October 21, 2024 — Water Resources Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:03] All right. Just water. And I will. Karen, you started the recording right. Recording automatically. But thank you for. It did. I just wanted to double check. So. It is. Thank you. Thanks for checking. No worries. Okay. All the meeting to order. Great. We'll call to meeting the order the Monday, October 21st 2024. Water resource Advisory Board meeting. I will turn it over to Joanna to talk about the virtual rules for tonight. Alright. Thank you very much. Hi! My name is Joanna Bloom, and I'm serving as the technical host for this meeting. We'll start with 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.

[1:07] We do need a full name associated with each person's participation in open comment, and we cannot unmute you without it. If your full name is not currently displayed. Go ahead and try to change it, if you would please. or you're welcome to send me a you. I'll give you my text. My cell number in just a moment. There's no chat feature for this meeting, however, the Q. And a function is enabled and can be used to address zoom connectivity questions. If should you have any if you have difficulty with the Q&A function. you can text me at 3 0. 3, 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

[2:03] I will unmute you when you're recognized. To speak. If you're on the phone. you may need to press Star 6 to unmute yourself. you can indicate your desire to participate in open comment by using the raise hand function. You'll find this feature in the participant box, either at the top or bottom of your screen. and if you've joined us by phone, you can press Star 9 to raise your hand. I will call 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, you can please say your 1st and last name, and we'll start a 3 min timer that will start once you begin your comments. So thanks so much for your participation. Great thanks, Joanna, and we can move to next agenda, which is approving. September meeting minutes. I read through and didn't have any edits, issues, emails. Nope, no, I did not.

[3:02] Is there a motion to approve those motion to approve? Second, all favored. we approve the September meeting minutes. So with that we can move to the, to the virtual public comment. And let's say we have a number of attendees tonight. So I'm not sure what order will go in. But is that Joanna? Turn it back over to you. Yeah. Great. Thank you. So again, if you would like to speak during open comment, now is your chance. Please do feel free to press the raise hand, function. And I will go ahead and try to call in the order that you all raise your hands, and I'll call your full name, and then I'll say who's on deck? So you know who's coming, and right now I see 4 or 5 hands raised. You can do that it won't interrupt comments when other folks are starting theirs. So I see 5. Go ahead and raise your hand if you would like to continue. Or, if you would like to comment.

[4:05] Karen, I'll give you a second to go ahead and put the timer up. And Lynn Siegel, is the 1st commenter. and then let me get you here. Hey? Thanks, Joanna, for the answer. I want to bring up this energy issue with hot water. Well, their heat, pump, air, source, heat pump, hot water heaters. And I wanted to know if they use any more water, because, as I've told you before, I'm throwing away 90% of my water just waiting for the water to get hot. and they're no faster. But what Joanne said. which was important is that

[5:01] they use a lot less energy. 5 times more efficient than conventional gas, hot water heaters dramatically low utility bills and carbon emissions. So this affects, you know. the system of water treatment and the whole. You know the whole thing that goes on with the use of water. although, as Joanna said in her own words, although there's no change in water use at the user scale. There is a general recognition that under the water energy nexus reduced energy use can reduce regional water use tied to power generation. You know, Joanna should be like beyond the city manager. She is like completely amazing the way she thinks. I really can't say enough good things about Joanna Bloom. But

[6:04] to the general public, please. If you have a hot water heater, go out. Consider getting a heat pump, hot water heater. There's more complexity of the installation. If you get an Ao something brand instead of ream, it will have a much lower decibel measurement that you know you hear sounds, but it would be lower than that of a regular refrigerator. If you get the right brand and you get it installed properly, you won't have too much cold. You can egress the cold air to the outside and dramatically affect our utility, and I'm hoping that we can go with municipalization in 2025. And I also wanted to talk a bit about the Boulder Valley Comp plan, and the issues of water didn't come up at all. And you know, this is the limiting factor in our Bvcp. It's the main thing. It's the big time issue is water. If we don't have water, you know. Look at Gaza and Israel right now. You know what the straw industry has gone way up because

[7:15] they have to drink from a straw out of puddles, and they have one toilet for 4,000 people, or they could drink out of the toilet. But there's not even any toilet water, so we need to consider what water we have to be able to extremely overpopulate the front range. Thanks. Thank you, Lynn, for your comments. I'll go ahead and lower your hand. We have Nancy Trigg. You'll be next, and then Erin Meshke and I apologize in advance. If I'm pronouncing anybody's name wrong. give me one second, Nancy. Nancy, you should be able to unmute now.

[8:02] Yeah. Can you all hear me? Can thank you. Nancy. We could hear you. But now we can't hang on just one second. How about yeah, yeah, we can hear you now. Okay. Great I'm Nancy Trig. I live on the south side of Edgewood that you all have heard much about over the last year. I 1st I wanted to thank the team who actually did do the evaluation under Edgewood that we requested. I appreciate that we were heard, and that that was looked into. But I did review all the documents, and it sounds like you all are planning or the intention is to eliminate that option tonight. And I just wanted to weigh in on that before anything is eliminated.

[9:01] I understand that the best decision has to be made but it feels premature to be eliminating any options right now. and I'm just going to go over my reasons why I feel that way. the first.st And again I might be wrong on my information, but my understanding is that the original plan that was made of this section behind our South Edgewood, south of Edgewood. was done around 2,017 or 2018, and I believe we're working with numbers that are no longer accurate in terms of cost of this project. I think it's going to be significantly more than what is currently stated in the plan. I. We also talked to the engineer who worked on that plan shortly after it was released to the public around 2,018. I believe it was, and the engineer we spoke with, said that it did not take into consideration the slope which, stabilizing the slope which I don't know the degrees, but it's significant. Behind the homes is going to be a huge undertaking that I actually think could put the homes at more risk below it.

[10:07] Additionally, we had a assessment done. We could only afford to have it done for the 1st 8 houses, I believe, from the church. West. but just that assessment alone. There are 262 trees in that section. 136 of those were deemed to be in fair condition and 86 in good condition. as opposed to only 40 that are dead or dying. And I've heard multiple times. The plan was to remove dead and dying trees, and to have to remove the number of healthy trees could also put this area at a higher risk for flooding, because those trees are stabilizing the area. So I want to ask that that be taken into consideration as well. And then the last thing I want to correct is, I've heard multiple times in meetings that these homes are in the high hazard zone, which was true prior to the last flood. But the more recent assessments put these homes in conveyance are no longer high hazard, and I know, removing these from high hazard has been a part of the conversation, but they're already out of that zone when it comes to Boulder City rules. So I just wanted to kind of set the record straight and ask that

[11:18] no option be taken off the table until the full conceptual design is created with costs and real impact. Thanks. Thanks, Nancy, for your comments. We have Erin Meshke next, followed by Lillian Hoods. Aaron. You should be able to unmute now. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Da-ha! Hang on. Sorry, Erin. Try it again. I my apologies.

