June 26, 2023 — Water Resources Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:02] You know, all the way down, and we' the speaker we have overhead. Speaker. We'll get that. We'll get that all right. Would you like me to read the zoom guidelines before we get started. I I lost sound all of a sudden for those of you following along at home. Karen, I call the June 20, sixth or resource adviser 4,

[1:01] our. And before I begin on any of the agenda items for today, I would like to have Joanna review the meeting protocols for public members. Awesome. Thank you so much. Can you all hear me? Okay, I just lost that for a second. Yeah. Can you hear me? Okay. I awesome. Can you hear me now? I can hear you. Okay. Here you go. How about now? No. Oh. Steven can hear me on rap. Sorry, thank you, Steven, for letting me know.

[2:09] Thank you. Everyone for waiting for just one moment while we get our sound ready. Karen, can you hear me? No. okay. Here's what I'm going to do. for those of you online on Zoom, that can hear me. I'm going to leave and come back. I'm not sure if it's my computer or not. but just so, you know, that's what I'm doing, and I'll be back in just a moment, and so hopefully.

[3:05] that will fix things. If not, they'll have to do something with the room audio. So I'll be right back.

[4:13] Okay? Oh, no, I am back. I'm not sure if you all can hear me, but I cannot hear you on Zoom. No. we are so thank you so much, Steven. It's really helpful that you keep chiming in. Steven. Can you hear me, Steven? Can you hear the board?

[6:20] I can see on my screen for those of you who can hear me on zoom that it looks like the room is trying to connect to audio. so hang in there 1 s, and we'll see if the room can get going. Thanks for the phones up. Whoever is thumbs up in me

[7:45] for all of you there on Zoom. I know the Route Secretary is trying to fix it. I keep getting teams chat. So hang in there for just a moment. Appreciate you being patient.

[8:26] Oh, it's working. Somebody else has. That's okay. That's the future. Now. Hello! That's working for us. Okay. if there are folks who cannot get into the meeting. can you hear me? Yes.

[9:09] testing testing. No. I hear you, Joanna. I didn't want to keep asking, because I wasn't totally sure. If you want to make me Host Karen, I can try to make the other people co-host and things. I know you've got a lot going on. Steven Grooters. You have been our sound check. Can you hear everybody? Okay. Steven replied affirmatively. So thanks so much for sitting through the technical difficulty. I know this room is normally pretty good, but it's never perfect. If it's all right with you, I'll go ahead and read the zoom guidance and get started. Does that work. hey? Some of us are still having difficulty joining by video. Okay? Oh, you know what it is. Sing in just 1 s.

[10:03] Let's do this. You should be good to go. John. You should be good to go now. We just make sure that everybody you should be also a co-host sounds good. Let me upgrade. Come in. let me read this, and then I will for sure get Kevin all set. Okay, does that work, and then that will be a few minutes and stuff. I but thank you. And please put any other names in the chat that need to be promoted to panelists. And I can take care of that. okay, so thank you so much, and let me just read the zoom guidance real quick, and I will hand it over. My name is Joanna Bloom, and I'm serving as the technical host for this meeting.

[11:02] Well, Karen is going to share our potentially that this we cover what I'm going to say. So don't worry about the slides that they don't show up, but to find a balance between transparency with community members and security that minimizes disruptions. And if you are here as a member of the public to speak, we'll need a full name associated with each person's participation and open and public comment, and we cannot unmute you without it. If your full name is not currently displayed you can change it or send me a text and I'll give you my cell phone number in just a moment. and I'm happy to change it for you, and sometimes I have to promote you to panelists or co-host, or whatever. So I'll work through that as we go. there's no chat feature for this meeting but the Q. A. Function is enabled. So you can address any zoom connectivity issues. And unfortunately, I can't answer any content questions. My role as Zoom Post is really to just deal with Zoom and anything computer technology wise. But I won't be able to answer any of the other questions. But please use the Q a. Function. If you, if you have questions on that front.

[12:10] my cell phone number, should you need to contact me is 303, 8, 1, 7, 1, 7, 4, 2, you may be unable to control audio or video features until I promote you. Video is limited to city officials, employees, and invited speakers. Only. I'll unmute you when you're recognized to speak. And if you're on the phone star 6 allows you to unmute and star 9 raises your hand, it does the virtual raise hand function and then, when you're ready to speak for open comment. You may use the race hand function. I'll call your name when it's your turn to speak and announce the name of the next speaker on deck, and you'll be given a 3 min time period to speak, and and we'll show that on a clock

[13:01] once you begin your comments. Thanks so much for being here. Okay, and those are my guidelines, and I'll pass it off. Thank you, Joanna. with that. Then why don't we open the next agenda item, which is open public for me. So if there are folks that are here to speak, go ahead and use the raised hand function. and I'll give you just a second to do that. Find the button on your computer. Or, again, it is Star 9. If you're on the phone. So far we do have one member of the public ready to comment. Kathy joiner is here. Kathy. You should be able to unmute and share your comments. Thank you. My. My name is Kathy Joiner, and I'm a member of the South Boulder Creek Action Group. I've spoken before this board numerous times over the past 10 years, and I appreciate this opportunity tonight.

[14:04] I've had a chance to review the 2 information items in your packet tonight, and I'd like to express my support for the use of the project prioritization framework in determining which projects will provide the greatest benefits to the city. I also support the incorporation of this information into the cip planning efforts. As you know, this prioritization tool was included as a part of the comprehensive flood and Storm Water Master Plan, adopted by Council in 2,022. It was also supported by this board and the Cfs Community Working Group. Prioritization criteria used include life, safety, project, effectiveness, equity, and several several other important gauges. I am particularly interested in these 3 criteria because they mesh well with the city's fundamental responsibility for the safety and welfare of its citizens. I lived in a neighborhood in 2,013 that was severely impacted by South Boulder Creek flooding. After witnessing firsthand the devastation of unchecked flood water, I was very happy to find that the South Folder Creek flood mitigation project scored far and away the highest for life, safety, criterion when compared to all other projects.

[15:17] In fact, that project the South Boulder Creek flood mitigation project received the highest score of all projects evaluated, and we support this objective conclusion. Not only would this project remove thousands of residents from high hazard areas, it would also protect us, 36 ensuring that it would remain open as a viable thoroughfare during flood events. Something that was a significant problem. In 2,013 I urge you to support the results of these project prioritization efforts, as well as the incorporation of this information into the Cip and your recommendations to council next month. Thank you for the time. Thank you, Kathy.

[16:01] Don't be any other hands for you. Let's just give it a moment until is there other people who are trying to? Okay, Joanna. We have somebody who said they're trying to call into the meeting, and they're having trouble calling you Johnson. Please. Your hand question, Mark. I'm looking for that right now, and there's actually 2 folks that have just raised their hands. So I'll go ahead and call on those. And then, Karen, I'll maybe chat with you about the phone number and try to troubleshoot that. So I first see Lynn Siegel, followed by Laura Tyler with their hands raised. and, Lynn. you should be able to speak. Now. yeah, the problem here, and tell me instantly if you have any problem with my audio.

[17:04] yeah, is. See you South. This development goes far beyond any issues that Kathy Joiner has with South Boulder Creek. Ultimately with the kind of flooding that we can get the extra built environment from a second. See you campus, as Gilbert Wide always said. it's it's not the people that die from grounding. It's they get hit from debris, from the built environment and the and the the massive diversion of the alluvium will take out Kathy. It will take out the water treatment plant, and that doesn't really give you priority. It's South Boulder Creek, does it? Because the whole city of Boulder will have no drinking water at that point. So these these kind of issues are something that Rab has to stand up for on on on the highest

[18:02] issue of anyone you can. You know you can live without food for a couple of weeks, but you can't live, or for longer for a month or 3 months, maybe, but you can't live without water for like 3 weeks. So we need to protect the water sources of our citizenry and the threat to that source of the built environment. That's what causes the problem. And I'm I'm stating this. No, I don't mean to insult you. I'm stating this at the risk of stating the obvious. You all know this, but I want to see something on the part of the Board members that acknowledges it and does something about it, because this is just not sustainable. Sorry about that. let's see. I don't know exactly what Joe, Teddy, you she was

[19:02] talking about today in his outline message, but as as to the the flooding potential around Alpine Balson. of course, that needs diversion that you know. The North Boulder Park used to be a lake. So there, you know, this is this is just. It's it's just like the 2,013 fled. It was. It was not that we had this deluge of rain, like we did in Thompson in the big Thompson. It's like we had this slow rain for weeks, and we can have things we can't even predict that are gonna consume. You know that that get flooded, that you know, the land can only absorb so much. And then it's just over in inundated, and we're in a huge. troublesome

[20:00] situation for major flooding in this area. We can't be building like this. Thank you. Done. Thank you, man. thanks so much we to have Laura Tyler, who also wants to speak. And before I unmute you, Laura, I do just want to say out loud, If folks are hearing that people are having trouble joining the meeting. I'm happy to troubleshoot through my cell phone if they want to call or text at 303. So 8, 1, 7, 1, 7, 4, 2. I just wanna make sure we we get everybody in here who would like to be here. And, Laura. I am going to unmute you now, and you should be able to talk. Hi! Thanks for this opportunity to speak and thank you, Joanna, for troubleshooting. So my name is Laura Tyler, and I have been advocating to support flood mitigation since 2,013 and just

[21:00] checking in today to let you know that we're still here. still advocating for South Boulder Creek flood medication. I was able to witness firsthand the potential for destruction. So I know that. this is a life safety issue, and I would just like to remind the Board that this has been put to a referendum 2 times there's been a couple of city council meeting. excuse me, City Council elections where this issue is a focus. And so this has been debated extensively, extensively in our community, and both times the referendums to slow down or stall this project. They have failed overwhelmingly. So that's a sign that the city of the people of the City of Boulder. support this wholeheartedly. I support it wholeheartedly, and I encourage you to move forward. Thank you.

[22:02] Thank you, Laura. Thank you so much. We do have one other hand up. Daniel Johnson has joined us. and. Mr. Johnson, you should be able to speak now. I guess you can hear me. Yes, thank you. my name is Dan Johnson. I live in West Boulder here in the early 2 thousands. I'm by my career. I'm a one resources engineer. and with that experience I was on the water. We my resources Advisory Board from 2,000. Well, to 2,017, and course 2,013 in the middle, that during 2,013 being a recognized water resources person, I was called out by the State engineer to look at. the reservoir. That's just east here. I was talking about Pacific, but it was having some issues in May have failed. So I spent the 2 days in the downpour out there, working with the State engineer and other engineers and the res of our owner.

[23:05] saving that dam which we did. I also worked with the city of Boulder The shoreline was in severe potential of being washed out, spend time with the city engineer at that time trying to figure out solutions for that. So for 10 experience with floods in boulder in 2,013. I've also experienced floods in other places. I spend a lot of time on a lot of resource work in California and experience some of the floods that went on in the spring. I know that there's ways to mitigate the floods. and I find that the the plan that's put forth seems to make the most sense. We've got a lot of opportunities here to to take care of some funds by increasing capacities and providing storage or retention. And so I think there is a a real need to do that. Here is, I think, somebody stated, at least. Now

[24:03] Boulder is one of the highest risk at risk cities for floods in this State, for sure. so I think it's one of the areas that we need to look at. I just want to express my support. I guess I've been living in Boulder for over 20 years now. I like to live here. I want to stay living here, and I like to see it improve inside mitigation fun hazard reduction is certainly one area that I'm interested in. So thank you for the time, and I really wish the rest of my space. How you doing thanks so much for anybody joining us. We are in the public comment phase, and I just want to make sure that those who want to speak tonight get a chance. You can hit Star 9 on your phone. If you're joining by phone, or you can virtually raise your hand. Look at it just one more second before public comment wraps up.

[25:03] I don't see any other raised hands. Okay, thank you, Joanne. Before we conclude the public comment session, though I was wondering if if Joe if you could provide feedback to the seagull, and probably to the public, just in terms of what the reps authorities are and or not with respect to. the flood mitigation projects such as you South or any other. Yeah, sure, thank you, Vardon, and good evening. Everyone board members members of the public. I'm Joe, Ted, and I'm the director of the utilities department and The city code has a very specific guidance for boards and what their per view is, and it's generally. for rep, the approval of that capital improvement plan they have that we're dealing with here tonight in June and July. And when we bring forward flood mitigation plans or things like that, those are specific items that the Board takes action on and makes a recommendation to city Council.

[26:08] and so the the staff's role is the detailed technical analysis and and verifying that our calculations and analyses are correct, and the board is primary role is just general overview of our work and making sure that we've vetted it properly, that it's gone through the A a decent process. And you all come from backgrounds. The board members do that have some relevance to water resources. And so it's also another multiple set of eyes on our work if we miss something. Thank you for that. and I might, if if I might. Well, I'm talking One of the speakers commented. About risk to the water treatment and source water during floods. And just briefly, on that, we in 2,013, we did experience a pretty significant fly, and

[27:02] we had some issues with the access road to our potassium water treatment plant up in the mountains, and at that time our second treatment plant, the reservoir water treatment plant was fed by the only by the boulder supply canal and open canal and that canal got so impacted by the flooding that the water was I don't want to, and we couldn't treat it for a month. One of the things that this Board took action on and recommend it has addressed that concern and we put about 40 plus 1 million dollars into the car. Really pipeline for the from Northern water, which is a better alternative safer alternative to get that water to the, to the treatment plant. And since that time, since the flood see, that has also armored the roads, and the county has up to our treatment plan. So there's always risk to any infrastructure during the flood. But we're we've been aware of those risks, and that's for us participated in making recommendations on that.

