July 17, 2023 — Water Resources Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] Thank you. Karen. The July seventeenth, 2023. Meeting Resources Advisory Board is now convened. Our first agenda item is approval of the 2 to the meeting minutes. Any of the members have comments on the Zoom Meeting? No. I have a few. and I don't know if it'd be easier to to bring it up on top of page 2, just before your the executive summary section. It says, this item was present fire to item 4. A. How to make the appropriate, to just add a clause thing. Why, that was done. Okay. something like to provide context for the scheduling of storm water projects all right. Something of that nature

[1:02] in the bullet list on that page. The It's bullet from the bottom. it says, comment regarding urgency of conscientious, prioritized my mitigation. I wondered if that could be reworded, or it just delete the word conscientious. The comment regarding her to see a prioritized flood that Asian on H. 3 in the bullet list. Yeah. this bullet down reads comment about correlation of titles for clarity. consider a word. If you say comment about. They can, making project names consistent between the Cip find financial pages

[2:00] and the Associated cost spreadsheets. Okay, very good. The third bullet from the bottom. On that list says, questions regarding timing, of bonding. I consider adding for the Sbc Flight Medication project. and then likewise the next political of that. About time you bland acquisition mitigation. Again add for the Sbc's limitation project any other comments from my new board members. Okay? The next agenda item is going to the virtual public comment. And then, after that, is the public hearing before we do so, though if I'm sorry, yes, could we have the okay all in favor of approving the amount of minutes it proves for that thing.

[3:02] And if you might have noticed, we're a one member short today. he's on vacation in Europe and wasn't able to attend. Okay, thank you, Joe, for that. Now, before we go into any of the public comment segments. If Joanna Bloom, if you could give the information regarding that. Yep, thank you. So, Hi, I am Joanna Bloom, and I'm serving as the technical host for this meeting. We'll start by sharing a few slides of the virtual meeting rules that we follow. These rules are in place to find a balance between transparency with community members and security that minimizes disruptions. We do need a full name associated with each person's participation in open or public comment, and we cannot unmute you without it. If your full name is not currently just late, please go ahead and change it, or you're welcome to send me a text. I'll give you my number in just a moment, and I'm happy to change it for you. There is no chat feature for this meeting. The Q. A function is enabled, and can be used to address zoom connectivity questions only. So if you have any difficulty with the Q. A. Function or if you want me to rename you. Please text me at 303,

[4:18] 8, 1, 7, 1, 7, 4, 2 members of the public may be unable to control the audio or video features. Video is limited to city officials, employees, and invited speakers. Only I'll unmute you when you're recognized to speak. And if you're on the phone you may need to press Star 6 to unmute yourself, and you can indicate your desire to participate in open or public comment by using the raised hand function, and you can get to that by pressing Star 9 to raise your hand. I'll call on your name when it's your turn to speak and announce the name of the next speaker on deck, and after I've unmuted you please say your first and last name, and then a 3 min timer will be displayed, and we'll start once you begin your comments. So I appreciate your participation.

[5:12] Thank you, Joanna. Our next agenda item, then, is the virtual public comment. And now this will be on things that are not associated with utilities. Capital improvement plan. So anything but the cip. So go ahead. If you're here for open comment. If you can indicate virtually raise your hand, I'll call on you. I'll give folks just one moment to raise their hand. I don't see any hands raised right now. Okay, I don't see any hands raised. Wait, we have one last last Henry's Lynn Siegel is here, and, Lynn.

[6:04] I will. You should be able to unmute yourself wrongs of people that are want to talk to you about our high water bills and about seeing South, and all the expense, and about everything, and nobody wants to talk. And I spend hours writing letter to ask you a lot of questions about after sitting through 4 or 5 h of meeting, and I get nothing after I've sent 3 different times. Then I get the city writing back and saying. What did they say? They forwarded it to to the boards. The recipients are aware, and they may not have capacity to respond. So do you not have capacity. I'm asking you.

[7:01] I have questions. You aren't answering them. Do you have the capacity to answer them? The city considers this matter closed. So is that what I do stay up all night, going through your meeting very carefully and asking good questions, and then getting no answers. Is that just the matters close. So should I. Just not bother. I guess I should just get off the zoom. Because what's the point? I have no, input, nobody cares about what I'm asking about. I need to know things about my city and about what the rob is doing it. Is it unreasonable for me to ask. what do you want me to do? I'm asking you. I forfeit my time for you to answer that. I don't want to waste my time. Tell me.

[8:07] Lynn, if you were done. Maybe we could see the remainder of your time to Joe, Ted, you cheap or response on that. If there's other. Okay. The suggestion then, Miss Eagle is back to you the public comment. Pardon! We'll respond back to you on on your concern there at the end of the next section, which is the public comment on the for this, general. go ahead. What were you saying, Joe? I was just clarifying. Okay, yeah, we're waiting till the end of the

[9:03] initial public comment, the more general one to see if anyone else is speaking. And some people, you know, aren't independently wealthy and boulder. and can't afford all this. and I get some help because I'm low income. But then, what I've used up my help. and I've got these high water bounds to deal with. and I don't even irrigate. I don't even irrigate, and I feel, and half A. M. I have an addition on my house. It doesn't have heating or cooling. So I'm really hot. and I need to take showers during the day, and I feel like, you know. I just have to suffer rather than get in the water, because I'm paying so heavily for it.

[10:02] Is that what the life of the 70 year old in Boulder is supposed to be about scared of every inch of tap water that I'm using to just survive, just to have enough to drink or enough to keep me cool. A little bit. Is that what my life's reduced to in Boulder? Just asking done? Okay, if there are others that would like to speak. You can either press Star 9 to raise your hand or use the virtual raise hand function on your screen. Okay, I am not seeing any other public commenters.

[11:00] you know. I think I saw Richard Harris, you know. Pop up! Richard, you are on my list. If you would like to speak, go ahead and indicate with the race and function. Richard, I've been muted you. I don't want to put you on the spot, but if you do want to speak, you should be able to unmute yourself. Excuse me for interrupting, but I was just trying different buttons to see what they would do. I fail to turn it off in time, I guess no worries at all, and we appreciate you being here. And it is a tricky system. So thanks for chim in, and we just didn't want to miss you if you wanted to speak. Thank you.

[12:00] thank you now, let's move on to our next agenda, item agenda, item 4, which is the the public hearing and consideration of recommendations regarding utilities. Couple of improvement plan budget. And so I I think this will start with the public hearing part, or it will be a staff presentation to Lynn's comments if you, if you'd like me to. It's always reduced to the next cycle. So I believe that when it's referring to all that that she has that was primarily focused on the prioritization for me, one that we discussed last time and apologies to them that was forwarded to me. I've I've been out for a couple of weeks. If I've only been back in the office for 2 business days before this meeting. and in terms of the response that she mentioned receiving from the city that it was. I I believe, what we really meant by that is, it refers to a master plan that's already gone through a process and an approval

[13:10] process. And that concluded last year and when we get into the next item. You'll note that in the memo I didn't. We did make mention of the prioritization formula. There certainly was interest from the Board members during the last meeting. and suggested that because it has really no bearing on what's happening with the 2,024 cip and the associated rates. that which is the focus of tonight's meeting, that if the board is is interested, we could table further discussion on the prioritization formula to a a future date. And we will catch up on email and get back to when with your questions. But there, there really isn't any urgency. It's not something that's gonna happen tonight that Lynn may feel like she has has missed out on something. But that's not the case, and we'll catch up with her.

[14:07] Okay, thank you, Joe. I I believe the the thread of Lynn Seagull's comment was, though, about The water rates and difficulty in paying. and I understand that there is a financial assistance program that this you know. First. are there some some issues with that that still making payment of that bill an issue with. So I so can I chime in real quickly. in my, in my utility billing role. So I am your technical host, and I also do manage the utility billing department and Lindsey egle and I have been corresponding about that over the last couple of months, and whereas I can't give personal account information. I am readily available to her as as recently as today. So we're in contact. And I I'm helping lend to the degree that we can. And then all over community members are eligible for that.

[15:02] If it's if it's needed, if they qualify. Thank you, Joe, and and thank you, Joanna, also for chiming in on that with city's willingness to assist on that. Let's go and move to the next agenda item, which is the public hearing on Chile's capital improvement program. Great, and I may not have introduced myself previously when I started talking. But I'm Joan Ted you to the director of the Utilities Department. Our first item tonight is a public hearing on the capital improvement program. This is one of the the bigger things that the Water Resources Advisory Board takes action on each year. So we'll be seeking a board recommendation tonight. And as we have discussed previously, and for board members who have been here for a few years. You know that we normally tackle this subject in 3 separate meetings.