[12:00] Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Erin Meschke. I live in Boulder and represent myself. I have already presented these comments to the Boulder City Boulder County Commissioners and the Boulder City Council, but wanted to make sure I was able to address my concerns with the Water Resources Advisory Council as well. 3 weeks ago the EPA. Lost a landmark case against the use of fluoride in drinking water. This case spanned 7 years, encountering a lot of government and agency meddling and roadblocks along the way, but a verdict was finally issued by a Federal court on September 25th the court deemed fluoridation a quote unreasonable risk to the health of children, and the EPA will be forced to regulate it as such. The court found that claims of safety made over 75 years by the EPA. The American Dental Association and the Cdc. Were, in fact, not supported by evidence. Here are a couple pertinent paragraphs from the 84 page decision quote the issue before this court is whether the plaintiffs have established by preponderance of evidence that the fluoridation of drinking water at levels typical in the United States, poses an unreasonable risk of injury to health of the public within the meaning of amended toxic Substances. Control Act

[13:08] for the reasons set forth below the court, so finds specifically, the court finds that fluoridation of water at 0 point 7 milligrams per liter. The level presently considered optimal in the United States, and as a side note also, in Boulder County, poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ. In children the court finds there is an unreasonable risk of such injury, a risk sufficient to require the EPA to engage with a regulatory response. One thing the EPA cannot do, however, in the face of this court's finding is to ignore that risk as we await the EPA's rulemaking proceedings. Policymakers like yourselves need to be asking if we should continue adding a neurotoxicant to our drinking water. Given the lengthy nature of this trial, it is likely the EPA will also drag its feet in directing the removal of fluoride from drinking water. So that's why I'm asking you for local action now.

[14:03] Soon my family's water will come from a well, and I will bypass this whole fluoride issue, even though this will not affect me personally, I am choosing to engage for those in our community who do not know about the harmful nature of fluoride, or cannot afford the extra steps it requires to remove. This neurotoxicant as well as other endocrine disrupting chemicals found in boulder's water. This precedent setting decision is enough for city officials to fast track the immediate removal of fluoride from our water supply. Thank you. Thanks, Erin. Next up we have Lillian Hoods, followed by Dennis Bash line. Lillian, you should be able to speak now. Alright. Can you hear me? Hello! We can hear you. Okay? Great. Yeah. So thank you for the for the opportunity. I wanted to speak to the Upper Goose Creek Flood mitigation project

[15:01] as a parent property owner and somebody who lives along the creek in the high hazard zone. and also as a gardener and somebody who's really passionate about native plants and landscapes. and so, first, st as a parent and a property owner, I'm very grateful to the city for taking the time and spending the money to mitigate the risk in our to our family and home. My husband was in the house in the 2013 floods, and we have to discuss an evacuation strategy every time it rains. I know the city has faced criticism and opposition, and I'm very grateful that they've nevertheless pushed to protect families like mine. but I do understand that some of the more vocal opponents to the plan for Reach 6 don't own property in the high hazard zone, and that those folks might be more concerned about the wildlife plants and trees along Goose Creek. and so I also wanted to speak to the project as someone who spends a lot of time working in her yard and garden, which both abut the creek, and who's passionate about encouraging native plant species and the birds and animals to which they provide shelter.

[16:03] Long story short, and this is knowledge gained from many hours, just trying to slash through shrubbery in my backyard. But the Goose Creek Channel is clogged with invasive plants and non-native species. The Russian olive split willows, Siberian elm, buckthorn, and multiflora rose along the corridor are aggressive they choke out the native plant life. and I know this again because I've been trying to battle them back in my own yard. Removing them will allow for native plant species to proliferate, and having seen the city's work in other parts of Boulder, I'm very confident that the city will, in fact, transform Goose Creek from what's now an overgrown urban drainage into a thriving native habitat. In short, I'm very grateful again, both for the city's efforts to protect me. My husband and our 3 year old daughter, and for their sensitivity to the very beautiful and unique corridor behind my home. I genuinely appreciate their consideration of alternative solutions. But before we go into another flood season, I just urge the city to avoid any additional delays, so that we can more swiftly protect life and property, and so that we can as soon as possible allow for space and time for those native plant plant species to fill in the corridor.

[17:15] And that's that's it. Thank you. Thanks, Lillian. Next up we have Dennis Bash line, and Dennis, before I unmute you. I just wanted to say, for the benefit of others on the meeting if you did want to speak. This is the last person with their hand raised, so please do virtually raise your hand if you would like to speak, and if you can't see the raise hand function. you're welcome to text me at 3 0 3, 8, 1, 7, 1, 7, 4, 2 with your name, and I will try to mute you when or unmute you when the time comes. In the meantime. Dennis, you should be able to unmute yourself. Now.

[18:02] I'm unmuted, and my wife is on my computer. So it's actually Peggy Dash line speaking. Thank you. Go for it, Peggy. 11 Pm. 9, 1113. The memories are engraved. I cannot argue the desire to control and protect. In the early eighties I literally froze at the wheel while floating down Arapahoe in my Buick. during a raging downpour of hail and water. I understand the fear no one will ever know. All that is weather and water. In 1988 Boulder's flood experts attempted to physically remove all houses along South Edgewood. They proposed our homes would flood and float, but they did not. In 2013, experiencing little to no damage. Once again we receive cyclic punishment, now asking us to accept and receive, not exit potential floodwaters. The city was wrong with its past predictions, and suddenly wants to change its mind, using us as an experiment just 50 feet from our back doors.

[19:18] Are they actually trying to have a flood with such an about face? The reality is, nobody can begin to guess the location and dumping concentrations. Weather will offer at any moment. Consider North Carolina. Yes, neighbors considered in the safer flood zones along floral and other areas, experience damage. But to now attempt to pass the brunt to Edgewood residents is unconscionable. For decades we have lived with the city's most dire of predictions. oddly the exact opposite, and what our private surveyor proposed and composed in writing in the early nineties, is exactly what occurred. The city was wrong with agendas unknown. My local government offers no source of trust to this member of community who has watched, lived, and learned from the repeated attacks to acquire this small strip of property.

[20:15] I cannot wrap my head around the fact. My city wants to demolish an entire, thriving, wildlife corridor. All the talk of global warming and the environment related musings of what boulder deems fact now appears in the forefront a hypocritical farce. I do not understand how over 300 corridor supporters gathered in record time means nothing as their wishes fall on robotic blind eyes and deaf ears. Not one of the hordes of people I have solicited see an ounce of merit in disrupting or destroying the healthy, mature trees and expansive land behind South Edgewood. we all know in one way or another we're sitting ducks, part of the herd, and vulnerable to any number of tragedies to my city. Her plans are providing irrefutable hope.

