product of the velocity and feet per second times. The water depth in feet equals 4 or more. When this happens. cars can float, and people can be swept off their feet.

[34:01] So this provide. This is the most dangerous area, and down on the lower part of this slide you see in green a 6, the sections of the cities that that are actually no I'm. I'm. Sorry Green is the flood conveyance. We're going to cover that, but the pink is the high hazard area. So several sections of the city already are in these high hazard zones. So, in order to do this medication plan. we considered loss of community values and considerations. The overriding message was support for flood mitigation. understanding. There are multitudes of private property impacts really important to maintain. The wildlife corridors. maintenance needs have all have always been there, and will always be. There was very clear. There will be no impact to Loans garden. There will be no detention, no facilities built in Long's Garden. It's also very clear that the community did not want to see detention put in North Boulder Park

[35:14] general Preference was to convey hundred-year flows in the open channels. We considered roadway conveyance and of course, neighborhood impacts. This is the watershed you see on the left, outlined by the yellow line. It encompasses 2 Mile Canyon Creek and Goose Creek. The major pathways for 2 Mile Canning Creek are shown in pink. The major pathways for Upper Goose Creek are shown in blue. On the upper right you see the areas which within this watershed subject to flooding, which, as you can see, is almost all of the watershed. So Goose Creek originates

[36:02] on the west edge of the city in North Boulder Park, and then follows some open channels and some roadways down toward Folsom and 2 Mile Canyon Creek originates at the city limits. and as you can see it, it encompasses a much larger portion of the watershed. This is part of the problem of 2 Mile Canyon Creek. All these pathways are split. There's multiple split flows coming through streets, through people's, houses, through the neighborhoods. There's just not a well controlled corridor for floods to float through the part of 2 Mile Canyon Creek, and there's it on the order of over a 1,000 structures at risk of flooding. This is the entire watershed again, and for purposes of the mitigation plan it was divided into reaches. There are 4 reaches in upper 2 mile

[37:11] or 2 Mile Canyon. Excuse me, and 6 reaches considered in Upper Goose Creek. Just a quick little summary of damages, costs, and losses. This was in $2020 structures in a 100 year. Flood plane are in the hundreds, both for 2 Mile Canyon Creek and Upper Goose Creek. with nearly 200 milliondollars worth of damage. With the mitigation plan we will be able to remove around 500 or more structures from the flip plane.

[38:01] The cost that you see here the watershed total cost of around 43 million dollars again, was estimates for construction for this mitigation plan in $2,013 some highlights of the plan. This is basically what it's in mind for open channels. First of all, safety, lower the water surface. Elevations decrease the extent of the flood plane and remove structures from the high hazard zone designation, and that doesn't mean we're tearing structures down. It means the structures will no longer be in the high hazard. So Designation Creek restoration will include natural bottoms and varying bank slopes and treatments. trying to follow the natural slope and and horizontal alignment of creeks, where we can, removing the debris, sediment, and any invasive species, and then restoring it all with native species and good sustainable riparian habitats.

[39:07] The other part of the mitigation plan, where things need to be piped through streets where they just simply is no longer an open channel to follow. These will largely be concrete box structures. large concrete box structures. We understand there's launch utilities in the way. Those will be accommodated, relocated. protected, restored. No one will be losing their utilities for any great length of time. There were multiple themes that recurred when we did the community outreach. The majority of responses were favorable to move forward with this mitigation plan and construct as many as quickly as possible. Private property impacts are the major concern. There are individual impacts, neighborhood impacts, all sorts of things

[40:05] very important to the entire city boulder to protect and honor the wildlife. And we get that, we that's part of the plan. Wildlife quarters will be restored and enhanced again. No detention in North Boulder Park or Long's Garden and ongoing maintenance needs. There's multiple benefits. First of all protect properties. Flood insurance policies are required for some properties within the flood. Plain rates are set based on risk. as properties are removed from the flood plane and improved, and people can recover parts of their backyards, they either no longer need flood insurance or the ability to put things back in in the property that's no longer in the designated flip lane

[41:08] will come about sheds and fences and auxiliary buildings, and so forth, but then be built in these areas because they're not in the flood plane anymore. Therefore, not subject to flood plain restrictions and permitting maintenance of creek channels is is part of the desire and ongoing funding in the city of boulder Increase emergency access is really important in high hazard areas where vehicles cannot get through in emergencies. That's a big safety concern in their emergencies other than flooding. There are medical emergencies and fires and things like that. also improving and enhancing the ecosystem and restoring native. Have Ted is really important in this plan. The challenges, of course, or cost benefits

[42:03] and the space limitations that we've already discussed and constructions never pleasant thing for anyone to endure totally understood. There's more information available for everyone. We have a website. a story map. This is the link to that lead you. Step by step through the mitigation plan. There's lots of frequently asked questions and other information on that website. So where do we go from here? Well, we've recommended by Rem. And it goes to City council, and then we will proceed with this mitigation plan. As Joe said, it's part of the cip process to determine budget and and scheduling, and that sort of thing. The remainder of 2023 is approved. We will be refining the conceptual designs and get consultants on board to come up with actual

[43:04] design plans of course, continued community engagement opportunities will be part of that. and construction currently anticipating 2026 but yet to be determined. Does anyone have any questions? Thank you very much. That was very helpful. I'll head it up for questions. I I guess I like a little bit more clarification on what it what it actually is that we're trying to approve tonight in terms of for the conceptual plan. I understand your three-part diagram there? But where is it that we actually approving tonight that it's different than what we will. I mean it will be approving the details and some of the individual construction items of this later. What's the actual plan that we're approving or voting on tonight?

[44:02] So the the plan that is is before the board tonight is for the 2 drainages that actually come together and and and become one, and it's for the overall conceptual plan. I think Debbie showed a slide of 6 different reaches on the Upper Goose Creek and 4 on 2 mile, and if you go through the story map and and the project memo, and the attachments for each one of those reaches it. It lays out different options for how those will be addressed in the future. So the the chart that was in that summary memo identifying those different reach areas. It's just a sort of conceptual. Yes, I'm not talking about any of the details that we're raised in some of those communications we had earlier today about tunnels and maintenance issues, and so forth. That that's all kind of be

[45:04] spelled out in more detail that we would look at, and we considered later. the projects would come forward as part of the capital improvement program. Starting in May there will be a 3 meeting series where we'll show you a 6 year window of what we have planned in each of the 3 Utilities and Council is scheduled to take action. Action on this mitigation plan in May. And so for successful, we would bring forward some of the capital improvement projects that are ready to go as part of that. and we would do, outreach and and meet with community members on the details of that as we go. I think you mentioned that the cost estimate, which I guess are very conceptual or from 2,013, 20200, okay, okay, it's 1020, $20. Okay. So that's basically it's just an effort to kind of compare the benefits.

[46:08] And so the the eliminating, the damage risk the 196 millionand the what what for very early estimate, based on these mitigation approaches might might be in terms of yeah. yeah, we estimated around 43 million for improvements and around 200 milliondollars properties that's protected from doing this. Yeah. So those numbers are intended to give the board and the community a sense, scale and more detailed estimates will come forward as we as we do, the c. I following up on Amy's question. I I did wonder about the table it showed regarding the calls. There was a the table listed structures in one hundred-year flood. So just using the and it wasn't clear to me of 2 things.