[16:01] and this so this will be the third touch for the board as we started in May, and although we didn't have a business meeting in May, we could send you a a memo. And then in June we did a a a deeper dive and went through the capital improvement program and some contextual information. And so we're back tonight for a recommendation. We have a fairly brief present staff presentation tonight, and the goal of that is to address the feedback that you gave us in June and our our attempt to be responsive tonight. And I did want to mention to you that even though there's there's just a few of us on staff here in the room, the budget that's before you tonight. And the capital improvement program represents the culmination of hundreds of hours of staff time going back to January of this year, which is when we all start working on what our what our plan is, and if the the cip is informed by master plans.

[17:04] as well as the asset management program that we have. And we look at all of our infrastructure and and do a condition index. And so what you see here, somebody, is the culmination of all of that. And so Chris Duville is our deputy director of operations. He'll he'll lead our brief presentation and before I turn it over to him, I just want to emphasize for the Board for clarity what's being asked of you tonight, and that is a recommendation to counsel on the 2,024 cip. And the Associated Facility rates, even though we show you a 6 year window that provides context to what else is coming. Each year's budget process is really focused on the next year. And so when Council looks at the budget as it goes through the rest of the process. They'll be approving

[18:00] if they approve it. 2024. So I think that's what I had, Chris. That's the right screen is up there. It's I think we're not on your speaker note. So it is, and I just want it. Sorry, Kristen, just jump in here before you start. We are hearing a little bit of feedback. not feedback, but Folks on the phone are having a little bit of difficulty hearing you speak, Joe, so maybe just project. I I know the room is universally, Mike, but just make sure you're speaking loudly. Sounds good. Alright. I'll I'll proceed with vigor here. so thanks for that, Joe, and good evening Board members for the record. I am Christopher and Joe mentioned the utilities deputy director of operations. and tonight for support with clarifications or questions. Chris Douglas, our utilities engineering manager, is here to assist. All right. So this is the final meeting on the cip for this year, and it's centered around summarizing rap feedback

[19:02] and promoting a discussion that we hope leads to a motion and recommendation the goal tonight is to provide any additional clarity desired on our priorities, projects. rates and associated impacts that will enable a final recommendation. So I have about 16 slides tonight about 10 min. and that information we'll pause for any clarifying questions from Rob. Then we'll move to the public comment. Public hearing portion of the of the item. and then we'll end with deliberation and a motion slash recommendation if we can achieve that. So this is a slide that we shared last year, but believe it's still very relevant today and summarizes one of our key messages with respect to the cip. and that utility zones operates and maintains a vast set of complex systems and assets.

[20:00] The backlog of rehabilitation and replacement needs is large reinvestment and critical critical infrastructure is necessary. And we're recommending a strategy of proactive fund management with avoidance of high rate spikes. So to spend a moment on the message of reinvestment in our critical infrastructure. we believe that the proposed rates and planned bonding schedule will enable that goal. So you may recall. From last month we lifted up the utility Condition Index or Uci. and how it's used to monitor and manage system assets and influence our capital project priorities. So this simple graphic here is just to convey the message that our current goal with Dci is really to stop the decline in the value. So the the arrow declining down is to represent. You know we are kind of losing ground on Uci. What we're bringing forward tonight, and our current goal is to again stop that decline and and flatten things out. You see, I ranges from, you know, 0 up to 100. It's just an index.

[21:15] And as a reminder, our current source, water Uci is 54 treated water is 45. So eventually the goal of of this board and future boards, maybe to increase the Ci value and drive it back up to a a goal that's consistent with an elevated reinvestment schedule. Just to be clear, we have been losing ground on the Uci. and our our current strategy is to stop the decline. I just wanted to convey that tonight. last month in June we received 3 main comment themes from our meeting. I'll talk through them now. So as context for the cip, we didn't discuss the flood project. Prioritization framework

[22:00] simply put the framework has no impact on the 2,024 cip. The framework is intended to influence the future years of the cip. As we work to advance flood mitigation for all major drainage ways consistent with the approved vision plan, timing goal from the comprehensive flood and storm Water master Plan. We certainly welcome further dialogue about providing clarity around the mechanisms of the framework and the raw data. However, we are opposed to redesigning the tool or manipulating the framework. Secondly, there were some questions about bonding options that were voiced in June. We are recommending staying the course with our planned fourth quarter, 2,023 water and waste water bond. as well as planning to bond in 2,024 the storm Water and Flood Management fund. However, we do want to stay. We certainly commit coordinating and shifting. The timing of the storm fled bond to align with the completion of the design and start of construction

[23:05] with the South Folder Creek flood mitigation. Third item, here is interest in pure community rates and rate increases as well as there were some comments about boulders, rate history. I'll cover those aspects in the next few slides. So for context, here's a 30 plus year. History of rate increases for the water fund. which are ranging from 0 to 14. Those those are the historical, approved values and for additional contacts. We wanted to overlay the currents of of major bonds. in the recent years, basically within the the 20 year window and they they're shown in red here with arrows coordinated, and the years that they were The bonds were were sold, and and that revenue was obtained. So you can see, you know, upwards of a hundred 1 million dollars to water bonding. that that's currently part of the debt cycle.

[24:10] Here's the same information for the wastewater fund. And so again, a 30 year history. And you can see the the approved rates want to note the 30% rate increase in 2,015. This was a consequence of the 2,013 flood. and really in response to newly identified priorities for rehabilitation and replacement of a large portions of the sanctuary super collection system. and those those priorities have been advanced for a comprehensive annual program of sewer lining. Here we can see the same major bonds, and the time that they that they occurred. I want to make note of the 45 million dollar bond in 2,005, so it's almost done with repayment. But this was used to fund major upgrades to both liquid stream and solid stream processes at the waste water facility, the the water resource, recovery, facility.

[25:08] and to accomplish that back to back years of 20% rate increases. We're used. And this example represents how we coordinated a launch, large bonding effort with several years of elevated rates. Last one, the storm and flood fund. So traditionally, there have been smaller rate increases that were approved to support the less expensive local drainage work and flood mapping and mitigation studies. and basically the flood mitigation construction. During this timeframe was limited. So now we are advancing major flood, mitigation, construction efforts, and thus higher rates are required to accomplish that at work on a note here that the the what the single bond during this recent 20 year timeframe

[26:01] was in 2,015, and that was a 23 million dollar effort. And this was to fund the Wonderlink pre flood and integration project that has been constructed. You might recall there's other efforts on one Wonderland Creek and the upstream reaches. But this was a a significant one, kind of in the middle of. and the 75% rate increase or send 5% rate increase that coincided in 2,015 was also a direct result to the 2,013 flood. I will move on to pure community rate comparison. So the memo for this item did include the comparison from last year. And here's an updated version we were able to obtain and document 23 rates that are in effect for older and 15 nearby peer communities. There you can see the total bill and and boulder admittedly, is near the near the upper end.

[27:00] There was an express comment about understanding what other communities are contemplating for 2024 rates. So we did reach out to the same 15 communities. And as of the timing of the meeting here we did receive 9 responses from from the communities. So just for for quick sharing, we are seeing peer peer communities either contemplate or approve rates in the water funds of 0 to 9%. And the wastewater funds 0 to 12% in the storm format or storm flood funds for those that have it 0 to 18%. So that feedback we can provide tonight on peer communities. and we note that not every community has a the same budget side will in the same timing of when they would lift up rates and and make it make approvals But that's the best information we can share tonight.

[28:01] And here's a another pure community comparison slide that we've shown in the past. since not everyone has Storm Flight fund and not everyone has a needs that's similar to Boulder. We do want to lift up just a water and waste water, only your community comparison. So here it is for the same 16 communities, folder included. And so we slide down the scale slightly when we look at just one and we next slide. You probably have the the recommended rates memorized by now by now, but here they are again. So 8, 8 and 10, what's being recommended and contemplated tonight? And we shared last month anticipated average bill impact of 8.4% for single family residential around $10 a month for the other customer classes. We do have the multi-family residential as well as commercial, industrial, and institutional. Or we refer to as the Cii customer class.

[29:05] So here are bill impacts. assuming approval of of the rates. And just to know these are examples of real customers. but other customer impacts in these classes will be slightly different. But they're going to be in this general range. So 1 one footnote to mention is, you can see the Mobile Home Park line item listed there. And so the anticipated impact for this example, manufactured as in community, is around 6 $6 and 50 cents per unit. And you can compare that to the, you know. Again, $10 per month average for a single family residential. So just wanted to note that $4,000 impact. It seemed quite large. But when you again divided down by the number of units in this example. Oh. there you! There you have the comparable results.

[30:01] So with that brief financial summary, we wanted to again to hit the highlights from the feedback, we now want to open it up for any clarifying questions from from the board about the both rates and impacts. So yeah, what what's on your mind that we can help clarify or expand on tonight. while you're contemplating this normal process would be get clarifying questions from the board. Then do the public hearing your your what feedback there is from the public, and then your deliberations and discussion. I guess I do have a question about the rate increases and the affordability program. makes you all appreciate that inflation is impacted. Everything that we're buying at the store. And let's go to the gas month and everything. So that's that doesn't mean that it doesn't hit some people in our community really hard to have those rate increases. So is there an intent to increase the affordability program or dedicated more funding to those programs to help.