[21:08] Remember the Buick. Thank you. Ping. Thanks. Yeah, thanks, Peggy, and everyone and as I know, we have our information and presentation on Upper Goose Creek later, but want to give Joe a chance. If you want to respond to any of the public comment, and just remind folks that because it's an information. no additional public comments. If you do wish to speak tonight, now is the time to do it. Jonah mentioned that. But I just want to reiterate that and see if anyone else wants to jump on. But I'll I'll pause and see if Joe has anything you want to respond to. Yeah, sure. Thank you. John. And I'm Joe Taducci. I'm the director of Utilities Department. And Joanna, you can keep an eye on the on the hands, and if there are others who wanna participate in public comment. We can leave it open. But might want to comment on a few of the things, and then some of the other things, I think, will be covered in

[22:04] the presentation. The 1st speaker, Lynn, mentioned the importance of water in the Boulder Valley. Comprehensive plan. I'll be talking about that a little bit later in in tonight's agenda, under matters and and upcoming schedule, there was actually a kickoff event this week for the this weekend for the comprehensive plan, as that will be a big work item for city staff in the next few years, and then the second speaker. I believe Nancy appreciate the feedback from all the speakers. By the way, and Nancy commented on a number of things. I think some of them will be covered in the presentation. Our our discussion tonight will focus on a taking a second look at a piped alternative under Edgewood drive. But as far as the project that goes forward.

[23:03] No decisions have been made yet in the design about the number of trees that may or may not need to be removed, and whether we do the piped alternative. or or the channel alternative, or some combination there, there will have to be some trees removed. possibly on the in the front yards of people. If it's the Edgewood drive, piped alternative as well as in the stream channel. For some of these projects there's no way around that And then Erin, appreciate the feedback on the fluoride issue. Our team has been following that closely. We're aware of the the court case. We're currently meeting the regulations and recommendations for fluoride. Addition to our our drinking water. And that was something that was actually approved. It's part of our our charter and city code. It was approved by voters back in the sixties, I believe the addition of fluoride, so we'll continue to monitor the regulations closely, and should they change, we'll we'll change what we're doing as well, and

[24:19] to do something other than adding fluoride or removing it. I think we would have to go back to the voters for that. So just a few thoughts on that. And then with regard to the last speaker. Peggy, appreciate the the input and the feedback. And and I know the concept of the disturbance and the potential removal of trees that I just mentioned this unwelcome news on on projects like this. and I remember meeting with a group of community members who represented the Edgewood interests, and we talked about the

[25:00] the geography and the topography of the area. And if you think about Edgewood Drive and the creek that is to the south of it if you were if you were heading south to north on 19th Street. There's a there's a 4 way intersection to the to the south. That is Bluff Street. I'm really challenging myself with directions, and and that represents kind of a high point. And then you go down into a valley, and as you continue to the north, there's there's another uphill that you go up. And when we talked with a group of community members there seemed to be consensus, that that was the the river valley or the Goose Creek drainage. and so the water just by physics have to come through there somehow, and and there are options that we can look at. We'll be talking about one tonight. But those are some of the basic realities that we have to deal with in managing floodwater in this area.

[26:06] so I think I will leave it at that, and I'm not sure if others. any other people jumping on joining. I haven't seen any raised hands or gotten a text. So I think you're. I think you can close open comment. Thanks. Everyone really appreciate the engagement. And hopefully, everyone can stick around for the presentation, at least, those interested in the previous Creek project and with that, I guess. Turn it back over to you, Joe, to the information. Item, yeah, I have a few brief comments to introduce this item, and tonight we'll be talking about the Upper Goose, Upper Goose Creek and 2 Mile ranges. and specifically an alternative that we looked at for reach 6 of the Goose Creek trainings that it's been a topic of a lot of public interest. Appreciate the community members who are here tonight.

[27:02] The board members might remember that we had an approved flood mitigation plan for these 2 combined drainages as a single plan. That city council approved in in 2023, and it really centered on flood improvements to the natural stream channel in reach 6, however, in response to community concerns and feedback, we decided to take another look at whether the floodwater could be conveyed in a pipe under Edgewood drive instead of the natural Stream channel, and the the hope of that approach, with that it might eliminate some of the impacts to the natural stream corridor. And this was not something that was council directed, or anything like that. This was this was my my direction, something I asked the team to look at in response to community feedback

[28:01] and one of the community members mentioned a decision tonight. There's actually no action that the Board needs to take tonight. This is just an information item, and we're presenting our findings on the analysis that we did, and we thought Rab would be an appropriate venue. To present this information. So Debbie Fisher is our Senior project manager for the Upper Goose Creek and 2 Mile Flood mitigation project, and she'll be leading our presentation tonight. And, Debbie, you can go ahead and get your slides up on the screen and she'll start out with a a bit of background and context just to get us oriented and and reminded of what this project and what the drainages are. and then she'll talk about the specifics of the piped option that we looked at

[29:02] and then I might close us out tonight. So that's what we have in store. And this is always the moment of truth. This will the technology cooperator for one so far, looking good signs are good so far. Thank you, Joe. appreciate, appreciate the introduction. So this will be a that's about a 15 min presentation alright, and we've saved quite a bit of time to answer answer questions and so forth. And we already covered virtual meeting part. So

[30:01] just another quick introduction tonight. Purpose of this presentation is to provide background and updates for the Upper Goose, 2 Mile Canyon flood mitigation project and then timeline for some next steps. We have just a few things on the agenda. short introductions. history. some project updates, and then time for questions and so forth. So introductions. My name is Debbie Fisher. I'm the senior project manager in the Storm Flood Group for the city of Boulder, and I will be the project manager for this particular project. You've already met Joe Tatiuti, our director of utilities. and Brandon Coleman is also here tonight. He is the manager of the Storm Flood Group also wanted to point out that we actively work with many organizations outside the city of Boulder. One of those partners is the mile high Flood district, which is an independent special district that assists local government

[31:07] in the Denver metro area with drainage and flood control and icon engineering has been instrumental to date in helping us with the mitigation planning. So we will cover a quick history of flooding in boulder, and in particular. in this watershed the city's stormwater and flood management. Utility uses a lifecycle approach to addressing flood risks throughout the community. This approach starts with floodplain mapping to identify risk followed by mitigation, to select the preferred project alternatives. and then design and construction mapping is then updated to reflect the new floodplain with mitigation projects in place to continue the cycle as needed.

[32:03] Design has not yet begun for this project. The upper parts of 2 Mile Canyon and Upper Goose Creek watersheds are located north and west of city limits. and are covered by a variety of rock outcroppings, and are vegetated with grasses, trees, and shrubs. From the city limits. Creeks are characterized by steep topography and dense residential development adjacent to the creeks with limited capacity to convey flood waters. In some places the creeks disappear altogether, and flood water travels over roads enter properties. This red line is the approximate boundary between the 2 watersheds. and the yellow star represents the westerly edge of Edgewood drive. At 19th blood flow in the 2 Creeks behaves in significantly different ways.