[47:10] First. those costs roughly 196 milliondollars is is that the the saved cost of potential flood damage or structures just in the 100 different plane, with the combined save cost for those in both 105 for a year. Sort of a complicated answer. Fema has a formula and a way they determine what costs. Damages are to structures based on level of flooding depth of flooding and that sort of thing. And so it's. I got some slides. I could show you how fema does that. But in in a nutshell. It's it's their formula for deciding how they how they assigned damages. For instance, upper floors of structures are not considered to be part of the damages.

[48:01] Foundations are not necessarily considered part of the damages, but anything that's below the flood. Elevation is a certain percentage of the value of the property, so the properties are probably closer to a 1 billiondollars. But the damages that are assessed through famous way of doing it is is what this number represents. I think, what you were getting at, was it? What was the modeling of those damages based on the 100 year? 500 year? And my impression is it's it's the 100 year one. So we compared the damages for the hunt for your event, because that's our level of services or utility. But we would expect to see some benefits in the 500 Year flood event, but really focusing on the 100 year for these. Thank you. Another question I had is the the timeline that was shown in the presentation

[49:00] was was somewhat stunning. That it's such a lengthy period of time. And I'm curious. You know we're we're approaching 10 years since the 2,013 line, and I know a lot of us throughout the community are in one or more of our 16 waters. And we're wondering what hope there is of trying to get these these urgent problem solved in light of of this lengthy period of time, even even from, say, the start of the timeline that was shown of of actually working consciously on this particular set of advantages it's it's a it's a more rhetorical question than anything. But I I share the the general public's concern of the the lengthy duration that it takes Yeah, from where we start talking to where we are tonight, which is a long way yet. Still, as you said, from actually constructing and and truly mitigating. how how can we do better. Yeah, for sure. Well, I think the 1 one big step in that direction was

[50:03] the fun and Storm Water Master plan that was approved last year. I I, you receive some emails, and people are concerned about private properties in talks. and that's totally understandable. And then there's a desire for people to have the protection sooner, and there's just been a tendency in in the way we've done about these some projects being hit against each other, or they get mired in controversy because of when landowner issues and things like that. So our hope is that with the completion of the stormwater and Flood Master plan that address some of those things, and provided the utility a a framework for prioritizing projects. I can. I think, flood projects are always going to be a little bit messy, but hopefully less so. And and we'll have a more prescribed way of of doing that

[51:03] in the intervening time since the timeline that Gabby showed we've had a pandemic, and at 1 point last year we were down to just Brandon in the storm, Water and Flood engineering, and I. I'll be honest. The intensity of some of these projects. I've taken a toll on staff, and so just making sure that people that that work for us in on these projects have a safe space to do their work and make their recommendations. While recognizing that we're public servants, and our our work is subject to critique. That that's a part of it as well. And so i'm. I'm really happy with the progress that Chris and Brandon have made in hiring the number of people to do this work going forward. The last thing I would say is, we've spent a lot of time on these planning studies because of the the cycle that Debbie described, and I know Brandon is really motivated to see some things get constructed.

[52:08] And and so we're sort of hitting that phase where the community should start to see action on some of these projects. So a bit of a lengthy answer. But there's a lot there's a lot to it. I made more for the benefit of Amy license. But we're involved in the all your parts of the process. But how would you wait that the priority for the immediacy for the for timeliness of the project in this particular grain. These, at least several of the other ones, have got similar problems. And how are you kind of prioritizing those? And is this one of the ones is sort of at the head of the list. Where Where does this project stand? Visa? Be? The rest of the city, and all the other 16 or 14 sort of

[53:02] from. Well, I I I might defer to Brandon for part of that. But when we start the capital Improvement process and the 3 meeting series with the Board this year to discuss that. One of the things we'll be showing you is the prioritization from last year's for master plan of all these drainages, and and what's being planned? So you'll be able to see them side by side. We were very careful when we were showing the the master plan last year to just have generic labels on drainages, but they were actual drainages, and if i'm remembering right. This was this was one of the ones that we tested, and and I think it's going to score very high. The needs are high here for a variety of reasons. and i'll just tack on just some hard numbers, so that approach you saw that life cycle planning approach you saw was part of our 2,004 comprehensive flood and

[54:03] storm Water Master Plan. Since 2,004, we've completed 10 of the 16 major drainage ways. and we have these 2 with upper goose 2 mile for from a mitigation plane standpoint, and we also have skunk bluebell kings, which was coming along in parallel with this, which you'll be seeing ideally within a year's time or so. But that will complete a lot of our mitigation planning efforts across the city and really moving into that design and construction phase. That's why the project prioritization is so critical for us. Because we don't have money to do all the projects so doing. The greatest good first is really the goal of that prioritization effort, and we'll be talking about that hopefully during the cip planning process. A couple of questions. The the maintenance question has come up a lot with the comment, and and I think a lot of the reason people are so concerned about it is current maintenance, and how it follows on property. Owners who most probably don't know that at least that's my understanding.

[55:07] or it's expensive to do, and difficult to do, and so I guess the question, and I didn't wasn't able to see this in the in the plan. But when the mitigation work is done Is the maintenance still falling on the property owners. or what's what? What's the maintenance plan? Once the projects are actually completed. Yeah, I can speak to part of that, and then Brandon and Debbie might know more the property ownership situation. But that maintenance was one of the big themes of the Flood Master Plan last year. and working with our maintenance manager and Joanna Brooms Co. Host here tonight, and our deputy director, we have been developing a plan to enhance the resources that we have in utilities maintenance over the years in water and waste water. We have brought a lot of the work in-house that contractors used to do, and medium to to small size projects. We can do those more cost efficiently, we believe, on our own

[56:11] the the staffing and the resourcing that we've had in the fund. Utility has been allowed us more to just do hotspots and and address emerging issues and and meet basic maintenance agreements like we have with irrigation, ditched companies. But the staffing proposal and resourcing proposal that we're bringing forward as part of the 2,024 budget will allow us to cycle through the whole system on a on a routine number of years, and Brandon or Joanna, I don't know if you want to add anything to that. Yeah, we we heard a lot from the upper goose 2 mile communities about maintenance as well, and there's a lot of frustration around there. And as a city. We actually don't own access to a lot of these major drainage ways. So we don't can't get into a lot of these drainage ways, and it does fall on the property owner where we do have maintenance responsibilities. We've tried to get in since this, but anytime we implement one of these large. Ci.

[57:11] I. P. Programs. Easement acquisition is a key component of it. So we consider maintenance as we do design for these large mitigation of projects. We'd like to make sure we can access them in the future, to be able to maintain any infrastructure that we put in as part of this and the other thing just to mention is that speaks a little bit to why we selected open channels and natural channels approach. So we're seeing a mile high flood district move towards approach, that they call high functioning low maintenance streams. So when you use the more natural systems to convey flood waters ideally, that is more self healing, and it limits your maintenance a little bit. So it's not doesn't completely remove maintenance, but ideally it helps manage the expectations for maintenance. Is it? I just follow up with quick. So, Joe, are you saying. regardless If this families forward at all, they're still plan to

[58:04] the city connecting maintenance all these channels in the future. Yeah, separate from this plan. We're bringing forward a budget proposal that there we still will need property rights to access drainages, and so there, there will still be incongruous sections of creeks and drainages. But. as Brandon said, when we bring the project forward, Bill. between the combination of those 2 things, we hope to be able to get some more questions on that. So as a question about the the Eastern, it's required both for maintenance and then the the project itself, and in the plan I know there was some sections where there was drainage. Easement was listed as a con, and there's strange easement acquisition, and I was just curious what the distinction is between those and what does it actually mean for property owner to have acquisition even happen on their property. What does that look like?