[31:11] It's the kind of rate relief that some may need in our community. Take a quick answer on that. thank you for the question. I think for sure, our our plan is to have the assistance program. Be a a living, ongoing program and modify and expand it as we are able to. I don't have the specifics of what might be out there next. We are. We are currently in the cycle of spending down the arpa dollars that we dedicated for this purpose. So you can say that. And I do believe that a county that was, or the program that was lifted up by Boulder County that we partnered with for specific rental assistance. is also still in the mix. But, I don't have any other details about specifics of what we're planning next on that. But I I agree with what Chris just said, and I know Joanna mentioned earlier that she has a role with the billing, utility, billing and overseeing that, and that both Chris and Joanna have awareness of how we

[32:17] I haven't been to that. There is a a large group of people, or anyone whose needs are going on that. But I feel just from from my role as a director of the department that has to be part of our program and part of the equation. If we're going to keep up with the infrastructure needs having a safety net, for I I think the reality is, most people in bolder can pay their bills, but for those who can't. having that safety, that there, and partnering with our housing department and and the county and other agencies to help. So that would be my intention for sure to keep close tabs on that you mentioned. One of the one of the objectives was to try to avoid, you know, erratic spikes, because of which obviously, we've had few of historically, that we're probably kind of out of our control. But

[33:10] do you guys try to project when you have this set of numbers of capital expenses going forward. You also sort of try to project, at least roughly. Those rate increases, might look like through their 6 year period, too, and then try to kind of keep them a constant rate. Or is that is that you try to sort of do that again time? Or is that more of a reactive. thank you to year for for sure, we we project and working with Graham recently left the organization for another great career opportunity. And some of you right. Remember Ken Bear, who was our finance leaders and now is with our planning department. We for sure look ahead and try to manage the the things that are coming and and what we're going to bond for, and how that's going to impact rates to keep him smooth

[34:04] the couple that Chris showed in around 2,014 or 2,015 that had I. It's funny how the details start to fade. But I do recall going to council after our rep discussion with a relatively modest rate increase, and the feedback we got because there were community concerns with waste water, backups and storm water and flood what counts last to come back to the aggressive rate package. And so that's why I think it was 2,014 or 2,015, you saw a huge spike that was in response to Council feedback or some of the feedback. We may be getting on this matter, is it? You know this percentage may stay the same, but the dollars are getting a little bit bigger each year, so that may be part of the of the concern on the on the ability to pay question. Yeah, for sure. It is like a it's like a giant mixing board that we're looking at, and

[35:04] the asset management and and the master plans and the recommendations, thinking about our staff capacity to advance the the projects. and I would not personally welcome a scenario where, when Chris shows the comparison to your communities while we're at the higher end, we're still within the range of of the neighboring communities. And I think it starts to get really difficult for us to. For at the top end, then, yeah. disproportionate to everyone else. So we have to look at that we have to look at inflation and cost indices of of construction projects. And it's all of those things that we're constantly processing one of the things that occurred to me. I was at that chart where you broke it into the 3 pieces. What it seems like older as a city or community. Here, probably it faces roughly at the same external environment, and cost trends and technological trends, and so forth. As most of the other

[36:09] cities in the area on water and waste water. But we may have a more unique situation from what? For sure management, perspective. And so I would have expected, maybe that component of the you know of our cost to be larger. But I didn't know I didn't know it. Not strikingly so, but it is on the larger scale. And you, when you look at the bar chart, when all 3 utilities are combined, I think that's one of the things that pushes us up to second to largest is the storm water component. It is as as bigger or bigger than others, but not strikingly so. And we probably sound like a broken record, but Boulder is a number one flood risk in there in the State, and we have the 16 drainages in town, and a lot of catch up to do with that.

[37:05] A lot of private property impacts. And you know, these impacts and and difficult decisions to make on the projects. The thing, I'll add just to reinforce the point, I think you know, just like in with water. And when you do the studies and the designs, that's really the the lesser dollar commitment, and the actual construction, of course, comes a lot more so in in in the storm. Modern flood management utility. We've we've done that, that less expensive work of the mapping and the mitigation studies. Not we're not done there, but that's where the bulk of our efforts have been so krist during your presentation, when you're talking about bonding you you mentioned something about this city being open to shifting, timing, of bonding for certain projects.

[38:00] could you restate what you said then? Yeah, I think you know I we we we feel very grounded, Gordon, and the the water and waste water bond that we're planning for later this year. there's real needs on the table, and some of which are, you know, already construction. And there's a because of the inflationary pressures. Some of that money is is honestly like the gap for what was approved previously to, to to continue to fund those to completion. but but yes, for the storm water, flood planned bond in particular. There is no specified date that we have to bond that project, for, like July or August or September we, we have thoughts around when that project will be ready. And I've been planning for a bond of a certain time. but are completely willing to to adjust timing such that it is blind and paired with

[39:01] the advancement of that project. Tipping into the construction effort for any project. When we perceive we're out of state of readiness and and ready to invest in it. I'll make this recommendation for a bond. There can always be delays or changes, and we've got some. We've got some risk there, and we also have ways of managing that and have some discretion, for instance, on when we sell the bonds and and things like that. it'd be a little more specific. Maybe maybe you you heard this previously sorry for the repetition. I think we are planning for late 2,024 bond for for South La Creek project. But if if the reality and conditions dictate otherwise that timing is is up for discussion.

[40:00] Okay? And perhaps that would be the public comment period. We can return to that topic. any other questions from the Port with that, then I I'd like us to proceed to the public comment period the public hearing. So if there are members of the public that would like to speak just a reminder to please indicate with a virtual raise in function or star 9 on the phone. and I'll give you just a second to do it, and it looks like we do have Richard Harris with his hand up, so we'll start with Richard, and then, if more folks want to speak, I will let you know that you're up next. so we've got Richard Harris. Okay? So some of the things that I may ask here you may have already addressed in the last few months. This is my first time. So if you would forgive me for asking things you've already dealt with. I'd appreciate that

[41:08] bottom line. Is that concerning the so it called. See you South property. The voters approved that annexation with, some conditions that the city provide funds that will help the University develop the property. And I'd I'd like to know? I I'd like to see a running tally updated. Say, every month about how much of our well, water and waste water? Water. Bills are being used to cover this. Perhaps the good way to express that was already used tonight, which is what? What a typical boulder homeowner is going to have to pay in order to facilitate this, and I apologize for not being on top of this earlier.

[42:10] And then you you've surely spent lots of money already, just in terms of staff time both before the election and after the election, trying to work out all the technical details with other agencies. So the the I I'd like to see the estimate of costs. going back say, at least a year, maybe a year before the election. And that needs to be public knowledge. I think many of the voters who voted to I gotta say this right. The the people who didn't turn this down were the majority were in, I believe, North Boulder, and I think people assume there would be no cost to them. like the people in South Boulder. And so this is a very important issue.

[43:06] and I hope you can be fully transparent about it, and not try to mix the costs related to that project too much in with other other costs that may obscure what we're really spending. I just heard something about a bond issue at the end of 24, and I think that's one of the things that if I understood it right, should should be considered anyway. that wasn't terribly well organized, and it was totally spontaneous. And thank you very much. Thanks so much. I see Karen Holwig. with your hand raised. If others would also like to speak. Go ahead and use the raise hand function. Karen, you should be able to unmute.

[44:05] Can you hear me now? Yes. okay, thank you. I'm Karen Holwig, and I'm the past chair of the open space board of trustees and want to talk about south. The South Boulder Creek project. that's currently shown in your cip. The open space board of trustees in January of this year saw a presentation on the 30% design for that project and still had many questions, especially about the ground water conveyance system and the impacts on the native globally and peril plant communities in the state natural area that will be affected by the project. The 60% design update is to come back to the open space board of trustees at their October eleventh meeting this year. and in addition to the multiple different agency,

[45:04] approvals that are still needed, and the the approval of C dot. There's something that that Osbt has been very well aware of, and is included in detail in the resolution that we passed at our 2,021 meeting and that is has to do with the environmental mitigation plan to assess whether the plant communities are appropriately sustained. Given the plans and the monitoring that will be associated with that as far as I'm aware, that has that work has not been started either. So I question the amount of money being requested for this project in this particular cip. and I would ask you to think about whether you won't be able to

[46:00] provide a more accurate amount of the money needed for the South Boulder Creek project next year, and still have time to include a more appropriate amount in next year's cip and thereby continue to do the work on acquiring permits and the environmental mitigation plan in the meantime, but not address the amount of the bond until you more accurately know that amount. Thank you very much. Thank you, and I will just give it one more minute. I don't currently see any other hands raised. But if there is a community member that wants to speak, I do see Lyn Tan going up. So then I'll call on you, and if anybody else wants to speak now is a great time to raise your hand, and you can go next, Lynn. You should be able to unmute yourself.