[28:09] And so neither of the water human plants would have been effective, or would be affected by any flooding from a Southwoman Creek. Is that correct? Correct? I think? Let's go back to the next agenda item, which is a several information items which I think will take out the bulk of our for our meeting today. Sure I can. I can kick those off. And first one to say, welcome to our newest board member, Lauren, and glad you could be here with us tonight, and appreciate you all very with us. As we made our way through some technical difficulty to get started. It's always an adventure trying to make all of the gadgets work out so as we normally do in June, we've dedicated the whole meeting tonight to the to the capital improvement program, and our presentation will be broken into 2 parts. you know, we'll first go over the flood prioritization. That was just, I think, one of the

[29:05] come into as mentioned, and and then we'll go into the capital improvement program, which is the opposite order of what we showed on the agenda. But the prioritization and the flood plan work that comes first is really good context for the for the capital improvement program. And so last year Rab made a recommendation on the flooding storm Water master Plan positive, unanimous recommendation, and and the city counseling and Flood master Plan plan. The primary outcome of that plan was a development of a flood prioritization tool which goes into quite a bit more detail than how the city of Bulgar has prioritized flood projects in the past in the past that's historically dependent. Just so the only benefit cost ratio. And we developed the tool that brought in a lot more factors that you're about to.

[30:04] And it was important in our, in our plan approval to get that prioritization tool conceptually approved first. and then our commitment. A commitment we made to this board was to come back and kind of show you how that applied to the real world projects. We have just about 40 of them. slated for a 30 issue your timeframe. And so what you'll hear about tonight is how that tool has been applied. And now all of that backlog, or what projects it's up with that. So Brandon Coleman is here. He manages our flood and stormwater engineering team. We'll start off our presentation tonight. We also have Vicki Shannon to assist with the presentation, and Vicki. He is a principal at the consulting firm Tetra tech, and she oversaw the development of the plan. Also hands on work with the development of the tool.

[31:03] So I will. I'll turn it over to you right now. Great thanks. I'm sure I'm yeah. I'd see an ingle on my screen, too. if that helps help me. I'm 6. 6. Second, no problem. okay, thanks, Joe. I'm Brandon Coleman on the engineering manager from soft blood utility. And we're just gonna go over the project prioritization framework tonight. and I'm joined by Vicki Sharonhurst, from Tetra Tech, who, with our consultant on the

[32:06] propaganda flood and Storm Water Master Plan Update effort and also working on the prioritization framework for us as well. So tonight I'm just going to go over a brief overview of our storm water flood utility. And then I'll turn it over to Vicki to go over the project prioritization framework. So the inputs, how we came up with the scores and then also the prioritize project. So all the projects we have listed and then we'll turn it back over to Joe for next steps. So, starting with the storm flood utility. Bowler does have the number one flood risk in Colorado, and our mission is really protection of life, safety, and property as a utility. And we really focus on the 100 year flood event, which is a 1% chance of occurring in any given year. So we have 16 major drainage ways across boulder all have very various levels of flood protection and mitigation. And we also are responsible for the entire city. So the comprehensive flood and storm water. Master Plan really addresses the city wide approach to storm water and flood management.

[33:12] So historically, Boulder has flooded in the past. the nice thing about the holders. We have a long historic record all the way back to the 1,800. So some of these photos are from the 18 hundreds. all the way through the 19 twenties, 19 thirties, we did have a significant flood event in 1,969 and then even just recently, as we mentioned June twelfth. if you live in the city, there was a bunch of hail we saw some localized flooding from that event. This picture on the bottom right is from intersection of Alpine and Ninth. And we actually did have to rescue somebody from that intersection during that flood who was in a vehicle. and then, most recently, the 2,013 flood. So we're at the 10 year Anniversary. Currently. so this happened in 2,013, and the unique thing about the 2,013 flood. It was a long duration storm event, and we saw widespread flooding throughout the city. So in all of our major drainage ways, but that did not equate to a hundred year level flood for all of the major drainage ways. So it's just a good

[34:12] point point out for people that were here in 2,013. We did see 100 year flooding on South Boulder Creek and on the 2 mile can increase, but not on all the so as our utility, this life cycle approach was really developed as part of our 2,004 comprehensive storm Water master Plan, and we really start with floodplain mapping which really identifies the risks. related to this 1% chance annual flooding and from there for each drainage way. Then we develop a mitigation plan. usually working with the neighborhood and the community impacted, and we evaluate alternatives at that time. And then we provide a recommendation to city council to move forward with. And then finally, from that mitigation planning, we moved to design and construction phase. And that's really what we're here to talk about tonight. So we have completed a lot of mitigation planning across the city. We have over 30 projects that have been identified for design and construction. And now we need to start implementing the construction of those projects moving forward.

[35:19] And when we say construction and projects, we're kind of unique in a utility is that we really focus on nature based solutions for flood mitigation. So places we have space places. We can promote natural stream processes. that's our approach to flood mitigation across the city. So really not trying to control floods, per, say, but trying to accommodate them and work with the natural processes that are happening. So on the bottom of this slide. These are all projects and areas where there has been engineered flood mitigation in the past. And most recently on a landslide is our wonderland cream project from winding trails to foothills.

[36:00] So I was a good segue into the wondering creek project the flood mitigation. So this was the before picture on the left hand side. So this is the culvert, and you'll notice the apartment building directly behind there was significantly flooded in 2,013. This is not one to Link Creek, the natural historic path. So I'll pull up my cursor here. So when we improve this, we added these box covers that you see, on the right hand side. And actually, this existing covert is really hidden behind these walls here on the right, just to give you some scale of what we're talking about when we do flood mitigation. So we really do have major improvements that we need to do to fill out our utility. So next, just the overall timeline of how we've developed as a utility and also historic flooding. So we do have records all the way back to the 18 hundreds as I mentioned. So we do have some large. What floods of record from the 18 hundreds, and also the early 19 hundreds. And I mentioned that 1969 flood So after the 69 flood the mile high flood district was formed, and we also formed the storm, water and flood utility for the city in 1,973, and our first master planning effort was the comprehensive drainage, utility, and master plan, which was developed in 1,984,

[37:19] and then we updated that to the comprehensive slug and Storm Water Master Plan in 2,004, and we had that master plan available to us for the 2,013 flooding. So that's the approach we took from flat mitigation from 2,013, and then most recently, in September of 2,022 could be updated next. But in store water master plan. And that's what we're here tonight to talk about. So there was some key outcomes from that master plan. They really focused on how we're going to deal with climate change, maintenance and also community outreach. But in the upper left hand box you'll see this is directly from the plan. there was a really a desired prioritize the projects across the city that are going to do the greatest good first. And that's really what we're going to talk about tonight. So that prioritization framework that we developed

[38:09] through that plan how that's been applied to the projects we've identified. so that being said, I'm going to turn it over to Vicky to walk through the prioritization. For so Brandon talked about the cycle of major plug projects, and historically it is taken as long as up to 20 years to get a project in fruition and providing benefits. So one of the role missions of this effort was to make sure that we aligned the prioritization tool with the core community values, but minimize the debate over which projects would go next. This next slide shows you the major criteria that we're used in the model, and you might ask where we got those. there are 7 major criteria listed here, and they are listed from what the community deemed to be most important down to still important but multiple benefits was this ranked last.

[39:07] So we did quite a bit of community outreach that included asking residents and citizens to both of these criteria, and we brings from what the criteria should be. Certainly on be over. We did 6 basic specific meetings that you could think of as neighborhood meetings. We met in person. sometimes with the first market to help people with their voting but everything from Hometown Festival, where we could think that we might be able to have some people during the pandemic and help them get their votes in So I'd like to think about this matrix and sort of turn it sideways and go into what we call the decision hierarchy. So after the voting, and see at the top again we ranked life safety at the top. and I'll go. I'll go to a little bit. I missed a little bit of time on the slide to walk through what all this means, and how it informs that framework

[40:05] so licensed to a 29% boat. So out of a hundred, the citizens felt this was truly important with respect to light and property. So the way that the framework works one of the criterion and then we have sub criteria that are used so protect critical facilities. So think of these facilities as senior care, daycare facilities, police and fire access and an out during an emergency. Those are critical facilities that, as well as the ability to residential units from the height, hazard, zoom, or 2 of the major factors that go into the framework to help provide quantitative data against which to rank projects next to line ranked effectiveness, effectiveness got 20 of the vote from our citizens, and that one of those items is to protect property

[41:04] don't mentioned sort of decoupling benefits with cost. And so that's what we did. We showed the benefits as far as physical structures removed from the 100, your flood plane. But we also take into account economic benefit from also to to structures, etc. I'll talk about equity. A bit more next, but just to say it ranked third highest to 18% by the citizens also, residents, frank, environmental and cultural protection of both environmental control resources. As for the highest and put a pretty high stake on that, that was at 11%. So you start to get down to cost, and and we did not the same concern or interest about cost. And so, in the case of the model, the more expensive a project the lower score it actually approves. So that is ranked as 10% of the overall projects for. And these last 2 I'll just go through briefly, these are the only 2 qualitative criteria out of all 7

[42:10] ability to implement. So that is, think about the constraints that might be on a project in order to implement it. So perhaps there are not. perhaps, or easement in place, perhaps or perhaps there's certain legal, institutional or permitting constraints on that. That's how we rank that from one to 5, and then, as well as does the does the project, have broad community support or not so much, and of course the more support ranked one to 5, the higher support it got, and scoring, and lastly, multiple benefits. And that's one just to think in terms of? Does the project is built, offer things that are, in addition to flood control benefits or flow protection. So this might be assisting with the safer roots to school. which, at least one of the projects does for perhaps for other projects being constructed at the same time. And so it'd be better to tear everything up at once if we had to do that

[43:08] all right. So I was. I said I would just a little bit more about equity. Just To explain how we actually provided a quantitative metric for this one criterion. The this social Vulnerability Index is is a ranking applied to each of the census tracks. It's this is done nationwide by the centers of Disease control but we pull the data off the publicly available data up the system. They take 15 social factors and they ring them into 4 major categories. So these are items, every such as socioeconomic factors, household composition. This might be elderly or young. personnel in that area, or single parent households, also minority status percent of people with English as a second language, and, lastly, how some type and transportation. So these might be people who lack access or ability to evacuate these are multi unit structures, apartment buildings, and Mobile House.

[44:13] All right. So there were. this is a list of all the projects in alphabetical order that had made it through that project life cycle. So they've gone through the mitigation plans. They've been developed as as reaches which you see on this right hand column. And these were the projects we were asked to put in the framework. All right. It's a little easier to see if you see it on a map. So I'm going to walk you through sort of a north, Central and South boulder. Serve by reach all right. So the first one is north older. You see 4 Mile Creek, which goes from Outley Canyon Road down to about 20 Eighth Street. The second project in the North Boulder area is the Wonderland Creek And it also goes down to 20 Eighth Street sort of an interesting thing. You'll see with all of the projects as we typically build projects from downstream to upstream, and you'll start to notice well, what happened to segment. One or 2. Well, those projects have already been constructed. And so that's what you see right here on this slide.

[45:20] Central boulder tomorrow goes from city limits down to about Twenty-fourth Street, or got down to Goose Creek. That confluence, and similarly the Goose Creek system that remains goes from North Boulder Park down to that confluence as well. Then, you see, Gregory, we go kings and skunk, and they all, of course, receive water from well outside and and above the Chatauqua area. and lastly, the South. Older projects include both Bear Creek and South Boulder Creek. all right. So how did things fair. So I'll go through this at a certain pace, and then, of course, we can answer any questions that the board has. So these are the top right projects according to the framework and the quantitative and qualitative data that we discussed. And nice way to look at it is this next graphic, which gives you a nice visual for why

[46:18] projects, for as they did so, you start to see in the right hand side of the screen life safety because they had 29% of the way you start to see the impact of that criteria. So you also, you look at the top 3 criteria, then also effectiveness, which is the great bar. and then equity that sort of cerule and blue bar there. So you really get a sense looking at this, for how projects ring when they really scored well, in any of those top criteria. This next sheet shows you the whole list of projects. You take all 36 projects. And look how they stack up! Sort of enough, just as a numerical order. But on this next slide you also see

[47:05] those 4 projects which are already in the capital improvement program. And we're when we started this exercise. But we did promise we would come back to the board and show everyone how those projects actually stepped up when they were actually input into the actual framework. All right. So the last 3 slides of my presentation will show you of the 36, we broke them into branches of 12. So the first and top 12 are shown here. And again you get that visual for how things stepped up included a couple of extra at the bottom. Because there's an interesting thing to see, too. You see, at the bottom Blue Bell, too. It doesn't have much of a life safety component, but it really support quite well when it came to effectiveness, because that project, for instance, removes 304 structures from the 100, your flood plane. But when you juxtapose it, say against scunko 7, which is 6 6 projects ranked above it. Step for quite high. It still has 46 structures that get removed. So it's still very effective and unlimiting structures from the 100. Your flood plane that you. You can also see it has a quite high social vulnerability index as a point 6 on a scale of 0 to one. That's how that made the big difference.

[48:28] Here's the second round the middle rank group from 13 to 24. And I guess maybe one interesting thing I pick when I look at this is that if you look at Gregory face one. you see that it's first. It's first well on life safety, but it also ranks number 20 overall, and it's overall abilities. And the reason for that is it is a project that it's level of service is for a 10 year interval storm as opposed to a hundred years, so it wasn't quite as effective as some of the others.