[33:02] In 2 Mile Canyon Creek concentrated high velocity. Flood water pours out of the mouth of the canyon at Linden Street, creating a flash, flood blood flow from Upper Goose Creek flows in multiple paths before ponding in North Boulder Park and continuing eastward, spreading throughout neighborhoods. They come together near Folsom Street and continue easterly to Boulder Creek. The map shows the approximate flooded areas from the 2013 flood. and these photos give a glimpse of how severe that was in the watershed. Most flows could not get to the creek, due to the unusual nature of the flooding event. Debris and undersized storm sewer, resulting in flood being floods being conveyed along streets and through private properties, causing severe flood damage

[34:04] because of the differing behavior of the 2 creeks. The storm was estimated as a hundred Year Storm event in the upper reaches of 2 Mile Canyon Creek in a 25 to 50 year. Storm event in the Goose Creek Basin. Another way to quantify these storm events is that the 100 year storm as a 1% chance of occurring in any given year and a 25 to 50 year. Storm event has a 2 to 4% chance of occurring in any given year. The urgency of the Upper Goose Creek, 2 Mile mitigation plan was reinforced by even more recent flood events. In 2018, and in 2023 the mitigation plan was recommended by Rab in March of 2023, and approved by city Council in May of 2023. The plan included extensive outreach and engineering, and identified protection for over 500 homes from the 100 Year flood for an estimated construction cost of 43.2 million dollars.

[35:12] At the request of city Council, a robust community outreach effort was undertaken to reintroduce the mitigation plan. gather input and to inform the community of the results. The Storm flood team hired a communications manager who has created multiple forms of communication such as website updates, mailings, flyers and an email address specifically for questions and comments about our flood projects. We did even more. We instituted open office hours and held community meetings in local schools, offering more in-person opportunities to engage with staff and ask questions. From our outreach efforts. We gathered community interests that are extremely important to our flood projects.

[36:04] Everyone wants to understand the level of flood protection and the accuracy of data used to predict flood extents. Of course, there's a sense of urgency for flood protection. Every project has impacts as the project is taking place. we recognize that wildlife utilizes the areas in and around existing creeks. and there are key nesting and denning times. Mature native trees are a valuable resource and will be surveyed, evaluated by an arborist and protected whenever feasible native riparian vegetation and trees will be replanted. Full restoration after construction to an even better, more sustainable riparian habitat is a major goal of stream projects. Construction is not a pleasant experience, but it is temporary. It causes disruption to traffic and temporary inconveniences.

[37:03] There are concerns over phasing and duration. Often acquisition of additional easements are required, whether temporary for construction or permanent for ongoing maintenance projects can be close to backyards and homes. Maintenance is always required after it is all done. the more resilient the project design, the less maintenance is required. Taking all these concerns into consideration in the selection of alternatives. Where's the project going from? Here? Let's take a look and some project updates. Key project goals align with the comprehensive flood and stormwater plan adopted by the city in 2022. Among these are to protect life and property by reducing the extents of the high hazard zone and the 100 year floodplain

[38:04] to minimize impacts to private properties and wildlife as a result of the proposed improvements. and to provide variable natural looking features representative of the upstream natural watershed. This means mimicking the natural variability of the creek wherever feasible and developing a unifying aesthetic along the creek corridor. Ultimately these goals come together to design, a high functioning, low maintenance stream that is resilient to flood events for a long time into the future. To provide this high functioning, low maintenance stream, nature based. Design has been shown to be the best sustainable solution to flood control. This QR code will take you to a presentation on Nature-based design on our website

[39:05] in Boulder. The plan is to accommodate floods rather than controlling them by focusing on natural stream processes whenever feasible to construct resilient infrastructure that is adaptive to changing climate conditions. and to protect and restore the natural streams where they still exist within the city. Keeping in mind the goals of the city. the upper goose. 2 mile mitigation plan explored several alternatives with community input, such as detention, open channels and pipe systems. These alternatives were evaluated and scored to determine the chosen alternatives and level of flood conveyance for 4 reaches and in 2 Mile Canyon

[40:01] and for 6 reaches for Goose Creek. as indicated on the map. The 1st phase of the mitigation plan is the lower reach of Goose Creek, shown here as reach 6. This reach is currently an open channel with less than 5 year capacity, situated between the homes along the south side of Edgewood Drive and the hill to the south. Except for a short section on the western end the creek is almost entirely south of the properties along Edgewood. lying mostly within the properties on the hill. The approved mitigation plan recommended a restored 100 year open channel along the existing creek within reach. 6. We can see there are 51 structures.

[41:01] and the 100 year floodplain. 29 of which are in the conveyance zone. Edgewood Drive and 19th Street are in the high hazard zone. Additionally, portions of the creek are in need of restoration as a reminder. The conveyance zone is the minimum space required to carry the volume of the 100 Year storm Event. The high hazard zone is where the combination of depth and velocity produces the danger of cars and people being swept away. The approved mitigation plan alternative recommended improvements to the existing Creek long reach 6 to provide a hundred year flood conveyance with some localized upstream stormwater improvements. Since this reach is at the bottom of the watershed, this project is needed to be able to accept flood water from upstream. In the rest of the watershed

[42:07] bridge 6 is characterized by a steep slope belonging to the properties to the south. Dense vegetation along the creek and limited access through private properties. The majority of the creek lies within the properties on the hill. Most of the homes along Edgewood Drive were built decades ago, prior to the implementation of modern floodplain regulations, thus finding themselves in the floodplain. The tight corridor that remains only has the capacity to convey approximately a 5 year event forcing additional floodwater into the streets and private properties. A piped alternative along Edgewood Drive was briefly considered in formulating the mitigation plan, but deemed infeasible and not pursued subsequent to City Council's approval of the mitigation plan. There were significant community concerns about channel approach in reach 6.

[43:05] As a result the city agreed to revisit the concept of a piped alternative along Edgewood, drive the city, hired icon engineering to take a more in-depth. Look at the feasibility. constructability cost and the pros and cons of a piped alternative versus the Open Channel alternative. Looking east at the cross section of Edgewood drive. Width of the street is 40 feet. It's 1 travel lane in each direction. A bike lane, and parking along the south side to adequately convey the required flow in the piped system. The only feasible solution is a shallow system of box culverts

[44:01] that can tie back into the existing creek. A deeper system cannot ever reconnect at the surface. Back to the creek downstream. To carry the existing flow would require 8 parallel, 4 by 4 foot box culverts. each approximately a half a mile long for a total width of 40 feet. requiring excavation of the entire roadway. This would cause major traffic and access disruptions for a year or more. because the culverts interfere with the existing sanitary gas and water mains and services which cannot remain under and across the box culverts new sanitary sewer gas and water mains would be required on each side of the street, under the front yards of the homes on both sides

[45:01] resulting in service interruptions. Additionally, trees. sidewalks, and fences would need to be removed for the utility, main construction. and trees and fences would not be able to be put back over the tops of the pipes. A major consideration is that even with the culverts the pipe system cannot capture all of the water from Goose Creek. because the existing creek is much lower than the elevation and of the required box culverts under the street approximately 20 to 25% of the floodwater. We'll continue down the creek. Repairs and improvements along the existing channel are still needed to provide capacity for the portion of the floodwater that will not be intercepted by the pipe system and to stabilize the banks that were eroded during the 2,013 flood. The estimated cost for this piped alternative is 58 million dollars.