[47:03] It isn't like I don't appreciate water. My name means Water Lyn. It's Welsh. My brother was a water chemist. My daughter is a water climate artist. so I get it. But you know what my property tax just went from 6 to $9,000 a year. I found out that I had $33,000 of retirement payment that I didn't get, and that Denver general won't give me, because they can't pay retroactive benefits, and I didn't know I had it. I finally got a return. They got a return to sender in the mail 22 years after I left. so a lawyer wants $3,000, you know they're sighting on my house that speaking of water, that

[48:03] gutter was aimed towards my house before I bought the house, so the water had infiltrated my sighting, which is made of you know. Fiber board. What do you call it? Starts with M. Anyway? It's all eroded away down to the now I could be eligible, Jo in it. You could know about this for a low in 10 free loan after 10 years. They forgive the loan, but my! A has to be safe. so I have to come with the funds first to fix the siding on my house. the the addition on my house that had resist a pet, and I won't use that because I'm not going to pay excel energy for it. So I'm just freezing cold in my house in the new part all year long, and hot in the summer.

[49:01] So I need that fixed in order to be eligible for this loan, and I have to fix some structural things that happen when I tried to open up my added to make it for storage. You can't get a contractor in boulder that doesn't cost a huge pile of money. You can't fix things in Boulder. What you do in Boulder is, you tear it down and you build it new. and that's a couple of 1 million bucks. So you know, we're not talking cheap money here. We're talking a lot. And yet I go to the planning board on 2206 pearl for 300 square foot places that they're giving them a parking reduction for. And they're giving them a height amendment for, and people are testifying that their sewers been overflowed because of this kind of a development that they're already maxed out.

[50:01] So you know we've got enough trouble. And you know what Gilbert White said, he said. It's not. It's the people it's putting it, building more, and putting tinkle in the line of the water. That's the trouble. So that's what needs to be stopped and see yourself. Is it the height of it. Thank you, for your time is up for this evening. Thank you. If there are others. maybe. Now, okay, Karen, we got it. We have an alarm situation. the Google of our missing. I'm the timer. There you go. Thank you so much. yeah, no worries. Last call any other hands for public comments. I don't see any further hands

[51:10] the hearing none. Then, I'd like to know that 3 members in the public it's had written a comments to the rap. And I I assume that staff have seen those also 2. Okay. if yeah. If there's one that you didn't receive the I sent, and make sure we get over to you. and they They had common themes to them. One was concerned about the timing on the project in line of the the necessary permits, and also the necessary studies that are are necessary. for the open space board of trustees. Oh. recommendations from there in January June 2021

[52:05] the solutions and and then other concerns about impacts the wildlife and the Another theme that was in several of these is the continued lack of examples of or conveyance system, that is. is, in a established in a project that is like this project in a a low gradient, a large valley project in which. the ground order needs to flow under current conditions as well as under future of flood conditions. or the water level would be 10 to 12 feet higher. Say. and that I know. I know that's not going concerned about the space board of trustees, and it was also a common thread of these public comments that we received in writing.

[53:03] Were you wanting feedback from us on those, or are you just sharing that with it? sharing the internationally? But yes, it's kind of moving into the discussion phase. Sure, we love feed that comment so on on the last item, the grab water conveyance system. I don't remember the dates now, but we did present examples of that that we felt we're compatible. a former rap member who is in the same kind of line to work as myself and and Brandon Allen. damn design also shared an example with us of a like that. So I think there's differing perspectives on whether those examples are are adequate. And one of the ultimately to the approval entity that has to weigh in on. That is the State engineer and the sufficiency of of. And we're talking about sand filters and and whether they convey ground water adequately underground

[54:08] under 2 different conditions. And I know that Brend and the team have had those discussions with the State engineer and I've not heard any concerns or or any barriers to approval. so I guess different different perspectives there. And I I know how important it is to the our open space to keep the ground water flowing, and make sure that the habitat has adequate water for things to grow, and that's really important to our staff as well. And so we want to make sure that the design will what you do that, and that it can get approval. And forgetting what was the what one was concerned about the timing on the bond in light of

[55:00] so much to the design. Still, you have to be done right as well as the other permanent speed, as well as the space board of trustees. I believe, had 3 sets of studies that were required. I'm as full. We mentioned one of them an environmental mitigation, but also the Osbt has a hey for questions, and then I pick up biological study, and I'm probably getting that term wrong. But but these are all 3 of these are listed in their resolution, sir. So just starting with the most general, the stage of development that the South Boulder Creek Flood mitigation Project we're we're roughly a year and a half away from going to bid for construction, and the last large project that we bonded and and had a a level of complexity and also public interest, was the Carter Lake pipeline. It was a 44 million dollar bond. And we've done other large projects. This is

[56:02] typically the the level of development that we're at. And the stage of development that we're at a level of detail where we would. we feel like we have things adequately fed in and fleshed out, such that we're ready to make a recommendation for funding. If you wait too close until you're you're ready, you're gonna end up with a undesirable delay built in. And so there's always risk to these projects, and and running into some delay that we didn't foresee a staff, and we have ways of of managing that that. So at this point. I I feel like we're for as complex a project as this is. The team has done an excellent job of pre coordinating with agencies that are going to have to approve it, and getting a signal from them about what needed and the the position. The project is really well positioned

[57:03] as far as the input from the open space board of directors board of directors, board of trustees not trying to rename them here as part of this meeting, but have given extensive feedback that we have appreciated on this project over the years and and lots of written materials. Brandon Coleman, our project manager, and Chris and myself, and Dan Burke, and and some of the Open Space staff. Dan is the director of the Open Space department. We meet every other week and coordinate on the the needs and the plans and the open space board, and we are seeking to get their approval on the project. There is a formal process that this will have to go through because some of it is on dedicated open space. and it requires the open space board to weigh in on the disposal.

[58:02] And so we're working hard to meet the needs of the open space board. hopefully get there willing recommendation of of a disposal of that. So we have a 60% design briefing on the schedule for the board. And I think. January Board meeting was mentioned. We've also done a briefing to them on the Environmental vacation plan. There's a the agreement that we have with the university, the city will acquire about half of their 300 acres that they own out there. It will either be granted to us for flood project or for future open space that we can build in. some really important environmental features that can be part of the approval and mitigation package and I think our staff team is really excited about the potential there to to transition an area that's really

[59:10] I'm not fully recruit reclaimed former mo gravel. Mining operation is something that has some of the wetland features and and grasses and habitat. that is there, and other parts of the property that has been previously restored. So I see a lot of potential for environmental enhancement. That's not to say that our project won't have impacts some of some of which. on certain threatened andndation, endangered species, maybe difficult to replace or recover from, and so mitigating those impacts and having ratios of of things is the track that we that was way more than you asked for. I just got rolling. Sorry.

[60:02] Lots of comments from the board. I know you're as you said, a year and a half from construction. With this current schedule there were these issues raised about the environmental approach as if something, you know, as if a plan had been presented, and I just wondered if there was some confusion in terms of the process and the development of mitigation plan and the re vegetation that seemed to be a a thing that came up. And some of it. Yeah, I think it goes back to to what I just said. I I I haven't heard feedback set. but there's huge public sentiment that our initial plan for the mitigation is 119 acres. That's a designated for future open space. it's still a work in progress. We have a reasonably good reception, in my opinion, from the open space, for when we presented it to them in an initial past

[61:10] and and certainly will be going back because it gets more detailed. Nice. I got. I got a couple of have questions or observations. I guess we were like the you guys to respond to. I think part of it is that 3 of us here haven't really been that familiar with it. They they kind of get up to speed a little bit on the history, and you know the, the, the hearings, and the the process that this whole project has already gone through. and you know, hearing the public comment, and particularly some of these matters we got, and just being familiar with some of the the controversy here in the past, I guess there's it. It strikes me if there's 2 things here. One is. There seems to be some some differences of opinion

[62:06] between the department and some of the public or other groups that are technical in nature. and one of them is scrambled our conveyance system that you just mentioned. One of them is this, the lead channel that thinks somehow to be cleaned up if it's going to be part of the system. It seemed to be a couple of technical issues that there's some level of concern or disagreement about. And well, I'm not sure if it's the role of the rep to get way into the technical details. I mean, we're getting into sort of Grey, or there, I guess I'd be interested in your kind of response to you know. How? How do you respond to the fact that there seems to be differences of opinion or disagreement with some of the technical very much that you beg in the in the plan. And then the second second area of controversy or or debate here seems to be started with timing and You know that there that there remains several permits that need to be

[63:06] There's still quite a bit of engineering work, etc., etc. And it's not really envision that this project will start until pretty late next year. So I guess the other question I have is sort of with respect to the timing for. And and I think one of the commenters said this, you know what happens, for example, if if we. if we waited and I do the estimate of the cost of the bonding for early 24, one of the odds that the project may slip a few months so that we're this is kind of a mood point, anyway. I mean to me if if if we approve a rate increase to help from this project. And it doesn't actually start next year. And for whatever reason you don't get a permit, or it's just it's stretched out. and we've we've put a burden on the community that we haven't utilized. But, on the other hand, you know it. Presumably those funds are here in reserve, and they don't avoid us having to race