[49:02] All right. And then here are the last doesn't projects. And in this I think one of the things you can take away from looking at this is, if you look at the bottom, you'll start to see of the 7 criteria. Many, many of these projects don't actually get scoring. They they don't have an appreciable score in all 7 areas. And so therefore their priority came down toward the bottom. and with that I'll turn it over to Joe, who can talk a little bit about next steps. Yeah. So the what you're seeing here tonight is what Vicki just went through. It's really kind of the the first path. It's staff to apply the privatization tool. And we didn't do any massaging of it, combining projects or things like that that we might normally do, or taking into account other factors.

[50:00] And so we thought it was really important for the public and the Board to kind of see it first, and it's raw form before we started doing that kind of thing. And so our our plan would be to take this iteration of information. And then in the next year. with that level of analysis to it, and we'll have that'll inform. That year's 6 year Cip. It will have icon forward. So I think it's really taking what we have tonight, which is a a big step forward for the. and then to expand on it for next time. Okay, at this point question to the board, I guess maybe I should say, are there any You think it's the

[51:03] okay? Well, thank you, Vicky, and thank you, Joe, for the to contact, and Brandon for the quick question. I don't remember whether we've we we discussed this year, or what was the ranking system based solely on input from the public. You mean in the prioritization tool, and that would take out on on life safe, right and rap. Rap voted the Community working group voted. and then the rest of it would have been citizens within the city. Yeah, I mean, it was. It was definitely a public process. And that informed how it came out as as staff. We. We have technical expertise as well. And we're looking that in at that information. I think that's what I'm gonna get. I know how much was this based on sort of general public, and but versus maybe more

[52:03] specific. You know, expertise around these types of issues. What was sort of the balance that led to these final kind of specific ways. I I would. Well, Brandon and Vicki may have more to add to it, but I think we were looking at it as it was being processed, and generally agreed that it it seemed to be correct. And so I don't know if you have? Sure? Yeah. So the way we gathered the input from the community was, we did a dot storming exercise. So we had all the criteria that you saw. And we said. there's a certain number of dots place which one's the most important. And that's how we generated the percentages for the main criteria. And then from that, a lot of the technical information. So structures protected, roadways protected high hazards, zone benefits, cultural resources in the area, critical facilities in the area. Those are all generated as part of the mitigation planning effort for how we evaluate alternatives. So we essentially pulled all that data into the project prioritization tool. So we can look at it across all the different drainage ways. So that's the first time we've ever done that as a utility. So the technical work

[53:15] really happens within the mitigation planning efforts. And then what we're doing is trying to pull that in and trying to standardize that across the city is that I guess I'm just a little bit confused by it. How much the public input on this actually drove the percentages that we see here versus internal staff expertise was more familiar with the details drives the process. The reason I say, it's a couple of these points. The bottom couple of you know, smaller than I would have expected from the staff, for example, or from a water engineer. It seems that those are sort of under weighted. So I just want to get a sense of how much to the public input

[54:00] like the process versus a more knowledgeable staff subscribe. And I lost my train of thought a second ago. So our staff and our technical experts, Vicki and Brandon, we framed the whole thing to bring to the public. So just the the framework for the package that we asked the public to phone that that wasn't just a a free for all. It had our technical expertise as a basis, and then it really was the the public's input and voting on that that determine the factors. I think we tended to agree with what they came up with. If there had been a situation where we were really concerned, that something didn't look right. I'm I'm sure we would have intervened so happy to talk through factors that you you might have thought we would have looked at differently. But I just have to last to the cost and the ease of

[55:00] implementation, and whatever we describe it seem kind of low relative to the I mean, probably like to sort of rank. Each one of these is 50%. But since we can't do that, it seems like those are kind of seems to me I can. Probably I can probably to like I don't know what else to my computer there. but cost in particular. so historically. flood mitigation projects are selected based on a benefit cost analysis. And that's a benefit for property estimated property damage versus the cost to implement the mitigation. And what we found is that is not always equitable in a lot of cases. So that's why we had a huge community outreach effort as part of the Cfs. We did this development to make sure that we are representing the community values. So we could have community buy in on these projects and then also move away from a strict cost, benefit, analysis, comparison. Because each, as you mentioned. There's so many different ways and boulders, and to compare them that way

[56:14] was very difficult. So we did move away from cost, being a primary driver for the projects. But we did focus a lot on life safety because we heard that from the community. And that's also our mission as a utility, and we really find that is the high hazard zone medication we get there. So we did move costs lower and that is probably because that's what we heard from the community, and also a little bit by design on how we wanted to. see how to evaluate these projects next to each other. Yeah, one of the things was prioritize projects that do the greatest good first. And so at the other end of the scale. Yeah, it seems like life safe. Yes. being at the top

[57:05] and technical staff created the quantitative scale that translates into actual scores or criteria. Right? So the community. so let's see here, I can probably share but that that spider matrix that Vicki showed which is part of the Cfs. The community really focused on the first tier of that. And then what it went into those tiers was where Staff really had input. So what does life safety mean? How is we evaluate that we recommended some data that could actually quantify that what was the size of the of the public population and we worked really hard to get folks out during Covid. Even on the be heard boulder people. We we advertised in the paper. People were allowed to go in and vote electronically. So

[58:06] In the end we are, I think, we happy to get 90. This is my, the tech, some new So those 9 to people they, the waiting for the 29. Then how does that translate into the prioritization list? Because on that list there are some in the top 10 that don't have any like safety at all. So they I don't know if you're able to share, if you can even pull up one of the. So it is true that when we say they have no life safety, there are projects that don't either benefit critical. You know that they're not pulling critical facilities out of the high hazards zone, for instance, or if there's no concern about pulling, you know that's not a reach or an area where

[59:01] storm, water or floods go over or up there, for instance, they don't necessarily impact a major roadway. And so those will not attribute as much of a score for life safety. Okay? So if it's 29, is the waiting for life safety right then, for those that don't have any like safety component to them. How? How are those in the top 10 right, they would have to have a strong component a strong cost reverse matrix. So if it, if the cost of the project is lower, it was rate higher, it would get a higher score for cost. so you will see. I think that was the interesting thing for us as Staff is, we haven't put all these metrics together for these projects, and gave us very standard kind of quantitative approach to compared to projects across the city. So even though

[60:03] we may identify it as a strong life safety project, it may not have the right equity component right? There may be a more equitable project that's actually driving this. So that's what the I I guess this didn't happen. But what if there was a scenario where all of the projects that up in the top 10 were in the same neighborhood where you're biasing geographically. you would, I imagine you would still need to go and apply a distribution of our projects. For to make sure that that that you have that kind of equity and of that kind of management of disruption. Right? I think that's what Joe was talking about was, really, this is taking all the data, dropping it in having the reaches when it comes to grouping these as projects or identifying reaches that may go together like that's really the next step in this process. So we did look really hard at the project list, and how they ranked, based on the data and just kind of validated it for ourselves. Like, does this make sense? so

[61:17] it. It's a good question. And we did look at some of those areas that got flagged higher if it's more projects in that area. But we would also be able to see what's driving that as well. So if it's a very socially vulnerable area of the city that would also be indicated in our metrics. So we'd be able to say, that's why we're targeting these projects. Now. could you describe in a more general way, kind of a higher level with how you took the the, the assigned value for a given criteria, and translated that into a score. It looks like the scores on on the the bar tarts. Maybe one in it's in theory that they never quite got that high. How would you equate particularly like number of homes out of the flood plane to a one to 5 ranking in a different criteria.

[62:11] I'm I'm not sure how. How those relate, how how you came up with ultimately, I a unit score. And I'm gonna let our project tool expert comment on how the numbers all crunch. I think we're in. Think of. it's just a big spreadsheet. So you know that, for instance, the one of the metrics you mentioned would go into the effectiveness category. So number of structures removed. So one of the examples I gave was Bluebell, O. 2, which has 304 structures that are identified in that mitigation plan that would be removed from that 100 year flip plane. So you take effectiveness is worth 20%. And so between the reduced physical damage and reduce economic loss, reducing physical damage, the number of buildings was ranked as 60, as more important as as opposed to reducing economic loss. So it literally is just a multiplication of in that one or that 100 we have. You know how you look at it. That's that fraction or or percentage of that criteria

[63:17] that provides some value or a a a piece of that weighted pull to that one project reach, if that makes sense. So you, if you just do the math and the model, it goes 20 times that overall 80% times the 60% times the 304 structures. So some of these projects might have no structures that get pulled out of the 100 your flip plane. So then it doesn't get a score. Attribute it in that example. So it wasn't. It's if you said, okay, if it's more than a hundred structures, it gets full 100. No, it. You actually have it tied to the number of Structure Act. And maybe just to give you some additional comfort.

[64:06] The quantitative metrics in here and there are 580 data points, and it is by and large quantitative data that's publicly available, and where we could, it was always a multiplication. So it wasn't just oh, I don't know. It looks kind of like that might work. We were always using the actual metrics that were available. Can we? Can we see that country? I I I can't. I don't do it now. But just in general, would you be able to share that with the board? Yeah. yes, we can, of course. Just don't break it. How are you going. So if I'm up on that, thank you for that explanation. on the number of homes, I understand, because it's literally a number of times. All the various factors that that make up the way. compared to that say to a a criteria that has a one to 5 ranking or a criteria? That's a percent ranking

[65:06] is that to save it. one home would be equal to a score of 3 compared to score 4, or what would be equal to 10% compares 12 on some other factor. Whether it's how, how do you balance those? So in the overall spreadsheet, it's just adding in the overall values. So I'm thinking of the one to 5 5 criteria. So let me just think of a good example where we use one by just for what simplicity? certainly the 2 that are one to 5 for the 2 qualitative ones is, as you surmised. as far as sort of environmental and cultural. Those those are either actual, eligible, cultural resources. We, you know, we don't have access like, I'm not an archaeologist. So we had one of our arch. I'll just go in and literally look at the

[66:00] eligibility of the sites that would be inundated with a project versus without. So again, it's it's a real metric. It's a number. But then, in order to put it into the model, that one was ranked from one to 36. Okay, so that's an example of where we took quantitative data, still quantitative, but we made it semi quantitative, so that for a ranking perspective, you can see where it stacks. with respect. As I said, the other qualitative data. For the most part, we have real data. And it's just truly a multiplication factor. you know, road level of service. Again Brandon mentioned. It uses traffic data with inundation, and without, so that that much access maintains you maintain accessibility during an emergency. So I don't know, Gordon, if you have a specific question about any of the other one to 5 criteria. make sure you not missing your question. Not at this time. because prior to our receiving this packet a week ago, we we really didn't have any of the details behind it.

[67:10] So we're just kind of hearing this release in action for the first time I was trying to think, big picture, how how do you equate? a whole, or a percent, or a one other metric, any other metrics to to a number, or for it the different criteria. What equals what across the different criteria is what I'm trying to get at So does the spreadsheet have a column for each criteria, saying like, Here's the range like you mentioned one of those 36 factors. So it'd be probably one to 36 or and so that's in the spreadsheet. So we can see kind of what the range is of that particular parameter symmetric. It was just was the absolute cost of the individual projects taken into account in that just in that cost component? Or how is it incorporated in that. I mean, you could theoretically have a project that ranked exactly the same on all the characteristics, and one of them costs 10 million dollars. And what a plus 1 million dollars would they be ranked?

[68:12] You calling? No, in that case, the 1 million dollar project actually goes up in the ranking, because, historically, there was a concern that there might be projects out there that could be easier on the checkbook, but might offer similar value. And so in this case you can think of cost as a this benefit. It's a reverse like the more expensive the project. the lower rankings that got from a cost attribute. and I'll just. I'll just point out that that's something we noticed. When we were going through this this all you'll see So, looking at the cost bars.

[69:01] the way we've broken up these mitigation plans is by reach. So we have very similar costs for a lot of different projects. South Boulder Creek at Number One is a detention project with a much more cost than all the other projects. So you didn't see a huge variability in the projects being driven by cost per say, aside from the south pole of Creek project, because it is significantly expensive. So some of those bars look very similar as you go down, because you see a lot of similar benefits or similar costs for the projects. And what we're looking is, how do we differentiate across the city for what projects we should really be targeting next. So I know that Vicki and Brandon have the the Pdf. From the spreadsheet, and could share that on the screen. I'm thinking if we try to go into that tonight. we better order some pizzas, because we'll be here for a while. But you're asking really fair and valid questions, and and can see that you really dug into it. What might make sense is for us?

[70:07] to walk you through a real world. one of the projects in an example. How we came up with the numbers I don't know. If we could do that as a as an email or something afterwards, or part of the next packet for July. Would that help? Absolutely? But, Vicki, you mentioned that cost is a. So this benefit or a negative score? were there any other factors that were negative scores? Certainly. if it was difficult, so ability to implement, you can think of as if it had a lot of constraints on it that that was a qualitative one that was easy, neutral, difficult. So That's how that one was ranked. Similarly, community support. It was a one through 5, so it would be a negative if it wasn't resoundly.

[71:04] It's not a negative number, but low number, right? It's it's not So maybe that's not exactly what you're asking, but for the most part I would. I think walking through it will make sense. and I'll say it costs never cost doesn't go against your score. It's just the most the least cost projects got the highest score for cost. So we're really targeting projects that are least expensive. to see if it maximizes our paying for our. I understand that you can do them. You could figure out relatively the multiple benefits and the constraints. qualitative numbers. But the community acceptance and support, especially by the visual reach. That seems hard, I guess. How did you come with that number?

[72:06] So the way we did it was we really went back to the decision-makers. So rap recommendations and also City Council recommendations, and we didn't give anything up 5 on community support because we didn't want to bias ourselves. So we really tried to see if there was split votes from city council or from Rad within those recommendations, and that we would write them lower. And then some of the projects we know that have been discussed heavily in the public. we tried to rank lower, just to not bias ourselves. from a community support aspect. I think this is related to the flood stuff, but from water flood. there are 2 maps. I'm trying to understand what they're telling us exactly. I I understand the social vulnerability in the it index, so it relates to census tracks.