[46:05] Maintenance requirements would be frequent to do inspections and remove sediment and debris to summarize some trade-offs. Here's a comparison of key project considerations for both the open channel and piped alternatives flood protection. Both the open channel and the piped alternatives along with the required channel. Rehabilitation would convey the 100 Year storm event cost. The cost estimate is 12 million dollars for the Channel, and 58 million dollars for the piped alternative. The piped alternative still requires Creek rehabilitation and total replacement of Edgewood Drive and all of the utilities in the street impacts. We considered impacts related to construction, to wildlife, to the neighborhood, and to future maintenance.

[47:06] Focusing most of the construction at the surface along the creek is safer and less complicated with less long-term maintenance. Pipe systems collect debris and sediment and require frequent cleaning and maintenance. and ultimately total replacement. Piped alternative would require a larger construction. Footprint with massive excavations, multiple pipes and culverts, longer construction. Time and cause major disruptions to the neighborhood. including existing utilities and access. Unfortunately, the piped alternative would not eliminate the need for channel rehabilitation in reach 6. Although the footprint of the channel would be slightly less. and environment in either case construction in the existing creek would be necessary to repair

[48:05] existing damage and restore capacity for the flood water that cannot be captured in the pipe system. This will temporarily disrupt the ecosystem of the creek. and require the removal of some existing trees and vegetation. particularly non-native and invasive species. reconnecting the existing narrow creek channel to the wider floodplain, restores natural stream functions and processes that support a more robust, aquatic, riparian native habitat provide water, quality benefits and future resilience. adding the piped alternative would also require tree and vegetation. Removal along the street pipe systems do not provide any water quality or habitat benefits. The high velocity and flood volume at the exit of pipes into the creek would require substantially more

[49:03] armored erosion protection. Now I'm going to turn it back over to Joe Tadiugie to wrap up and take any questions and concerns that you may have. Thank you for that, Debbie and kind of going back to my introductory comments again. This is something that I asked the team to look at, and and we engaged a consultant and had them do the analysis. and the objective was to look at this piped alternative that placing the pipes under Edgewood drive? Would it work in a way that's reasonably comparable to doing it in the natural channel instead? And could it eliminate that work? And I I believe the team really took it to heart and and looked at it in good faith and objectively, and and the findings, unfortunately that was that

[50:02] it was not comparable. and I may or may not ask Debbie to go back a few slides here, but I think the biggest thing for me. A lot of it can boil down to opinions and preference like it's. It's 5 times the cost. Well, that in in our city's values that may be worth it. And so we might advance an alternative if that was all there was to it. But I think what we found is that the elevations don't work, and this is the the key point, just the physics of the the creek drainage, and you can't get the water from the Goose Creek drainage into the inlet of the pipe. because the elevation of the pipe has to be higher. And for this type of situation floodwaters, we. you know, there are parts of utilities where we use pumps and things like that. But we can't do that for this, this magnitude of flow.

[51:05] And so what that means is. you would have to build the pipes that Debbie showed in the in that cross section all the way across Edgewood Drive. and you would still have to do channel work in the creek. It would have to be a combination of the 2 things for me, and and I know one of the community members asked, that we don't take anything off the table. but it actually, when you, when you think about that, and just knowing how hydraulics work, it's not. it's not that with a lesser flow the amount of channel disturbance is proportional. You still end up with a significant component of of what you would have if you put all of the all of the flood flow in the channel. and then you have all of that disruption to Edgewood Drive and people's front yards as well. And so

[52:03] again. This was not something that city council asked for, something we did did on our own to be responsive to feedback the community members who have organized around this asked us to look at 5 things. This was one of them. but I think primarily because of the physics of the situation and not being able to get all of the water into the pipe. we just don't feel like it's advisable to. That's this, especially when you consider it's 5 times the cost, and and probably doubles the disruption to the impacts that people would experience. So that that is I think that is where we're landing on this. And. Debbie, I was gonna ask you to go back to slide 20. If you can do that, I know you have animation, so that might be 400 clicks. But if we can get there quickly.

[53:02] So yeah, I think this is a good view. And one of the public commenters talked about the slope stability. If you look at that large green area that's a pretty steep slope. and and there are concerns about if we do work in that channel? Are we gonna make things worse there? I think there are already stability concerns in its current configuration. And then that is one of the things that we would work on in final design. But this is a good vantage point for the situation, and I think you can. Everyone can see where the natural stream channel is, and then the primary road is Edgewood Drive. and you can kind of tell from this figure at the far end of the photo. Edgewood drive appears to me to be higher than the creek channel, and that's the issue. It can't get the water to divert from the Creek channel into this shallow pipe.

[54:02] because the elevation of the inlet has to be higher, and that is because of the way the downstream connection has to work. It's not a matter of preference, or just how we want to do it. It's it's just it's a fact. So that that's that's kind of where this puts us. And now, if you'll go back to the timeline slide, thank you for working with me to get back to that. So where that puts us. We wanted to do this, update and and share the information both with the community and the board, and it would be our intention to now start working on the on the design, and the 1st step would be hiring a consultant to work with us on some of those details, and I imagine we would have alternatives that we could work with the community for the channel configuration and the slope, stability and and all of those things, and

[55:06] opportunity for the public to weigh in on that. But that's the timeline that you see with design happening in 2025 and 2026, and the desire to go to construction in 2027, and regardless of which alternative we brought forward. I know one of the other requests that the community members made was just looking to the city for guidance on how easements and those kinds of things work. There basically were 5 different requests that they made, including this Edward drive alternative. and we have either done the 5 or the remaining items we intend to do them. So planning to work with the community on that. I think that's that's what we have in the next slide is probably just queuing up the questions. If the board has any.

[56:02] Yep. great thanks, Debbie, and thanks, Joe, and really appreciate that presentation. I have a couple of questions and I'll turn it over first.st I have one clarification question. I think you mentioned. It was 20 to 25% of the floodwater that wouldn't be captured by the culverts. Is that right? Yes, okay. And is that like, regardless of the amount of flow. That's just the percentage that it wouldn't capture. Okay, I just wanted to make sure that wasn't like dependent on flow amount or anything like that. It was. That's the gap period. Okay? Cool right, which which equates to around 500 cfs. Out of a total of about 2,000 cfs. That needs to be conveyed altogether. That's a significant flow. And as Joe mentioned, it's so much lower than the pipes under the street. the only way to get it up to the street would be to pump it with massive pumps, like on the order of the ones that you use in

[57:06] New Orleans from Lake pontry. And that's not really a a great stormwater solution for Colorado. Okay, thanks. That's okay. I don't. I was just curious. The I know the plan includes also the floral alternative that city council recommended pursuing. I'm just curious if that's a similar type of similar size. Is that what you're asking? Similar size. Similar construction impacts similar everything to what you just presented on that under the Edgewood alternative it is similar. It would be done in box culverts. But we actually did have Icon take a look at the design to do that, and whether it was feasible or not, it is definitely feasible. It's it's more. It's a lot less flow because it's only capturing a portion of 2 Mile Canyon Creek. the part that basically spills across Broadway and down Iris, things that fall South that are are not interceptable by that particular system to get down floral drive. But, as I recall, it would have been