[59:07] Yeah, I I can help with that one. So typically we work with each individual property owner to the identify the limits of the projects, and also negotiate. If there's individual impacts to the property, we try and incorporate those into the designs best we can. Why still meeting the goals of the design. And then that flood easement limits what can happen in that area into the future, and also gives the city right to access it for future maintenance as well, and any replacement or repairs that would need to happen. So that's typically how it goes. A lot of individual property owners have concerns specific to their property. So it's not always a consistent cookie cutter approach you can take, so you have to have to work with each property owner, but ultimately the goal of the project is the same across all of those properties. I think Brandon and Gregory Creek that comes down from flying staff

[60:00] kind of down by the library area that one had a whole bunch of. He's been acquisition like that. That's a huge part of that project. Right? Yeah. And it regardless of like, Joe said. If we're going to do maintenance back there, we have to get the Eastern to be able to do maintenance back there, so we can do it in conjunction with the cip projects, which is really efficient for us rather than trying to target specific areas, and gives us a very linear feature that we can maintain. If you have property owners that are unwilling to to participate in this to the point that was brought up earlier by Tim. Is there a standard that that property owners? That's clear in terms of maintenance by property owners? And And is that something that can be? Share it to Rad members and the public at large. I think I guess so. He referenced the right code. So we've worked with Tim. We know, Tim, he referenced the right code. He has an interest in maintenance long 2 Mile Canyon Creek, and there is code enforcement which is a separate division from the utilities engineering department. So

[61:17] the best we can do is report out what we see. So we don't issue tickets or right letters, or anything like that that falls on a different division of the city, and we'd have to default to them, probably to answer those types of questions. But we did recently get get access to all of our major drainage ways across the city. So all 47 miles of them, and we completed a comprehensive assessment of all the streams across the city, whether we have access to address them or not through our older openstream health program. So we're really looking towards that data set to help advise us of where we eat property, acquisition, what major maintenance activities we need to do into the future. So that was a pretty large effort that we're like to have completed this year.

[62:03] Yes. I think the the big picture point is as as we do these drainages and develop projects that gets addressed. We we negotiate with the property owners, and get get the access, and are able to maintain in the future and improve that situation. Is it so? Is it just? Is it easement acquisition or property acquisition. I've heard both terms be used. Oh. it's it it depends so there could be property access, and it could be just. It's just an example on Gregory can't increase. So we do have a program in the utility where we can acquire properties in the high hazard zone. and then that's a property acquisition. But we only work with well, willing sellers for that program. So for Gregor we we required about 4 properties in the high hazard and the rest of the properties. 21 of the properties we're going to need to get easement, so it's a combination of the 2, a lot of times.

[63:02] Do you have property owners who are resistive of We haven't gotten the details yet to be able to work with it. So I don't know if we can answer that we've heard some concerns about private property owner impacts, as happens with a lot of these projects, but we haven't been able to advance the design to be able to have those negotiations with those individual. the orange Yet so. and and something that we will bring forward to these property owners is if we ask for any month in the back of your property, and we can contain the 100 year flood within that easement. and the rest of them properties now removed from what plane designation. Now, you can do lots more with your property without flood plane permitting without having to go through footprint development anything like that it's treated as any other improvement to a property.

[64:08] We've heard a number of concerns. Why can I build a fence in my property? Why can I put a shed? And I would give a lot of these property owners back that ability we can get in there with the easement and restrict the flood plan to the width of those. It's a really huge benefit for it's a compromise. some room to put in the the the flood control and you get back the use of the rest of your property no longer within the floodplay. And also what if they are carrying flood insurance? It diminishes their need to do so. If they still want to carry flood insurance, it diminishes the premiums greatly. Also, there's quite a bit of evidence that when properties are lord's, parsons of properties, or the buildings themselves can be removed from the flip plane designation from the mapped flood plane.

[65:06] The property values go up great and and that raises another question about this. You know the the value of the project costs and benefits, and more and more and more, and we talked. We talked about this with the master plan, looking at more than just property value in the prioritization. So I I assume that then in the next step. this, you know. equitable sort of adding a whole number of different criterion lenses. To the value of these projects will be added for sure that that was the crux of the the outcome of the Flood Master Plan. So I I don't think the community will forgive us if we if we skip that step

[66:00] it. It seems like that could be a huge selling point for proceeding with this and, Debbie, thank you for articulating all the reasons why properties will benefit. Is there any way to collect with using reasonable assumptions on the effects like you know, decreases in the the insurance, and increases in property value to estimate the the benefits of spending the I think it was roughly 42 million dollars to implement. You know, or are the benefits more than that to the community as a whole. In this particular area the benefits are not monetary. Some of the benefits are the ability to do all the things in within their properties. So many people are now restricted from not sure how you they monetize that particular part of it. Yeah. It's difficult to make estimates through the Nf. I. P. Of the actual flood insurance premium because they have a formula they use. And I just actually just attended the class on that

[67:03] to see if I could figure out how to do exactly what you're asking. And basically at the end of the class they said, you can't figure this out for yourself. We do it and tell you what it's going to be. So all that i'd love to be able to do that I don't think be able to fulfill that requirement. It. It might be a fairly abstract calculation to try and do, but there are some tangible things that I I have always found the the post project mapping to be quite striking when you see the difference in and just area impacted properties. Oh, no, I was gonna say, are we ready to 2 quick follow up to that whole point. I was just curious if there's any. So there's 759 structures in the 100 year. Flood

[68:00] plane is the intent. all of them will be applied, and the map provision process will bring them all out of the 100 year flight zone, and The second part of the question is, there's one section of the 2 mile plan that's less than 100 year at this point. and it's just wondering what that means for the both the mapping and the the project overall, if it looks like I mean the rest of the plan is 100 year for all these changes, except for that one section in 2 mile. So what does that mean for the plan? And then is there any estimates on up to 759 structures. We hope again, this is the Gordon's point of like trying to help educate the public on the benefits of this are all of those plan to be removed. Some portion of them You're reminding me of of a of a different question that came in about the number of structures listed in the Executive Summary versus what's in the table? I guess that's

[69:02] I. I can explain that one and I and I think the the quick, the quick response. I think the executive summary talks about 295 in the table 100 and there's it it depends on whether we're looking at it through the eyes. And fema, or looking at some of those other things that Debbie mentioned. People who have basements, and we know wells and things like that. Yeah, that's that's the discrepancy in the number of structures. So are you asking specifically why the upper portions of 2 Mile Canyon Creek are only less than the 100 year conveyance when the rest of the plan is 100 year. No, I understand that I was just curious what that means for the overall my mind. If you do everything 100 year and everything's prior to the 100 year you're pulling you're You're protecting everyone that one section does that have implications for other.