[73:05] but one of the maps has tapes highlighted with darker and slightly different colors, and then the other has just outlined. So it just just because I know we all like maps and maps are very helpful for understanding I just wondered what the message was for both of these maps. Absolutely so. Just quickly, you see, first on the screen the Sbi and app by census track. So those. And then you also personal legend, see if it's screen. It has a low social vulnerability on that tract. versus red being the most most vulnerable populations live within that census tract. So if Brandon goes to the next slide, then you see how we did a weighted average. So we literally took the area that would benefit from that project and did a weighted average using gis status.

[74:01] And these are the 36 projects outlined exact, speak a a question just on you. I'd actually translate this prior to the project list or make it actual. I think I saw on your last slide. It would start in 2,030. Does that mean for next year's cip will start to see this coming to play? In other words, are you? Would you just walk down this list in terms of what gets included in starting next year in the 2030 recommended, or or project I for you. But is that? Yeah, how does this actually translate to to the C. I. P. Is my question generally. Yes, we will follow that list. I think we need to do another round where we combine some things. Some reaches might go together. Gordon and I had an agenda meeting Friday, and I was describing. I I don't know that it was our ever intent that we would just apply this line the raw data without some.

[75:07] and for example, the upward I think reach 6 is fairly low on the priorities list. But in that email, I I hotline email, I sent today the storm water upgrades, which is the piped infrastructure in that area around that old hospital and ideal market. Probably the highest priority storm. Longer upgrades in the city as we saw the flooding from some of the photos of things. So when we take that into account. reach Number 6 might be twentieth on the on the flood list. But then we it's gonna receive that water from the storm water upgrades. And so we'll take factors like that into account. And and as we continue to find that you'll see that in future your Ci. And then another important factor in you may recall. when we were reviewing the plan last year. There are already some projects that we've been invested significant funds in Gregory Creek. This is an example of that. Certainly. Cell phone. We creek is the biggest example.

[76:17] And so we committed to to this board that we would show how the priorities choke out. But our intention is not to stop projects in process that we've already invested in a lot of in community engagement and a lot of funds and and kind of lose that use that momentum and that investment. So at some point we'll we'll take off. We can do projects if you don't really just. it's just a similar. It's a similar question about that. So for the list. Now, the prioritize list of 36, there's 4 there are currently under the C IP reveals under the I don't know. Maybe it's under the cost market analysis that was used from here. So now those will be.

[77:09] That's why those like 3 of them are far down on this prioritization list. Yes, and one of those 3 is the Goose Creek reach 6 that I just mentioned. That needs it. If we build the storm water, piped infrastructure upstream. But there's nowhere for that water to go. It'll actually make things worse for the full downstream. And so we have to do that nineteenth priority one project, that one. We have not taken those types of things into account yet. and it and I really want to commend Vicki and Brandon and the team. It was really a herculean effort to. We get this ready for the first pass. And so it's it's gonna take time to refine it. And it'll I think each year that we come forward with the cip, it'll be more and more meaningful. And

[78:08] so along those lines. Well, I I share your your acknowledgment of Vicki and Brandon and your respective teams for for doing this. I think one of the most urgent needs for the city is is conscientious, prioritize what protection and this really gets us there. particularly in line of the fact that if the utility department is willing to to take a look at the projects that are in the queue, the 36 on, or say, take away the 4 others, but 30 plus projects, and and perhaps reassess some of the the scoring factors. Yeah, like the examples that you gave which may explain the 4 projects they are on the board right now that are not in the top. 5 number number one is, but the other 3 are not. Perhaps that suggest that some of the waiting factors could be adjusted. and and one that comes to mind in particular, based on what you were sharing with Joe was the perhaps the multiple benefits criteria, which is, is pretty mobile. That's one of the lowest

[79:10] and and there may be others that perhaps if those waiting factors were increased, of course others would have to go down to make it people to 100. But that might cause those projects to actually move up in the priority list to then further justify why, they're in in the the process right now, where the others are not. you know. We can certainly take a look at that, and I will also say to Steve's initial question. Again, we. our staff, take a look at how these shook out. And and there's just a does this. Is there anything on this list that just does not seem right to us for this, or, worse yet, does this seem all messed up, and had that been our reaction to it, we would have raised our hand and said. We have a problem here. This is. It was a good theory, but it didn't work, and

[80:01] generally, I think we're. We're comfortable with this. And really the situation we are trying to address with the master plan is. we have these 16 drainages. I I've said it. We've all said it over and over again. That boulder was formed after and developed out, or before modern floodplain regulations came into play. and so a big portion of the city has been developed and approached on the flood planes. And for the people who will have negative impacts or things they don't like about the projects we know we'll have vocal opposition. We also know there are people who desperately want to see the the flood improvements made, and so how do we get ourselves out of this dilemma of pitting one drainage against another? And and it kind of never ends. And so, having some basis for how we prioritize these? A and and we could, we could go on refining and debating the factors for a long, long time. But I'm feeling really good about where we're at and applying this. And it it feels like a logical iteration for

[81:16] that. All that. That's it. It does, although I have to contest something that was said earlier. Which is that? Yes, the rap did see and approve the the Cfs. Which included the discussion on ranking. but the the waiting factors. are chlorine, or in volume 2 pretty, very pretty deep, I think 133, because I look at something, and they were. They were listed as suggested rankings. and they were presented in the context of, I think, 3 or 4 theoretical projects which may, in fact, have been some of the projects that actually exist here. But they work as you actually run through the system. So I I would like to think that those waiting factors are not as cast in stone as you're applying.

[82:02] because they were. They were sort of theoretical or preliminary. and and I would really encourage staff to be open to seeking input on some of those waiting factors. not not the detailed numbers that go into it or not, the criteria themselves, but just laying factors. I I think we're open to that feedback. The reality of the budget process is that you kind of have to go with what we have now for this year's budget iteration. But you could certainly, when it gets time for forward, actually, next month, you can have that in there that goes with that recommendation or emotion. If you wanted us to. I'll look at that again. Process wise it! These master plans go through a ton of process and are are vetted, and they go through the board and council approval process. often with multiple meetings. So it's it's not an easy lift for us to get those. Re.

[83:07] you know, Redone, so there'd have to be some real compelling reason to to look at that. But we're open to that. Well, I would already, even until tonight, and no one in the community has actually seen this rolled out. unlike the some of the other utility department systems like for the prioritizing the water and waste for systems. I believe that the aim is one those are fairly mature, and they they probably test to the test of time, and it probably been iterated to fun. But this one's not so. It's kind of yeah. And I understand the city process. but nonetheless, to make it as effective as it can be around. The iteration on some of the waiting factors may actually be the the best thing that can come out of it. Yeah, that that's why, if you're going to give us that feedback, I would ask that you'd be really specific of what you want us to look at and change.

[84:05] or what might be less desirable about the way they've yes, I I was going to ask a question similar to one that fact that some of the project support we're already in progress. We're rated fairly slowly by this new scaling process suggests that this is kind of a radical. maybe a significant rethinking, or we new process in the way that the utility is going to prioritize projects. And I think it's great to have a more want to tell you different, more. You know thorough way of doing that. but I guess the and I and I understand that we consider that you and debate this forever. But I guess the critical comment that you made Joe to me is that you believe that the staff supports these these waiting

[85:01] pretty thoroughly. And that I mean, my only concern is that we got we over emphasizing the input of 9 people in the community. The year spending of hundreds of millions of dollars over the next 30 years. which is great to have community input and they may have some very good perspectives on things? Are we making sure that we have the you know, the expertise that's available to us that's overseeing or double checking or kind of making sure that those things make sense because it's going to be as this gets cemented into more of a process over time like the other, you can do what you have. Now. this is going to determine where you know we're an awful lot. In fact. you know that it's a logical and well thought out and kind of well debated and argued about. you know, system and process before it kind of gets locked into some. Yeah, there's there's a lot of expertise in the room with Brand and and Vicki, and this also matches with my technical background and lots of years of experience, and I knew how important it was to

[86:13] along the way and checking in with teams. And does it seem right to us? And we're comfortable with it. So I I don't want to. I don't want people to go away with. Wow! This seems like it was a free for all, and 90 people just sort of set the stage for everything. We framed it with that expertise in in a way that they could provide input with some boundaries on it. And I think we got good feedback. Interestingly, we're just starting through the city budget process and utilities. Budget is as big as the whole rest of the Sa. and if you compare it to other departments, no offense to our team members, but like doing underground types and stuff which is not as exciting to the community as a new park or a new open space purchase, or or a new library, or something like that.

[87:04] We always get relatively low numbers for public participation, and we're always challenging ourselves to improve that. But it's been elusive. It's it's like getting excited to put new cars on the found new tires on the family. So they just like really want to spend money or attention on that good, just real quick. I don't want to believe it. But just to add to this point, I think because I want to see this work and be effective. So in these kind of public credibility to be effective, I'm concerned that some just sees this, the Territories list, and then sees 3 projects not in the top 5 moving forward. It's like. or we can do this list. And the utility just kind of says, what's really going to happen? So, in other words, like, is there a way to to Gordon's point? Maybe to refine things so that it it does take into account more different components, so that it it is a very objective, credible approach. That would be my only concern, because I really think this is

[88:01] a good tool. I want to see it work. I just worried about a misperception of how it played out for sure and the the when we change our approach for any process. You especially something that's kind of a slow rolling, as you see. I you have to make some cut off decisions, and like these projects that were done previously under this scenario are going to stay the way we are, and we're not talking about those. And you remember last year, when we were talking to Rab. There there. There was some direction from the board for us to show the existing projects so that we could see them, and I was concerned about that for that very reason, because we were potentially just gonna be putting ourselves in a spot that didn't acknowledge that reality of having to have a cut off. and and we wouldn't that there'd be no end to relitigating and like well, that shouldn't be on list. I also think it's maybe important to think about the context, you know. Right now.

[89:04] Fema is going through the process of refining their benefit cost analysis to better account for equity. And that's going to re prioritize a ton of projects across the United States because of their they're essentially doing a version of what the city of folder is doing. So. That's this. Effort is consistent with what progressive, thoughtful communities and agencies are trying to do, to sort of reset the prioritization of, you know flood mitigation projects, because previously events that money went to people's valuable properties. So I mean, that is one of the criteria. But so much of that. so much of these other criteria are trying to get at this larger, bigger picture community benefit that wasn't really captured by a straight up monetary benefit cost.

[90:02] Yeah. I also mentioned that we we did have a community working group that was formed at the beginning and the Master Plan process and followed along closely. and many, many meetings. The only 3 months process. So to to Amy's point, I will say in my time, in utilities. and just seeing the work that we do. I recall in our water supply planning when we started to bring in the climate change science into the work and really built that into the technical analysis and planning of our water supply. And I I I felt proud of the organization in part, and proud to be part of the department, because I thought it was really cutting edge practical stuff, and a better way of of contemplating the climate realities and and building it into our world in a practical way when I saw the initial application of this in a meeting with branding, and then I have the same reaction that it is the same kind of

[91:08] meeting edge with that others are going to follow. So I I feel not to say it can't be refined, and we can't continue to talk about it, but I feel strongly that this is good work, and it's a much better way of prioritizing projects. One other question is, the the the South Border Creek project covers a big footprint where the others are much smaller. and so it seems like the The way the metrics are established is that they they favor the the bigger projects. you know. Number of home for not for something like that. And so I wonder? for most of the ranges, except for self Over Creek. I guess that is broken into 3 refaces, not 3 geographic areas.

[92:05] but I wonder what would happen if you looked at an entire drainage way like instead of 60, and you know what separate 2 mile or what have you? And just look at it as an aggregate. and how that would affect the scoring I'll just say South Boulder Creek scored very high. It's also a very unique project to the city, because it is the only major regional detention project and probably only space we have as a city to implement that regional detention project. So that's you'll see a lot of the homes and the properties get completely removed from the full plane in that 1% chance storm. So it does have a very high score, because it is a very unique project for us as a city, and a lot of the other projects are focused on convenience, and also keep on what

[93:10] the questions from the board. This. the the feedback and spirited discussion on that and I think the one action item that we're committing to is is showing an example. And then what can you work through whether we do that as an email or part of the next packet? We'll figure that out. I I would like to augment, if I may. I'm sending out a a version of the spreadsheet. So we can really look at the metrics. Okay? So moving on more generally, that was context. For of course, the the

[94:08] if going back more general, the overall cip from the for the board members who have been on the board for a while. You know that we would normally do the cip in 3 separate meetings May, June, July. They we always kind of show you where we left off last year, and and kind of our a reminder for that. We always have a new excuse me, I I I apologize for interrupting. But before Brandon Coleman and Vicki Shorter Steve, I want to thank you. Great presentation and really good work. I just got rolling there. Thanks for that interruption, but it so may we would. We would take a look back at where we left off last year. We always dedicate the June meeting as much as we can to do a deep dive into the C. I. P.

[95:00] and then we come back in July, having hopefully responded to your feedback and ask for a recommendation. and I kind of I already touched on it. But I sent out the post today because it's in it. It's a good example. You know the the presentation we just have. It's graphics and figures, and it's like, and and we're talking about tables of dollar values, and that's kind of the package of information. But 2, one days ago we experienced the real world situation with the major thunderstorm that came through boulder, and and you got to see the impact of it and our highest priority storm water projects that are in the cip fixing that. So it was just a really good opportunity to show some real world like this is what we're talking about. It's not just tables and graphics and figures.