[58:11] probably about half a 3rd to a half the amount of box culverts that we were showing here for that quantity of flow, and it was a very conceptual look. So that's a rough number, but it is feasible. and that is actually our intention to take that flow down floral. But unfortunately there will be the same kind of disruptions to floral drive, for the people living along there, not quite to the extent, because we won't need the entire street. and and with that option it has to come down one street from another and be in the pipe. So it's not. It's not the same comparison. Advancing the floral drive. Option was one of the 5 things that the community members

[59:00] A asked us to do, and we intend to do that. And that's a good point. It would either be down floral or down 19, th and it would be similar size culverts either way. And then, Joe, you alluded this and Debbie, you'd mentioned this, that the if you did the under the Edgewood alternative. the footprint of what's needed to rehabilitate the the creek itself. I think that you said we slightly less than if you didn't do the piped alternative any, can you, for any numbers of that? For what slightly less means? Not not really, not at this point. We've not really done any conceptual designs. The creek should still be improved to carry that 500 cfs or so at a minimum, and Joe could probably speak to this, but it's the same size equipment, the same environmental studies. the same level of engineering. All those things remain the same. So

[60:00] if you want to speak more to that. and and without any numbers, and just what I know about hydraulics, and how channels work, and Debbie and Brandon are far enough away that they probably can't throw anything at me, but I would. I would guess it would be 2 thirds, maybe 3 quarters besides. of the full channel without seeing the analysis. Yeah, it's it's deceptive. For instance, a 5 year storm event is typically around 40% of a hundred year storm event and a 50 year event is close to 3 fourths, if not more, of a hundred year event. It's not a linear percentage. And so that that bring it our recommendation for not advancing. This is when you throw all the costs and the impacts. The Edgewood drive on top of that disturbance to it. It just doesn't make sense.

[61:01] I 2 more quick questions, if you don't mind. So design construction was 2025, 2026. When can property owners on Reach 6 expect to be engaged by the city on design, and talk to about easements and all that stuff. Good good question somewhere around, maybe the middle to end of 2025 we would have done some. There's a lot of data together. First, st we've got to do surveys, and we've got to do an environmental study. And we've got to start talking to the Army Corps of Engineers and and look at Wetland permitting and get that all started and all that sort of thing, and that really, that's just the beginnings. And then, we would hire a consultant, or actually several consultants. There will be a geotechnical consultant and an environmental consultant and a civil consultant and a flood consultant in the mile high flood district will be involved. So I'm anticipating by the time you pull all those people together, and we decide who's gonna do what and when they're gonna do it, we're probably looking

[62:07] mid to end of 2025 before we would even have any inklings of a conceptual design. I agree with what Debbie is saying there, and we're actually going through that process right now on the Gregory group. flood mitigation plan and working with those property owners on easements. And I think there's some we have to look at alternatives now for this for this approach. probably working with the community members on on some of that. And the design has to get to. I don't know 30, 50%, probably before you know what the footprint is is potentially gonna look like and which properties are impacted. And then we can start having those conversations. So maybe a year from now people can expect to hear, very likely about a year, maybe a little less.

[63:05] What was the basis for the estimated cost for the Channel solution. The more natural icon did those estimated costs based on on 2023 construction costs for similar projects, working with mile high flood district. And I I think those cost estimates are listed in in the a large mail record they put together also have have that here point to it. I think I might be able to find it. I think that's probably okay. Yeah, I have it. I do have it open. Yeah, it is in here. It's on page 11 pages 10 and 11. Oh. icons report

[64:06] last question for you. Just do you have a be able to read the cost of this under the Edgewood analysis. Sure. Yeah. We. We spent about $85,000 on the consulting work. A few years ago we had a similar situation with the South Boulder Creek flood project. And we're asked by the community to look at a different alternative. And we did that single drops. Okay? Any final questions from the board. Yeah, thank really appreciate the update, and the analysis. And thank you for the presentation. Debbie. appreciate you taking the questions. And with that we can move to the next information. Item. yeah. And before we move to that, I do, I do appreciate the community members who attended tonight for the Goose crease update and realized that this was not the news people were hoping for. And we look forward to working with everybody on

[65:06] of how to advance this going forward. so I'll I'll probably leave it at at that, and it sounds like there may be some community members that have their hand raised. I think there's not really a a public comment opportunity at this point. But people can for sure email, the board and staff, if they'd if they'd like to provide additional perspective on this and now for something completely different. So the the next item, and I may have some comments at the end. But the next item relates to some proposed ordinances for backflow program. Megan Wilson Elkul is our senior manager of the Water Quality group. I almost said, water resources haven't been reassigned. And

[66:05] She will kick this off. It's again. It's an information item, there's no action. The board needs to take. But there is council action coming up. So as as we go through this item, if the board has feedback, to be sure to carry that forward to council. as we can explain it. Good evening, Board members. Appreciate your time this evening. My colleague, Michael Parrish, is going to go into details about what Backflow Prevention is, why, it's important and what our code changes are that we're proposing. I just had a few kind of High Level comments to make. We're regulated by the State of Colorado for a backflow prevention program. And I'll say it's an administratively intensive program to manage. It requires a lot of detailed tracking customer service follow up and enforcement to ensure that the city is in compliance with these rules. We have a team of 2, and they end up spending a lot of their time, the majority of their time following up with customers and enforcing

[67:04] for the relatively minor number of customers that don't readily come into compliance. So ultimately, we're hoping that these changes will shift to fewer enforcement cases over time so that the staff can work more proactively to do customer outreach inspections to ensure. We have these backflow prevention devices where they're needed. Michael Parrish and and our other staff member, Mike really work on compliance, assistance and prioritize working with customers. So you'll hear more about this. if a customer needs more time to get into compliance, or they're working through hoa board approvals or need to brainstorm solutions like, we're we're totally willing to give time when we can. Within the state requirements. Unfortunately, sometimes we do have to escalate enforcement. Again, our our overall goal, and it might seem

[68:01] counterintuitive when you 1st hear about what we're proposing. But our goal is to reduce enforcement over time. So I've been supporting this program. So I will turn it over to Michael Parrish. Our water compliance program manager for backfill. Thank you. Less is a little passionate, mostly disappearing. We'll roll with it. It's a couple of boxes. So yeah, my name is Michael Parrish. As Megan said, I'm Water Quality Compliance program manager in the backflow program Utilities department and thanks for giving us a little time to update you on these tactical code updates. I know everyone was dying and excited to hear all about it.

[69:08] So backflows the reverse flow of water. In this case, water from private property back into the city's water main so obviously that can carry contamination and to protect public health and our drinking water supply. We have backflow prevention, mainly backflow prevention assemblies kind of like this picture here that you see. Most non. Single family accounts, all metered irrigation accounts all fire lines. They're required to have a backflow Prevention Assembly, and the vast majority of these are privately owned and and maintained. As was mentioned the State of Colorado through the Cdph. That's the backflow prevention program. Baseline requirements that have to meet, and all suppliers in the State have to.