[70:00] Preliminarily, we think, from our conceptual plans greatly pulled in the limits of the 100 year, as well. Given the the space available and the and the desires of the community. It could very well mean that the structures are removed from the 100 year, but we won't really know for sure, until we can get further along with preliminary design. But conceptually there is now a lot of the flooding spreads out because there's not a very well-defined channel. So it's, it spreads toward the structures and into the structures. If we can put in a defined channel, we'll definitely narrow that corridor significantly, and the desire of course is to remove as many structures as possible from the foot plane designation. I don't have the exact numbers right now. We need to get into this in more detail to figure that out, for, to say we could do something like a 50 year channel. That's not half that's more like three-fourths of of the ability to to pull the flame in because it's not. It's not linear the 10 year storm is not 10% of a 100 year Storm and 50 years storm is not half of a 100 year storm. It's it's significantly more

[71:18] so. It it will have a very positive impact on office properties, but we don't know exactly how many structures yet that answer your question. Alright. Thank you. Are we ready to move on public comment portion? Okay, great. Thank you very much for that. I know we have a lot of members of the public who are here for this item tonight, which is great. I know I am looking forward to hearing from folks. I'm sure my phone where members are. I do before we start. Just wanna say we very much look forward to and welcome comments on these issues beer to debate about the plan or

[72:02] and in hearing different perspectives. Please do your comments focused on the issues and not personal attacks. So with that i'll turn it over to Joanne. Are you ready for the public comment version? Yeah. yes, I believe so. Karen can help me out If I If I If I get this wrong, we will go to the Bash lines again. Thank you for your patience, and that we'll start with the baselines. I would just like to remind folks that are in attendance that would like to speak that. If you're on the phone you can press Star 6 to unmute yourself when I give you the queue, and you can press Star 9 to raise your hand virtually, and then go ahead. Otherwise, if you're on a computer. You can go ahead and virtually raise your hand, and i'll call you in the order that I see you on the screen. and i'll let you know who's on deck. So again, beginning with Piggy Bash line, and then we go to George and Peggy. I do see that you're unmuted. and I know we have a backup plan if we still can't hear you through this method.

[73:12] So, Peggy, we are still having trouble hearing you. I am going to unmute Dennis in case you are able to speak through that computer. And then, if not, I believe you have a representative that can speak. Can you hear me. hey? Come in here. Thanks so much for for sticking with it. all right, and, Karen, I don't know if you want to do the timer. and as soon as you're ready we can start the 3 min timer. But, honey, I can't get to the thing to turn it off. Just say what you want to. I I need my recording. It's right up there somewhere. Okay, hold on. I have to make the screen smaller. smaller.

[74:05] Okay. all right, and tell me if you guys can hear this hold on what happened. Make it go. Yeah, I don't have it on. Just say how you feel. We can't hear you both, but we can't hear the recording. I'm so sorry she's not able to play it because it's behind a bunch of other stuff. I think she she went to get it. I'd like her just to read it. Great is it all right if we move on, and we'll come back to you again, and we'll try again. You all are patient. Okay.

[75:05] sure. The animals are smart. They lead during construction, but they always come back as soon as the construction settles down. Where on earth do they go until construction settles? Debbie. Are you saying Every fox in our young has a summer cottage in Lewisville? Are you saying every how or flicker can just pull out and swallow it, and the knock hole in dialogue. How are they supposed to return after construction? If our majestic trees are ripped from the roots. Has anyone ever tracked and documented these frightened and homeless animals? Your crocodile tears for our invincible wildlife remain an insult. A few years ago we asked the city to remove minimal debris from the creek and repair one. Drain suddenly. Question, Sars, from the throne. We are commanded to accept the total gutting and submitting of our backyards, all for the good of the community. Utilities is rolling and money through our water bills, and has nothing better to do than pretend it knows all that is weather and water

[76:06] suddenly classifying us out of the flood. Plane is devious and offering awesome. Homeowners tax breaks is selective and sinister. Here's a nice fresh carrot for you, lovable gullible. I count 10 indigenous narrow leaf cotton woods on my easement each provides everything imaginable toward lush abundance. My arbor, assessed by perfectly vital trees planted in 1952 can live to 400 years. So stop pretending all are at the end of their lives. Remove them, and we become nothing but there until your weaker grafted replacements take hold by the way. The city's awkward mix a river with a prairie theme is so unnatural my heart breaks for any dear trying to maneuver through and over the continuum of monstrous boulders. Democracy demands. I have rights, each person owning and paying for a basic such as land has willingly chosen his lot on earth. He inherently knows there are no guarantees against the Faith, and that planning, as SDK toward options to eliminate peril, come with his own personal decisions.

[77:15] Why should I lose the natural beauty of my home for 30 years to take on my neighbor's drainage. Just look at that perpendicular hill it won't. Take a genius to know this vertical tower will need a wall of China and please again. The hill is barely changed to 30 years. But suddenly i'm dreaming of mud slides. Should there come a heavy range. Every demolition. Work me through that, Pta. Okay, Thank you. Next in line is George Gersel, followed by Nancy Trigg. George. You should Oops. You should be able to unmute.

[78:06] Okay, Can you hear me? I can thank you. Okay. Hello. I'm. George Crystal. I live at 36, 50 Fourth Street, which is right west of the creek, right at Lyndon and Fourth Street. like to make 3 or 4 important points. That might be a pure detail, but are critical. Most important is, we are in unincorporated county. We are an island of for Pivot county. and we rely on a relatively shallow well for our drinking water. So we is this important that the depth of 2 Mile Creek, which is our Po, adjacent to our property, is not lowered. I mean that it would, over the ground water level in our shallow will, which we lay on for for drinking water. If you want to connect us to the city water that we open for discussion as part of the project.

[79:04] The second point is the covert that's proposed under Lyndon. which is important, to be aligned directly to provide direct connections to the existing end of clover. as shown on some of their preliminary documents. It would direct the flows directly into our property, and require a nearly right angle to get back into the creek. So it's important to align the the downstream end of the new cover with the current covert. and then, finally. This is a really important wildlife corridor, and recognizing that some changes might be necessary there, or the creek is lined with 30, 40, 50 foot tall trees that provide critical wildlife habitat. So if you need to play around in the creek bottom, it's critical that the existing in large trees be maintained

[80:06] and not damaged so. and we do support the need. The expansion of the sedimentation ponds to the west of Lynton. That makes a lot of sense. So those are the critical points that we'd like to make the May appear. We design details, but they are critical to the continued existence of our home. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. We have Nancy Trigg, followed by Tim Holbrook, Nancy. and you should be able to speak awesome. Can you all hear me great? I live along edge wide on the Reach 6, that the lower section of this plan. and it seems to me, from what I've seen in all the previous meetings, that the the plan is dependent on a large amount of water, being additional water being diverted to this Creek

[81:07] section. and it feels like the the plan itself is not taking into account the actual realities of that section. There is a massive hell. If you look at the plans that reach 6 that looks like a nice flat little piece of grass There's a massive hell with 35 degree plus angles in most sections. Any additional water that's pushed down through that channel puts all of those homes along Edgewood at higher risk, because you're increasing water flow in an area that has nowhere else to go but into those homes, even if you deepen that area every time we've raised questions about the stability of this. What we're just told is well, the design will tell us the answer of how we're going to do that. But it seems like the whole plan is dependent on understanding what's going to happen in that area download.

[82:00] and it doesn't seem that the proper engineering work has been done to ensure the stability of that hell both for the 1 million dollar mansions above the hill and the small homes below it. The only potential remedies that I've heard at all for that is building a wall up that hill. I heard it in one meeting. I can't remember who said it. That obviously is not an amendable situation, either. This is a wildlife corridor. It's a protected area. There are constant wildlife back here. It's not a it's not a Every now and then thing like every day you go out, you see foxes having babies and lots of deer living back there and bear that hang out in the creek in the summer. And so disrupting this with any kind of wall to make that hill more stable is also not an option. and I just feel like, before any plan gets approved. This area needs to be given some serious consideration from an engineering standpoint as to what is viable at all.

