Laserfiche WebLink
Page 17 — WG Participants, Mr. Peterson said this is a breakdown of the <br />participants and how many shares each community owns. Louisville owns 9 <br />shares which is about 3% of the project and Broomfield being the biggest <br />percentage. Councilmember Jeff Lipton asked Mr. Peterson to explain why this <br />project is important to Louisville and how it fits into our water resource strategic <br />plan. Mr. Peterson referred to page 18. <br />Page 18 — Water Management Plan. Mr. Peterson said this is our guiding <br />document that we use and was approved by Council in 2017. What this graph is <br />showing is what our current firm yield supply is 5,000 AF and explained that is <br />shown by the blue bars in the graph. The yellow line is our actual demand that <br />you see over the last 10-15 years. As you can see the City usage varies through <br />the years between 3,400 and 5,000 AF/year in the last couple of years. The <br />graph shows two dotted lines representing the City's best guesses on the longer <br />term buildout demand. He went on to explain that the current projected demand <br />is 6,700 AF. To increase the City's supply from the 5,000 AF today to the <br />buildout demand of 6,700 a series of water resources projects have been <br />identified and outline in Water Management Plan. The Windy Gap Firming <br />Project is one of the water resources projects identified to meet the long term <br />needs of Louisville. He noted that back in 2017 we were thinking it was going to <br />be close to 12 million dollars for the WG Project but now it's looking like 18 <br />million dollars which is due to the increase in cost we've seen in the last 3 years <br />and the delay in construction we've experienced. Councilmember Jeff Lipton <br />asked where the additional demand is coming from and is it coming from our <br />Comp Plan projections? Mr. Peterson said it's a combination of things. Comp <br />Plan data was used along with additional analysis including growth areas like: <br />CTC, old Storage Tech, McCaslin/US36 and general infill. The Water <br />Management Plan also factored in climate change impacts and drought issues. <br />Page 19 — CO Large Reservoirs. Mr. Peterson pointed out the big take away on <br />this slide is the year the listed reservoirs were constructed. With a few reservoirs <br />in the 80's, most were 20's 40's or 70's. This highlights the changes in <br />regulations and permitting over the years, and the level of effort needed to <br />construct a large reservoir today is very difficult and becoming rare. This shows <br />the value of a project like Chimney Hollow that is already in process. <br />Councilmember Jeff Lipton asked if we have all the entitlements. Mr. Peterson <br />provide a brief update on this topic. <br />Page 20-23 — WG Funding Summary and Scenarios. Mr. Peterson continued the <br />discussion by reviewing the funding options. The first six options are related to <br />City self-financing. The last two options are what the Group Financing will be <br />which is us joining with the other participants in WG and doing the debt issuance <br />all at the same time. The big advantage that we see is doing the Group <br />Financing, continues to be the reliance of the possibility of assigning the <br />payments as capitalized O&M payment. This provides advantages to the Utility <br />finances and the ability to issue future debt. Finance is working with outside <br />consultants and the City auditors with the support of Public Works to get a final <br />ruling on this possibility. Councilmember Jeff Lipton agreed that is important to <br />