[96:01] and then I just wanted a a staffing update relevant to tonight. Graham Clark, our our principal budget Analyst, had a a golden career opportunity hired by the city of Brook City and County and Broomfield to be a deputy finance director. So it's a it's a career step for him. It's in his career goals. Fortunately, Friday. We've been through a budget analyst lead person transition just a couple of years ago, and so we've got the the backup to continue to support the process, but we are really sorry to see where I go, and happy for him that he has a great opportunity. so our presentation will be led tonight by Chris Douglas, who is our senior manager of our Utilities Engineering Group, and Kristin, who is a deputy director of our operations.

[97:02] and and before I turn it over to them, this is all so much, particularly Lauren, for a new. It's 3 separate utilities. It's it's several 1 billion dollars worth of infrastructure. And and we're so tied into the details, we just kind of launch into it and start talking about projects. But it really boils down to several systems in the water system. You have the source water components which are before treatment. So the big reservoir that you see up in the mountains like park or reservoir in general, we have 15 of those throughout the mountains, and including boulder, reservoir, the large transmission pipelines to convey those. and then you have the water treatment plans. We have 2 of those that I mentioned earlier. And then under every city street there are water pipelines in the water distribution system. And so those are the primary components, some major components of the water system

[98:05] in waste water. Similarly, there's a collection system in or adjacent to all of the streets in the city that collects waste water from homes and businesses. and eventually channels it down, or funnels it down to a single larger pipeline. That's our waste water collection system. And then that water is delivered to the treatment plant. We have one waste water treatment plan. and then, lastly, the third, utility is storm, water, and flood. and that you have underground infrastructure, and all of the pipes that collect water from streets similar to the waste water system. It collects and conveys that water and then dumps it into the bigger drainages so that it can safely, as we develop the projects safely travel through the system. So Chris Douglas and Chris Devil are gonna walk through. But and we'll be talking about specific projects. But you will probably recognize they're all parts of those major components.

[99:07] That's enough for me. Thank you, Joe. good evening. Board members, is this Joe mentioned? I'm Christopher State Senior utilities engineering manager really managing capital projects for all 3 of the utilities. this is the first of our 2 meetings that we'll have this year on C. I. Typically, we have 3 meetings. But Gordon, as you mentioned earlier the the main meeting we had we talked about. The board was working through the equity training. But we did provide just sort of a general overview of the utility system in that memorandum for that main meeting. And then Kristy Bill is also here with me. and he's really filling in what is typically being what Graham Clark's position was. So Chris really going to dive into some of the financial aspects. And then I also do have for additional support our utilities engineering supervisors that manage really those 3 utilities for. And this Joe kind of broke it up. We kind of break up the the water into the source water into the treated product group. So that's where we have those 4 supervisors here as well.

[100:20] So just as an overview on the agenda again, I'll talk through just really an overview on the capital improvements. Program. Then talk highlight on some of the key projects. We'll see in the cip, not nearly all of them. And then Chris will talk about financial matters, really dealing with rate changes and financial impacts. And then we'll have some discussion and question time with the board. So as we move forward with this, just some things for you like you. It considers we're going through. This presentation is just thinking about questions you may have about particular projects clarifications or additional information you might be interested in related to the finances of the utilities, and then also any questions about rates.

[101:08] So before we discuss some of the specific projects in the 2,024 to 2,029 capital improvements program. I'd like to discuss some concepts on how we evaluate projects. There are many variables that staff review to make recommendations for the CID. These video goals are identified on a slide of specific note. Rab identified aging infrastructure in previous letters councils, the top priority. We've been applying this, the that concept in conjunction with the other variables, to choose projects. For instance, one of the process projects we'll talk about this evening is the phosphorus upgrades project at the waste, water, water resources, recovery, facility or worth. and it would place replaces, aging assets and addresses regulatory issues. So really trying to hit at least 2 of those categories with that single project

[102:03] to address A, the aging of assets. We've it is Gordon, as you talked about earlier, we've been using the aim or asset inventory maintenance methodology for the last few years. This includes a utility condition index scoring. Really, it's it's a waiting methodology. Or, as we look at individual assets to identify For we within a different aspects within the treated water system. The scoring is one tool for choosing projects. We also have to consider public safety quality of life and economic vitality when we're looking at projects. So if you remember from last year I talked about the car methodology. So a hundred percent utility index score would be that brand new car just to drive off the lot, but anytime you drive a car off the lot the instant you drive the car off the line it loses its value. We lose. We have a decrease in utility index score. really, as soon as we bring projects online. But the other end that 0 would be that, you know, 305,000 mile plus car that finally breaks down after years of use.

[103:12] And a 40% rating is that 150,000 mile car that is still reliable. But you have to start doing some major maintenance to keep it reliable. The overall goal is to continue to private, excellent service to our customers to stop the decline of the Uci score over time. Capital improvement projects take time to complete. There's definitely a study, design and construction approach required for large scale projects. Since 2,019 we have been studying projects, and we even started construction. Once a a few of these major projects the table identifies the manage decrease in Uci score. We manage the decline by doing routine maintenance thing, changing the whale in your car. Of course, maybe, Joe said. replacing the top, we replacing the tires. But we also have to do larger work. you know, could be even things, you know, before the car breaks down. It could even be as large as replacing an engine on a car. So you get into this large scale.

[104:15] We've been focusing our efforts on Areas 3, 7, and 8 on the table. All right. And so we'll be talking about some of the transmission and storage tank projects. Later in the presentation. I'll also talk about projects in areas one and 2. In the presentation. the wastewater treatment or the water treatment facility projects are not driven by a Uci score. But other factors, such as operational redundancy and regulatory requirements. areas one or 2 of the types of projects like like, we, Joe, was talking about changing the tires compared to it to keep the car running, whereas there is 3 and 7 are those major that major work replacing an engine replacing a time in belt that

[105:00] definitely takes a lot of effort. We also have started in scoring in the source water system. So we're currently in the middle of the 12 year replacement program with the gravity of the Barker Graphic pipeline is, you can see the decline in line 10 on this slide. but the project to replace the line is reduce the anticipated decline. We. We anticipate this uci to increase as we complete as we can complete the replacement project. the source water storage Category line 11 also has decline, but this number is anticipated. If the increase after we complete the Lv and dam project. I can highlight it a little bit later in the presentation. So in the wastewater system we have not completed a full aim study. Yet now the current projects. In the 2024 to 2029 C. I. P. Were identified in the current master plan as the highest priority or tier. One projects. Cip identifies continuing to work on the super lining program replacement of the main sewer by appliance and projects at the water resources, recovery, facility.

[106:09] a future aim. Analysis will help us. Rank projects after the tier. One projects are complete. the end that in scoring is going to aid us in that post 2,029 capital. And then, specifically, this slide here that shows the the wastewater recovery facility. You can see several of the yellow and red areas identified in the figure are being added to the current. C. I. P. In conjunction with the phosphorus upgrade project to the worth the future aim. Work well. A. In determine which of the green projects on the slide will be addressing first and then finally, it's like to touch on the storm water and flood utility which it does not suit itself. as easily to an aim project some of the other utilities. So that's where really the discussion earlier this evening that what you were using the comprehensive installment flood analysis tool

[107:07] to help us move that project forward. So implementation of that Cfs tool in conjunction with the Stormwater, Max, master Plan is helping to identify projects. So when we'll touch base a little bit more in that Upper Goose Creek project that even Joe discuss during the Cfs tool discussion here in a little bit. And before we get into the projects themselves, I did want to touch base on cost escalation. This we're certainly aware of the supply chain issues and inflation that are impacting projects really across the utility and really across the city. we're currently experiencing significant rate inflation rate increases, so to help balance that over the longer period of the cip we are applying an inflationary number to our capital capital projects. From the time that you get our initial estimates to look at when we're moving forward on our

[108:06] we also balance individual projects based on the costs. And, for instance, for moving forward with the projects identified in the table, and you can see where the cost escalations have occurred. And we compared these projects for funding availability and and benefits. The updated class costs include our our funding comparisons. For instance, we looked at on the Clarifiers project there on the bottom we looked at because of where the costs were coming in. We we did change the scope. We reduce the number of clarifiers within that project, but we still saw. We also change timing with projects the the main sewer Improvements project we added a third phase into the cip in 2,029 to help defer some of those cost, to be able to advance the the vast majority of that project. And then but then we have also looked at funding on projects as well. So we'll talk a little bit later on. The funding opportunities that we've had for the phosphorus upgrade projects.

[109:12] Excuse me, project. So now we'll move on to a few of the specific projects within that 6 year, the kind of 6 or C. I. The list of projects on this slide from the source water system. And just would like to highlight 2 of the projects. So the first one is the Albion Dam project just currently in year 2 of the 3 of it's 3 year construction. The photo on the slide identifies the work on the and see the new concrete. The workers are standing on. and the old concrete is behind the workers. and this project, called Seal. The face of the the game. You can see the deterioration of that concrete that they've chipped off, and it also will seal a horizontal joint to help maintain and continue to maintain the life of this project.

[110:02] So after we're done with this project in 2,004, it'll store approximately 1,000 acre feet of water in that in that system, or you excuse me in that dam so, and to put it in context, 1,000 acre feet. As I look things up, it's about 500 Scott cart under park swimming pools so certainly a significant amount of water for that project, and the other one I wanted to just briefly touch on is the Parker damn real rehabilitation project which is just been added to the Cip this year and scheduled for construction in 2,029. It's a significant project that we're still to find scope on. But we're in the process of working with the State Engineers Office and a Technical Review board on the Barker dam to look at how we're the current condition of the dam, this, and how it compares to current safety regulations. So there's definitely more to come on that. But we do anticipate that as a significant project later in Cip.

[111:03] And now I'd like to talk about some of the the projects on going at the water treatment. This is so. What is water? Water is delivered to the 63 water treatment facility from the city's water supply from the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy district on the western slope. and then the the tassel water treatment facilities so like from from the boulder watershed west of there work at the work, they'll work at the 60 third and the Castle. Water treatment facilities replace aging, infrastructure, address, operational redundancy, and also address regulatory requirements. These projects increase the reliability of these 2 critical treatment facilities and completing these projects, allow the city to advance the water transmission, main and tank projects in later years of the cip. By making sure we have the increase in the reliability of those facilities. So now touching, based on the transmission, some of the transmission projects. And this is really the backbone of the water delivery system.

[112:06] So the transmission system receives water from the treatment facilities and then delivers water to the smaller pipes, and eventually the customers for their for their individually use. There's many miles of transmission pipes and slated for replacement coming year years. First of these projects is the start of a multi-faced project to replace the pipeline on 63 from the to the 63 water treatment facility to approximately Cherrydale. The project will replace aging pipe and upsize it to increase capacity within within the system. This is the second line that you can see marked on sixty-third in blue, just south of the highway or 119 future basis of 60 second transmission problem from Type project that we're moving forward on is in the table may say, area connected to the caller tank.

[113:04] This project is currently in the design phase and scheduled for construction point 25. This These projects will allow the city to capitalize on 2 of the cip decision making variables discussed earlier by changing the construction material, and these pipes will decrease the consequence of failure. If we do have an issue with these pipes and upsize them. The line to ask you to increase capacity to our customers. Now, I'd like to just touch base on the storage tank projects that are still in the later years. Cip. But thinking storage tank is is really the buffer between the water treatment facilities and the transmission system. This, this helps tank that tanks help manage changes in water demand over course of the day, or it also aiding in potential fireflow issues these projects to current later in the Ci Cip, because they must follow the the treatment plant work.

[114:06] And and the reason we're doing that is and facing it this way is the Storage Tank Project. It's a longer scale project that will be out for a longer period of time. So we need that redundancy within the treatment plans to be able to to handle those longer term projects. Now, I'm going to talk about some of this wastewater utility projects wastewater master plan is identified for tier. One priority projects for the major pipelines connecting to the worth. These are large diameter pipes that that collect the waste water from the rest of the city and convey it to to the waste water. Recovery, facility. We completed the baseline project, identified in green. In 2,022 we plan to complete. The other remaining sewer projects 24 to 2029 c. I. P. The increased waterline capacity from these projects will approve. Waste water flow for the vast majority of the city. The major change from last year's discussion is that we have completed face one of the main sewer improvement projects

[115:10] identify this section in green for that particular project, and I've contracted to complete phase 2 of the project which would begin construction later this year I wanted to. Highlight phase, does the base one on the Msi project just wanted to show you results. You can see the lining of the pipe on the left in in the before lining, and you can see the deteriorated concrete. You can even see some of the reinforcing material, seeing reinforcing material on a concrete pipe is not a good thing. So we went through, and it accelerated that project, and you can see then, on shoes on the right. The afterlining photo. And what we did is we came in with the aligning material. Basically, we blew up a balloon, cured that balloon in place. And now we have it structurally sound pipe within the pipe and with minimal reduction in capacity. But certainly we're able to get an interest. Those

[116:14] areas of concern quickly. And now like to talk about the phosphorus project at at the work. So this is a regulatory driven project, and and it allows the city to capitalize on the voluntary incentive program offered by the State to reduce phosphorus from where to bold or create the project. Role. Also opportunist opportunistically address aging infrastructure with several areas that we're identified in. We're currently working with the engineers in the contract on this and the design team on the 90% construction plan. We anticipate finalizing, finalizing, pricing in the next few months with construction to start in late 24.