[83:06] That's all I have. Okay, thank you so much. Next up we have Tim Holbrook, followed by Kirk. Vincent. All right, Thank you. Can everyone hear me? Okay. Yes. great. Thank you. Just a quick Follow up on the utility apartments, sending out a letter that you mentioned earlier. It's someone in the city code, whoever it doesn't matter just that the Rev. Recommend that the city does send out a letter for Channel maintenance. This is separate and apart from the Channel maintenance just discussed in the May Mitigation plan. This is prior to, because it's going to be several years. and i'm happy to provide the board with a a figure Several municipalities have these available that show what a good channel looks like.

[84:05] They're leaving all of the trees that are greater than 6 inches in terms of what's gonna happen now? Not with the mitigation. That's a very good question later on, but for the 5 to 10 years. It's going to take to do this project. Like to see the letter go out with a diagram that clears all the brush and shrubs less than 6 inches diameter. The other question i'd like to ask is. can the utility department confirm where they see you South project fits in the prioritization ranking versus say, 2 Mile Goose Creek. I'd like someone to answer that. And if is their intent to complete the prioritization of all 16 drainages prior to making decisions on funding, for which the final funding for construction, I understand funding is ongoing for design and concept. That's. And that's what I'm talking about. I'm talking about for large construction activity.

[85:01] because if I understand it from the master plan, there's 350 milliondollars of necessary projects that, contrary to popular belief, will not improve all of the drainages to 100 years, nor any of the piped drainages to close to 100 year. Not at all. So you'll be aware that that's a some decisions that have been already made about what is needed. But what proportion of that is dedicated to see you south. And is that done, or can that be now re prioritized to put again that life, safety, critical infrastructure, and other things that might have higher priorities than see you south. So that's what I might see. That's that's all I have to say. I'll yield the rest of my time. Thank you very much. Thanks so much. We have Kirk Vincent, followed by

[86:04] Dennis Bashline, and from what I see, those are the last 2 speakers. So if there are others on the call that are wanting to speak tonight and go ahead and either raise your hand virtually, or you can press Star 6 on your phone Kirk, you should be able to speak. Okay, Can't you hear me? Okay. Yes, Sorry. I'm muted myself. I can hear you. I first became interested in we have business because of 2 Mile Canyon Creek. And so in 2,015. Yeah, I was. I asked to approve the updated theme amendment. and the reason I was interested in is that as it do, morphologist, you know, the land form is a and alluvial fan which is characterized by downstream branching flow, and those downstream branches. The channel size gets smaller and smaller.

[87:07] so it it's a very complicated site. It's very large. and it's complicated, and that it kind of explains. oh. part of why it's taken a long time to get to this point. And during that whole process which I was a played a part in. Up until now. I actually didn't think it was going to be possible to reach the 100 year a level of flood protection. And so i'm pleasantly surprised that we can achieve such a high level of service for our community. Thank you. thanks so much. We do have a few folks that have raised their hands. So I have up next Dennis Bashline, followed by Lynn Siegel. Dennis, you should be able to speak.

[88:13] Dennis. I show that you're muted Sometimes it's a delay in clicking. I understand. You know, that you want to help save properties and stuff up the hill, but I do believe that it's going the wrong direction. The beauty of this hill behind us. You know that we get to look out at every morning. See? Different wildlife, you know, at night cougars even come through. and you know, just like Nancy said, it's a protected area. It would be horrible to look out our kitchen window to see a wall. And another thing is, there are a lot of kits that play on this hill from communities all over the place and close.

[89:03] and for the size. Wall that you guys would have to build. It'd be horrible if one of the kids that are sledding down the wall or sliding down the hill on the snow and went off that wall. It's going to be more of a cliff. Good. It also looks as if it's going to be widened. It's going to take a lot of our property. our pond, our shed maintenance, you know, just trying to get up in here. There's been literally very little maintenance in the past years years ago they would drive a tractor up it and then clean it out. The private survey that we had done said that Crossroads mall would be under 11 feet of water before it backed up. The reason the water backed up in 2,013 was because the church down the street had put a palette across the creek so they could cross over it. and it flipped over and plugged the bike path.

[90:05] So i'm just wondering how can we get around this? Thanks. Thanks so much. I have up next Lynn Siegel. followed by Edie Clark, Eddie Clark apologies. If I didn't pronounce that correctly. Lynn you are, you should be able to speak. Oh, boy, the redesigning of an alum! Alluvium is very expensive. I'm so sorry to interrupt. You're welcome to keep going, but you mentioned that if you were quiet I should mention it. So it it you are. Your voice comes across really softly. Yes, test test test test. We can hear you. It's just quiet. So you might just want to project. Okay. at the top of my volume. Redesigning the alluvium is tricky.

[91:01] of course. but particularly when and when there's issues of someone downstream getting affected by you. And I mean, this is what's happening that that's you know. I mean it's. It's redesigning after the fact. And I saw one slide that said 43 million or something. This is a lot to pay for this redesign versus mitigation of like a couple of $100,000 or something. I'm. I haven't read the whole background of it, but it seems like a lot of expense removing these. What 127 or couple 100 houses that have been built. and I don't know It's it. It's a tricky issue.

[92:05] I agree with the person that was talking about the prioritization with this kind of expense. See you, you should not happen at all. So you should. Half of their population in their that their present population should be moving out of boulder. We haven't got room for, you know, for a major situation of that many people on on this limited area. and particularly that can be inundated by water issues, and more and more atmospheric rivers. You know that one after another in California, Why wouldn't we have that, too? We could have the same situation happening here. but as far as people having the right, you know. I guess you'd have to present to someone

[93:03] what the downstream effects are going to be, and if they're going to pay for those downstream effects, then yes, they have a right to have their property there, and in in the way that it is, and with their trees, and whatever. But if not. then then whose responsibility is it? It's not the people downstream from them that are going to be affected. We populate 10 to on in it. This country is mountains and planes. and there are prices to being in the mountains. Thanks so much, Lynn, I apologize. Your time is up. We do have a couple of more commenters on the line, Eddie Clark, followed by Steve. a long And. Eddie, you should be able to talk and please correct me if I said your name wrong.

[94:10] I do show you still muted. If you can hear me you'll want to go ahead and unmute, and then you can speak. We'll give you just a minute, and then maybe we'll move on to Steve, and we can circle back here. We go there we can. You hear me now? Hey? We can hear you. Thank you. Excellent. Yes, it is Eddie Clark. Thank you. So Number of things I like to go through of long term older, resident, 25 plus years in 2,013. I was living here on a goose creek, and our house did not sustain flood damage. A number of the houses here on this block the Jason to the creek did not sustain flood damage. There was, you know.

[95:01] an extreme rain event where the surface. you know, deposition from the rain that affected a lot of people, and I bring that up because not so much just for us, but in the larger study pointed out the millions of dollars of impact and damage. Is there a differentiation between actual flood damage versus rain damage there. you know. So that's just one quick point. When that rain was happening the edge would drive. There was a lot of water moving down it. more water moving down Edgewood Drive than Goose Creek behind our house. and so when myself and a lot of the other people that live here. We here some of the feedback from the city about how this worked. Well, we're scratching our heads going. Well, it's not exactly it.