[64:05] right to the higher rate some of your down, the future. So it's it might be a little bit of a timing. unfortunate timing. It's not a big problem long term. What's the problem? If we. you know, if we, for example, say much, wait and approve this next year. What? What impact does that have on the engineering on the construction work? So so I guess I mean in trying to get my hands around as always. I guess it' be helpful. You guys could respond to the critique out there on both those technical issues, and then, in terms of the timing or this assertion that maybe we're rushing things a little bit too much here. You could just sort of responsible for those, and they would help, particularly the 3 of us. and with all due respect I mean this in a respectful way, but we've been working on it for 25 years. so I don't feel like it's rushed at all. And It's been 10 years since the 2,013 Fl. And it's this project

[65:04] as has just experienced delay after delay. And so it's kind of death by a thousand cuts. What you're proposing doesn't sound like that much. But then it's another reason, and and there are 2 advocacy groups that follow this project very closely. One is staunchly in support of the project and one staunchly approach. And so there's always going to be a a handful of arguments that we're going to hear of, of. Why the design is adequate, or why we should delay. And we've experienced that year after year. I really feel like and and I feel like the spring rains were a warning that it's time to move this forward. So in terms of the specific questions on on the technical. Let me start with the Valy channel. And what's being discussed. There is currently the channel is overgrown and has a lot of vegetation in it.

[66:04] And I heard just recently this this concern reiterated, and I know our team of the utility staff and open space tab staff have been discussing. The maintenance of that. One of the things that we run into in utilities is is when we attempt to maintain flood drainages, or sometimes we have involvement with irrigation ditches on. On the one hand, we create capacity when we, when we do that maintenance, and we cut down trees and vegetation. But some people view that as disturbing environmental habitat or destroying it, and and really undesirable in times that way. And so we're always sort of in the crossfire of that resistance. I do note from talking to Brandon Coleman that we have modeled the project in its existing condition, and the capacity of it is adequate

[67:00] to convey. The design flows of the flood project. We're still hoping to do the the maintenance of it. and we're working with the open space staff and the and the mile high flood district, who sometimes helps us with with major maintenance projects. So it's still on our list. but it's a maintenance item, and it's separate from what's in the budget in the as a wine item in the fund project in terms of the the ground water system. I understand the concerns that have been put forward and the impacts to open space. And and we absolutely want to be mindful of that. The technology involved. And I don't want to go down a technical rabbit hole, but the the levels of water that'll be on the dam that creates pressure. and that that pressure has to be conveyed, and the system that conveys it underground, which

[68:03] go through Sam filters it has to be able to handle a number of of different conditions while it's being stated that that is a dramatic change from the the dam being empty to being full for us to design these projects all the time. It's it's not a huge difference, and it can be accommodated. And so certainly there's a. There's a difference of opinion on that. And the unique thing about this project is the city of Boulder does not own all the property that's not unique, but the University owns a portion of it. They're willing to grant the the property to us to do the fund project in exchange. They've got an annexation agreement to annex into the city upon us, getting all the approvals. And so there's 308 acres of land that they own, and and about half of it they'll be able to use for their development and the future self campus. The other half roughly half comes over to the city for our flood mitigation needs and for open space purposes

[69:14] there are people who do not want to see that land use change occur, and they've been very open about that. And the way that the flood project is tied to that it. It's just a really undesirable outcome for some people. I understand that. but I also know from being in the middle of the negotiations, and and the just hours and hours that have been spent with the public and with the university negotiating. It's as good as it's gonna get now. And there are some who feel like we should go back to the negotiating table and I I just think, if we don't move forward as it's framed now, and and and the allure to starting over.

[70:03] we will never be in this position again. That is my having been in the center of it. that is my opinion. And the last thing I will say we showed the prioritization last month South Boulder Creek appropriately, was at the top of the list, because it has such an impact in keeping us 36 open, and because of the flood storage component that most of our projects will not have an undeveloped area. It takes more more properties out of the flood plane than most other projects. So to me. It's appropriately at the top of the list. Well, any students?

[71:13] Oh, what? No. I have. I have no further questions. So, as many of you know, I've been involved in this pretty extensively since about 2,016. So I'm pretty well steeped in all the details about the big picture ends, and and under the weeds. So I I have no further question. Oh. so I I think, then the next point of this discussion is to move to. I was for the recommendation of the cip. I have put together some. I know that in our meeting packet and stuff is put together a a brief

[72:01] example language. I've got a suggested alternative to that which I propose that Karen pull up on the screen. and Karen, just a few minutes ago I sent you a updated function. and then once stuff on the screen, then we can use it as a basis for for fine tuning. Our recommendation might be while Karen's pulling that one up. essentially, The recommendation is we? we're recommending the cip for the water and waste water enterprise phones. So But then for the Strong Water Flood Fund. we have some. some recommendations, some some providers for that. So that's that's what you'll see here in just a moment. I could make one other comment that maybe we'll this is factoring directly, or or we'll talk about it a little bit later. But

[73:10] Last year we ended up with, I think, a 2 part motion because of board Member Broughton. So employment situation with with, you know, a company that's contracted under certain projects and whatnot. So we have. We have some draft language that we we believe would support, you know, per remote. And and that situation so good. so what you see on the screen is this suggested language, and, Karen, if you don't mind just accepting new. What you see there in red is a paragraph that I overlooked sending. Karen. I had an earlier version a couple of hours ago. but we'll start with the clean slate here. So again, this is just a draft language that that. I'm I'm hopeful that we'll have a active engagement with board members.

[74:06] and then we could ultimately agree on. So I don't know if procedurally do. I need to get a second to go through this process. General care. Yeah. I'm sorry you don't have to make a much of joint. Do I need a motion to allow you to talk about it. If you can discuss it. There would be other form members you. Now that they're not willing, I I guess that would be going. But. hey, Gary, can you continue large? That a little bit on the bottom? Right? Is that Slider? Yeah. Okay. So the first paragraph is almost word for word of the aircraft that Staff gave us it, so far as the word and westward utilities are involved, so I'll just read it. So it's clear to everybody, including those on on the Phone Resource Advisory Board recommends that City Council approved the 2,024 capital improvement program for the water and waste water utilities.

[75:19] including post rate adjustments to support 2,024 revenue increases of 8%, both for utility and the waste for utility. That's a not quite work for word, but it's paraphrasing click, but We were given as as a Us. The language. So before we go on it. Then then what remains is discussion about the stormwater flood utility. So I don't know if we want to kind of like this often pieces if if we want to agree. So the first paragraph before we move on to the ladder, or wait until we get through the whole thing just through the whole thing. First, I think. Okay. then it continues. The second paragraph

[76:03] continues, as the Water Resources Advisory Board also recommends the City Council approve the 2,024 capital improvement program for the storm, water and flood management, utility contingent upon the following conditions being met. those are 3 conditions. the first. as it reads. what resource Advisory Board also recommends the City council. Oh, I see what happened. The first part of that bullet got merged. So, Karen, if you wouldn't mind the leading first 2 and a half lines. Yes, thank you. That's what happened. All right. Okay. So the following conditions being met for condition, design, and funding of improvements from the daily channel which will convey the water released from the attention fund to unsolved over Creek face one for mitigation dam become part of the project. So this is the the channel that's north of South Border road sort of route 36. And it's Sometimes it's also referred to as the V of the overflow channel.

[77:09] and it is the the channel that would accept the water from the detention fund that has to be released from that detention fund within a 5 day period. until, Joe, you just mentioned to us that that channel can accommodate flow. that that is new information that's on desktop information that we knew, or to the public new. So the request here is that this simply the an active part of the phase, one for mitigation plan. which which perhaps might include the rehabilitation of that. So this piece really is just incorporate the design and future costs for whatever would be needed, make sure that. and can fully satisfy its its needs in the

[78:00] is the reason why that wasn't in it could begin with. in in the motion or in the budget in the plan. just because it's an existing channel. And we would consider that maintenance. And it's it's a different budget. And it's different, some stuff. And so but if if you hopefully, you'd be open to a reaction from me as we as we go through this? I I don't see a lot that's would be an issue for us in that first bullet. The but what I just said about it being maintenance. Maybe. The yeah, I guess a question would be, is the operations and maintenance budget adequate to cover necessary design? And and on day of improvements, I mean funding, and because the concern is always been that the phase one project ends with the outflow.