[117:05] And now I'd like to pivot to A few projects in the storm, water and flood utility These facilities are needed to help manage the storm water and flood events. As we discussed earlier this evening, the first project. This is softball concrete project. It's completed the 30% design and currently progressing with the 60% design. The construction estimate for the project is the same as last year. It's 63 million dollars. I'll break that construction on processing down a little further in the next slide I have to be working on the 60% decide this design. It includes permitting and stakeholder from coordination structure of the project is scheduled to be in late 1, 24. What to? In. So now, looking at the cost on the south folder Greek design, as I mentioned that 60% design is a near. It's completion in that 30% design. We did account for inflation and design changes. So there there use room for cost adjustments with our current budget.

[118:13] we also addressing funding issues in the storm of what utility this last year, C. I. P. This project was combined with the upper bootstorm and flood fire projects. So what we've done is we decouple those 2 from a bonding perspective. so just. And that was more around the timing on how quickly we could advance the Upper Boost Screen project and delayed that one more particularly with the mitigation plan that was just recently approved. But what that does is that helps with the the 6 bonding capacity in the smart with flood utility. And so we're looking to schedule that bonding in probably mid 24. But that's really in conjunction with the construction approval process funding process. We can tie those 2 to this one specific project more closely.

[119:11] And now I'd like to just touch base on the Upper Goose Creek, storm one on Flood Project and this this completes flood mitigation and one of the reach it reaches of the recently approved communication plan for the upper through Scream and and 2 Mile Creek system. The other portion of the project upsizes and rehabilitate storm water facilities in the upper portions of at the discrete drainage. These projects were identified as top priority projects in the 2,016 Stone Water Master Plan. The projects are identified in the 2 figures to the right, and are generally the ones that are circled in red. But we're still finalizing the exact The exact prop projects within that. This. And and really a key with this project is that identifies how storm water, thinking the pipes in the system and the flood projects, thinking the creeks are interrelated, and how we need to address improvements in this method.

[120:11] And then, lastly, I would just like to touch base on a few projects that we're advancing in conjunction with other other departments. Most of these projects are related to this. so the the the list kind of shows some of those projects and just highlighting. I 2 aspects of that. And it's really related to this photo that shows the localized flooding from the Upper Goose Crete drainage from earlier this month. So in in there is the Western City campus, which is in the upper right hand portion of the project, and then also a North Boulder Park, which is in the the lower portion of this figure. And it just really as we're moving these projects forward from a storm drainage perspective. But we're also working with Parks

[121:02] in in the North Boulder Park area, and then really, the the along with the city station on that on the Western campus in the outline Balson area. So with that, that is the discussion on the project. Now, I'm going to hand it over to Krista Bill to discuss some of the financial aspects before Chris starts. I might want to just jump in for a second, and I know that we're quite a bit behind on on time. I hopefully, you're okay to keep going. We'll we'll try to manage the pace a little bit, but we didn't have a main meeting, and it's one of the most important things important for us. Well, hopefully, not that bad. Thanks for that. So I've been introduced a few times before the record Kristyville, Deputy Director of Operations. And yeah, I appreciate your interest. And like Joe said, this is really important. So I have about 10 slides that I wanted to highlight as a fortune to deliver the news tonight, and consistent Joe's message about Graham Clark. All this is his material that he prepared and but I had the privilege of working closely with Graham as a lot of our team.

[122:13] and so I certainly don't think that all of this knowledge and expertise here, but I think I can do an honorable job if something comes up that we can dress or I can't speak to absolutely find a way to circle back. So you, okay, keep driving the slides for me. Okay, so we don't screen share and get caught into that. Okay? So as a reminder. Last year we shared with rap our 2 year plan for bonding to find several large critical needs within the water and waste water utilities. And if if you would allow me, I'm gonna make sure I don't lose some of the essential information will be a little less personal. I want to just make sure I hit all the highlights here, looking at my notes so last year as a reminder, and and for education for for Lauren

[123:02] we did bond for 47 million dollars, and that was achieved with this bond rating of triple a so standard and Poor's was able to give us that bond rating for. And I quote holders forward looking capital plan to address firm water supply and aging infrastructure, long term, financial planning, cyber standards as well as emergency response policies to strengthen systems, risk resiliency. And that bond interest rate. We got last year was 3.6 6% So this year, in fourth quarter, we do plan to bond for additional priority needs and water, waste water, and the table on the slide here represents about 70 million dollars and priority waste water utility needs. And then the balance of about 20 million dollars is in the water fund. So one item to note here this figure of 91 million dollars. It is significant. but it is is actually less than the value we shared in the memo. In the memory you might have read a value closer to 100 million dollars or 99 million. The difference here is, that is 8 million dollars which that was. That's a a placeholder for infrastructure upgrades related to the Spring Valley neighborhood, which is at the base of the foot hills near lived in so Spring Valley they desire to annex into the city, and they've submitted an annexation. Application

[124:28] and discussions and decisions are ongoing with the city in Spring Valley. there's still a lot of important aspects to to discuss and sort out. But the concept that's moving forward that we want to share with you is that for the city to basically finance be the bank for for this annexation process. for the infrastructure improvements. But Spring Valley. The plan is that they will pay back all, all expenses for this this activity, of course, principal interest in any other related costs, such as consultants, contractors, etc.

[125:02] So it's a little bit of an interesting way to go here, and still lots to be discussed. But that's that's the reason for the difference. So the costs for Spring Valley were recently included in that fourth quarter bond. preliminary estimate, but really due to uncertainty with the details of the timing. Those costs have now been removed from what you've seen tonight and the final decisions will be made about Spring Valley, independent of of this table and these these priorities. Essentially this bond and these priorities need to continue. There's too much ambiguity right now a lot about Spring Valley. So just wanted to clarify that. And one last comment on bonding it's due to the Enterprise Fund status and framework established under the State of Colorado. so water and waste water bonds can be issued together, but on funding for the needs in the storm, water and flood, utility must be separate from water and as far and cannot be

[126:02] vision, we're next slide. Thank you. So as we move over to rates I'll note that in last year's financial planning. Our 2,024 projections at that time included a 6% water increase increase the 5% way for our increase. And we showed you a 12% or more flood until we increase. So the rates before you tonight are higher in water and waste water and lower in the storm flight, utility for 2024 main reason behind the higher recommended rates for water and waste water is really inflationary pressures. The cost for seeing, for for projects. The main reason behind the reduced rate and storm and flood is, as Chris mentioned earlier, decoupling the upper goose work from the South Border Creek bond. that gives us an ability to smooth out those rates further. that that's that's that we calculated as necessary. So it's there

[127:07] right next slide. Chris. We've shown you this in the past. We still think it's relevant. This is just an example of our, you know, typical single family residential customer and the bill impact. There you go. There we go. Thank you. So you'll see here, we're calculating right around $10 per month as a bill impact which is about 8.4% over their current current bill for a single family residential customer. So, anticipating question, you may inquire. did you have this $10 target and the cip to drive towards that? No team did conduct a series of detailed sessions internally to really wrestle with and determine priorities with the metrics and criteria that Chris shared establishing critical needs within each fund in each utility area, and then that work was ultimately combined. And and that's the C. I. P. The 6 year cp. That now was shown and shared tonight.

[128:11] So the rates were calculated to obtain the necessary revenue to advance this work. It just happened to fall right around $10 a month. Other customer classes like multi-family commercial. We anticipate the rate increase percentages to be near this 8.4, but not exactly. And in July, if desired, we can share some more specifics on some of those important customers. Next slide. Chris. Okay, I'll turn it. Alternative funding. Yeah, yeah. Sorry I got to advance alright. So at the request of wrap. And we've heard this over the years. you utilities has really taken serious ability to seek out alternative funding with sermon discretion. We don't chase every opportunity, but we really do try to be mindful of where where we can have a high probability of obtaining some some funding assistance.

[129:08] And so we are in the process of applying for federally funded that are made available to the State revolving fund program. Previously, our missile bond rate, really out, competed the Srf. but recently we've become aware that the Srf is really an attractive option for us. Currently. So this long standing program that finances, design and construction of water and waste water infrastructure. It's administered by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the Department of Local Affairs or Dola, and lastly, also the Colorado water resources and Power Development authority. So the bipartisan infrastructure law of 2,021 effectively replenish this funding and the city did initially submit. for 3 projects last year. and so based on the high level of interest for this funding and competition from other entities. Not just boulder The the board did decide to limit the number of eligible projects to one per fund

[130:10] and they also, determined that cap of 18 million dollars for waste water projects. So after careful consideration the city staff did, they decided to pursue the Srf loan for the phosphorus upgrades project that you've been hearing about. So up to 3 million dollars of the 18 is eligible for even a lower interest rate for what is called a Green Project reserve. And this reserve fund. some of this funding this sort of program funding to projects that include sustainable components. including elements like water efficiency, green infrastructure and energy efficiency. And the good news is the city has received approval for this reserve due to the low energy treatment approach that is planning to be used in the phosphorus upgrades project.

[131:01] And so we will be taking advantage of this 3 million dollar additional reduction in loan loan. That percentage the city will be finding out in August. how much of the additional funding we're able to to obtain the the balance of the 15 million dollars, and what the what the actual interest rates are. so The last bit of information here is ending all these decisions, we will. The last bit of information we'll learn is the amount of loan forgiveness. So they have identified up to 1.5 million dollars in actual Loan forgiveness so cumulatively. This is a very good story, and we're excited to to be receiving this news, and the team has worked hard to to bring this forward in the interest of our our community. And just to note here Graham did the calculations. The screen project reserved award is anticipated to to save about $700,000 over the 20 year funding cycle. So real, real, tangible benefits for us.

[132:06] Just a quick note here on the billing assistance programs. We believe this is important to lift up the photo you see in the background. We just thought we'd have a fun moment. This is the city's first reservoir, built in 1,875, known as City Reservoir number one. So it's located near modern day People's Crossing Park west of Pearl, and and kind of a Jason. So anyways, just a flashback for for all time sake. So regarding the billing assistance we did want to just mention, we're using a targeted approach that allows us to assist those who need it. While still generating the revenue through rate increases to keep up with the vast needs that we have in the utility. So as a reminder, the city did receive $400,000 in arc of funding, and we spent a little over half of that right now, reimbursing customers in need. So

[133:02] now the last series of slides. I'll try to go quick here, Gordon. We credit you with some pre conversation about your interested fund financials, and and do agree that maybe the rest of the board would benefit from kind of a fun financial 101. So I'll kind of hit this quickly. we we tend to focus on the cip tables and the projects. But the fun financials are really, really what matters and and how we can assure that we're able to pay for all this. so the overall balance sheets are fairly simple. Math to to understand? And you know, we have a fund balance. We start with. we have additional revenue. That's oh. identified. And then we have all the uses. and we basically have a fund balance before reserves. And that fun balance before reserves becomes the next year's starting fund balance essentially right? and our overarching bottom line here is that we can set a reserve amount.

[134:01] but the the ending fund balance after reserves has to be positive. So that, that's that's really like the guiding launch right here. So on these next 3 sides. I'll just try to step through a few highlights that maybe you weren't privy to or didn't understand previously. So I'm going to use the the water fund. As an example, I'm looking at 2024 specifically. So, we have a beginning fund balance of about 47 million dollars. So the biggest source of it of revenue is our monthly customer billing. So you see that represented here with the 36 million dollars. the the line called projected rate increase. So that's additional revenue. Assuming that the read, the recommended rate increases. are are approved by city council eventually. and so that's showing you representing an extra 3 million dollars in revenue and the next largest category here is what we refer to as plain investment fees. So that's shown here a little further down at 3.4 million dollars.

[135:04] Really, those are development fees, either development or annexation. And that's for these new new customers, new folks to pay for their portion of the built infrastructure in the city. So they're they're really buying into this for the great system we have here. And then at the very bottom we have a row for bond proceeds. So you can see. in 2,022 we have 32 million dollars listed in 2,023. We have 18 million dollars listed. that that's anticipating proceeds for the fourth quarter bond that we, you know plan to do here. and then 2024. There's nothing listed. We don't anticipate. Bond proceeds in the water fund in 2,024. That's why that's playing next slide. Chris. So these are our uses or basic expenditures. We have 4 major categories operating debt transfers and capital. so everything from our day to day expenses, and then again representing all of our debt, our existing bonds that we're already paying back. And then we do see a new line item here with with anticipation of starting to pay back the fourth quarter. 2023 bond in 2024 with a new new line item.

[136:17] So that's shown here is a 1.4 million dollar new debt service starting next year. transfers. These are for internal service support. there's a there's some a row titled cost allocation. So that's really all of our per important internal services, like information technology. Hr, it's basically all the support that we need to run it, run a utility. But these are folks living in other departments. So this is our utilities portion of of paying for that and then the capital item here should match for Beta the 6 year capital C. I. P. Value that's showing in the C IP. Tables

[137:00] last one so reserves. So again I mentioned, we have the the the ending fund balance before reserve. So 29 million. And then we have a bunch of reserves listed out here. so maybe just leave these for questions. We can talk through any of these as needed. Then we have a final fund balance after reserves. So our assumption here is that in any given year we could spend all of these reserves and that that's our attitude in our our approach. Fortunately, most years, we don't spend any of them. they really are to be touched only when needed only for these dedicated uses. So may ask, why is this, why do we have any money left? Why not drive the the ending fund balance down to 0? And the real answer for that is through the strategic plan over time, we need to build up a fund balance. So then, our individual year rate increase is overly significant. We've we've mentioned this in the past we try to smooth out, the rate increases. If we drove the the fund balance to 0 every year, we would have to really spike an individual years reading. So we we think that's the wise, proper way.