[96:05] I just like to point that out, because there's a disparity there right? That said there was a lot of flooding 2 Mile Creek. A lot of that water ran down the Lower Ghost Goose Creek right past 24 and you know. downstream of Folsom it really did its job, which was great. just a point to make and consideration it. I don't know that I've seen this address so far. Another part, the wildlife. There's a lot of people said. It is a wildlife corridor. There is no public access to that land back there. There's Big Horn, owls. red tail, hawks, turkey buzzards, red foxes. gray foxes. mama bears with cubs that come down when they have a hard time for a nourishing or sorry foraging.

[97:00] If we have a bad spring. That's obviously none of us want to see that wildlife impacted. but also weighing the cost and the impact from Widen and Goose Creek versus say. keeping 2 Mile Creek under Iris, or even under edge. You know there seem to be much more efficient cost, effective and environmentally. ecologically sound proposals. Besides, why not Thank you so much. I do show Steve Leblanc as the next speaker, and if there's anybody else, go ahead and indicate by raising your hand virtually, or pressing Star 6 on your phone And, Steve. you should be able to speak now.

[98:00] I do show you unmuted, but we cannot hear you. You know it's really soft. But we How's that? It's better. Thank you. Actually, I've been one of the owners at the ideal Broadway shops on Alpine and Broadway For the past 37 years. and we've been waiting for some improvements to the some flood mitigation for the past 37 years. I think this is. and a good idea and a good start, and so we would support the improvements. I do know that some of the storm drains that run from North Boulder Park under the hospital, which is the I see people repairing. Those. The drain lines tend to go from anywhere from 36 inches down to 26 inches. and are often filled with debris, and

[99:09] very, very difficult to maintain. I think that the idea of the large culverts with, and I've asked. They said there would be clean out in many places, so that the maintenance could be kept up when debris got into it. But I myself do support the idea, and just wanted to let you know we've been waiting for some help. and we appreciate it. Thank you great. Thank you so much. I do show a hand up, but it is from somebody who has already had the chance to speak So I believe we're limited to one one comment period per person. But please correct me

[100:04] if i'm wrong on that. No, that that is the plan. Okay. Otherwise I am not seeing anybody indicating. but they would like to speak. Thank you, Joanna. Thanks. Everyone for being here tonight and sharing your perspectives before we go to board discussion. Joe. I wanted to just check in and see if you or anyone on your team wanted to respond to any of the comments that we got tonight. There are a couple of things that came up a number of times pretty wildlife habitat, and you know, potential impact to those downstream or downhill kind of reassurances, or when in the process that gets addressed. So I don't I don't know if you want to speak to either of those or or other things that came up, but wanted to give you the opportunity

[101:01] helpful to hear the the feedback, and the critiques and the criticisms I just. I did want to say one of the earlier comments, commenters, and i'm not sure if I was. The audio was a little spotty in the beginning, but it it sound like and hopefully. I was hearing it wrong, but might have been kind of mocking our our staff team, and I just want to say it's really important for for us to have positive public engagement, even when there is criticism. So I hope I didn't hear that wrong, but we just asked people to keep that in mind going forward. There were a number of comments a. As we were going through it. I think one of them that I wrote down was ha about the Flood master plan prioritization formula, and whether existing flood projects will be included in that. And when we had a discussion with Rob last year.

[102:01] we committed to all the projects that we'll be bringing forward will apply that prioritization formula, however, projects that we've already our our bit stream, and we've done a lot of investment in our intention is not to to stop those, but we will be transparent with the community and and show people how the numbers come out. So that is that one. And then that with respect to the the wildlife and the environmental impacts of the project. We We absolutely appreciate the impact that these projects have, and we try to prioritize, even though there's a lot of constraint on the natural floodplains, and I would say, take a lot of pride in building environmental features into these projects. And so, if you if you travel along any of the multi-use paths like the Goose Creek path in the lower portion you will see a lot of

[103:06] of wetlands and and things like that that have been created, and we have plenty of opportunity to do that or other projects. and a lot of our environmental permitting the the requirements that we address those things as part of it. So, Brandon. Yeah, I I think the one just to clarify is. we did hear from the people along Edgewood that they would like that corridor to remain private and protected, so we did not include an extension of our green waste path from Goose Creek within the recommendation. So I just wanted to flag that one, and just recognizing the engineering challenges around the hillside behind Goose Creek. It is very difficult engineering challenge, and that's why we kind of like to proceed into the next phase of the design, so we can start working on it.

[104:08] Okay, thank you very much for that, I think. I guess that takes us to board discussion and potential action. I guess I would just open it up with reminding us that it's on our agenda as an action item. But given the we do have the opportunity to table this to next month for action. So with that is 1 one theme that seem to sort of emerge here, as well as in some of the communication. and just to up to you the day for your, but seems to be just a concern to make sure that we're using the existing infrastructure as well as we can before starting, to think about what additional expenses may be needed or upgrades may be needed. and particularly the the issue about the you know the maintenance of some of the existing open channels and so forth.

[105:10] You guys feel like like you're doing everything that we reasonably can in that area, so that we can kind of diffuse that part of the argument here that you know we have certain infrastructure and systems in place. We may need to build more. It may be expensive. Clearly one of the one of the theme just coming through here is making sure that systems that we already have in place are working properly. No, I think that's a it's a fair comment, and the city of Boulder was was developed before modern flood plain regulations. So in a lot of cases we're we're trying to play ketchup. And I I think the many of the stormwater features that we have in this area just do not have adequate capacity, and and they're not continuous through the flood plane. So these projects will address that, and I think we'll increase capacity

[106:08] and and make it continuous, so that it will work better as a system. It's the I would not want to continue to rely on the existing infrastructure even with enhanced maintenance. Brandon, I don't know if you want to. Yeah, I I think a lot of it is not designed for flood flows. So. A lot of the infrastructure that's existing there was designed for storm water flows, which is much lesser. Events. So the improvements we're talking about are really trying to re-establish Historically, what would have been there prior to developing where we can, and then try to connect those segments. So that's what you'll see the recommendations, and we do want to look for opportunities to overlap those 2 recommendations. So any stormwater pipes that would be upsized if they fall along the same alignment, trying to optimize those improvements, to be kind of serve 2 purposes.

[107:01] and just adding: one more thing I know in the summer, when when we have a significant thunderstorm, there's an area that frequently pawns up, and and just the like again, the capacity to handle those flows even for more routines. Storms? It's just not adequate here. and and out Falls is just a huge one here, so it's very flat, particularly that section of upper goose is very so giving us this improved drainage allows us to maintain our faults better, which increases the functionality of our storm water system as well. Once we're on this question, how does it say Work with the private ditch companies in terms of fund? I mean, some of those ditches must act as channels and flood events. And how how does that impact city planning? And how do you guys work? Yeah, They were those players to.

[108:00] You know, kind of utilize that infrastructure. That's already your place as a kind of a. you know. Add on infrastructure to the cities in terms of what control. Yeah, a lot of cities. So Bulkers age. The early plan was to use the irrigation ditches for flood conveyance. but most of them, their capacity is designed based on the water rights that they're intended to convey. There's really no reflection of the kind of the drainage calculations that you would do for flood flows. In some cases we have ditches that we know carry a lot of city storm water, and there is excess capacity in them beyond their water rights flows. And so we've made agreements with with some of them to convey that flood water, but generally it's not a great plan to to rely on the the old irrigation ditches to contain or convey. Flood flows.