[70:02] And so that means that the city is really playing an enforcement role in trying to make sure that we're doing everything that we can to protect drinking water. We have to ensure that the appropriate backflow assembly appropriate type is there for each cross connection where it might be needed, that it's adequate for the hazards present and such. And if it's not, has to be installed within regulatory timeframes, we have to track all of the backflow assemblies that we are tracking as containment assemblies. There's about 7,800 or so. We have to make sure they're tested annually. State requirement is we have to get 90% testing ratio each year, and no individual backflow assembly can go 2 years without being tested. So, as you can imagine, there's a lot of tracking and follow up and excel spreadsheets magically been put together to help us try to track that all down

[71:00] and backflow assemblies. If they fail a test, they need to be repaired or replaced and retested within regulatory timeframes, which is a long way of saying there are many different ways that we can get a backflow violation from the State Us. As the city of Boulder could receive that violation. Any violation we get. We must notify all of our water customers which has the not insignificant cost of sending a letter to everyone, but also the very significant impact of potentially decreasing publics, trust and confidence in their drinking water. So enforcement is how it's how we get there and what our main enforcement tool at this point is the threat of water. Shut off hang tags, or what we use. That's a little yellow tag that warns folks on their door, hey? 10 days water will be shut off if we don't come to an understanding or an agreement and resolve whatever the situation is.

[72:04] So you did not do much enforcement with pain tags before 2023. In the graph. Here you can see light green. It's 2022 cumulative percentages month over month and then in March 2023, about we started using hang tags to get our numbers up to where they needed to be. And, as you can see. there's a big difference, and paint tags do really work the part of a water shot off is a impactful tool for us. It also has a lot of downsides like we spend a lot of our time staff time tracking who needs a hang tag painting the tag on the door, talking with the customer there, follow up after the hang. Tag is out. Calls. If we're getting close to the shut off date, and we haven't heard from folks. So it's very time intensive for stuff. And then

[73:02] we're finding now a couple of years into it. There's certain property managers or companies that are waiting to get a hang tag to do anything which is problematic. And then. really, significantly, if we're looking at people who would be very impacted by a water shut off are not the ones who are responsible for scheduling a backflow test. So tenant in a multifamily building or something like that. So really, our goal with these code changes that we're proposing is to try to reduce the number of taxes we have to hang, and all while still meeting our state requirements. So these specific fees and penalties hope that people comply on time before a hang tag even comes out. Hopefully, we'll keep them sticking to their schedules and agreements that we come to together and then account for staff time. And in tandem with the code updates, we're also bringing forward a city manager role, and that'll have an earlier deadline for irrigation backflow testing for August. First.st

[74:11] That being, we have a limited time window to work with for irrigation backflow testing. If it there's no water to the backflow, it can't be tested. So once things are winterized, our only enforcement tool is blocking off a meter which is a huge time, time, intensive operation for staff, both in the fall. And then in the spring, on the 1st warm week, when everyone would like to have their locked meter back on to irrigate again, so really trying to cut that down. And that's been fairly successful in practice with this city manager role, I think, will really help establish that. And like it's kind of been mentioned. If we can spend less time enforcing a minority of customers, we can do more site survey, or proactive inspections. Get out more educational sides of things. So it'd be a really nice change for staffing as well.

[75:10] So these are the proposed fees and penalties we're thinking to bring in, and I'll get into how these will kind of all fit into our overall process here in just a second. But to come up with these numbers. We looked at what other front range suppliers were doing, and these are fairly mid range. Some are charging a little less for hang tags, some are charging much higher penalties right off the bat. So feel good, being kind of middle of the pack there. It's not too dissimilar from other erc enforcement programs where in terms of how quickly things escalate the financial amount. So we feel good with that. $58 backflow hang tight. Fee working with the finance department, just accounting for staff time and fema vehicle rates and sorts of things. And

[76:00] then these tiers of penalties and jump into that. This will be one example, one of the main things we're doing, tracking, annual testing. So this is how we kind of go through the process and what these new, these and penalties will hopefully give us here in that final right hand column. So once something's due, we send them a postcard, saying, Hey, don't forget your backflows do for testing. If we get a schedule from them, or we get a test report from them, it ends there. If we don't, then the next month, we say, Hey, you're past due for breakfast testing. And we hopefully get a schedule or a test report. In assuming none of that happens at this point we hang a hang tag for shut up this yellow water. Shut off warning. Hang tag currently, there's no financial cost to getting a hand tag that would hopefully change the hang tag for water shut off is something that we take very seriously. We don't mess around with that. We don't take it lightly that this Enforcement tool is a very blunt tool.

[77:06] We've hung over 1,600 tags over the past year and a half, 2 years, and we've had 13 occupied domestic shut offs. And so that really speaks to the amount of effort we go through to try to reach people calling people random phone numbers from test reports from years ago to see if they still might be associated with it. We really go out of our way to try to avoid water. Shut off if we can. That $103 fee that you see there, that is, if the water is shut off, and so, if we can agree to a schedule, which is what happens in the vast majority of the cases. or that's not impacting the customer. That's only for the water shut off. And so now we have the schedule we've agreed upon, and then we don't hear from the customer again. The schedule time comes and goes that we're not able to communicate with them on. As to why we have to hang a tag again to get a schedule out of them again.

[78:08] It doesn't happen often, but the amount of time we waste kind of running in these circles is kind of disheartening, and our time could be better spent doing more productive things. So the thought is, if we have a penalty associated with breaking a schedule, no communication, no, follow up anything that'll come with a penalty, and if we do that, all that whole routine again would come with a higher penalty. And this example here is fairly similar to our other processes. A failed test that needs to be repaired and replaced, and hasn't been in the right timeframes or an install that needs to take place, and they're not responding and within the required timeframes. It's a similar process, the difference being for those that have more of a public health impact, a non functioning or non present back full assembly. We start with a penalty. So we do. A 6, 50 for that 1st one and then 1,500 for the

[79:08] for the second one. that's the main need of it, the the rest of it. We're looking at just clarifying some language and code to better match state regulations and such the city manager rule in addition, in addition to the August 1st deadline, also just clarifying test submission deadlines for test companies. We've updated our website. We've updated our auto reply to the email. And our email signature has a link to it. So anyone who's emailed us in the last few weeks has gotten that reminder. But then we'll have targeted outreach to property managers, testing community updated communication letters explaining what the new fees and penalties are, and more importantly, how you can avoid them and not have to deal with them at all.

[80:03] Going to council on November 21st and December 5, th and if all goes according to plan, both city manager rule and code changes will go into effect in January 2025. But thank you for your time, and happy to answer any questions. Thanks, Michael. Just one quick question. I'm curious if the second postcard, like you're late, is now going to have like the thread of. If you don't do it, we will charge you. Yeah, we haven't. We haven't drafted any of the new materials yet, since it's not yet. and in effect we're going through council. But yes, it would. I would assume that even the 1st card will say, Hey. if you get a hang tag. These charges will come up our our main goal like if we could, I would love to never charge one of these penalties, but also never have to chase down someone for a second time or a 3rd time to try to get a schedule up

[81:05] as someone who procrastinates on my renewal every year, like the moment I get one that says you're gonna have to pay like, Okay, that's awesome. Do you find that it's a lot of the same same people year over year. Is there kind of a there's definitely some trends, I would say often, what will happen is we'll eventually get to the point like you said. There's 13 domestic shut offs. If we have someone who really isn't cooperating over time, and we've tried working with them. We've hung tags. We don't get a brilliant enough of a schedule. We go through the process, and we do shut their water off the next time they get a reminder they're much more responsive. And so there are. There are a cast of characters who are familiar. But There's not just one small cast of characters.