[79:03] Hello! And and there it stops you. The water doesn't stop there. And so that's the concern. And I know that's a concern that the the public have been raising for years that this piece really needs to be part of the phase one program. and it's never been acknowledged to be so. Yeah, so conceptually what you've got there in the in the first bullet, I think, works for us. And and because of what I said about the resistance that we get to maintenance activities, it could be helpful for the Board to say, Go, do the maintenance. But this is just a little kind of draw that if the flood waters would run into the event of a flood that's just kind of overgrown with junk. So it's not. It's not like a huge capital. I don't like people's backyard. yeah.

[80:00] I'd be if you, after the word improvements, if you added something like and or implement maintenance for the really too sure. Yeah. because it's not like a lot of our maintenance on on channels. It doesn't end up being a a set of drawings that I design. And yeah, Karen just added that. Hmm. let's let's move on to the second one, and then, of course, we can come back to these. Hmm, The second condition being the expedite planning, design and implementation. a phase 2 and soft over Creek flood mitigation project with a focus on mitigating the flooding from the Bailey Channel tributary. which was a significant tribute to the flooding in September 2,013 slide. The the language is a little confusing, because we're talking now about the daily channel upstream of

[81:00] soft boulder road. bit drains the I guess the table mesa neighborhood. and that was from a 2,014 study, but the city convened Fat tributary, among a few others, was fought to be a a significant source of flooding in the Rest valley on a stream. Now I on the project prioritization. she that we we received and talked about last time. the the phase 2 project is, is one of the 36 projects. and it is number 23 of the 36. And so if if that list of the 36 projects really comes to bear. chances are phase 2 won't happen for a very, very long time. So the idea is, since it was a significant contributor to the 2,013 flight. If we have another, what like that in the future? We could well see that the current phase one.

[82:04] the mitigation project does nothing to minimize flooding of that daily channel. So it's possible that after spending 64 million dollars for the phase, one project, if we had another 2,013 flood. After that project is implemented, the West Valley could still see significant flooding. Yeah, so so the Id. Here is again, just simply the request is expedited planning. or it and I I note on the project prioritization project list that that we got last month the project number 32 have 36 the goose. Oh, one segment was listed as being that kind of moving up to the priority. So I know I know there's a precedent within utilities within the scoring. To that there are other factors that are important to, to not make it a straight, that we do the first project, first, the second project, second, the third project, third.

[83:03] you know, there can be other factors involved, and that's really on that prioritization and thinking more about our discussion in June. We just need more time to work with that formula and package things. And and we've done a first pass, but definitely need to work with that and Gordon. I appreciated our our conversation last week about this, and I had a discussion with the Brandon, and he he informed me, or reminded me that phase 2. The connection between phase one and Phase 2 of South Folder Creek is similar to the discussion we had about the storm water improvements in the Goose Creek area that the business park and the ideal market area that turns into a pond. We have storm water improvements planned there. But there's got to be some of somewhere to seize that water, and that's reach 6 of the Goose Creek

[84:05] what the sign? And so Brandon, when we talked about this last week. I I think we for sure can can work with that. But it's the same type of connection before we can. We could not do phase 2, first. because then there wouldn't be anywhere for that water to go. There are components of phase, one that has to be done in advance. So I think with that explanation as some context and background. I I think, what we can work with, what you have there. I don't know, Chris. I was Christy Bill. and Krista this earlier, a few minutes ago you raised your hand if you wanted to interject a comment. go covered it

[85:00] strictly when you turn my camera on it as we need, but I don't have any additional comments right now and then moving on to the the third it reads construction of the Softballer Creek face. One slide mitigation project, not begin until the conditions placed on the project by the open space board of trustees in their June ninth, 2,021 resolution. So you can also on it. And those were the things we touched on a few minutes ago this evening. it included. If I recall correctly what all the permits it should be granted which, of course, the condition of utilities. But then also implementation our completion of the statement of the environmental mitigation plan. And then the third one, which something like a biological assessment plan, or something like that. And so those would be so. So this is just This is present, partly to to make sure that you, in the 2021 resolution by the Osbt doesn't get lost to history. it sort of helps.

[86:08] It helps that resolution rise a little closer up to the surface in people's mind. Yeah, I don't have the June ninth resolution. from me. I could probably find it. The open space board has had a fairly like the amount of input on this over the years and things that they've written to counsel about what should be in there. And I know it is our intention, as staff and open space and utilities, to to satisfy those conditions. I think, as we're starting to talk through them in detail, there may be things where that we're contemplated, where something that's being recommended is is in conflict with another part of the recommendation somewhere else. And so

[87:02] perhaps saying, our back, just like black and white period versus our substantially that, or something like that, is, is often how that kind of thing is handled. Could we say are that to the satisfaction of the space Board trustees? Yes. yeah. if I may, just to clarity Chris Douglas, I'm the utilities engineering manager, I believe. you know that initial demo or the memo by the open space board of trustees is, it's really in conjunction with their process of the disposal of the property it's required by the so that memo is in conjunction with fair process that they still need to go through to schedule. We're we're in the starting in October, discussing with the Osbt. With you at really 2,020 for for that disposal process. So it's it's really in conjunction with the Osbt's disposal process.

[88:09] It's really I I think the heart in and around around with this memo leads to that process we're talking here. Can you look to see if that's the one that Dan has been referring to as. let me look our Bible. And in what we're trying to. there's definitely one open space document that we're. Yes, and it's I guess I'm just pausing because I don't. I don't know what was in the resolution. So I'm not familiar with kind of the terms that I get out there, and how fringe. And they are yeah, or reasonable, because everything that you describe it seems very reasonable to me. But let me ask you. is this, when I first of that I was over, but because it doesn't, the the open space board have to.

[89:04] We had certain approvals to us before we can move it with us, anyway. Yeah. And they and that they've effectively said their future. They've signals to us that their future consideration of getting these conditions. So in a way, this is quite a Redone difficult situation we already have in like. I guess this, the the OS, it is one of the you will kind of a permit approval. Kind of entity in. Okay, yeah. So that's like the third, the third bill. It is somewhat so. I'm I'm willing, based on that, and particularly because my fellow board members haven't had a chance to read that 2,021 resolution and because it may be a to it without knowing what it says, I'd be willing to remove that third condition. That third bullet.

[90:08] recognizing. We endorse the role of the open space board of trustees. And they already have a role that's baked into the city process and and charter that is recognized. Okay. okay, so that's that's the draft language is already modified. let's talk about how much from the board. I guess I'm just what what you guys think about my services. strain you over hamstring you anyway, in the process. if I can just speak, and I think it will compliment the the the spirit of what was shared.

[91:04] so I do not know all the details of this really challenging and important project, the South Pole Creek flood mitigation. But just to to the prioritization. And Gordon, thank you for pulling it up. You know number 23 on the list, you know. Yeah, if if we just blindly follow that framework. we wouldn't get to this this project the phase 2 project for quite a while. However, if if it's such that Vili Channel is picking up a lot of from water, flow, or flow other than what originates from south over Creek. I I do feel that would be a valid way to still live within the framework, but acknowledged these other drivers. because my my loose and I potentially naive understanding of the phase one project is that is really to do. Tain to the South Pole Creek foot waters and the the controlled and slower release back to Vly Channel from the outlet works. I mean that that really, fundamentally is the project.

[92:04] So so the West Valley is positively impacted by this first project. even though the the remaining work still needs to happen in phase 2. So sorry if that's stating the obvious. But I think my my understanding is there is benefit to the West Valley from this first project for sure. And but if if additional significant inputs of of storm flows are originated from areas outside of the South Border Creek, you know, or drainage area. I think that would meet the spirit of the framework to discuss elevating that priority. Yeah, so that's that's a really important distinction that you raise, Chris? I bet perhaps when the modeling was done. On the overflow channel, the only considered flooding from software itself and not tributaries. If we don't know the details, because we

[93:02] the the flows in the calendar were considerable during the 2,013 flood. So it'd be nice if that information shares with the public, because that's an ongoing concern for a that those folks who would be directly impacted by overflows of the daily overflow channel. Yeah. So the question of does the does the design and funding of improvements in our implementation of maintenance for the Va channel delay. The project, I know, with some other communities. the type of for work crews and vegetation clean up and can actually be quite difficult to get in place, not just because of push back from from people that live on the Channel. So is there any concern that that could actually result in significant delay for the project.

[94:02] I think if that were to happen, we would come back to this this board and discuss what we are running into and and asking for some other guys and some of that that could be managed. Okay? And and and that's within within the project, timeline. It's just there's some work that we need to do in timing, for example, the green franchise for a number. It is a temple by year project. So there is opportunities to work, you know, without looking at, you know, in the details at this point, but it we can look at those details and look at the appropriate this off time project and my original language, was simply to include the design and funding of the improvements for the Channel. And we, added Dan, or, in my maintenance. So, in other words, I just want to get on the books, and it's part of the design process that the cost estimates come up for it.