[109:04] and a lot of cities, including ours, where there are opportunities to separate them. That's the best approach to separate storm water from the ditches comments that's I to to pursue that suggestion made by members of the public regarding the issue of a potential letter recommendation to city council for them to read letter, or perhaps the I would write a letter to council, but the gist of it would be to try to step up the efforts on maintenance of the drainages. Joe, you you talked about that earlier in the meeting tonight. But could you go over really where the staff stands on the ability to to actually implement that not not implement the letter, but implement the Yeah. Well, I I might speak to the letter, too, I think probably I would. I would want to step back, and and with our staff to consider that concept, and and how it might be done.

[110:08] and so that it could be effective if the if the Board wanted to pursue that. So let us get back to you on that. And then the second part of the question. I'm. Trying to think how to answer it concisely. We we definitely would like to have the opportunity to to maintain these channels. But sometimes there are private landowner concerns. and it happens with the irrigation which is as well my prior role. I was a water resources manager, and we played a role with all of all of the ditches. and at times, when they try to get in to do the maintenance, there is a big public outcry, if you understandably, if trees are going to be cut and and ground disturbance. and so there's that tension all the time of doing the necessary work versus

[111:04] the understandable public reaction to some of the environmental impacts of that. But our our staff would love to have access and to be able to maintain. Have landowner agreements, have a us, and be able to maintain the entire drainages. Brandon, Debbie. Chris, let me know if you yeah, I mean particularly. You heard about Goose Creek along this edge, which stretch there's a lot of large trees. It really limits our ability to get large equipment back there, and we also have a section with an easement disconnected from city on the property back there, disconnected from our next, and so, having that kind of patchwork at least makes it very difficult to do kind of consistent maintenance along the beach like we would like to do for 7 us reaches. whether or a letter would help us in that endeavor or not. Again, let us think about that.

[112:01] Is that something you'd be like to come back to Robin, perhaps in the next meeting just one. I totally agree with you. informing Presidents of maintenance and importance of meetings. I just worry. It is a code violation, right? And this could turn into people like turning in their neighbors because their creeks are maintained. I just don't want us to like I don't know. I'm just thinking out loud here. I wouldn't want you to get code violation notices, because we sent this letter to everyone, saying, hey, it's your responsibility or your neighbors responsible. So I don't want to say against the letter. I just I don't think so. We need them for some consequences. That is a general public good that a large populace would benefit from to have the drainage free maintenance. And I would say, John. not too different than the the the code requirements to shovel your walkway after the 24 h of the storm, or keep your trash can close. If you live west of Broadway.

[113:04] I would worry that this is a little more expensive and extensive to maintain like drainage, so i'm not again. I'm not against it. I just want to make sure that of course you need to at home. But I I agree with the intent for sure. Yeah, my my hope would be that the city would have staff and resources available to go do the maintenance for willing theers. Those who can't or won't do the maintenance themselves. and there's been such good public participation during this process. Maybe that suggests that an additional step with additional education around maintenance. Would you both receive? And you mentioned earlier that you'd be putting forward a budget item? Separate apart from this for additional resources to do more maintenance. Yeah, I forget what the mileage number of the of the

[114:02] flood and drainage way. It's it's around 50. And so and we have a lot of requirements because of agreements we've made with ditch companies where you might build something. City might build a feature next to a ditch, and then we agree to take on maintenance as a requirement of that. And so we have a lot of that across the city as well. so it sounds like there'll be more discussion about a potential letter next month. Other thoughts and I would ask my team members who are listening in to help me remember that there it's got it. I think. I'm echoing one of the public comment that

[115:00] I was skeptical that the city could be planned to have 100 year mediation to a large part of these areas, and you got pretty much all of it, and I think that's present, and I support the plan. I think it's a good plan. There's a lot of details to work out, but I think it's some areas of disagreement, some specifics to work out that are really very important. But in general, I think also here in the importance of moving forward with this kind of type of work, and being able to do so with the plan at this level in scope is really encouraging. I guess we're going down the line here. I I I also support the plan. I think it's a real challenge to device something. As you all have mentioned, you already fully built out a residential area. and so I I think what Staff have done has been a very good job so far. I am fairly sensitive, though, to the the excellent comments that we've received on this in recently just today, or in the recent days.

[116:07] and hope that, should the plan get approved by council, and when you move into the next step more the engineering design phases that these comments that are issued recently don't get lost. Don't get forgotten for sure. We we we in the next we'll meet with each property owner, and there'll be extensive outreach. Yeah, I I, too, and then support a good plan and moving forward, I and also appreciate this very conceptual nature at first, and there's no guarantee of specific projects moving forward. and that we'll have opportunities in the future. And i'll look at what it's prioritized, and and why and we in on that as well. Yeah, that's for the conceptual plan. I mean, I would just underline also Gordon's all right. That did seem like some of the input that we get today, and particularly earlier today.

[117:08] There were some. you know, some good ideas in there to consider. and obviously some of them might be pretty costly, so that might, you know. negate some of the some of the possibilities. But I think I would also just underline that. You know the people that live right there. I have dealt with plug several times, may have some insights. That Haven't occurred to someone, or she had, or maybe you know. Help! Help! Refine some of the thoughts that you're engineering. Folks have already had, so we could just keep those in mind. Great, Thank you. Well, with those comments. It seems like there's general consensus. I know the staff included in our summary number potential motion. It was. The Rab recommends approval of of the Upper Boost Street. It's talking, and it's like mitigation plan. So to be comfortable with such a recommendation.

[118:04] Yes, we need a motion that the water resource Advisory Board recommends approval of the upper U 3 to 2 Mile Canyon Creek Flood Mitigation Plan my second motion in favor any of those thanks for our members, and and and again thank you to all of the of you who came and provide a public comment tonight and and all throughout the process. Please continue to stay engaged as Utilities Department moves into the project. Phases as you heard your comments are are really valued and all throughout the process. So thank you right. Next up is matters from the board.

[119:05] and that's I. I have a one line or matter that came up. and that is that on a last Friday. There's a that some residents which appear to be within the city limits. but are somehow provided by a water or or by a a water company anyone or something like that. How that my company was now no longer delivering service. and maybe it was the way they were written, but it it confused me quite a bit, because I I wasn't aware that there were dwellings within the city limits that we're not on city water. So could you clarify that issue. Yeah, I I will try. Thank you for that opportunity. So prior to the pandemic, we used to have our rap meetings out of the Municipal Service center on Pearl Parkway.

[120:04] and we have 2 filling stations out there where water hollers the the big trucks with the tanks on the back and go and fill up and deliver that water. And so there there are some properties within the city city water, and that water can be delivered outside of the city with some limitations. It can't be delivered to customers west of the blue line. because there's and the blue line is is basically the western boundary of the city. and it can't be used for certain business types, like marijuana, grow houses or oil and gas, and so there's that. But other other people, if they have a house that's on the system. They might be in the county, or something like that they can. I can

[121:01] do business with one of these private callers and fill up there thanks for their water needs. And so one of the one of the delivery companies was kind of re planning to reduce its distribution area and sent to communication email communication a fairly short notice to all of all of their customers. I'm. I'm. Not laughing about people using service, but the the short notice kept us quite busy last week communicating with people and trying to help them out and give them information of what their alternatives are so. and some of the properties are in a mapped zoning situation where they're eligible for annexation into the city and connection to city services. Or there's okay. are you? Stop me on that, Joanna Bloom? Joanna, You're on the phone. You were helping me a lot with that.