[138:11] So that's it. we're going to turn it back over to you for questions. and did want to emphasize. We have Kevin, Clark, Steven Grooters, Chris Olson, and Brandon Coleman ready to help if we have some specific a program or project questions that that Chris or I can't answer. So. and before before the board members jump in, that might just say, Hey, long presentation longer meeting that normally, we're done with almost every month. so appreciate you very. With us. This is an important vote, and this is the one where we really want to get your feedback and and have a good, a good idea of where your where you stand on the cip and come back next month and ask. so if you have major concerns or or

[139:06] your work goes on. hey? Questions for you board this we already what what kind of information is there available. like the aww, or something like that, in terms of comparable rate, increase numbers or cities that are similar, or. you know, some age of infrastructure, similar demographics, or whatever. How do we kind of stack up? I think I saw an asp thing that I indicate that it might be a little bit above. How do we kind of stack up these to be our peers? Yeah. I don't have any fresh or current survey data or benchmarking data for you, Steve, going forward. But I believe that when we've done that, we find we're generally in the middle some communities definitely tend to go with low on rates any given year, but then have to have the spikes like we commented on just a few months ago. So

[140:09] yeah, that that's a generic answer. But that's we. If you'd like a more recent peer survey, we could, we could. And we and we did do some of that Steve and last year's presentation, I believe, and and we were in that upper middle range, and certainly share more that it information. I don't think we have an update from last year's numbers as that in that comparison. and we do pay attention to how we track versus various cost industry, indices and inflation. And we're trending reasonably well with that. And we try to look. I mean, we've got the aim project where we're really getting in the management of our systems and evaluate the asset management perspective and bring that into this we also look a big picture and are trying to learn from others, and the industry of like

[141:02] for a city of our age. What should we be reinvesting in our infrastructure here, and kind of have some checks and balances that that is useful information, though. see, you know, where are we tracking relative to our peers? Is we. you know, suggest or recommend. These types of rate increases. And then what? So what are our average residential household rates? And how do they stack up for our peers? And then also an idea of the incremental annual rate increases, and our we higher and lower kind of tracking with the norm. So just as a kind of piece of contextual information that could be helpful. Thanks for those comments I I know. Often in July we will show where Boulder is on the on the range, in terms of like the the dollar amount for the bills. We can do that again, of course, and and I believe, prepared to do that. But specifically to this comment about the rate increases specifically. we can, we can try to bring some of that information forward.

[142:09] I I do. have a recent table of the construction cost index which which we tend to to look at and and benchmark from occasionally. so last year for 2022, if I'm looking at the right value for for Denver. Area 7.2. What's the individual year construction cost index for you mentioned that you're now escalating to time of expenditure for your capital improvement projects. Now, I was wondering what the you know what that escalation is that you're applying, is it? Next 5 years a certain amount, then it changes, or is it just? And and at this point we across all utilities in the Cfp, we're paying 4% costs annual cost inflation back. And really, that's even more Chris, talking about just here recently, is, you know, in the last few years we've seen some some significant spikes. But then it's normalizing over

[143:07] the last 12 years. It's more one lines of about a 3% rate increase over the last 4 years for you. But you've seen this significant jump in just in the last few trying to normalize that a little bit in there. how much project is going to cost us. And that same concept going normally. It's too. It's the highest annual percentage increase we've ever gone actually have a have some values I can. I can share. I know, looking at waste water fund. More recently. looks like, yeah. In 2,015 post flood. We did a 30% rate increase in waste water. and then one year, Joe, if correct me, if I'm wrong, we ended up with a 75% rate increase for for this form plug utility.

[144:05] and for a single year that warrant some explanation. So that was after the 2,013 and the realization that our wastewater collection system was taking in a bunch of rainwater pressurizing system. And we had a similar back. Yeah? And we actually went to. We went through this very budget process with Rabbit City Council. and and there were just so many concerns about the fun issues and and the effects on the waste water system that Council. This doesn't seem like a high increase, and they asked us to come back with something significantly. and probably at that time the storm water in annual monthly fee is very low, so proportion, for sure. that's that's not something we expect to repeat frequently.

[145:05] I can do a quick screen share. This is slightly outdated by a few years, but it it speaks to the general question the way for our utility only it's the longer range about 30 year trend of where the rate increases have gone. So this is showing twice in 20 years. We have 0% rate increase or excuse me in 30 years. And then the 30% I mentioned we had back to back 20% increases in the 2,005, 2,006 timeframe. Just an example. We we have all we have trends. And in some ways like this for all. Oh. yeah. And I'm looking for an okay button. That's did I

[146:10] no more questions. Right? I I had a clarify question from some of the cost tables that are in our packet for the water funds. and I don't know if you can pull that out. or this the C. I here, the fun financial of the C. I. P. It was actually on age. page 1225. One questions.

[147:01] We can find it. Yes. The C IP document. So you're on page. Well. speed scrolling the waterfront financials? No, the the table below that table will also have on the cip itself. Okay, yeah. At the bottom of the table. yes. The treated water transmission system and system study and our our program working 1 million. Could you describe what correct that? That 14 million is that 60 Third Street pipeline inflation project that I talked about earlier in the discussion that's really coming from the diagonal highway to about on J road along 63 and that. And and really what what this is is from the transmission. So you can see along. All of that is the advancement of what is the significant transmission, the larger pipe,

[148:11] upsizing projects. So we're trying to start advancing those projects consistently the next portions of the cip. So you'll see numbers similar to what's in that line. Item for quite a while. Yes, I was looking for a correlation of terminology of your names. If I could just note this. yeah, no, it's really this is really important. The the word studies in here, because this is just by tile trying to tie it back to the 2,019 transmission study. That was a really tense significant effort that evaluated and then determined the priorities from a system perspective. Now, this is implementation. It's just suggestion to avoid other confusion like I had. You may want to actually call it something like the Red Street pipeline, because that's how you described it in the narrative. You know just about. It means your way to correlate

[149:10] in in certain way. If I were to, in our working, expand, that for several projects related to all of those numbers from trying to. Really, at this point, it's it's really a starting, a transmission replacement program. And and and and it's certainly we can. We can up, upgrade the title, and virtually in the narrative text that precedes tables. put that in parentheses somehow, so one that might be the easiest way to go certainly can do that. My question on the next page of this, in a meeting at the middle of the page, under the source border, as wars and outward facilities. Parker war system. for this year, 19.2 million. I noticed in the Executive. Sorry in the narrative on page 5 it said the Barker Dam outlet works rehab would be 13 million in 2024. But this says 19. And and that's again, it's a combined, because there's also in that category. It is. It's the Parker dam work plus or for and pipeline work.

[150:11] So we should look at event. And in that in the presentation. We really want several projects in there, because there's the out what it works with just the 13 million. And then, roughly, this 5 million dollars a year to keep, continue, or to work on the park or gravity. I plan from Barker Reservoir to Castle Plant, and then you've got what is a large spike in 2,829, which is that I am. So that the so it's that. How do we present it? Summarize in a table versus transferring information. Can I add some more clarity there? I just. I noticed that I I appreciated the the financials one to one and I I know that you talked about keeping that enterprise from above.

[151:07] you know, in the black, so that you can all the some of those rate shocks. but the the that fund in the next 6 years is in for most of, you know, for water and wastewater. and in the their recent credit rating there was reference to how some of these investments, maybe putting screen on and the financials for the city and so I just wondered about any strategies or thoughts that Staff had on. It's it's this, of course, maybe a question for granted part. But just is that Enterprise fund is decreasing a bit. that'd be a great question, for no, I I think I do understand the spirit of it. I so I've been with the city now for 15 years, and I think

[152:00] I've seen this this trend of the fund balance accumulating, going up, going up, and then kind of ebbing, and then flowing down, down, down. And and this kind of intentional oscillation and this dance between the major bonds. the appropriate rate swinging and just yeah, always keeping that bottom balance above 0. I think, with with the stated reserves that are listed here. and again, happy to answer any questions on specific line items. There. there's been the feeling like we have enough. We're managing the risk. And we're we're within our financial guidance that either central budget or outside entities would but have strong feelings about. I would welcome different perspective if you have some insights that we haven't heard. And and certainly, Amy, looking at this one here, is pulling up the fun financial water system with Christine going to this details. But you look and

[153:00] got 2026. We do see a low point in that fund financial. So that's we're again trying to balance projects. Balance rate increases to not have that and and balance balance borrowing as well. And so that's that that and flow, that we're trying to to to continue to work. Certainly from a borrowing perspective. It's the we're we go on the same to get another gram perspective is that ratio of our operating expenses to our debt and trying to maintain that number where it's storm flight. Utility has in some of the older bonds has a limit to that, whereas we're above. And that's a 1.5 to there, and the water for the water and waste water function actually is significantly higher than that. We have more. We could go advance more on our capacity to keep those numbers up. So average is starting up correct. All of that is something that we pay really close attention to and and

[154:03] expect our leading financial person in utilities to pay close attention to. We do have 2 positions that support that part of it. And so we can also follow up and go back and look at the specifics. But the natural up and down that that is. that is I want we can come back with. I know the city's. I think it's one of our efficiency plan this year. All the new conservation programs I just has that does that come into plain discussion in terms of future revenue? We expect significant changes in revenue because of that, or that's what that discussions like, I might say for that. definitely looking at the conservation program and and thinking of adding to the

[155:01] expenditures to help things like turf replacements for the community and things like that. And between the efficiency plan goals and some of our other water policy discussions. It is entirely possible that we can avoid some major capital in the future, which is where and and I think is the efficiency plan gets detailed out. We're going to have some of that financial information in there for you to look at. Yeah, I could see that coming forward and being more visible on that one other just competing comment that, I think, is relevant to John, and board is. I think, go looking over the years we, our ratio of the volumetric charges versus the fixed charges was significantly swayed towards the the. The sale of water volume, metric charges we have not, you know, made them equivalent. But we've been discussing and then making small changes, such that there is a a larger fixed charge and less of a dependence on on the multi metric charges, just as a more

[156:09] modern best practice to not be so dependent on just the sale of water. There's a factor in the let you like this. Other other city departments are under financial pressure when there's a recession or something. ours, ours is more triggered by for certification patterns. and part of the reason we have established some of the reserves that you saw is to be able to manage those ups and downs. It's specific project question. So the Goose Creek up to 2 or 2 mile candy Greek plan that we approved at City Council voted for. The total was 44 million. and this I know in here is storm, water and flood, and I saw that breakdown. That was 4 million flood

[157:07] the 13. And I think storm water. So I was just curious how those connect looks like 3, 6 is that part of the flood, but it's reach one and 2. Also the part of the flight mitigation plan or reach one and 2 is not a part of the that so reach reach. One is related to work around a North Walter park and then reach 2 is related to work around the western campus in the Alpine also area. So we're looking at is really the Alpine. All some work, and in both of those are more tied to the those inner departmental projects that we're discussing. And so that's that's where, though, that funding gets driven more by by those projects than specifically out of the storm flight utility. At this point you have a component that goes into it, but it's not the focus of the current cip project.

[158:12] So you'd have to come back later to do the or we would do those in can right now, or if the doing reach to in conjunction with the out by boss project. So they they're having to do that call and ask the city being the developer, having to with those facilities in as a part of that greater facility project for reach. One is certainly something that we're still evaluating. We're we're the right place to fit it in. You might have to come back later and address that reach one project as a part of more of the Cms priority. Yeah, if I can support what Chris just said it it. It was a fine point, and Brandon Vicki had so much to cover. They they didn't get to this, but in in your memo

[159:02] there was actually the the list of 36 reaches. There was a double asterisk flagged, and so goose one and 2 did did obtain that, like Chris just mentioned, because of these other strong departmental drivers. Of those those are likely to get some some attention in progress. kind of out of sequence of just the utilities view, if if that other work wasn't going on so. But but I guess to answer at least. What I heard is the initial comment, John, about the the 44 million dollar upper goose value. and that that is for I'll produce one through 6, 6, if it was done as one whole project. But I guess the yeah sharing your time. One takeaway is because of circumstance, and we we tend to agree with it I produce doesn't feel like it's going to be one whole project. It feels like it might be phased and segmented.

[160:02] That's correct. I have a series of questions on also on the Stormwater especially for 2024. I don't want to monopolize the maybe I'll ask a few then. Oh. if if you wouldn't mind bringing us the the spreadsheet are are being packed again. on financial packet. Yes, the cip part of it. There we go. There we go. There we go.

[161:02] So so the vast majority, almost all of the 2,024 budget request is for the the South Border Creek Project and Associated Costs. And so my, my first questions are, where did the 51 million dollars come from? If the 51 million dollars is the the flood project portion of the South Pole, the free project. just the flood. Where? Where? Where would one find that that is, in the 30% design information. This is based out of that. And then the other component is this 12 million dollars which we're coming, the land back position, the mitigation portion of the project. So that's combined. We're in the summary information. We're brought up both into the 6, the current and I certainly can break out that 12. No, you. if you'd like me to look like we did in the for a while on the on the presentation. But we got 4 million of that is for some

[162:09] our Earth work, and then we have an additional 3 million for purchase of what is the open space. Other land which is the general. That's the 119 acres from the So you sell annexation agreement. And then there's an additional 5 million dollars for the Restoration's work that needs to be done for that land purchase. So that's what we get with dollars and what is land acquisition and mitigation? Good. thanks for that. In in the in the 30% design report, there's a line item for I think environmental restoration. And that number is 3.5 million. And I'm and maybe I'm gonna hand that one over to brand new piece online.

[163:00] But that could be a follow up you could. It's it. It looks like Brandon is is here. And if you want to go ahead and unmute yourself here. Yeah. So the the 3 million of environmental restoration that's included in the cost estimate for the project is based strictly on Federal environmental mitigation offset ratios, and then the additional environmental restoration is for restoration of the oso to meet the open space board of trustees request for disposal with that agreement. So they are 2 separate tasks, and not being double counted. I can Brandon and So the these 63 million dollars shown of those 2 line items is recommended for approval in 2,024. I'm curious. What is the status? I'm aware that there are a number of both Federal and State permits that are required to be approved by those agencies.