[95:07] which presumably would be implemented. So so one idea, possibly on that first line of the first bullet is remove the word implement for the word maintenance. So in the words design and funding of improvements and to our maintenance. Yeah. it is on the books, and we're actively talking to the mount. I flood district and our maintenance team and opens big staff about doing this. We want to do that, too. We don't want to. Just we want to do it in a respectful way as well. We don't want to just show up tomorrow with full. Do we have the right to do this? Well, that's exactly why you know, design and and funding for improvements. And our maintenance needs to be in the plan. Yeah.

[96:04] your comments comments from Staff. I think we can work with what you've proposed it. Okay, then, is there a motion to approve? It's draft language. We're just. There's a comment going through a final motion, because there are never brought. so we we can pull that up one some for some of your employer, and and I know you refused yourself. Last year we have that language available. So it's just a question of timing. Is it better? Last year we did that first. So we knew what we're using yourself from before we went into the main portion. and you have that, Andy. Yeah, Karen, I can. We did prepare that for you last year, or we did it on the fly in the email this 10? Or is that the best way? Yeah, Chris, if you've got that the Powerpoint slides

[97:17] Stan Tech has is actively so you, I think. Yeah. Would you have the conflict with the recuse will work if if He's not involved in this project. she just refuses herself from the 3 project like she she can. assuming she will vote in favor of of what you're proposing here. She can do that. But then recuse yourself from the 3. The projects is the water, or there we go. What we're going to share is with sorry. Yeah, it's relevant to the first

[98:01] paragraph. I'm not aware. I don't think any of them are scaled. that was, I actually question about this recommendation. 8% explicitly stated in the the first paragraph for the water and the waste water utility. We need to also state and adjustments to rate adjustments to support 2024 revenue increases of 10% for the storm water. That's a good point. Yes. I think I copied past it. on the slide, which was potentially larger fonts. We could all see it so the other board members will.

[99:05] These are the 3 projects that I need to recuse myself. and they are just in the water and the Waste Water fund. So if if you wanted to, we could remove the reference to Flood for our management utilities fun. From that. I think Karen just posted up, and from those 3 projects. And and I know we've mentioned 3, and don't dispute that we we had this did last year. 2 additional efforts that I think Stante is, or or it's highly likely to provide support on. It's just for our water resource and and ue team. So that that's why there's so we have Albion dam in here. And then watershed the watershed hydrology and watershed eap and seismic analysis is it's work that Stante is helping us out with, and a lot of these projects on in the watershed is related to Stante's day of expertise.

[100:20] so that I, if if essence anything related to Ali and Dam on the watershed work in the bar, for dam work is really right now, as we're moving forward their day of expertise. And then the other set of projects at the work for the water resources. Recovery facility is stand. Tech is helping us out and working through the design process. Several projects that are going on there right now that we're currently under contract. So this is kind of conservatively broad but it feels like too much we can, we can strike a few of these right? And then would this be

[101:00] to to replace the first paragraph, or, in addition to the first paragraph. I I think what we would do is motion. One would be what is now the second paragraph. and then there would be motion to which would be the first paragraph, which is all the other water, water and waste water utility projects, and then potentially emotion 3. Which is dealing with the storm and flood, utility and or some combination there of is breaking them up. You can do individual motions. because this way, I think so. The intent is, yeah, you can recuse yourself from one motion, but participate in the other set of sign. And and you're right, Chris. I, my boss, is. I didn't send Karen the the second half of the what we ended up going with last year. okay.

[102:01] will you do that? And then. in your revised third paragraph, I think the language needs to mimic the first paragraph where you say, including proposed rate adjustments to support 2024 revenue increases 10%. Yeah, I so complicated it might be. If you just change the ups, it is very important that we acknowledge that I am not advancing projects that come it it. We appreciate the transparency, and because of the the expertise that's required of rap members, it's not all that uncommon that we get. So this happens from time to time.

[103:03] and for anyone, you know. we're just doing some modifications to this like, which for the rats, you I the recommendation, principally because, one of our members company is doing work. The the projects that are in the second paragraph that you see on the screen, and maybe soon to be a third paragraph. our our projects. That one of the members is companies, does work in so so as a Chris that was suggested to go split like, would you see on the screen into 3 different motions? And so the number we use, company works on those projects listed at the top of the screen, you can see, will recuse herself from voting on that motion that we'll be able to vote on the other emotions.

[104:28] One of those group edited. So time left after this. So okay. pressures on Scott will be we quick. It's fun stuff.

[105:12] I appreciate you taking the time to Do this. Bring all your knowledge to bear on it. I appreciate it. Yeah, I'm talking about the next.

[106:09] I just looking at the minutes from last July over waiting related to rates. I think a few expressed that getting extra copies of the the mailer that went out. So take think as many as you'd like share with all your friends here. your gatherings and future encounters, because I know a burger in a particular one extra. Yeah. So we certainly have that more to be on just tonight. But we will make sure John receives. it's a number of them. So yeah. but for having those available, yeah.

[107:00] I think with the setup we'll have 3 3 motions right? First, most of the second motion through option. So that was awesome. What what's come while they're working on that. What's coming up on the rest of the agenda? Scott Colson will do of the presentation on that. He's a clean partnership. Think like 4 or 5 min you've got to really brief matter. Sign up, and then the upcoming agenda on the staff side of things. So give you another 10 min or so. I need to.

[108:23] I think in the second motion we need the like remaining projects. It's missing because I think the the the goal here is aiming to choose yourself from motion one. and she would be 3 to 2, weighing on 2. I think the the reason for singling out. That's what I said last year remaining that the words remaining projects, so carrying on motion to second line. improvements for the and remaining projects. Yes.

[109:00] within projects in the it's working. I I believe so. Yep, it's the way they did it last year, was, they said, recommends that city Council approved the remaining projects in the 2024. Okay. yes. I could work, too. Yeah. I think it's fine. What are you doing to? Okay, should we go with it? Okay. is there a a motion among the board to approve motion? One is is written on the screen. We'll make that motion second. Okay, all favor. Put your hand.

[110:00] It's gonna be 3 to 0. I'm not refusing myself from that. I'm sorry. Oh, I was just this is the oh, nominated! How many who, second from those are just my notes, so that I can put sorry. Sorry. Okay, is there motion to approve motion? Number 2? Is it shown on the screen. 1 s. all in favor of motion. Number 2. Right. It's proved for nothing. And then is there a motion to approve? Motion? Number 3 is, it appears on the screen. Is there a second good, all in favor of motion? 3. Alright, bye.

[111:04] then, Karen, is the top. You might want to remove the words draft or propose. Yes. I'll take this all and put it into the minutes. All right. Well, thank you for that dialogue and thanks for boarding that that concludes East into item 4. Pretending to be to the next couple of let's move on to age 5, then, which is the information? Item call update on the keeping a clean partnership. Iga great. Well, take you to the board for 3 months worth of work, and the and the budget process that we see. I really appreciate the discussion on that. The next item is to keep it clean. Partnership, intergovernmental agreement that, is between neighboring municipalities, and it's related to coordination of of store water permitting.

[112:06] it's an information item. So we're not asking any formal action of the board. It's really a and have a really brief presentation. It's not a lot of controversy or intensity, or any associated with this item. And so the intention is to share with the board what we're doing, the answer any questions that you might have a. And concerns if you had them, and then we would carry that forward to to city council when we brief that. And so Scott Colson is with us tonight. He's our water Quality program compliance manager, and he will be meeting the presentation. So thank you. So I love board members and members of the public. I'm here to brief you on on the keep, the clean partnership, intergovernmental agreement, renewal. As Joe said, this is just an informational item, so no action is necessary on your part

[113:06] so to keep it clean. Partnership is a regional organization. It forms through an intergovernmental agreement between the local governments in Boulder County. This is the mission statement of keep it clean. Partnership and essentially keep it clean's mission is to work on watershed health through collaboration of the local government agencies as background 2,003 was a a really important year that. This was the year that the city was first issued. It's been a full separate storm sewer permit, or Ms. 4. Permit by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. this is a clean water act. Permit that requires the city to maintain a program that protect our storm, water utility system and our water bodies from pollution. Also in 2,003, and really born out of those, keep those Ms. 4 requirements keep a clean partnership with first by the Iba the the keep. The claim partner communities include Boulder County, the cities of Boulder, Lafayette, Long Line, Lewisville, and the town of Superior.

[114:18] and since all the keep, the clean communities have the same Ms. 4 requirements, it's really more efficiently cost effective for us to collaborate on certain services and initiatives on a watershed watershed scale. So analysis of the Iga itself, the the proposed Ig is a renewal that includes updates to contractual language and general operation of the partnership city's estimated cost over 5 year. for the 2023 to 2028 is approximately $45,000 per year for keep it clean. Group participation and that contribution really delivers a a suite of different benefits. For example, in education and outreach you pick clean strives to provide us with consistent outreach content and visuals that create unified messaging across the watershed. That's really important to us because we.