[122:07] I'm trying to remember they're on Bellevue. I believe most of them, which I believe is in this Chatauqua area, but I can confirm, but it was their newly in the city limits, as the blue line location has changed, and so they're more recently eligible for annexation. Yeah, now, i'm remembering, and some on the very southern part of town near Shanahan Ridge, and so the hauling company caught their customers attention, and they said we were quite busy last week. All right, matters from staff.

[123:01] The first one is a heads up on public notice that's going out on some compliance. Violations we have related to water quality. fortunately, and i'll, I'll explain not public health concerns, but more more of the reporting nature. And so all of our customers will be receiving an annual water quality report that will be going out in the next few weeks, and then they fall into 2 categories, the violations. The first is all commercial entities, like restaurants that are connected to our drinking water system are are required to have backflow prevention devices, so that they can't for stuff back into our drinking water system, which makes sense. There are, roughly, 7,000 of those in the city. and we have a regulatory compliance role in making sure that a certain percentage of them have documented tests that are submitted by their owners to us each year.

[124:04] and in 2,021, and 2,022 we didn't meet the required percentages, or in one case we didn't meet them on time. And so we're required by the State to you. Notice to all of our customers all know that the State compliance requirements have been becoming more stringent over the years going from 60% compliance required in 2,016 to 90% currently. So so the irony for us is, we've actually been working on upping our game in this program and and our testing more devices than we ever have. But we've falling off with compliance. There are definitely some important public health goals embedded in the States program, and why we're required to do that, and we take compliance seriously. And we're taking several immediate steps to improve the program.

[125:03] And again, in terms of public health, we do test our distribution system. water quality weekly, and Don't have any evidence of any contamination. So this in this instance it's a reporting situation. A second one has to do well for one of the years. It was 88 at the deadline, and and after a little extended time we are up to 95. But the State still considers it a violation. and so the second thing has to do with the chlorine monitoring. We had a June 2022 power outage at our boulder reservoir water treatment plant and we went 9 h without our chlorine monitoring instrumentation working. And again in the

[126:10] from the States perspective that is a violation that requires no notice to our customers. However, we know from our other information that disinfection was continuously maintained during that time from our chlorine feed data and the the levels before and after. So these issue was with monitoring. We now have an uninterruptable power supply on this monitoring equipment to address the issue. So there again, nothing that the community needs to be concerned about in terms of public health, or if they they had bad water for a period of time. But it is a reporting situation, and we're required to provide notice. and so that'll be in our upcoming water quality report. As I said in the day

[127:02] few weeks. The next item is one that we've talked about a a number of times, and I know there's been public interest and concern, and that is the P. Foss issue. And so the the new thing, and why we're bringing this up is that the EPA is proposing new drinking water standards for Peak Floss. I think it's 6 different for 6 different compounds. And so we're. We're monitoring those regulations. and may or may not comment, and if we do, it will likely be through trade organizations and just for public awareness in terms of what we already do in 2,023. The city is conducting quarterly drinking water sampling for 29 p with EPA's unregulated contaminant monitoring rule in mind, and we expect those results in May. And when this, a few years ago, when this really became an item of public interest, and we started talking about it

[128:08] just to know we've shared before that. The city has participated in a voluntary state sponsored program to test for foss and drinking water, and we have not found any detections. The last couple of items. We talked a lot during the Flood mitigation plan about costs in general tonight, and I've mentioned under a previous matters update. that we are starting to unfortunately see cost escalation, as others are around the country in our construction projects. We just recently since the last board meeting received a bid for our main sewer project came in at 44 million dollars compared to the 33 million. We have budgeted. So that's a significant overage, and the second one is is a project

[129:01] again on the waste water system that's currently in design. Our phosphorus upgrades project. and 60% costs are being flagged for us during design by the team that's working on that as 23 and a half 1 million compared to 15 million from our previous estimate. So we're starting to see those trends. As I mentioned last month. We'll be looking very closely at our cip for the 6 years that we bring to Rev. This year, and thinking about timing and and wanting to manage rates for our customers, but also how how we can move these important infrastructure projects forward. So that was a lightning round of a number of topics under that questions about that Well, not of that nature.

[130:01] not my favorites. On the point on, and I I have one minor follow up question on those matters with the P. Fast. I think it was Tuesday last week that the they came out with their proposed new picking more standards for several of those compounds. and previously at least 2 of the P. Fast compounds and drinking water advisories of 70 parts per trillion. And now these these 2 guidelines went down to 4, so that's more than order. Bag it to drop in the the approval, concentration, and that this was a guidance it out, for I think they i'd make a decision for a year, so we don't have to jump on it. But as the city thought it all about what I would do if get that concentration level for those compounds actually is an act we have, and I have more detailed notes on that. But I think our our intention is just to monitor the the the updated guidelines, and we don't think this is a a prominent issue for the city of Boulder. So, in terms of prioritizing what we pay, super close attention to and engage in versus more passive, this is probably of the latter category.

[131:15] But I think, as our team looks at it, if we start to have those concerns, we'll. we'll engage more. Could I chime in a little bit so. So the new. The proposed Mcl. Is for first petroleum, which is about the detection level, right? And so I think, which I was saying is based on previous testing. Many ways it has shown no detect right. So I think we would not expect to have to treat in order to need a standard before it would go into effect. It it's but thank you for that clarification. It it's hard to imagine that the Board doesn't have any P. In it, because what I understand those compounds are ubiquitous. They're they're They're everywhere. They're in all of us. They're potentially in the air. We breathe. so I would be very surprised if

[132:01] it could be an issue of the detection of it's for higher than the detectable concentrations. At this point. I would say it absolutely could be that. And they are you big with us, but they are all human cost. If you think about where Holders Water source is coming from right. It, like Sugar Loaf has does have detection, because there's like a fire district in the area, right? But so, since our water is coming from higher up in the watershed. I'm. Not sure, actually, that we would have significant sources. It's giving me some reassurance that I've taken this for years. Yeah. Do you like me to move to the upcoming agenda? Yes.

[133:01] we currently have slated the not only waste water, ig. Which I need to confirm, we will be doing, and then every April we have a whole water supply update. and if you've turned on the news or the weather this winter at all it's. It's steep smelling that which is a good thing. Good thing if you're in the water, supply business. Not so much. If you're in the snow pilot. and then in May we'll start the 3 meeting series on the cip just kind of an overview of where we left off last year, and and kicking off that process. A potential financial policy update as well. And then one of the projects has is related to infrastructure grants and requires a a public meeting. and so it's not really affiliated with any board action that's required, and sometimes we will have a meeting like that, say from 5 to 60'clock on our own before a board meeting. We've done that kind of thing before, and then convenient.

[134:11] the Board meeting, and. like we normally would, and certainly the rab members would be welcome. and that and then, June we usually dedicate solely to the cip, because that's for 6 your cip. for we dig into the projects the most, and come back the following month to look for a recommendation. And so with that you have the upcoming agenda. Alright, Thank you any final. All right. Thank you. All favor. Thanks, everyone.