[164:10] It's like, what is the status of those permits in terms of this? 40, 2421 got it? And and I'm gonna go ahead and hand you back. They're they're in progress, and the timing is can junk is in conjunction with the it. The financial implications for printing a little more detail on that. yeah, we've been working with the Army core of Engineers for our 4 or 4 clean water permit, and through that process we consult with us fish and wildlife. So we've had a preliminary meeting with us fish and wildlife, and are getting ready to submit our draft biological assessment to the core to be submitted to fish and wildlife. We've also submitted for a special use permit with C. Dot. and I have had a it's called a field inspection review meeting with c.so around the 30% design stage. So we've gotten the initial comments from c.as well, and then the intent would be after the completion of our 60% design. We would submit to Boulder County, City of Boulder and also Fema, for our floodplain development permits, and that'd be a clomer

[165:17] conditional letter of map revision with fema, and then, just a floodplain development permit with the city and also Boulder County. I I would add to what Brandon said, that this is the part of the utility that I started my career in managing these projects and for for a project. That's this far out. I think we're reasonably well positioned for the permit and the approvals that we need. So I I assume that might be behind the questions, how much risk is there that there'd be a delay of that nature? And we will carefully monitor that as we, as we continue to move forward. But right now things are looking.

[166:00] Thank you for that context. Actually, my, my questions were going to slightly different direction. And if you would mind pulling up that schedule again, just so, we can kind of look at the the columns of each year. From what I understand, the the proposed schedule is that the permits would be approved. and and then, construction would start late in 2,024. I think you might be convention that in your yes. and so I'm wondering in terms of the timing on that. It seems like if if the schedule holds the the construction and the costs needed the bonds to pay for the construction. not much of that would probably be needed than 2024 and so I'm I'm wondering if question this entire bond amount is premature for 2,024, and it would make more sense to split it into some amount in 2,024, and then maybe the bulk of it in 2,025.

[167:05] 1. One line of thinking on that is a the schedule if there are delays, and I know that since you can't share funds from the storm water enterprise to the other ones. it sort of starts to plot ticking 2,024, and if there are delays, you know an expected delays that that might potentially affect your ability to spend the money. But then, secondly, this number is based on the 30% design. which is a conceptual level design. So there's a a reasonable amount of of uncertainty in that number. And I'm I'm aware that from the schedule that the 60% design of where it's coming up this fall sometime. And I I understand that that the cost has to be much more refined at that time. And so that would be a second reason to consider breaking this bond amount into 2 years. because this year we could recommend a certain amount that would certainly cover the remainder of the engineering piece, the design fees, and some amount of construction. If if it were to occur but then a second bond we'd have much more accurate numbers

[168:09] on which test me. because more than likely, because of the cost escalations, even though I understand that you have factored in that in your cost to estimate chances are that that it won't be a 63 million dollar cost, it'll be something. Not that, and more likely it will be more. And so. So if we were to approve, recommend approval for this right now. It seems quite possible that you'd have to come back in a later time to ask for more than 4 5 money sort of fill up the rest of what will be the cost at that time. So hence another reason to consider breaking it into 2 parts at this juncture. so I might want to jump in on that, and and Chris and Chris don't have the benefit of the conversation I had with Graham on Friday about this, and he reminded me that it has been our practice when we do major capital improvement projects, and we go out to bid the contractors find it really important that you have all of the money in hand. And and so that has been our flat practice. We're planning it that way.

[169:18] as we get closer to the timing. If the schedule should slip or something, we could delay, sale the bonds to give ourselves the maximum benefit for the time window that we have to complete a bonded project under. And then the other thing I would say and invite others to weigh in is that as we go through the design process and our design to get further refined. There's a contingency that's built in for unknown things, and that is much larger at a lesser scale of design completion. So 30% design, it might be a 40% contingency or something like that. When it gets to 60, we know more. We have a details out from there, so it might drop down to 25. And then when we get to the 90% and get getting ready to bid

[170:11] it. It goes down to 10 or 15%. And so the overall numbers, I mean, they they can. And they do change. And there's things out of our control like inflation. But in theory we're accounting for that as we go. And then, and really a few like some other points, Gordon, where you had talked about to be able to get us through that process. We've actually already allocated the funds for the design portion of the project that was completed in previous previous cips. So we're we're comfortable in moving forward with that aspect where it does allow us to think about a bond right now, what is the plan later, in the end of 2,024 construction timeframe, that it's

[171:01] late third quarter, early fourth quarter to be to to looking at the bonding. So we have that timing and flexibility to come back and related to if there are, if we do see some cost changes. So looking at starting construction, December of 2024. Right now, as we're looking at, we're not looking at early 24 of going out and doing our model any of our bond work, so we can. We're planning on time on timing to happen just ahead of that construction schedule. So if we were to encounter some delays, we have some flexibility on that, too. and also there is additional bonding capacity within utility, since Standalone utility. By that we talked about earlier decoupling of South Boulder Creek from the Upper Goose Creek to 2 Mile Project that we're going to have to pot now in one in for the 2,006 construction.

[172:04] So we have flexibility. And and I think that's probably the the bigger message with with, with that funding comes from. We we put together a a good plan, and and then we can adjust to us, if need be. And I understand that the timing on the the first line item there at the 51 million for that project. How about the timing on the land? Acquisition? Mitigation seems like that would occur towards the end of construction. And so again, I'm thinking. would there be a way to push that off. because ultimately, where I'm going with this is the 67 million dollars. The bottom line here on this table represents a pretty healthy amount on. and that that undoubtedly has some bearing on the storm overflow rate decrease for this coming year.

[173:02] And so I'm thinking, if there's a way to, to split part of that, to delay part of that in the later years it would reduce bond for this year, and presumably then lower the need for such a high rate increase this year. So I I can jump in on that as well. And we're working through the project schedule and some of those acquisitions are university assets that will change hands to the city like plan and water rights. And so that is anticipated to occur at the time that we have all of the approvals, and we're ready to go to bid, and some of the permitting agencies require us to demonstrate that we own the land and and have rights to it. So there's really not flexibility in that timing. It's a good suggestion, but probably not one that we can real realistically entertain. although well, that's the 4 billion of the 12. I understand that. Right?

[174:04] No, that's 3 million to the 12. And so it looks like roughly, 9 million of the 12 would be her work and restoration, which which wouldn't happen right away, I would imagine. And and that's that's that birth for component you really is tied into the early stages on the construction of getting there. So you know, there certainly is in some of those restoration dollars happening earlier in the contract. And again, it's just on the philosophy of as we can. It's securing the funds at the time of big got it for for that, that surety and comfort on the on the contract and community. It is really the general production. And huh. yeah, I and I'd like to just put a point on that. The Restoration and the and excavation fill whatever it is. Those are components of the construction.

[175:04] We don't. I mean that that needs to be part of the money that we have, and when we start the project we don't break it out like that and and face it like that. I'm just mindful of The storm water utility rate increases in the last 3 years it's been 12%. And this year's proposes 10. So that's that that really starts to add up. And I'm even though I've been a an advocate and proponent of it increases so we can catch up on on our our infrastructure and and even storm water, flood mitigation efforts. It's just feeling like that's that's all cumulative high cost. And I'm just seeking ways if we can, if we can lower that on the cost for the shooting. That's that up coming from. Yeah, for sure. We're we're thinking about that, too, and we're trying to balance that with the next needs. And then and the master plan that

[176:00] it went through last year. The the message there was again. One of the themes was. Do more fun, more do it faster. And and really it's a rare master plan where the Okay Vision Plan funding there was an appetite for it. So it's a balancing that we all have to do. One other comment. I'll I'll make that, I think, related to the theme. What's on the table is? We saw the list. That was 36, you know, individual items. But I don't think any of us think we're gonna do 36 separate projects. because a lot of those will circumstantially probably be groups or or organize such that, you know we'll mobilize and and combine them. And there'll be a lesser number of projects overall. I think that's the some assumption there, though we haven't really done that work yet. It's just the reality. I would like to go. so we're hoping to start stepping our way through that. And the needs are are there?

[177:10] The point we made in the memo, but didn't reinforce it. There are other drainages that we do not have mitigation plans for yet. so as those those the ma the mapping gets done and mitigation plans get done. There will be other other needs jumping on that list. So just to reinforce the needs are fast. So it's it's not just that list of 36. There's actually other other needs that are not represented because of the fact that we don't have a mitigation plan. Other questions from the board. You go through the details of the to the 36 that that was the threshold we should order the pizza.

[178:00] I I have another question. Then I'm stepping off of of this table. I believe in our April, we think, or perhaps today, not meeting is less than April meeting phone the the information packet we got indicated that there was a plans of higher 5 full time equivalents in utilities, and I don't remember which enterprise it was. I apologize for that. But my question is. where would we see the 5 fts in in the Financials? Or how how could we deduce like Uha? This went up because 5 of us are looking at it. I don't know if that granularity would be shown here and in the fun financial. So just just for total transparency and under in the fund financials under the use of funds category and the operating so category. I mean that that's where that's where salaries and benefits are are included. Yeah, that that's an operating. And and again, going back to their original

[179:04] discussion tonight. And one of the questions that was asked that operating is is not part of rams per view. It's the C. I. P. Is capital projects, but happy to answer questions. Chris, and I think stumbled on to the specific answer, though, age 17, of the memo under under operating like we just discussed. there, there is a a, a, a, a line item for new flood team, that if the team so I think that speaks to the 5 fts in the flood crew to do increased maintenance of the the flood and drainage. If there's more to that, can we actually on the funnel that we didn't need to use going forward in the future to for some of that. So it's not necessarily an increase every time we add an ft. Sometimes just re prioritize.

[180:07] Well, thanks. Any other questions from the board. Yeah. Okay, cool. thank you. Joe, and Chris and Chris and Brandon by phone for for sure. And it it is a lot to digest and kind of because of the the new June team holiday. We end up with a press timeframe between June and July. so would offer that if the Board members would like one on one meetings with us to go over. If you're wrestling with anything happy to do that happy to talk about the schedule of the July meeting. If you if we need to bump it a week, we could consider that I'll go, and then it gets into board number, availability, and chances are the house, the whole house, the current falls.

[181:06] So whatever whatever we need to do to be responsive to the Board's needs ideally we, we would be working for a positive vote on that cip. So if you don't feel like you have the information and have concerns. let's continue to discuss it. And so are you suggesting, Joe, that those discussions should occur prior to the July meeting? They can. If if you just need more. you want to dig more into the details. If you're struggling to understand any detail, reach out, and we'd be happy to talk with them. What we want to be transparent, and then provide all the information to the public as well. And we could. We could summarize that in the July meeting. what would happen? I'd like to conclude this agenda item. and thank you all for your time and diligence all your prep work and really showed.

[182:08] we move on out to the next agenda I am, which is matters to the board. I had several, but because the hour only right up from 2 one of them is the status of the funds for the first There was notable in the daily camera not too long ago, talking about the not essential graphs and The funds were available or potential. Just curious about the status of that. If if those funds are still available for the public. Yeah, there's a, there is information on the website about those programs. And there is, there is funding available.

[183:07] Yeah, there's not a ton in it. And it typically against thought after and and used up quickly. I do know that that has been recently enhanced by state phones. I can't remember the dollar value 20 additional budgets. Yeah. Yeah. And so I I recall that I replied to an email that a customer had that had been sent to rap not too long ago. I'll see if I can find that. Because I it, it explained with Yeah. oh, and then the the other I don't know. I would like to bring up briefly, is, I'm sure you all got this the newsletter from the utility department first one I've ever seen, and I just want to acknowledge what a really great publication this is! I I thought it covered all the key elements in in exactly the right kind of style for the public. The right level of language and detail. The graphics of this is just really a first class publication.

[184:07] so appreciate that feedback. And I know sometimes the board members can have questions of whether you're adding value. That Miguel is a direct result of suggestions from the Board in past years, during retreats and things like that, and we've taken that to heart, and probably wouldn't have come up with that on our own. So you all could. Graham was one of the key offers to that as well. So I think that was just Mike. Drop moment. Thanks for recording. I think I can through Spanish, and and usually I have a handful of things because of the cip focus tonight. I really don't. I was going to bring up the mailer, and and I wasn't sure if you at all received it so that would have been on my list. But

[185:07] I don't really have anything. It will be happy to move future schedule if you like. What was that I have to? the last 2 weeks? Again? It was also delivered electronically, if I remember right, for people that have. We have extra copies, if you like, like one, we're missed to it. You need a laminated version. So the big thing coming up will be Board action on on the capital Improvement program in July, and then we have an action item for an Iga intergovernmental agreement for the keep. It

[186:07] partnership with the Kelly. That's a recurring thing that just comes up, and it requires for an action and Council action from time to time. Not shouldn't be a really time, like as the one, and in August we would anticipate not having a meeting again. And I I missed September apologies that that got cut off. but in September we would be looking at. Bring to you the water efficiency, flash for the board. Look at that! A fair amount coming up for the board that you want. Yes, and with the time on the new members on board, this is always really hard time. It's a hard time. But I. That's that's partly in the way. Why the boards are designed the way they are with new member coming on, and 5 total numbers. And if it was all one more, and that'd be to me that

[187:11] well, if that's in our agenda item is German, I may. I have a motion to adjourn for a second. all in favor of the journey. It's it's like unanimous to adjourn Once again, thanks thanks to Staff for a really great presentation, and all those who didn't get a chance to speak to that who are available really appreciate your time. Also you should be sitting with us for a longer than usual, meeting.