[115:18] We want all communities seeing similar things in a similar fashion and similar branding. It ends up being more powerful that way. it allows us to educate the community on on water quality issues and to encourage desired behaviors. For example, picking up pathways and reducing fertilizer use in terms of trainings keep it clean. It's really broadening the reach of training opportunities to serve public works, professionals from the city of Boulder and beyond. in the wake of the marshal fire, for example, keep a clean partnership hosted. This post fire erosion and sediment, control training or national experts were brought in to teach, teach local prep professionals about

[116:04] fire mitigation and different techniques. it was particularly helpful to us because we were able to to recap the C's response to the 2,022 and car fire, and really, bunch of things that we can do better, and we'll be better the next time. And with that. I'm just gonna leave you with a a couple of our graphics. These are the keep it clean. Partnership cut waste and trash campaigns. You've likely seen these banners on our TV buses, and also in publications such as Yellow Scene and the Boulder Weekly. We try to run a full page odd in the Border weekly at least once a year. And with that I'll I'll just open it up to any questions you have about the partnership or the Iga renewal itself. Staff, including myself, are are really happy to be moving forward with the Iga renewal and solidify and keep it clean. Partnership into the future. So thank you, that's all I had.

[117:08] This is out of curiosity. Erie is no longer heard of this, and they were one of the largest telling me. yeah, that's correct. Every and and that is part of this Iga is to to update it, to reflect the fact that there's no longer contributing to that. I don't know the rationale. I have one question. which is. has the group consider trying to add University of Colorado into the consortium? They both have quite a bit of a call. It Beach phone property on Boulder Creek as well as a few discharges which which they contain things that the Ms. For it is all about.

[118:03] Has has Staff talked about trying to incorporate them? Yes, for sure. I mean, there's been ongoing conversations with you. Boulder, and some of the other non standard municipal separate storm sewer system holders such as over Valley school district. those that I come to fruition. Yeah, today it comes up routinely, I know. See you boulder recently got or reissued a new Ms. 4. Permit. It came up at that time as to whether they wanted to partner with us and join. because it would seem like, for the very reasons that all the downstream communities. how part of the it makes sense to you for you to do so. at least. Assuming that I must work for me to similar to to boulders is. Yeah, I think it's fairly similar. And yes, I I agree it would be it would be more powerful to have more more stakeholders or land area. all collaborating for sure.

[119:02] I think the invitation is there. It's they've been encouraged to join. They have it today. Okay, Scott, thank you for that presentation. Sure. Yeah, thank you. Let's move on now to matters from the board. Are there any matters the Board members would like to bring up? Think so? I have nothing this time around. although I I would like to maybe ask I I don't think I brought this up last month, but I intended to I that there's cloud seeding that occurs in the worship. And I'm curious if there's been any studies and often cloud seating involved silver. Actually. as the yeah, I'm dancing particularly.

[120:02] and I'm wondering if. the city has done the sampling of whatever that's heating material is, once it falls under the watershed. and not not only the Boulder Creek order shift directly, but also, since we get so much real water in the Northern water system might include, but he that they're doing also. and just perhaps at a at an upcoming meeting. If someone could report back on that, just as it will look into it? If so, are there any detected levels of those constituents you order? Yeah. And I. I had asked Kim Button about that a while ago, and miraculously I found that exchange while you were talking, and she indicated that the city is not involved in any cloud seating efforts in that Our water resources staff have met with the same brain water concerns the district. So to learn about their operation. they. They apparently provided some data that showed

[121:07] there wasn't a a water quality concern. but we haven't done a deep dive to verify that on our own. How common is it? I I mean, how frequently is that being done in my own world, I'm not sure I'd have to follow up on the and it it caught my attention, because sometimes the spring I saw an article. It said Northern water was. and I thought, well, gee! We get some of our water from their watershed. and we ought to know it's in our water. so is the thinking, then, from 200, and being that no further follow up needed, or I, I don't think it's a it's something that we we've done a deep dive into. But we it sounds like we do have awareness and have looked into it. I I can ask her if we're planning to

[122:09] to discuss it any further, or if we're aware of anything coming up that Northern conferences, or whatever it might be, where that's going to be discussed and let you know. Okay. I don't think there any other matters from the board. So then why don't we move next agenda. I didn't matters for staff perfect the. So we, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, we have 2 quick items. The first will be led by Joanne and Blue. I think she has one Powerpoint slide, and it is a regulatory matter with regarding that service line. Right? So she'll cover that. And I asked her to add a sign for me on waste water, Covid testing that. I'll cover what she's done. Great thanks, Joe. Can you all see this slide. Okay. alright great. So I'm Joanna Bloom. In addition to being the technical host, I also manage the water quality work group. And so I'm standing in for our manager who's out this week. so the graphic that you're looking at right now is something I still offline. But it's really just to show you the difference between the private property and the public. responsibility. to the degree that it informs this matter. So

[123:23] As Joe mentioned, we have a regulatory update. because of updated environmental protection agency regulations, water providers nationwide. need to know whether lead service lines are present in their distribution systems. and that includes knowing what's on the utility side and what's on the customer side? up to the point where the private line enters into the structure. so Boulder is subject to these regulations, and is has started conducting an inventory of lead service lines. initially, that includes a records, research to eliminate buildings constructed after 1,988 and also reviewing ordinances and other local regulations that would have prohibited lead pipes.

[124:12] The inventory will also include customer outreach to let folks know that they can have their lines assessed if that's our preference. And then, lastly, we'll likely have to do some excavation in some instances to confirm pike composition. So we just we're mainly here to let you know that this effort is beginning. We'll know a lot more information as we go. and we'll know a lot more specifically about what it'll entail after we do this initial records. Research. we just started it any digging wouldn't happen until the fall, and then once we have a better idea of what we're dealing with, we'll have to develop a replacement plan by October 2024 as needed. So that's kind of the specifics of the inventory. I do want to say that we don't really anticipate that we'll find much. We don't have any known lead lines in the public service

[125:11] portion of the distribution system. It's the private lines that we're more looking at. Of course we'll look at the whole thing. and we'll communicate out what we find. And really, we just wanted to let you know, because this can be a controversial topic. And so we wanted to give you a heads up that we're just now launching it and have some work to come. So we're also doing a similar heads up to city council, and the next month or so to make them aware. And as we know more details, we can report out to you and answer any questions you might have about the program. So that that's my quick overview and a happy to answer any questions. If you have them anytime. You say the words lead and water together. People think about. When Michigan and the a difficult situation there.

[126:02] This is not that. but because those words are put together, it's not. It's good for the board to know. That's that's a work plan. Item, that will be working on questions. Thank you. And if you can flip to the next slide occasionally we have brief the board on waste water testing that we do at our waste water treatment plant for the presence of the covid virus, and as the pandemic has has started to wind down and and lose interest, and I just know, in my own circles people are less inclined to do testing and and and reporting, which was relied upon heavily during the pandemic. a lot of municipalities in the State are doing waste water testing. And the the graphic that you see here

[127:00] goes back to the early or goes back to 2020 through current. And every week I'm I'm copied by our water quality lab Supervisor Melissa, on an email that gives us the latest. And I was mentioning this to Gordon last week, and that that he's the trend was almost down to the bottom of the page, and I had to say something, and then it back up. But If you look at some of the huge spikes that occurred in 2021 and and 2022. It really has been trending a positive direction. So just wanted to share that with the board and warrant, this may be the first time you you're seeing this. But this is something that we do. And we're not really public health officials in this way. So we share this information with the county and then our own organization. People look at it and process it.

[128:04] especially during the heart of the pandemic, as they were considering masking and and those types of things. This is valuable to you. So just wanted to share that and the the correlation between a waste water treatment plant. So the concentrations and then brown line, and then the blue line. The reported cases is almost a perfect fifth for the first half of the big dark. And the reason why it's not. I believe it's not a perfect fit in the latter half chart more recently is because testing is gone almost soon. Yeah. I think that's one of the reason why there's not. So that's correlation. That's for sure. The the believed reason for fundamentally is, people are just disinterested or not not to participating in the traditional public health testing like they did initially. But the brown line does reinforce that. It's still a thing. It's still out there. So I think, Joanna, you can take the presentation down, and if the board wishes, I can move to upcoming agenda. So just briefly on that. in August. We don't have anything planned or prepared in the last several years. It's been a kind of a a gap on for us. So

[129:18] if you have one, then September, we'll have an action item and a water conservation program update from our water resources team. And John Berger has been has been supporting that and working with us on that. And then tentatively, in October, I penciled in water quality updates which we have typically done in the late summer, early fall every year, I would say, that's quite a ways out. And and whether or not we will do that in this way remains to be seen. But that's what we see on the. and that's what they have. Good, thank you.

[130:02] There. Any questions you comments from the board on the thing Well, within that could ask for a motion to adjourn alright. How a paper of adjourning are you eating bye, bye. like. With that no more resource advisory board meetings adjourned this way. Thank you all, and and thank you for those of you who tuned in and who gave public comment tonight which appreciate it to you. Thank you a lot, all of you. Thanks a lot.