[82:02] Are there any fees for, like multi family apartments, or anything. If water gets shut off for like not paying this, or it's just kind of on them to get it back on. So the the shut off fee that we have, and that's the same for the billing shut off fee. So if the what if someone actually physically goes out to the meter to shut off the meter. That fee includes that the fee to shut it off and to turn it back on. But we would only charge that if we actually go and shut off the meter. So there's like, it's just, I guess, because you alluded earlier to like these multifamily areas where it's really the tenants that are suffering, it doesn't get paid, whereas there's no like accountability there other than we will shut it off. Yeah, it's that's it's a pretty blunt tool. And and I would say, we recognize that gap, whether it's multifamily or tenants in like a business park area.

[83:03] And it's it's something that we're working on in our communication to try and flag for the people who might be the business owner or the the tenants like, help us get in touch with your. This is serious. Yeah, I mean. And and for us, at the core of it is public health, and the requirements are there for a reason. and from my knowledge, and and what I've learned about areas of utilities that I hadn't been exposed to before I was in this role. This is one of the most complicated things to meet the requirements and the testing standard that Michael mentioned, 90% of those 7,800 devices have to be tested, and I I forget which year it was. But it used to be 60% and it is a hard standard to meet. and I think

[84:00] just when I was hearing this presentation before tonight, and it really struck me the 1,600 hang Hank Tags and 13, but only resulting in 13 shut offs just the amount of unproductive time that Staff spends. and for me personally to be comfortable. With this I was interested in like, how does this pair? How does this compare to other penalties the city has for other things or other municipalities? And I feel like we've established something that benchmarks. Okay with those things. And it's not as as Michael said, we don't want to spend our. It's not in our value system to feel great about the penalties and and fees, but it's it's public health, and it's it's a regulatory requirement. And it's it's we take seriously meeting it to add a little of the complication would you consider like different rates for different meter size? Or is it all just

[85:05] same same per customer, same computer sites. I would I would hesitate to get into meter size in terms of just the cost is associated with the staff time spent in the operation of painting a tag or following up in some way. and then I mean, I don't know for sure. But the fairness issues that could come from a a small meter that's going through this process versus a a large multifamily residence, and how that would shake out to me gives flaws. But I don't think it's something we've really considered as a program to change it based on meter size. What's the like equity consideration? Why? I asked the question. So it just sounds like. It's not a little bit about that. And there's really no way to kind of like, do that. Yeah, I I don't know if I would say no way, necessarily, but I think

[86:04] it. We can find ways to have a more equitable approach in other formats if we're talking with someone, and they're like, hey? I'm really struggling to get the money together to install a backflow. We can work with them on that as long as we're within our State guidelines, and if they're communicating that to us, we're happy to like that. Would. That is something where we will go above and beyond. If they're working with us or do everything we can. It's the folks who don't. And then, when we start running up against State deadlines that we have to be a little bit more serious and go paint tag over. Do the test? Is there like, do they have to hire someone to do the test? Exactly? Yeah. So I mentioned briefly. But yeah, key part of this. It's privately owned and privately maintained. And then they hire out 3rd party, certified backflow testers. And so the cost of a test. There's

[87:02] there's a whole range of what people are charged. I don't know what the best price is. I see when people send me their receipts instead of their test reports. I've I've seen it everywhere from 60 to 70 bucks for a test up to people charging 300 plus a trip fee of a hundred bucks, plus everything else. So there's a a variety based on the companies, and there's a a good number of companies operating here. and then, if your your test isn't good, you've got to replace your system. Yeah, you don't have to replace necessarily depends how it fails. There are some that can just be repaired fairly straightforward. There's some that do eventually need to be replaced, and that's why they're tested every year, because a mechanical assembly eventually over time will start to fail any other questions.

[88:01] No, thank you. Yeah, thanks, Megan. Thanks, Michael. Really appreciate the presentation. It was pretty exciting stuff fall asleep. So thank you. With that we can matters or matters from the board. So do you have anything to bring tonight? I do not. So we can move to matters from staff. Yeah. And I can be really brief on this. I mentioned in the beginning, based on public comment, that we have the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. Kickoff event, this past weekend at the Dairy Art Center. It was really well attended. There were staff from various departments there. With little station set up where people could come by and provides. Get get questions answered, provides some initial input on what the community was interested in. There was a

[89:03] there's a big auditorium there, and there were some events in there. And so it was a. It was a good event, and the comprehensive plan is is the overarching policy guidance document for Boulder Valley and how it affects utility. There are. There's a lot in the current plan around planning and growth elements for the city service levels things that impact our utilities. And similarly, Council is discussing the planning reserve and Area 3 on the very north end of town, where the a little go-kart track via the gateway fund center, or whatever. And and so they're related. And we're actually as a staff team. have been supporting the planning department on some of those studies. And so that's all. Gonna be coming to a head here in 2025 and and 26, I believe.

[90:08] and our water supply. we'll policy will be something there, so there will. There will be things for Rad to work on as well as we go through that process. So just wanted to flag that for you. And then in the really good News Department Council unanimously approved the budget last week. So I really appreciate the Board's work on that every year. It's a it's a lot to kind of go through those items and and work with us on our materials and presentations, so really appreciate that and as they were doing their deliberation and getting ready to develop one Council member Commented on her appreciation to see all of the investment infrastructure. And just how, when you don't do that, you end up spending more

[91:02] on emergency repairs. So that was nice to hear. I think that's that's what I have for matters for tonight, and if you'd like, I can go to the upcoming agenda and a couple of I think they'll in November, likely have an information. Item. a brief one on the lead service line in inventory, good news and a lot of good work from the water quality team. Again on that as well as an update from Joanna Bloom on our our billing portal. The software that we use for our billing system. We're about to make a a long overdue change there, and and customers will start experiencing that towards the end of this year, so that'll likely be a matters item. And then, looking at the upcoming agenda, I think we had noted a potential action item on better wastewater. Iga. I don't think that will be ready after all, for November, so we'll be moving that out

[92:14] and then the thought was to do the November Board meeting at the 63rd Street Water Treatment plant and do a tour of some of the capital project work that we've had there over the past couple of years. So probably be a brief business meeting like we did for the Msi tour, and then at your facility. If that works for the board we would not envision having a meeting in 2024, and then likely in January we back to our Year Review, which I cannot believe we're almost through another year. but it's the way it goes. So that's what I've got an upcoming schedule. Great thanks, Joe.

[93:00] With that. Is there a motion to join the meeting. Yeah, motion to adjourn. Okay. David. Thanks again, Debbie Michael, for the presentation. Thank you very much. and that will help as well. Thank you.